Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

INTERFAITH ALLIANCE STATE OF BELIEF

RADIO JUNE 25, 2015


RUSH TRANSCRIPT: SARAH POSNER
Click here for audio
Click here for video
[REV. DR. C. WELTON GADDY, HOST]: On Tuesday, Donald Trump
met with the leading lights of the conservative Christian movement in
this country - an event that moderator Mike Huckabee called a
seminal moment and the turning point of taking Trump to the
presidency, while a veteran of the Moral Majority movement, Mike
Ferris, labeled it the end of the Christian Right. One thing seems
clear: of the estimated one thousand-strong attendees at Trumps
meeting, a number have been born again again, ready to have their
faith-based activism serve the Trump agenda rather than the other
way around.
For a look at this particular stop for the Trump train, Im happy to be
able to welcome investigative journalist Sarah Posner.
Sarah, thanks for being with us again on State of Belief Radio!
[SARAH POSNER, GUEST]: Thanks for having me!
[WG]: Oh, goodness. Where to even begin? This was supposedly a
closed-door meeting, but video clips and a full transcript have been
circulating online. So Sarah, what did you find most noteworthy about
the event?

[SARAH POSNER, GUEST]: Well, it was the leakiest meeting of this


sort that I have seen covering three election cycles their religious right
vetting Republican presidential candidates. The audio of the meeting
was leaked to me and to other news outlets - that's how Yahoo News
was able to provide the world with a transcript of it. There were a
couple of attendees who were tweeting; E.W. Jackson, a failed
candidate for the lieutenant governorship of Virginia a few years ago
with tweeting out short video clips that he was taking, I guess, with
his phone.
But I think that the leakiness of it demonstrated just discontent with
what was happening. I mean, I think Jackson was the exception in the
sense that he was pretty much cheerleading for Trump and wanted to
post these videos in support of his cheerleading for Trump. But I think
the fact that audio of the meeting was leaked was intended by some
of the attendees to expose what was wrong, in their view, with the
meeting: that Trump was attempting to cater to this constituency and
offering nothing but platitudes, really. And that many of them were
accepting that and saying, perhaps - if not outright endorsing him saying that progress had been made in making Trump acceptable to
religious conservatives.
[WG]: Am I right that there were no new endorsements that day from
the gathering? And if that's right, why was that the case? Did he want
endorsements, or did they not even ask for them?
[SP]: I don't think that they specifically asked for endorsements. After
the meeting was over, the Trump campaign released a list of people
who had been appointed to an evangelical executive advisory board,
whatever that means. And so that's not an outright endorsement, but
some of the people on the list had already endorsed Trump long
before - like Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Mark Burns, a televangelist from
2

North Carolina. But you know clearly if one hadn't endorsed Trump
already, being on this advisory board was a clear signal even if they
weren't using the word endorse.
At the same time, there were people like Tony Perkins, the president
the Family Research Council, who was not ready to endorse Trump
yet - but clearly held the possibility open. Perkins had endorsed Ted
Cruz during the primary.
So I think that there were a lot of mixed signals coming from this
meeting. One signal was: oh, look at how happy he made these
evangelical leaders, and you know if they're not endorsing him right
now, they're sending signals that they're comfortable with him. Yet at
the same time, the fact that there were so many leaks and the fact
that there were not explicit endorsements indicates a lot of dissension
in the ranks, the level of which I think we haven't seen in a while.
[WG]: Several questions I want you to answer while we're together.
Let's just begin: what about the attack on Hillary Clinton's religion?
[SP]: Well, I think that in general, Trumps attacks and Hillary Clinton
this week involved a lot of projection, right? So there was a lot of
projection about her alleged corruption and her alleged unsuitability to
be commander-in-chief and also her religion. So its funny to hear
Trump say, Well, we don't really know anything about Hillary's
religion - which is so far from the truth! I mean, there's been so much
ink spilled about her lifelong Methodism and even about her reaching
out to the Fellowship or the Family and going to a prayer circle or
prayer meetings with them. I mean, the historical record on Hillary
Clinton's religion and deep commitment to her Methodist faith is
There's a huge public record on that! There is not a public record on

Trumps religion. I mean, it's very very thin. And notably I would point
out that Clinton has not attacked him on that basis.
I think that what he was trying to do there was trying to pull the same
sort of thing that Republicans have hinted at for a long time about
Obama: that he's not really a Christian, or maybe he's a Muslim, or
maybe he's an Atheist. But it just doesn't work. I mean, I think it
worked with the fever swamps with Obama - who's also a Christian but it doesn't really work with Clinton because there's no Jeremiah
Wright tape, there's no birtherism. She's such a straight and narrow
Methodist that it's laughable that he would attack her on that basis.
[WG]: But you know, that's fairly consistent in his campaign because
he talks about what he doesn't know - what he hasn't heard. And
there's a whole lot of that in relation not only to Hillary's religion but to
a lot of other pieces of information he should know as well. After what
we heard from Trump on Tuesday, Sarah, I've got to wonder is there
any part of the Constitution that he actually agrees with.
[SP]: So you know, I think that Trump's biggest pander to this group
was his discussion of the Johnson Amendment, which is the 1954
amendment to the internal revenue code which prohibits tax-exempt
churches from using their tax-exempt resources to endorse political
candidates. So this is a big deal with the Christian right. They charge
that its a violation of their free speech rights for pastors not to be able
to endorse candidates.
And you know, this is not about your free speech rights. You are
perfectly free to actually go across the street from your church
property and take out a bullhorn and endorse a presidential
candidate. You can't do it with tax-exempt resources: you can't do it
on your church letterhead; you can't do it when you're giving a
4

sermon in the pulpit. But you can go out in public and do it as a


private citizen; there's no infringement on your free speech. It's really
about regulating the use of tax-exempt resources for politicking.
Its just funny: it seemed like of all the religious liberty concerns that
the Christian right has - which include the Johnson Amendment, but it
includes things like contraception coverage and religious exemptions
to LGBT rights and things like that - but the only one that Trump
focused on was one that may impact his presidency or his quest for
the presidency.
So basically he was saying to them, the only religious liberty issue
that I really care about here is whether you guys can endorse me or
not. All the other stuff that you're concerned about I'm not even to talk
about. And the fact that the people who came out of that meeting
cheerleading for Trump didn't see through that was just sort of
comical.
[WG]: Could he honestly believe that there is a lack of religious
freedom in this country? Or was that just pandering to that specific
audience?
[SP]: Well, you know, here's a guy who has called for the blatant and
unconstitutional violation of the religious rights of Muslims. So his
understanding of what the religious liberty protections in the
Constitution are its obviously deeply flawed. And to the extent that he
understands the nuances of the contraception coverage cases and
the religious exemptions and whether bakers and photographers
should be permitted to refuse service to LGBT couples and that sort
of thing - he evinces absolutely zero understanding of those issues
from any political viewpoint. He exhibits no evidence that he
understands that these have even been issues that have been
5

litigated and talked about and been the focal point of religious right
activism for about three years. He demonstrates no knowledge of
that, and so that's why I find it surprising that these religious leaders
would just say, oh he's on our side on religious liberty. When all he's
done, really, is talk about how when he's president hell make it OK to
say Merry Christmas again, and that he will apparently
singlehandedly reverse a piece of legislation that he disagrees with.
[WG]: So Sarah, does a cynical interpretation actually offer some
hope that this is all just for Trump?
[SP]: I think that it's for Trump - I mean, obviously it benefits Trump or
Trump thinks that it benefits him - but I think that this is also a struggle
by these religious conservative leaders to maintain their relevance
when they basically have a candidate who won the Republican
primary without doing anything to pander to them; in fact, did a lot the
opposite of pandering to them.
So I think that it's kind of everybody involved with this is using it to
pad their resumes, if you will, or bolster their relevance. Because I
think that Trump made it pretty clear that he could win the primary
without their help. And they're trying to convince him now that he can't
win the general election without their help; but he might lose the
general election despite their help. So it's kind of a complicated
calculus that might, at the end of the day, involve everybody just
looking completely irrelevant - which is what they're all trying to avoid.
If that makes sense.
[WG]: You know, this really fits perfectly with some of the things that
you've said and written in the past about why far right religious
leaders were supporting Trump. You've said that ultimately, they're
just sick of losing and will find a way to make a winning candidate
6

acceptable to themselves. Is that part or all of what we saw


happening last Tuesday?
[SP]: I think so. I mean, what I think that what you have is a
constituency that has proved in the last several election cycles to be
an essential element of the Republican base. So when, for example,
George W. Bush won the presidency in 2004, when he won reelection, 36% of his support - of his votes - came from white
evangelicals. So obviously, the Republican Party needs them; but
also, they need to feel needed. Because if they don't feel that way or
they don't have the sense that they're needed, then they've lost their
ability to place pressure on a future president.
So here they are trying to make themselves relevant to the election,
but also potentially indispensable to a President Trump, right? So if
he were to win see, if they don't support him and he were to win
anyway, then he doesn't need to listen to them about judges or
abortion rights or anything like that. But if they come out in force and
he wins and they could make an argument that he won because they
mobilized for him - then they maintain their seat at the table. So it's
really about them trying to find that space where they're still relevant,
and it doesn't matter to them whether he really is the sort of candidate
that fits their mold or not. They make a lot of different excuses and
rationalizations for why they're supporting him. And theyve gotten a
lot of heat from people like Mike Farris and others who are basically in
the Never Trump camp.
Was there anything else in this meeting between candidate Trump
and the evangelical leaders that we should highlight that we haven't
mentioned yet?

[SP]: Well, you know, he was asked about immigration - and nobody
really held his feet to the fire. There was no evidence that there was a
strong pro-immigration reform contingent at this meeting - and there
is such a contingent among evangelicals. But they didn't seem to
either be there in force, or their questions didn't make it through the
screening that I understand happened for questions to be asked of
the candidate.
You know, he paid a lot of lip service to their issues; but he also
rambled a lot. If you listen to the audio recordings which are now out
there on the web, he's asked pretty specific questions and he doesn't
give very specific answers. And he wanders off a lot and there's no
follow up, nobody's really pressing him on anything. And it's hard to
believe that people with supposedly very strong convictions about
these various values or issues were satisfied with some of these
answers that were vague, rambling, incoherent at times. So it was
pretty fascinating to see this.
[WG]: I always want to find out what you're thinking about and what
you're looking at before we get off the air. So what else are you
paying close attention to at this point in the campaign?
[SP]: Just really looking at where the Never Trump evangelicals are.
Are they really going to come up with an independent candidate to
run against Trump? What's their endgame there? And then what's
really going to happen to the evangelicals who arent in the Never
Trump camp, but they're not in the cheerleading Trump camp and
they're feeling pretty ambivalent; and whether they'd end up going
with Trump because of their antipathy to Clinton - which I think is a lot
of what's driving many of these evangelicals over to the Trump side.

But I think that all of this will have ramifications for the movement. I
think it's going to have ramifications for their cohesiveness, and their
previous unwillingness to publicly criticize each other. I think there's
going to be more recriminations than we've seen in the past.
[WG]: Sarah Posner is an investigative journalist at the intersection of
religion and politics. Her writing appears in Rolling Stone, The
Washington Post, The New York Times, The Huffington Post and
elsewhere. Sarah is the author of God's Profits - P R O F I T S God's Profits: Faith, Fraud, and the Republican Crusade for Values
Voters.
Sarah, the updated version of your book is writing itself right before
our eyes. Listen, as always, thank you for being with us on State of
Belief Radio. Its always helpful and insightful and enjoyable.
[SP]: Thank you, Welton.

Sarah Posner
Sarah Posner is an investigative journalist, author, and expert on the
intersection of religion and politics. Her work has appeared in the
Atlantic, Al Jazeera America, CNN, The New York Times, Rolling
Stone, Politico, The Washington Post, Mother Jones, The American
Prospect, The Nation, Salon, and many other publications. She is the
author of God's Profits: Faith, Fraud, and the Republican Crusade for
Values Voters (PoliPoint Press, 2008), which investigated the unholy
alliance between politicians and televangelists. Sarah also has
9

appeared on MSNBC, CNN, Current, NPR, PRI, and other radio


outlets.

Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy


Author of more than 20 books, including First Freedom First: A
Citizens Guide to Protecting Religious Liberty and the Separation of
Church and State, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy led the national nonpartisan grassroots and educational organization Interfaith Alliance
for 16 years, retiring in 2014. Dr. Gaddy continues his work with the
Alliance as President Emeritus and Senior Advisor. He serves as
Pastor for Preaching and Worship at Northminster (Baptist) Church in
Monroe, Louisiana.
In addition to being a prolific writer, Dr. Gaddy hosts the weekly State
of Belief radio program, where he explores the role of religion in the
life of the nation by illustrating the vast diversity of beliefs in America,
while exposing and critiquing both the political manipulation of religion
for partisan purposes and the religious manipulation of government
for sectarian purposes.
Dr. Gaddy provides regular commentary to the national media on
issues relating to religion and politics. He has appeared on MSNBCs
The Rachel Maddow Show and Hardball, NBCs Nightly News and
Dateline, PBSs Religion and Ethics Newsweekly and The Newshour
with Jim Lehrer, C-SPANs Washington Journal, ABCs World News,
and CNNs American Morning. Former host of Morally Speaking on
NBC affiliate KTVE in Monroe, Louisiana, Dr. Gaddy is a regular

10

contributor to mainstream and religious news outlets.


While ministering to churches with a message of inclusion, Dr. Gaddy
emerged as a leader among progressive and moderate Baptists.
Among his many leadership roles, he is a past president of the
Alliance of Baptists and has been a 20-year member of the
Commission of Christian Ethics of the Baptist World Alliance. His past
leadership roles include serving as a member of the General Council
of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, President of Americans United
for Separation of Church and State, Chair of the Pastoral Leadership
Commission of the Baptist World Alliance and member of the World
Economic Forums Council of 100. Rev. Gaddy currently serves on
the White House task force on the reform of the Office of Faith Based
and Neighborhood Partnerships.
Prior to the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist
Convention (SBC), Dr. Gaddy served in many SBC leadership roles
including as a member of the conventions Executive Committee from
1980-84 and Director of Christian Citizenship Development of the
Christian Life Commission from 1973-77.
Dr. Gaddy received his undergraduate degree from Union University
in Jackson, Tennessee and his doctoral degree and divinity training
from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville,
Kentucky.

State of Belief Radio


State of Belief is based on the proposition that religion has a positive

11

and healing role to play in the life of the nation. The show explains
and explores that role by illustrating the vast diversity of beliefs in
America the most religiously diverse country in the world while
exposing and critiquing both the political manipulation of religion for
partisan purposes and the religious manipulation of government for
sectarian purposes.
Each week, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy offers listeners critical
analysis of the news of religion and politics, and seeks to provide
listeners with an understanding and appreciation of religious liberty.
Rev. Gaddy tackles politics with the firm belief that the best way to
secure freedom for religion in America is to secure freedom from
religion. State of Belief illustrates how the Religious Right is wrong
wrong for America and bad for religion.
Through interviews with celebrities and newsmakers and field reports
from around the country, State of Belief explores the intersection of
religion with politics, culture, media, and activism, and promotes
diverse religious voices in a religiously pluralistic world.

12

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi