Hippies of the Religious Right: From the Counterculture of Jerry Garcia to the Subculture of Jerry Falwell

2. The Counterculture

 2 tHe CounteRCultuRe Although the youth of the sixties rebelled against many of the strictures of their parents’ generation, they did retain at least two important older-generation principles. They never abandoned, in the main, a commitment to the golden rule ideal, and they never relented in their pursuit of freedom or expressive individualism.1 What they did reject was the conformism that forbade them the right to do new things and think new ideas. The tool they used to break the shackles of conformism was logic, and this tool could be used in two ways. In the first place, it could be used to show that if a particular thought or practice did not violate the golden rule, then that thought or practice ought not be denied. If it were denied, the overbearing moralist prohibiting it would be guilty of the true sin of intolerance. Intolerance could not be abided because the virtue of tolerance, or pluralism, was thought to be sacredly embodied in the golden rule and highlighted in certain gospel verses, such as, “Love your enemies,” or “Judge not, that you be not judged.”2 Secondly, the tool of logic could be used to expose inconsistencies that existed between parental traditions and the ideals of love and freedom. Using logic in this fashion, the younger generation could accuse their parents of being obscurantists or hypocrites.3 And whenever these accusations were compelling, they easily won over the  Hippies of tHe Religious RigHt vast majority of America’s youth, which constituted the fastest growing, most activist and energetic, and soon-to-be most highly educated segment of the population.4 Charges of intolerance and hypocrisy became the weapons of choice for America’s youth because they were so effective against a worldview that accepted tradition for tradition’s sake and that compartmentalized knowledge and behavior.5 If wearing long hair hurt no one, then why deny America’s young men the freedom to do so? If rocking and rolling harmed none, if smoking or drinking damaged none but oneself, then why forbid ? The rule to live by became, “If it doesn’t hurt anyone else, you can do it.” And this rule itself pointed toward a logical conclusion that was often reiterated and followed during the sixties , “If it feels good, do it.”6 And what was the parental rebuttal to, say, long hair to be? “Only girls wear long hair.” To which the youthful rebel sniped, “And so what?” or, more biting yet, “And so Jesus and George Washington were wrong? Besides, I thought you liked Custer.” These were the quibbles that went on in American homes throughout the sixties, and though they may seem trifles now, they were the stuff the counterculture was made of.7 The youthful challenges that seem less trifling to us today are the accusations of bald hypocrisy. Beyond the petty quibbles over mere habits of style, many young people objected to societal double standards, pointing out the actual harm perpetrated upon others by elders, in clear contravention of the golden rule ideal. To affirm, for example, during Sunday’s worship hour that there was “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal 3:28), and then to recount “nigger” jokes during the ensuing “fellowship” hour reeked of malicious hypocrisy.8 Or to celebrate the Declaration of Independence, with its proclamation that all men are created equal, as the foundational statement for the American way, and then to permit segregation, was adding injury upon insult.9 And then again, when parishioners nodded in agreement on Sunday that “the love of money is the root of all evils” (1 Tim 6:10) but then went off to work on Monday to bilk the innocent or vulnerable, they again betrayed their moral duplicity. And most tHe CounteRCultuRe  disconcerting for many young males were the Sunday school teachers who recited “Blessed are the peacemakers” but then condoned the politicians who herded them off to war.10 The accusation of hypocrisy and the accusation of intolerance , if successfully argued, put youth on the high moral ground, at least from their perspective, and gave them a crusading confidence in whatever argument or cause they championed.11 This often cocky and sometimes exhilarating confidence was the emotional verification that they were indeed free individuals standing firm against “the system.” And the taste of freedom they experienced through argument and activism gave them greater appetite for more argument and activism...