By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
September 14, 1998
As I listened to President Clinton's mea culpa speech at the Annual Prayer Breakfast, on the heels of the release of Judge Starr's incredible report of his investigation into the Monica Lewinsky matter, I thought of the years of media bashing of Pat Roberston, who, it is said has been accused of being "the most dangerous man in America" by Robert Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. What makes Pat Robertson so dangerous? He apparently is perhaps the key figure in that "right-wing conspiracy" Hillary Clinton warned us all about back in January. Boston said that Pat Robertson's "Broadcasting fundamentalism tinged with right-wing politics" to millions of Americans in order to advance "extreme political views" and "to influence American society through his various political organizations" jeopardizes "America's religious and political freedoms."
Of course, there has been quite a bit of concern in some circles about "right-wing" politics. Hillary Clinton told us shortly after the existence of Monica Lewinsky became known in January, "I said yesterday that my husband, ever since I've known him, inspires very strong feelings. People, for reasons I don't understand ... really just hate him over some of his policies, his personality. The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."
That "vast right wing conspiracy" is identified by Kate Michelman, President of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), as those who have led the fight against Partial Birth Abortion, where a viable unborn child is partially delivered, (all but his or her head), and then slaughtered by the abortionist drilling a hole in the base of its head and sucking out its brains. In 1995 Michelman warned of those who supported the Christian Coalition's position on Partial Birth Abortion, "Don't be fooled by their embrace of economic issues. Right now, the radical right and its supporters in the Republican congressional leadership are rapidly passing laws that restrict women's access to abortion and placing cobblestones along the road to the back alleys."
Guess what? This week another attempt will be made to muster enough votes in the Senate to pass the Partial Birth Abortion Ban AGAIN. It has passed the House with a vote in excess of the needed 2/3rds majority. It needs 3-4 votes in the Senate to overturn the Clinton veto. I imagine, if some of the Senators don't change their "No" votes, by mid-November they will be out looking for another job. That right-wing conspiracy again.
For many years the notion that religion should in any manner whatsoever impact political affairs has been the cardinal rule among liberals. Remember Bill Clinton himself suggesting, shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, that "right wing" talk show hosts were somehow responsible for that having occurred? Shortly after he said that, I was in a San Francisco radio station listening in amazement as a very nervous producer suggested that, perhaps, they should not go forward with bringing a conservative talk show host like Mike Reagan on their station, because of what the President had said.
Those who fear that hanging the Ten Commandments in a Courtroom, or allowing children in school to pray over their sack lunches, have won most of the battles in recent years - so much so that some would like to pass a Constitutional Amendment restoring freedom of religion as once protected by the First Amendment.
Then, overnight, thanks to Kenneth's Starr's report and the public's reaction, all the sudden we seem to have a tent revival meeting going on in the White House, led by none other than Bill Clinton. This is not merely religion. It's a PARTICULAR religion, but cleverly couched in words designed to convince a group of assembled ministers that he is speaking to EVERY religion. Consider his public confessional last week: "I agree with those who have said that in my first statement after I testified I was not contrite enough. I don't think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned. It is important to me that everybody who has been hurt know that the sorrow I feel is genuine: first and most important, my family; also my friends, my staff, my Cabinet, Monica Lewinsky and her family, and the American people. I have asked all for their forgiveness.
" But I believe that to be forgiven, more than sorrow is required; at least two more things. First, genuine repentance; a determination to change and to repair breaches of my own making. I have repented. Second, what my bible calls a "broken spirit"; an understanding that I must have God's help to be the person that I want to be; a willingness to give the very forgiveness I seek; a renunciation of the pride and the anger which cloud judgment, lead people to excuse and compare and to blame and complain.
"Now, what does all this mean for me and for us? First, I will instruct my lawyers to mount a vigorous defense, using all available appropriate arguments. But legal language must not obscure the fact that I have done wrong. Second, I will continue on the path of repentance, seeking pastoral support and that of other caring people so that they can hold me accountable for my own commitment.
"Third, I will intensify my efforts to lead our country and the world toward peace and freedom, prosperity and harmony, in the hope that with a broken spirit and a still strong heart I can be used for greater good, for we have many blessings and many challenges and so much work to do.
" In this, I ask for your prayers and for your help in healing our nation. And though I cannot move beyond or forget this; indeed, I must always keep it as a caution light in my life; it is very important that our nation move forward."
I've waited a couple of days to see if there was going to be a huge outcry about this extraordinary battering of the wall of separation of Church and State. I have heard none. Just as any High School Principal would be fired and probably prosecuted and in jail had he done with a teacher intern what Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky, may I point out that any student or teacher or administrator in a public school who gave a speech like that would also be out on their ear because they were pushing their religion.
This is utterly fascinating. He announces in one breath "I have repented" and "I will instruct my lawyers to mount a vigorous defense." The legal war will continue. He admits he is "repenting" because he didn't sound "contrite enough" in his August 17th speech. Someone probably took a poll and discovered that. This is hardly repentance. This is what the Apostle Paul was talking about in his second letter to the Corinthians when he said "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of,: but the sorrow of the world worketh death." There is no mental reservation in godly sorrow, certainly no pride filled continuation of a contentious lawsuit to avoid accountability. Or, put in modern parlance, as Tammy, a reader in Utah, observed, "What he apparently doesn't understand about repentance, however, is that it involves a change of heart, not just a change of strategy. And if his heart were really changed, he'd already be packing his bags."
However, perhaps there is a silver lining in all this. I do believe he has perhaps made it unnecessary to have a new law or Amendment strengthening the First Amendment's freedom of religion and speech. When he wanted to talk about religion, and repentance and ask for the entire nation to pray for him and help him in "healing our nation" - (whatever he means by that) - he just did it. And, look! No angry outcries from left-wing supporters that he is forcing his religion down the throats of an unsuspecting nation. In one sentence, literally, he announced himself repented, announced a "vigorous legal defense" to avoid any accountability for his sins and, apparently, sucked in a bunch of ministers to monitor his "accountability." Clearly he is hoping to circumvent the U.S. Constitution which gives the U.S. Congress the authority to monitor his accountability. If he has, as charged by Kenneth Starr, violated the trust of the people by committing high crimes (felonies) and misdemeanors, it is Congress that must hold him accountable.
I sort of doubt that the Congress is going to abdicate in favor or the church or churches. However, if Bill Clinton can wiggle out of the mess he is in simply by ignoring all the separation of church and state proscriptions that have been built up over the years by his liberal buddies, circumvent the Congress and the Constitution of the United States, and announce publicly that he will henceforth look to pastors of churches to hold him accountable, not the voters, shouldn't the kids in public schools just take matters into their own hands and pray over their peanut butter and jelly sandwiches if they want to?
Does this mean, perchance, that Pat Robertson and the Right Wing Conspirators have captured Bill Clinton?
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com