Down but not out: the religious right and election '06.

NOVEMBER 7, 2006, wasn't a good night for the religious right. An ambitious church-based politicking plan conceived and executed by groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council failed miserably as a number of candidates backed by religious conservatives were spurned at the polls.

A handful of races stand out:

* In Pennsylvania the religious right's favorite senator, Rick Santorum, didn't just lose, he was shellacked. Known for his strident opposition to legal abortion and gay rights, and his hostility toward church-state separation, Santorum was defeated by Pennsylvania Treasurer Robert Casey 41 percent to 59 percent. The results came despite efforts by a group called the Pennsylvania Pastors Network to mobilize fundamentalist churches on Santorum's behalf.

* Republican Gubernatorial candidate Kenneth Blackwell spent more than a year visiting right-wing churches and speaking from pulpits in Ohio to energize the fundamentalist vote. An organization called the Ohio Restoration Project, anchored in two Ohio megachurches, skirted federal tax law to push Blackwell, but for naught. Blackwell was defeated by former Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH) 37 percent to 60 percent. (Incidentally, Strickland is an ordained Methodist minister of the moderate variety.)

* Rep. Ernest "Jim" Istook (R-OK), a frequent backer of a constitutional amendment designed to weaken the separation of church and state, gave up his House seat to run for governor. He was crushed by Democrat incumbent Brad Henry 34 percent to 66 percent.

* In Kansas, controversial Attorney General Phill Kline, who attempted to build a church-based political machine, aggressively courted the religious right, and vowed to imprison doctors who provide abortions, lost his reelection bid to Democrat Paul Morrison 42 percent to 58 percent.

* Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), one of the most vociferous opponents of church-state separation in the House (he introduced the Public Expression of Religion Act which bars the awarding of attorney's fees in establishment clause challenges), lost his seat to Brad Ellsworth, a conservative Democrat, in a 39 percent to 61 percent loss.

Religious conservatives were likewise on the losing end of a number of ballot initiatives on hot-button issues. Voters in Missouri approved tax funding for stem-cell research. A restrictive abortion ban was overturned in South Dakota. Evolution backers took control of Ohio's Board of Education. And voters in Boise, Idaho, even chose not to return a Ten Commandments monument to a public park.

Of course, not all the news was good. Voters in seven states approved discriminatory measures banning same-sex marriage and, in some cases, domestic partnership arrangements as well. It was disheartening to see mean-spirited proposals like this pass even in a progressive state like Wisconsin. (Libertarian-conservative Arizona was the only state to vote it down.)

But on balance, the results can't be seen as anything but a disaster for the religious right which, since 1994, has used the House of Representatives as a playground for absurd, constitutionally questionable bills lauding the Ten Commandments, stripping federal courts of their ability to hear church-state cases, and curbing citizens' power to bring legal challenges under the First Amendment's establishment clause. Most of these ill-considered measures sailed through with alarming regularity, but then died in the Senate. It will be a refreshing change not to have them taken seriously in either chamber.

Despite these encouraging results, the biggest mistake humanists and other progressives can make right now is to become complacent. Obituaries have been written for the religious right time and again, but conservative religious groups are in this for the long haul. While the November results undoubtedly sobered religious right leaders, the long-term viability of their movement doesn't rest on the outcome of one election, and I can assure you they went back to work the next day to analyze the results and to figure out what to do differently next time to get more of the "right" people in office.

Why are they so driven? Two decades of reading about the religious right, attending their gatherings, and watching television preachers has convinced me that the movement's real beef is with the secular nature of U.S. government. If there is a uniting theory of the religious right it is this: The founders were wrong when they gave us a secular state. We should have been a "Christian republic" instead. Correcting the framers' "mistake" and bringing about that de facto Christian republic is the overriding goal. Secular government, which most humanists celebrate as the platform upon which religious and philosophical freedom rests, is viewed by the religious right as the font of all wicked things. For them, there can be no neutrality toward religion. A government is either actively promoting conservative Christianity or it is hostile to that faith.

This opposition to secular government binds the various wings of the religious right, from Protestant fundamentalist "pro-family" groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council to the "intellectual" branch of ultra-orthodox Catholicism represented by the Reverend Richard John Neuhaus and his followers.

To members of these movements, adults must be denied the right to make their own choices about reproduction because interpretations of the Bible or papal decrees forbid any choice but the one commanded by religious orthodoxy. End-of-life decisions are to be made by conservative religious leaders, not medical professionals or family members. Homosexuals are denied basic rights because of controversial passages in the book of Leviticus or the teachings of long-dead church fathers.

In every case, followers of the religious right make their decisions not on reason or even pragmatic grounds but on someone's interpretation of God's divine will. The "someone" determining God's will might be Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or a lesser evangelist. It is never enough for religious right devotees to follow this interpretation of divine will in their own lives. They seek to impose it on everyone else as well, and undermining the secular state is a crucial step in toward this long-range goal.

The modern religious right is usually traced back to the late 1970s. It helped usher in the presidency of Ronald Reagan and, years later, played a key role in the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. Like any social/political movement, the religious right wins some battles and loses others. Its fortunes wax and wane, sometimes due to forces beyond its control. When there is a loss, true believers don't give up. They resolve to fight another day. Defenders of rational thought and humanistic principles must adopt a similar mindset.

Nothing less than the very survival of the great American experiment in freedom of conscience is at stake.

Rob Boston is the assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.