Hi Amy and David,

Thank you, Amy, for getting the ball rolling and many thanks to Faith in Public Life for launching this initiative. It's an honor to be invited to participate. I think Amy has hit upon a wonderful campaign to use as an example, as well as bringing up an issue of no small importance.

The first part is purely political strategy. Casey has been able to neutralize what might have been a pivotal support group for Santorum simply by engaging them directly. But it is also necessary to understand why he has been able to do so.

Santorum's political history is built upon a foundation of opposing abortion. He pulls in a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee. In other words, he's never seen an anti-abortion bill he didn't like. When you see groups like the Pennsylvania Pastors Network organizing to help push his agenda, they are simply disguising their attempts to push anti-abortion legislation.

Casey, as a pro-life Democrat, had a fairly easy job ahead of him in neutralizing this support. He simply had to go and deliver his pro-life message to a pro-life crowd. It's very difficult for a pro-life action group to get traction for one candidate over another when they are both delivering the same message. So, while Casey's move to address the PPN is politically bold on one hand, it is neither risky nor bold on the other.

The real problem is that Casey's example isn't repeatable by any candidate who is less pro-life than he is. While Casey's election (which looks to be a sure thing at this point) will give Democrats an extra vote on many issues, this is one issue upon which it can't be counted. As someone who is interested in building a partisan Democratic majority, I fully endorse Casey's actions and his candidacy. As a husband and father who supports abortion rights as being inalienable to women's liberty, I have to look at it with a good deal of hesitancy.

That brings us to the real issue, which Amy ponders as whether or not a Catholic must be pro-life in order to run in a red state. It's the fear behind Ruth Marcus asking, "What does it profit a party to gain a demographic but lose its soul?" Bluntly put, it's the fear that Casey - or Democrats like him - might actually be the nail in the coffin of women's rights. What good would it do to install a Democratic majority that severely limits a woman's right to have an abortion? More to the point, to what extent is it necessary for Democrats to give up a pro-choice position in order to win a majority?

To answer that question, you have to understand a bit about Pennsylvania politics. Traditionally, this is the home of the Democrat. But the nationalization of the culture war finished off the erosion of the Democratic base that started with rust-belt industries moving to southern states or out of the country entirely. Arlen Specter, the long-time pro-choice Republican Senator, manage to eek out a primary win over pro-life Pat Toomey two years ago by only 17,000 votes. If Casey enjoys a natural popularity here, it's because he is well-known and well-liked. A significant reason for that is that he is pro-life. In other words, the demographics have shifted in favor of a pro-life candidate over time. Drop a pro-choice candidate in the race instead of Casey and it's a much tighter race.

In Casey's example, there's no cognitive dissonance - no stance that will make a voter think - because his electoral stances align with his personal ones. Mr. Casey is a pro-life Catholic. Therefore, he supports pro-life positions. There will be no awkward Kerry-ish, "I think it's immoral but I support it," answers from this candidate. He presents a public face that flows seamlessly from one end to the other on the issue. Since his personal views support his political views which, in turn, support the broad demographics of the area, the issue is effectively neutralized.

The case of Tim Kaine, Jr in Virginia is much different. As a Catholic, Mr. Kaine opposed the death penalty. But in order to be a good "law and order" candidate, he distanced himself from that position. His answer was simply that he was not elected to impose his faith upon the state - so if he had to, he would sign a death warrant because that was the law. While this played well in Virginia, which has a long history of politicians standing apart from their faith, it might not have played well elsewhere. It also has to be said that the capital punishment debate was entirely fabricated as part of the campaign. There was no larger debate on the issue at hand during the election. This is certainly not true for abortion.

So you have two examples. Mr. Casey offers an example of where his faith leads to a political stance that is embraced by a large portion of the electorate. He benefits from embracing it. Mr Kaine, on the other hand, had to distance himself from his natural faith position to get to a political stance that was favorable to the electorate. What neither examples illuminates is how a Democrat in Nebraska or Kansas or South Dakota would fare on such issues.

Such an answer might come from Oklahoma Democratic Governor Brad Henry. Both Henry and his wife are long-time Southern Baptists (they taught Sunday School and he served as a Deacon at First Baptist of Shawnee) and it would be easy to try to knee-jerk his position on abortion from that information. In his first term (he appears set to easily win a second term) he signed legislation that might be called "anti-choice" by some - requiring parental notification for minors receiving an abortion, for example. Yet by doing so, he has also neutralized a huge and potentially explosive campaign issue. He has preserved access for women who are legally able to determine their medical care and upheld the legal responsibility of a parent to a child. In doing so, he has retained the support of almost two-thirds of Republicans in the state.

I think the answer is clear. Allowing Democratic politicians to enjoy some position beyond the extreme "defend all abortion at all costs in all places" will make their races competitive, and as a result they will win some of them. That means a Democratic majority is possible to the extent that candidates do not fit into the pigeon-holes that many campaigns come pre-determined to exploit. The trio of Kaine, Casey, and Henry show three very different ways to do it: by creating political distance from one's faith views, by showing a seamless flow from personal to political views, and by creating a moderate path between the two extremes. Contrary to Ruth Marcus's fears, this is not a Democratic Party without a soul, but a Democratic Party with a soul strong enough to face an issue in all its messy parts. It's a soul that is ready to deal as necessary with the shifting majority to protect minority rights as best it can.

The good news, as well, is that Amy's fear that a Catholic must be a "good Catholic" and be pro-life may be proven incorrect. As the ability of Democratic candidates to speak of their faith and how it effects their politics opens, I think we can expect an even greater number of candidates to find new stances that aren't currently being represented. Some of these may be more pro-life than others, but the ability to come to the podium as a genuine and sincere human being will create in-roads for Democrats among voters who would otherwise reject the pro-choice label. That is the pathway to building a Democratic majority that, while it may not be hard-core enough for some, will still represent the interests of their constituents in an honest and open manner. From where I stand, that's a good thing.

Looking forward to your reply. All the best,
Thurman

Posted by XPatriated Texan at 03:53 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (5)

Introducing Faith in Public LIVE: exchanges between bloggers and noted leaders in faith and public policy. Check back and comment throughout the week as this exchange grows, and visit this space every week to see a new series of conversations and debates.

This first edition kicks off with thoughts from Amy Sullivan, editor of Washington Monthly and author of an upcoming book on faith in politics. She writes about the Casey campaign, the Pennsylvania Pastors Network, and the potential benefits of just showing up. Check back soon to see responses from Thurman Hart of XPatriated Texan and David Buckley of FPL.

Hi Thurman and David--

Thanks for joining me in this first inaugural Faith in Public Life conversation. I have no doubt that our discussion will range in many interesting directions, but I want to start us out by looking at the Pennsylvania Senate race between Democrat Bob Casey and the Republican incumbant Rick Santorum. From almost the moment he entered the campaign, Casey has led Santorum by double-digits, an advantage that appears largely due to Santorum's astonishing ability to alienate voters with a blend of sanctimonious social conservatism and unsavory K Street connections.

But Casey hasn't just sat back to watch Santorum self-destruct (although you could argue that would have been an effective campaign tactic). Instead, he's employed some fairly innovative techniques that have either neutralized Santorum's advantage among religious voters or have actually given Casey an edge. The questions I've been thinking about are whether other Democrats could use those same strategies--and whether they would want to.

Let's take Casey's neutralization efforts first. It's safe to say that Rick Santorum had counted on the groups of conservative clergy and religious activists who were mobilized by the GOP in 2004 to operate as something like a second arm of his campaign this year. Leaders of the Pennsylvania Pastors Network (PPN), the New York Times reported earlier this year, have sought to bring aboard ten field coordinators and plan to focus their efforts on registering "conservative" voters. In March, they invited Rick Santorum to address a training session for activists (he sent a videotaped talk) and they hired a former Bush campaign staffer who coordinated the 2004 campaign's efforts with conservative Christian organizations.

In the past, Democrats would have fumed about this sort of thing, and maybe even filed a formal FEC or IRS complaint. But that would undoubtedly have been gleefully held up by Republicans as proof that Democrats are hostile to religion and want to shut out religious voices. This time, the Casey campaign did something different. After the PPN invited Santorum (but not Casey) to address their members in the spring--in violation of IRS rules for tax-exempt organizations--the Casey campaign contacted the group and said, in effect, it's so great that you're involved in important political efforts. We'd love to come talk to you as well.

That took the PPN aback. They hadn't planned on providing a platform for the Democratic candidate. But it's one thing to neglect to invite both candidates to an event. To ignore a candidate's specific request to come speak after his opponent has already addressed the organization would be a blatant violation of the law. So today (July 31), Casey will be speaking to a lunchtime meeting of the group in Scranton.

The same thing happened with the PPN website. Originally, the group included information on its website about Santorum, the favored candidate. Cue the Casey campaign. Hey, that's great--we'd love to be on there, too. Again, the PPN didn't want to highlight Casey, but they couldn't legally turn down his request and leave up Santorum's information. So rather than give Casey equal space, they took down the Santorum material.

All of this should be comforting to those liberals who have worried that Democrats efforts in the area of religion automatically mean that the party must pander to evangelicals by shifting its social positions to the right. (The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus asked in a column: "What does it profit a party to gain a demographic but lose its soul?")

In this case, the Casey campaign hasn't done anything but engage with a group that was prepared to work solely on behalf of the Republican candidate, and politely ask for equal time (which also happens to be a request that they abide by the law). It's so simple and brilliant that I'm still amazed no one had thought of this before. Democrats can't stop religious conservatives from mobilizing, but they can make sure that those groups don't give Republicans an unfair advantage.

The example of Casey, however, does raise some serious questions for Democrats, because I don't think his campaign can be considered outside of the context of his pro-life stance. I hope we'll move onto that topic in the next few days, because I have wondered--with Casey, Tim Kaine in Virginia last year, and Bill Ritter, the pro-life Democratic candidate for governor in Colorado--whether Catholic Democrats running in redd-ish states nowadays have to be pro-life.

All the Best,
Amy

Posted by Amy Sullivan at 11:00 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

The new radio show, The Time is Now, hosted by the Rev. Dr. James Forbes, Jr. launched July 22, 2006 on Air America and provides another excellent resource for progressive voices of faith. The Time is Now follows State of Belief (hosted by the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of The Interfaith Alliance), as the second show hosted by a national religious leader launched this year on Air America .

(Listen to the first show of The Time is Now and State of Belief.)

Rev. Forbes, the senior minister of The Riverside Church, one of the largest multicultural churches in the nation, shines as the host oftentimes using rap to send the message that this is “no time for foolishness,� but a time to do something about the decline in moral and spiritual values. His presentation is fresh and reflects his ability to reach a broad audience. The first show opened with rapper Kanye West’s “Jesus Walks� and led into an interview with journalist Helen Thomas.

Helen Thomas proved to be an excellent addition to the inaugural show voicing her concerns about the media. She candidly stated, “It’s their job to put the spotlight on the truth.�

When Rev. Forbes asked her why she wrote, Watchdogs of Democracy?: The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed the Public, she stated, “Well, I was very outraged. I felt the pressed had laid down on the job in the run up to the war. They could have been much more explicit. They could have gone after the truth and the very fact that we’re in a war that is based on falsehoods, at lease that falsehood peddled from the White House. So, I think that the press defaulted and I was so angry that I decided to write this book.�

The show ended with interviews with two students affected by the crisis in Lebanon, another compelling component of the show that sought to stir listeners to action. One of the students echoed this mission when he stated, “What we say to the world is that whoever is seeing this, let them act in any kind of support.�

The next show features Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a leader in the fight against apartheid and the first black South African Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town.

The Time is Now is just another example of how progressive faith leaders are increasingly getting their messages out to the public. Rev. Forbes acknowledges that the mass media frequently ignores alternative voices of faith, but his radio show seeks to bridge the gap by providing a medium through which those voices can be heard. He states that the time is now for a spiritual awakening, and with his new radio show, Rev. Forbes is on the frontlines of the movement.

Posted by Lauren Phelps at 03:44 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

As violence in Lebanon escalates and the goals of an immediate or sustainable ceasefire are debated by international players, religion and politics bloggers are offering their own opinions of the crisis:

An ongoing debate on Street Prophets has surfaced between Pastor Dan and JCHFleetguy regarding the timing of a ceasefire. Pastor Dan contends that the U.S. intervention in the situation thus far has been indicative of the Bush administration’s limited ideological worldview and inability to understand a conflict only from the “I� perspective rather than the “Thou�. This limitation has led the U.S. to stall an immediate ceasefire, which he contends is essential to ultimate peace.

JCHFleetguy agrees with the identification of America’s ideological blinders but agrees with the course taken by Secretary Rice. Certain events, including Lebaneese reform to take control of its territory, must occur before a real ceasefire is even possible. The U.S. must help to secure an ultimately secure and nonviolent future, not one that returns to turmoil in a year.

Other bloggers have chimed in the discussion, such as Asbury Park who asserts that continuing violence cannot end violence but only beget itself. Quarkstomper claims that U.S. involvement in this situation is consistent with the “All or Nothing� attitude that it has shown previously.

Progressive Christian contrasts two articles written about US options with regard to Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah. One is written by Jim Lobe at Anti-War.com and the other by Steven Erlanger of the NY Times. He believes the former astutely places America’s green-light support of Israel as detrimental to wider international diplomacy and the latter article resorts to an unconstructive labeling of “radical Islam� in assigning blame for the situation.

Progressive Christian also posts an entry that criticism of Israel’s actions should not be taken as Anti-Semitic and that progressivism requires analysis among allies. A thread regarding a similar subject is raised by Mik Moore at JSpot regarding suspected Anti-Semitic sentiments surrounding the Connecticut Democratic Senate Primary and Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Progressive Christians Uniting and FaithfulAmerica.org have both used their blogs to solicit signatories for a letter calling upon President Bush, Secretary Rice, and Congressional Leaders to press for an immediate ceasefire. Progressive Christians Uniting cites the unjust provocation by Hezbollah as well as a disproportionately violent response from Israel; they also express a concern that American Neo-Cons will use this situation to renew their campaign for forced control of the Middle East.

On Huffington Post, Peter Laarman questions the duplicitous support given to Israel by many Christians enthused by the escalating violence which they believe to be an indicator of Jesus’ second coming. He writes:

We should never forget the huge numbers of Christian Zionists in this country (and doubtless in the Bush Administration) who are enthralled by this latest drama and are feverishly consulting the books of Daniel and Revelation to see whether this might be "it" or at least a prelude to the Big One on the plains of Megiddo. Although anti-Semitic at their core, these Christians are reflexively, even vehemently, pro-Israel because unless that Third Temple gets built where the Dome of the Rock is now, there's no Second Coming.

Apocalypse-Bob echoes this concern on I Am a Christian Too. He says that this “Left Behind� mentality infiltrates our foreign policy and translates into a hidden aversion to lasting peace in the area. Bob quotes an article from the Toledo Blade that demonstrates the seriousness of the Rapture Christians.

Jeremy Burton at Jspot.org takes a step back from the situation, and says Jews must be careful not to let this situation distract attention from the other numerous threats to the common good. He intends:

“to keep reminding the Jewish community about all the rest of our agenda. Its our mission, even in a moment of crisis in Israel, to never lose sight of our role as a powerful force and voice and as a reliable ally and partner to a progressive agenda in this country�

Posted by Dave Baron at 04:39 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (46)

On Tuesday, July 25, the Heritage Foundation hosted a panel entitled, “Call to Truth, Prudence and the Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming�, which you can watch here. Disregarding reports of human induced climate change as liberal alarmism, panelists called the concerns of religious people about global warming hypocritical and even callous to the poor of Africa.

Dr. Kenneth Chilton, an economics professor of Lindenwood University argued that proposed environmental protections would harm the ability to provide expansive, abundant energy for the world’s poor. According to Chilton, technology is key as market-based pressure from high gas prices here in the U.S. will force energy companies to find more oil or expand alternative solutions. What is good for the U.S. will be good as a positive externality for the third world. Read an article of his here.

Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, an ethics professor at Knox Theological Seminary, echoed a concern for the poor, maintaining that he has the same values as people of faith who support environmental restrictions, but he believes the resources must be used rather for health, education, and energy.

Though Beisner later expressed his view of biblical justice that allows for glaring and perpetual inequality between the U.S. and Africa, his concern for the poor was ostensibly earnest. A responsible person of faith must accept that resources are limited and must be allocated efficiently. Health, education, and energy certainly warrant considerable allocation of our resources. However, if recent upward trends of global air and water temperatures are due to human activity, it is imperative that resources be allocated immediately to limit global warming thereby preventing further desertification in Africa, further heat-related deaths, further catastrophic hurricanes, and further impediments to health, education, and energy.

The Evangelical Climate Initiative, a religious organization – that goes out of its way to assure it does not have liberal ties – has signed on with the huge majority of the scientific community to promote cap-and-trade regulation of greenhouse gases. They note national and international consensus on this matter, citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the scientific academies of all other G8 nations.

Where does their disagreement come from? Perhaps it can be found in a theology of comfort. In a document distributed at the event, the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA) – an organization which need not assure of its absence of liberal ties and of which Dr. Beisner is a member – uses this quote of theologian Wayne Grudem to advance their argument that Global Warming is not a problem:

“It does not seem likely to me that God would set up the world to work in such a way that human beings would eventually destroy such ordinary and morally good and necessary things as breathing, building a fire to cook or keep warm, burning fuel to travel, or using energy for a refrigerator to preserve food.�

The idea that we, as a civilization, are morally upright for doing that which seems comfortable and ordinary is dangerously suspect. If this is the basis for our science or our religion, we eventually justify that which is comfortable at expense of actual truth, prudence and protection of the poor.

Posted by Dave Baron at 11:28 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

I attended three events in the last two days that reveal coming changes in the religious and political landscape of America.

On Thursday, I went to the National Press Club to attend a press conference on some recommendations on how to deal with North Korea. They had good ideas for what the US, the UN, and China should do, but even more significant is who they were. At the table were six men each representing an organization: the Open Society Policy Center, the Hudson Institute, the Korean Church Coalition, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Yes, at the same table as the Open Society (founded by George Soros) sat Richard Land the head of Southern Baptist political action and talk radio host. Next to him sat Richard Cizik, head of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, who has been a leader in convincing his thirty million member organization to care about creation. During the press conference Cizik referenced Ronald Reagan’s famous “evil empire� speech as a pivotal moment that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now whether or not one agrees with that analysis, it clearly functioned rhetorically for Cizik as a moment of moral clarity and he wanted to draw upon that moral moment to bring North Korea to justice.

The second event of that day was a Senator Rick Santorum speech at the National Press Club. Up in the press gallery, a few yards away, I listened as Santorum also referred to the “evil empire� speech. But he was using it to argue that America needed to confront more vigorously the specter of “Islamic fascism.� In fact he criticized Bush and Condi Rice for using the term “terrorism,� as Santorum apparently wants to confront, not just the acts, but the faith as well.

Here were two events with men using the same moral framework for different causes. One singing the usual religious Right songs against the press and Islam. But in the other room, I heard a new song about human rights and multilateralism. The senator just might lose his job in November; Cizik was part of a photo spread in Vaniety Fair along with George Clooney and Al Gore.

A reporter in front of me asked Cizik if evangelicals are getting too spread out politically. No worries, Cizik assured: Not thinning, rather moving in new directions.

I asked Richard Cizik if Rick Warren and Jim Wallis had joined this coalition. Cizik said not yet, but that Warren’s concern for poverty, Africa, and the environment might become more visible in Washington in the near future. Cizik also pointed out that while evangelicals have had a history of being “cowboys� on foreign policy, they also have a growing tradition of working for human rights. And looking in his eyes, I got the impression that caring for the least of these might just dominate some day.

The third event. On Wednesday, I attended a California constituent breakfast hosted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. I was seated next to a happy, blonde Republican flight attendant. She informed me that she attends a Calvary Chapel mega church in Southern California. I jokingly told her that it is up to folks like her to save the evangelical soul. She laughed demurely and reminded me that there is only "one who saves souls." Fine, she can have her private faith, but she nodded throughout Feinstein's talk on supporting stem cell research and the environment. After the talk I asked my new evangelical friend about solving global warming, she looked worried for a second, then sung out: “stewardship.�

Tip O’Neill said all politics is local. For those willing to listen, these local anecdotes may just say something about the new global values of the American evangelical.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 06:20 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

The Pew Internet & American Life Project just released its survey of bloggers and their habits.

Interestingly, only 11% of bloggers focus on politics and only 2% write on religion. The report points out that most bloggers use their platform for self-expression. With so few people posting on politics and even fewer on faith, this gives progressive bloggers significant voice compared to other forms of mass media such as radio or television. There's room for progressive-minded folks to write on how their faith informs their politics and doing so just might make a difference.

Also, in thinking about the future of media coverage of religion and public life, it's important to note that more than half of all bloggers are under the age of 30 which suggests that the blogosphere will grow in importance both as a tool for information and mobilization in the years to come.

Read the press release here.

And read the entire report here.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 02:59 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Support for school vouchers has become one of the myriad of strategies used by some Republicans to convince Americans that only they care about religious people in America. The transparent logic goes, 'See, we'll give your Christian schools money. We must love you! Especially when you vote for us.' It helps that this vote-seeking melds with the general conservative idea that equal education is not something that the government is capable or obligated to provide.

Luckily, our friends in the blogosphere have been active in taking on the idea that people of faith must blindly buy into the vouchers bonanza. As Peter Laarman writes over at the Huffington Post,

School choice, as part of the GOP’s “Values Agenda,? is quite deliberately framed in biblical terms to appeal to both the white “values base? of the party and to anguished African-American parents whose children may be doing poorly in school whether or not the school itself is underperforming.

Other incisive faithful critiques come from Mik over at JSpot, Bruce at Mainstream Baptist, and the Talk to Action crowd. We're working on getting an education resources page together here at FPL to join the topic-based resources we already offer to the community.

Posted by David Buckley at 12:14 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

On Wednesday, July 19, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing to discuss a public policy that intersects two issues important to people of faith. Guest worker programs implicate both immigration and the dignity of labor. Programs already in existence add 1,400,000 legal guest workers to the U.S. labor force. Many believe that an expansion of these programs is not only ethical but necessary to just immigration reform.

For more on immigration and labor beyond this blog entry, check out Faith in Public Life's Resource Pages on Immigration and Just Wages. Also available in our Media Speakers Bureau are relevant faith leaders able to comment on immigration and labor issues.

Rep. “Buck� McKeon (R-CA), Chair of the Committee, called the hearing one of many Republican-called hearings to openly reconcile differences between the House-passed immigration reform bill and its counterpart from the Senate, which McKeon identified as the “Reid-Kennedy Bill�. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) pointed out that the House bill lacked any mention of guest workers and the Senate bill – which he asserted would be better identified as the “Bush-McCain-Reid-Kennedy Bill� because of its bipartisan support – did contain an expansion of guest worker programs.

Since Republican leadership has ceded that a reform bill is unlikely to be passed before November, it is hard to believe that these hearings are an effort to constructively reconcile the two bills. They came off as more of a partisan side-show staged to divide the electorate on a wedge issue before midterm elections.

The hearing included testimony from Elizabeth Dickson on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Luawanna Hallstrom of Harry Singh and Sons, one of America’s largest tomato producers. Both affirmed the necessity of immigrant workers in the American economy. Ms. Hallstrom stated that despite heavy recruitment to American-born workers, her company was unable to attract enough and has no choice but to hire guest workers. Labor shortages in several other sectors and industries are predicted.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the committee’s senior ranking Democrat, shared his own concerns about the effect of guest workers on the livelihood of middle and lower class Americans. Economics would predict that increasing the number of industrial and agricultural workers would lower the wage for American workers, many of whom are already receiving sub-poverty wages.

Miller’s apprehension is understandable considering the increasing gap between the rich and poor in America, but it was addressed by Rebecca Smith of the National Employment Law Project and Immigrant Worker Project. While in support of expanded guest worker programs, she contended that such expansions must be coupled with stronger enforcement of labor protections, which have ebbed over the past 30 years. More federal investigators and higher penalties to violators are needed to discourage the use of intimidation tactics to prevent unionization, incorrect classification of workers as independent contractors who receive less benefits, and other forms of exploitation. According to Ms. Smith, the dignity of guest workers will be best protected if the dignity of all workers are protected.

A minimum wage for American and foreign-born workers above $5.15 an hour wouldn’t hurt either.

The Book of Deuteronomy states, “Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land’� (15:11) As Rep. McKeon pointed out during his own statement, people are hiding themselves in automobile gas tanks to come to America. They come out of desperation from their current bleak situation in hope of something better. If we focus solely on border enforcement and close our hands, these people will only continue to find new and far more dangerous means to come to America.

Posted by Dave Baron at 04:00 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

The New Jersey Jewish News writes:

"Jews and Christians, Buddhists and Muslims, and at least one self-proclaimed pagan will gather to continue in person the kinds of conversations they wage on-line as authors of blogs, the Web diaries that range from the queasily personal to the politically influential."

And the Times Union of Albany, New York points out that, "Because faith and politics have the capacity to both divide and connect the progressive faith blogging community, as evidenced by Obama's editorial, organizers hope this conference will be a chance for bloggers of faith to unite and learn from collective perspectives."

For me, two successes stand out from the first Progressive Faith Blog Conference: the four interfaith worship services and the conversations concerning the most productive ways to mix personal faith and prophetic politics.

Everyone present participated in a Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, and Christian worship service. Each service was hosted by a person of that faith. During the closing circle several people pointed out that while interfaith dialogue gets a lot of talk, the actual practice of sharing individual worship is rarely attempted. Throughout the weekend, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Baptists, Buddhists and a Pagan mediated, chanted, shared the Eucharist, and knelt for Islamic prayers. And judging by the blog posts, folks are still thinking and talking about the significant experience.

The panel leaders and the audience discussed emerging technology, the nature of our community, and the path to political engagement. With thirty-seven of the most prominent bloggers in the community, attendees worked to define the parameters of progressive religion and how best to work with the secular left. Defending the separation of church and state emerged as a point of common ground. In addition, several small committees were organized to set up a roving blog carnival, to plan a conference for next year, and design an aggregated feed that compiles, organizes, and sends out a bundle of progressive faith blog posts. Perhaps the conference will emerge as a central event as the progressive faith blogging community unites?

I am off to sign up at Street Prophets.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 05:27 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

The conference concluded on Sunday and the bloggers (aka, friendly people) reflect on the experience. The North New Jersey Jewish News pre-covered the event.

The Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic, and Christian interfaith services made a big impression on many attendees including Mata H. at Time's Fool. Discussions continue over how best to communicate with our secular progressive friends and how to integrate spiritual practice into blogging. Here is Hoarded Ordanaries mediating on the experience.

Velveteen Rabbi provides thirteen categorized posts from her live-blogging of the event.

Both Talk to Action and Bruce Prescott posting on Christian Alliance for Progress push for action over the Indian River Incident, a case of religious discrimination that came up often during discussions over separation of church and state.

Thurman writes:

"The highpoint of Saturday was the roundtable with Bruce Prescott, Pastor Dan, and Arthur Waskow (sorry, Arthur, I almost called you “Rabbi� again). To them fell the task of trying to define “Progressive faith�. Arthur said that he doesn’t like the term and prefers prophetic - which I pointed out to him would, in the church of my youth, earn him a burning at the stake. He rightly pointed out that it is our job to reclaim that term and, when used it its proper context, is a much more powerful stance than “progressive�, which is, at its heart, a political term."

Hussein Rashid at Islamicate posts his thanks here. And he shouts out to Andrew at Semitism.net who gives props right back. A little Islamic-Jewish dialogue of our own.

Also, read Hussein's summary of the Blogging Faith and Politics panel.

For more blog con thoughts, and to get information from the Talking Tech panel, visit the conference blog here.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 02:45 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

To read and join in the live updates on the panel discussions go to the Progressive Faith Blog Con web site.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 10:27 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (3)

Rachel Barenblat, Emily Tessone, Hussein Rashid are currently speaking about Roots and Branches, the Nature of Our Community.

Emily Tessone works at the Pluralism Project at Harvard College.

Are we one community, are we several communities?

No one in the room only reads blogs from their own faith tradition.

What is beneath our diversity?

Tim Simpson from Christian Alliance for Progress points out that it is easier for him to talk to progressive Muslims or Jews than traditionalist folks of his own Presbyterian faith.

Mik Moore jspot points out that blogging tends to attract folks who come to argue. He wonders what in blogging that can promote dialogue.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 10:22 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

David and I arrived, ate at Red Robin (unlimited fries and drinks!), and started meeting the great bloggers of the progressive faith community.

These folks are even more cool in person. Not only does Dr. Bruce Prescott (Mainstream Baptist) write a strong statement against religious intolerance in public schools but he sports an impressive handlebar mustache.

Check the Progressive Faith Con Blog for live updates tomorrow as the panels discuss topics such as blogging scripture and using new technologies.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 10:19 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

One more reminder that the first ever in the known history of civilized human kind Progressive Faith Blog Con is taking place in Montclair, New Jersey starting tomorrow and running through Sunday. We'll be live-blogging from the event on Faith in Public Life, as will a number of our partners and fellow-attendees. Make the trip! Can't make it? Check out these easy instructions for how to take part online as the event takes place.

Posted by David Buckley at 05:49 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (4)

One of the saddest things about living in what Gore Vidal aptly calls the United States of Amnesia is that we cannot seem to recall the point of issues we struggled to resolve 30 years ago, let alone 100 or 200 years ago.

I was reminded of this after reading Sean Wilentz’s monumental history, The Rise of American Democracy, over the July 4 weekend. Wilentz emphasizes how anti-slavery forces in this country, building on the British anti-slavery agitation led by evangelicals like Wilberforce, were able to persuade a critical mass of Americans with the argument that slavery should be abolished not only because of the awful suffering of the slaves themselves but also because control by violence over the bodies of others degrades the characters and endangers the souls of those who exercise such control.

The anti-slavery movement made good propaganda use of the image of a kneeling, heavily-shackled African crying out with the words, “Am I Not a Man and a Brother?� This appealed to a religious sensibility that ran deeper the random Bible verses cited by pro-slavery preachers; it reminded people of Genesis 4, in which God says to the murderous Cain, “Listen, your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!�

Preoccupied by the threat from without, the drafters of the Bush Administration’s various torture memos seem never to have considered the threat from within—the threat to the souls of those who would be expected to torture in our name. David Addington, John Yoo, and the others never seem to have considered what allowing U.S. personnel to abuse, torment, and even kill other human beings in the name of freedom would do to the characters of the abusers, and by extension, to the character of the nation. For we cannot pretend that we who permit or condone such acts to be done in our behalf are exempt from their corrosive effects.

Now, belatedly, we are beginning to get some sense of the incalculable damage that has been done, and not just at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Baghram Air Base but in the streets and alleyways of Ramadi, Haditha, and now Mahmudiya, where U.S. soldiers are alleged to have raped a 15 year old, shot her several times, killed her parents and her 7-year-old sister, and then tried to set the rape victim’s body on fire. There will be many more such incidents uncovered, and many more that are not uncovered but that will haunt the dreams and torment the spirits of the perpetrators, who may return from Operation Defend Iraqi Freedom but who will never fully return to civil society.

The lesson the Abolitionists and their successors tried to teach us was simple: we cannot brutalize others without brutalizing ourselves. Because we seem to have forgotten it, we can boast all we wish about our vaunted freedom and democracy, but in the eyes of the civilized world we wear the mark of Cain. We who were victims in September 2001 have forfeited all of the moral high ground by becoming conscienceless brute victimizers.
This is where the mindless—and bipartisan—“war on terrorism� has taken us. Unless we can recover our moral center, and soon, we, like Cain, will be left to wander in the wilderness, seeking but not finding a space of grace.

Post written for Faith in Public Life by Rev. Peter Laarman, Executive Director of Progressive Christians Uniting.

Posted by Rev. Peter Laarman at 12:11 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

There's an interesting piece from Adele Stan on the American Prospect's website right now. With Beckett's centenary upon us, the Godot reference is appreciated and most appropriate. She's not particularly sanguine (to say the least) about the prospects of a cohesive 'Religious Left' emerging to vanquish the Religious Right on a religio-political field of battle. Thank goodness. The best part about her argument isn't that she thinks it won't happen, but that she thinks it shouldn't. As she puts it:

In seeking to create a counterpart to the religious right, we tried to force our values through a narrow hole. In essence, we bought into the religious authoritarianism of the right, inferring that moral authority proceeds only from religion. In this, we have sold ourselves short.

It's a tricky project that many of us are working on right now: asserting clearly and confidently the moral and ethical values that motivate our political positions for the common good, without slipping into the sanctimonious self-righteous sermonizing that characterizes so many leaders of the Religious Right. The fear of making such mistakes is no doubt why some progressives (both secular and religious) have been very nervous about things like Sen. Obama's recent address.

The next step in the argument, which her piece only begins to tackle, is to talk about what that positive engagement between faith communities and the political process around common good values might look like. While no one wants to turn into the Religious Right, there may be room for more substantive contributions from progressive faith leaders than Stan realizes. If she really means that recent events "kill off the dream of a religious left in America," I'd have to differ strongly. They only point more clearly to what that community ought to look like to embody its own dreams and aspirations.

Groups like Sojourners and the Network of Spiritual Progressives are reaching increasingly impressive numbers for their national conferences. Others like Faithful America and the Interfaith Alliance are using cutting edge technologies to increase the impact of their advocacy. Collaborative efforts between secular and sacred around the budget, immigration, and the Voting Rights Act are showing leaders that their impact is increased through cooperation.

Stan is right that these religious voices can only be a part of the broader ethical foundation in which progressives ground their dream of a diverse, just, and free America. Each of these examples demonstrates the potential for progressive faith leaders to strike the balance between strength and humility and do justice to our proud legacy of social action in this country.

Posted by David Buckley at 05:44 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (3)

At the recent National Conference and Revival for Social Justice in the Black Church, longtime political activist Rev. Al Sharpton identified how sexually-based issues divide the black church and challenged black clergy members to follow in the footsteps of pioneers such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to embrace a religious agenda more in tune with social justice. Sharpton admonished clergy not to forget those who struggled to “break us out of the shackles of racism, rallied to end the heinous war in Vietnam and battled for blacks to be treated like others� under the banner of Christianity.

This seemed off pitch to Bishop T.D. Jakes, pastor of The Potter’s House in Dallas, TX, a church that boasts more than 28,000 members and sponsors MegaFest, a conference that attracts over 500,000 attendees annually through messages of self-empowerment through spiritual transformation and economic development. Responding to Rev. Sharpton, he stated, “I do not believe that African-American ministers should allow their political views to dictate the subjects and tone of their sermons.�

At least one comment agrees with Jakes, stating that “Sharpton has lost all touch with the greatest part of the Christian community he claims to represent,� and “his views on same sex marriage, black voting problems and lack of equality for blacks in America are not mainstream with black Americans.� It’s hard to deny that there is some divide between African-Americans of the Civil Rights generation and the current “megachurch� generation.

Despite the rift, some black ministers are reclaiming the tradition of focusing on social justices issues, while avoiding the pitfall of being partisan political pastors. The Rev. Dr. Frederick D. Haynes, pastor of Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas, TX, advocates for the poor and focuses on social action from his megachurch pulpit. Ray of Hope Christian Church in Decatur, GA under the leadership of Rev. Dr. Cynthia L. Hale offers a ministry for social action, and Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, IL addresses political and social justice issues that adversely effect on the lives and rights of people of African descent in the U.S. and abroad.

The kinds of ministries taken up by Rev. Haynes, Rev. Hale, and Rev. Wright find a middle ground between Revs. Sharpton and Jakes. Advocating for social justice and the common good doesn’t have to mean playing pure partisan politics. Hopefully as these groups raise awareness about the relevance of social justice issues, not partisan politics, to the African-American church community, other clergy will soon follow.

Posted by Lauren Phelps at 04:52 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

One more word (promises, promises) on Sen. Obama's speech last week. Or, rather, a word on what has come since. The blogosphere has seen a number of spirited exchanges on the virtues or failings of the Senator's remarks. There have been reasoned and intelligent statements both for and against the Senator's general argument. There have also been a number of harsh, unfairminded attacks from blog commentors. There's no doubt that passions run high around issues of faith in politics, but precisely because the stakes are so high it's important that the tone of these disagreements be on pitch.

It wasn't an accident that Sen. Obama ended his address with a call for 'fair-minded words.' Surely he knew that his words would spark controversy on both the left and right. It may be a potential weakness of the blogosphere that the relative anonymity of the space allows for ad hominem attacks without the practical risks of doing so in person or the mainstream media (ie personal retribution, or a good ole' fashioned knuckle sandwich). Because the task of honest, fair engagement is so difficult, and because part of our mission at Faith in Public Life is to broker those sorts of discussions both in the blogosphere and in the more concrete world, it seems appropriate to give hat tips to those who have done well with their criticism.

So in the spirit of encouraging those who know how to strongly disagree with each other, but in the right way, check out a few of these exchanges. Mik Moore over at Jspot, Pastor Dan at Street Prophets, Chuck Currie, and the Talk2Action crowd all have different takes on the matter at hand. But things don't get personal, and you know that all involved (and I think Sen. Obama is included in this group) are seeking, to borrow Dan's words, 'the line from doubt to the need to humility to the need to come together.' Bruce Wilson also left a strong but fair comment over on Alex's last post. Those who fail to meet these standards of discourse get no particular calling out, because they don't deserve any more attention.

I honestly believe that there's something very out of touch with how the American people view religion in the divisive rhetoric of the Religious Right. A robust internal debate about the place of religion in progressive politics can be a great sign of strength rather than division, if that debate takes place within a context of shared common good goals, fairminded words, and the American democracy that we all treasure. I'd love to see some of these voices that know how to argue the right way model that for the blogosphere. What fertile ground to be tilling the week before so many of us are getting together for the Blog Con.

Posted by David Buckley at 03:19 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (2)

Some bloggers criticize Sen. Barack Obama for saying that a few folks in the secular world need to tolerate religion in public life. The prolific Frederick Clarkson, over at Talk2Action, objects to this Right lingo from Obama, Wallis, and even Lerner, saying that they lose the frame game by using the secular label, a term that functions as a straw man in political rhetoric.

He is right to point out that the Right has abused liberals as secularists for far too long. But changing the topic, reframing, or saying: “hey, stop, no one here really hates religion� is not the only way. As Mother Jones recently published, the school of framing has its limits. Good frames are hard to come by, and until someone comes up with something better than Lakoff’s “freedom judges,� there are some religious moderates ready to convert progressive ideas into political action.

And the Political Animal blog shows that on this issue, some good progressives fear the frame more than the reality. Kevin Drum writes:

“But the plain fact is that he [Obama] was careful in his speech and also plainly correct: "some" liberals are uncomfortable with any mention of religion in the public square, and he thinks this is too bad. He also recognizes that just saying so isn't enough."

Drum adds:

"It's a funny thing. When I post about religion, I usually get two kinds of comments. The first is people telling me that I'm falling into a conservative trap by even entertaining the idea that some liberals are contemptuous toward religion. The second is snarky liberal secularists telling everyone else to take their stupid myths and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.�

Attacking our team for using words like “secular� actually undercuts the good side. We need good frames; but we also must have good framers, and the people doing to the talking have to establish their creditability. This sometimes means that we will hear some familiar language.

In fact, what astute folks like Wallis and Obama do is give the growing number of moderate believers room to get progressive without losing their religious bona fides. Now the faithful say, with increasing confidence: If Wallis, Campolo, et al still see room for improvement for the Left, then maybe I can care about the environment, poverty, etc.

Merely fighting the "secular" shibboleth" often works to reinforce its presence in the minds of our opponents. When moving moderate minds, it helps to take control of a familiar term and then wield it for a higher purpose. Perhaps we can reframe not just words but the whole debate, and thereby acclimatize moderates to the heady ideals of progressivism.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 01:17 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (13)

Talk2Action notes evangelical Christians are being offered two free tickets to see Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth.

On the site, Carlos writes:

"The tickets are available at the Inconvenient Christians website. The evangelical magazine, Christianity Today, is also encouraging its readers to go see the movie. It is good to see evangelicals broadening their list of social concerns and this should have political consequences for the Christian Right-Republican alliance."

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 05:37 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

On Saturday, the Dallas Morning News featured Jewish Funds for Justice Jspot as its blog of the week. Showin' off why they are so good, Jspot investigates a NYTimes article about the Memphis Statue of Liberation Through Christ.

And over at Even the Devils Believe, Catholic blogger Chris reverses the interfaith dialogue and talks about a Jewish situation in Delaware. What a great community; everyone’s watching each others’ religio-political backs.

Blogging about Sen. Obama, Pearlbear gets a mention in Slate. She’s happy.

Not happy, Xpatriated Texan looks at the Republican reaction to the Supreme Court 5-3 decision reining in the Bush Administration on its treatment of the Git-Mo detainees. After hearing McCain's “expression concern� with the decision, the ex-pat Texan writes, “This is the last scrap of evidence I need to declare John McCain has officially gone over to the dark side.�

At the Christian Alliance for Progress “Community Forum� page, the folks are sick and tired of progressives talking about framing issues without appearing to get anything accomplished. Ding writes:

“as a progressive woman of faith i'd like to see my fellow democrats stand in front of something without flinching when the crap starts to fly. as a progressive woman of faith i'd like to see some policies on the ground that demonstrate our progressive policies are the best for us and this country.

(hello, paid family & medical leave; hello, increasing the eitc; hello, increasing the minimum wage; hello, broadening access to higher education.)�

Taking some time off of politics and reflecting on the holiday, UU minister and blogger Seeking Sophia shares her personal reasons for mostly not enjoying holidays while Time’s Fool reports about the “luxury� of being at a small-town July 4th celebration.

Hitting it big in Dallas, Slate and now, the Catholic League: Over at Street Prophets, Frank declares victory with the news that the Catholic League has mentioned the “Religious Left� as an opponent in its support of government bans on gay marriage.

And finally, Street Prophets has some religious commentary on how a good person should respond to the news of Ken Lays’ death. Commenting, Betty Black shares her first three stages: 1) suicide?; 2) good riddance; 3) damn, he skipped out on justice. But she concludes: ". . . really the tragedy is that such an managerially capable mind was put to such spurious and nefarious use."

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 01:47 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)