special interest slip-ups: an example, or, politics and religion don't mix.

so a couple weeks ago in class, we read a book called white slave crusades, which is about late 19th century narratives concerning forced prostitution in cities. the practice was called "white slavery" at the time to draw a parallel between chattel slavery and this "new" evil of forced prostitution. as luck would have it, most of the stories involved pretty, innocent white girls from the country being seduced at places like skating rinks and ice cream parlors in the city by foreigners.

first of all, it was hard to think of skating rinks and ice cream parlors as anything but innocuous. but that's just funny. most of the book is not, and doesn't pretend to be. anyways.

most of these narratives were written by activists from various walks of life. one activist profiled was a lawyer; john d. rockefeller was also involved. but the activist i want to focus on is frances willard.

the name may be vaguely familiar to you, though you might not know why. she was a suffragist and early feminist, who led the women's christian temperance union for quite some time. she was good friends with jane addams. she did a lot of good things for women's rights, though i'm not too crazy about the whole temperance thing.

in my first class i took, my professor was a biographer of jane addams. as a result, i was slightly exposed to the various things that willard was involved in. this whole issue of forced prostitution was not one of them, or at least not that i could remember.

the wctu was a nationwide organization, and willard was head-jefa over it all. naturally, there would be regional differences to account for when leading an organization of such size. but after reading this book, i was appalled by the sort of pandering that she did to appease her southern constituents. in fact, after reading this next passage, which i am quoting, i was so distraught i couldn't keep reading:

"I think we have wronged the South, though we did not mean to do so. The reason was, in part, that we had irreparably wronged ourselves by putting no safeguards on the ballot box at the North that would sift our alien illiterates. They rule our societies today; the saloon is their palace, and the toddy stick their scepter. It is not fair that they should vote, nor is it fair that a plantation Negro, who can neither read nor write, whose ideas are bounded by the fence of his own field and the price of his own mule, should be entrusted with that ballot from the first. The Anglo-Saxon race will never submit to be dominated by the Negro so long as his altitude reaches no higher than the personal liberty of the saloon, and the power of appreciating the amount of liquor a dollar will buy."

oh. my. lord.

i was on the bus when i read that, and i got emotional. my eyes welled up in anger. here is this woman who fought so hard for the right of women to vote--which she never lived to experience for herself--condemning the right of others to vote. and not because they were women, but because they were not anglo-saxon. and that "wronged the south" part? sounds like it's an implicit apology for freeing the slaves.

this is an example of what disgusts me about certain political interest groups. they fight so hard for their causes, for liberty they feel is denied to them, and yet they do not wish for similar or identical liberties to be given to others. in a democratic society, such an agenda is ultimately hypocrisy. because ideally, what is allotted to some as a legal right, should be allotted to all. that is the lesson of the suffrage and civil rights movements: universal liberty. in this case, the right to vote.

now i understand that special interest groups do not have to be sympathetic to other groups who may have similar agendas. they may have their own battles to fight. but the bone i pick willard and the wctu is the "christian" part of their organization. the quotation above is anathema to the gospel.

and that's where the real difference lies between political agenda and the gospel. in agendas, there is compromise. though they purport to be liberators, they only want to set themselves free, not everyone. as a result, political groups are willing to compromise, often to their detriment, as shown above.

the gospel, on the other hand, does not compromise. that's why when i think about it, i understand that Jesus is the true liberator. he has two commandments: love god, love your neighbor. it can be boiled down to five words, a sentence fragment. but that's all there is. it's the ultimate inclusiveness, the ultimate liberation, to try and love everyone as yourself. it's a shame we always have such a hard time with it.

i want to make one thing perfectly clear, though. this political guffaw committed by willard helped me to refine my religious belief, but it also cemented my belief that religion should not be front and center in politics. it leads to terrible political consequence eventually, and is harmful to both the political and religious causes of those who commit such errors. be religious; be political. but lessons like this show us that if you're both, above all you must be careful.