If you have cable, you've probably noticed an unsavory element of the punditocracy using hyperbole, incorrect analysis and code words to demonize immigrants. Routinely, you'll hear Lou Dobbs or Glenn Beck referring to immigrants as “invaders” coming across our borders, coming to undermine American values, bringing with them crime and disease, stealing "our" jobs. What’s worse, the so-called experts that show up on these shows to drum up fears and stoke the fires of prejudice are often not experts, but nicely dressed extremists heading fringe group organizations, many funded by neo-nazi, white supremacy groups.
Seeing a need to set the record straight, National Council of La Raza and the Anti-Defamation League have launched a new website calling out the talking heads on their hate-filled talking points. The website offers commentary from real experts (lawyers from the Southern Poverty Law Center) and educates by giving people the real facts on immigration. The press is taking notice -- hopefully the higher-ups at CNN will too.
In the announcement that is sure to keep the chattering class chattering at least 'till next week, Culture War Watch is prepared to announce its support for the Common Do-Gooders.
Beck to Churches: Drop the Politics (like helping people in need) and Stick to Non-Controversial Topics (like apocalyptic Israel policy) Political and theological expert Glenn Beck sure knows where to draw the line between church mission and political action. He lays it out very clearly in this interview with Rev. Walter Coleman, whose congregation is currently giving sanctuary to an undocumented immigrant. Beck chastises the Rev. for taking such a position and tells him he should have his tax-exempt status revoked. Interestingly he seems to have spared Rev. Hagee, a strong advocate for very specific public policies with regarding Israel, similar criticism. We expect he'll soon be sending an Epistle to the Missouri Bishop's conference correcting them on their deep theological errors.
Moderate Baptists Gather, Tell World to Stop Looking So Surprised Contrary to popular belief, moderate Baptists exist and claim a rich religious tradition. Next week, 20,000 Baptists, including sitting Senators and ex-presidents, are gathering to identify common ground and ways to collaborate on social justice issues--Culture War Watch wishes them luck.
The Scorecard: This week goes to the Common Do-Gooders, who are still enjoying the Culture War Watch endorsement bounce.
CNN's Glenn Beck isn't particularly civil or constructive, and he'd probably admit as much. What he wouldn't admit - but is no less true - is that he just doesn't know what he's talking about. Last night Beck had Rev. Walter Coleman of Chicago's Adalberto United Methodist Church (of New Sanctuary fame) on his show, and in addition to badgering, serially interrupting and being generally disrespectful to Coleman, Beck said his church should forfeit his church's tax-exempt status for "making political statements."
I can't fault Beck for not having a lawyer's command of tax-exemption guidelines, but that's no excuse for being transparently ridiculous. In Beckworld, is there no church speech on any political issue at all? Would Martin Luther King's 16th St. Baptist church have to forfeit its tax exemption for "making political statements" about integration? Should the Catholic church forfeit its tax exemption for "making political statements" about abortion, war, or immigration? Or is it just people who irritate Beck on his show?
Just to clarify, Glenn, IRS guidelines don't prohibit political statements about issues; they prohibit campaigning for political candidates.
For almost a year, Fox News and other conservative pundits have hinted that Sen. Barack Obama is either a closet Muslim or a black separatist Christian. Of course both half-formed and contradictory mischaracterizations have been debunked by most within even their own punditry circles. But yet again, this month Fox's Hannity and O'Reilly as well as Slate columnist Christopher Hitchens and the editorial board of Investors Business Daily have succumbed to attacking Sen. Obama over his church's black ethos.
On air and in print, they worry about Trinity's (United Church of Christ) "Afrocentric" commitments to the black community and black work ethic. Hitchens called the church racist. And over and over, Hannity and O'Reilly parrot the old light-weight racist rhetorical question: how come they can have black theology (or a month) but we can't have a "white theology" without being called racist?
This concern can be addressed logically with a brief understanding of Black Liberation Theology. Upon examination, it becomes clear that Trinity UCC has an inclusive and even an intellectually exemplary Christian community.
Why a black theology, but not a white theology? First, until the 1970s almost all academic theology was de facto white. But there were still differences due to -- and this is key -- cultural experience. Theologians who lived through the horrors of war were writing differently about God than those who only knew the angst of missing 4 o'clock tea. Like post-WWI Neo-Orthodoxy, post-segregation Black theology speaks to a culture, for some that means ethnicity, for others, that geography is a greater influence.
Hannity wonders why we should have a black theology at all, but that's like speaking about Christianity apart of denominational differences. One cannot speak historically without mentioning Catholic theology or Reformed theology or Evangelical theology. Like the mix of British methods and culture in Methodism, Black theology is a mix of 1960s black culture and mores. One reason that the pundits continue to beat their heads against the wall is that they treat black primarily like a color whereas it is actually functioning as an hermeneutical method, aiding believers in the constant quest to see God working in their lives. Pastors like the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright Jr. read culture and scripture through their experience, not too differently from the way that Martin Luther read "the just shall live by faith" (Romans 1:17) through his own very local experience with unscrupulous religious leaders who required payment for salvation.
In fact, Joseph R. Washington, an early voice for black liberation, wrote in his Black Religion: The Negro and Christianity in the United States (1964) of an almost heavenly "assimilation beyond integration" and advocated that black folks just go join white congregations. But the theology of Sen. Obama's church is rooted more in classic black liberation leaders like Albert Cleage, a UCC pastor in Detroit, and the main intellectual light of the movement Union Theological Seminary's James H. Cone who actually charted a thoughtful middle ground between the Black Power Movement and stasis. In his Black Theology and Black Power (1969), Dr. Cone defined black liberation as "an attitude, an inward affirmation of the essential worth of blackness," (117) and he spoke of the civil rights struggle as an act of black responsibility, "not doing what I will, but becoming what I should" (120). Thus it's clear that when Trinity preaches about the black work ethic or black community, the vision is contra slavery and the slavery of segregation and towards a self-possession that arises from the power of personal experience, like any culturally relevant theology. Since its development, Black Liberation Theology has gone through significant revisions, and even Dr. Cone has at times emphasized scripture or the social sciences, as it is a work in progress flexing to meet the needs of academics and little children in Sunday School.
Hannity with Trinity's the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright
Dangerously, these pundits opine without understanding the basics of their opponents' ideas. As early as March 1, 2007, the Rev. Dr. Wright attempted to explain his church's historic connection to Liberation theology in Nicaragua and mentioned Dr. Cone, yet Hannity cut him off repeatedly, preferring to call him separatist and play up Wright's ties with non-Christian Louis Farrakhan -- a cynical and specious attack. Again, this stems from a misunderstanding about the role of the church in African-American life.
So Trinity is "Africentric," and deals internationally and ecumenically with the heritage of "black is beautiful." Despite what one sometimes hears, Wright and his parishioners – an 8,000-member mingling of everyone from the disadvantaged to the middle class, and not a few shakers and movers in Chicago – are "keepin' the faith." To those in range of Chicago TV I'd recommend a watching of Trinity's Sunday services, and challenge you to find anything "cultic" or "sectarian" about them. More important, for Trinity, being "unashamedly black" does not mean being "anti-white." My wife and I on occasion attend, and, like all other non-blacks, are enthusiastically welcomed.
Clearly, if one spends even half an hour reading the sources or listening to the folks, there remains no logical or theological reason for worrying about Trinity. There are bigger issues in the world.
So why do these attacks persist? It's the old bedfellows of TV ultra-conservatism: willful ignorance and fear. They fear what they don't understand. And in an effort to hide this race-based trepidation, they interview ignorant black proxies, like this most recent guest, Jesse Lee Peterson, who is lauded on the white supremacist (h/t Pastor Dan) site, Storm Front. Sean Hannity actually sits on the board of his organization.
The real tragedy here is that as Hannity and O'Reilly and Hitchens, et al, continue to mix their ignorance with their fears and conflate black theology with "reverse racial hatred." To Hannity and O'Reilly and Hitchens, African-Americans whine about discrimination when they are really only talking about their own community. In so doing, these pundits play right into the hands of overt white supremacists and closet racism, both of which feed off media-fanned doubts about discrimination and cultural pride. Here I quote directly from the Stormfront site: "blacks will keep doing the two things that they do best - hate and whine." If Black Liberation Theology can be understood after a pretty quick read of the facts or actually listening to the Rev. Dr. Wright, what does this imply about the goals and information value of Hannity, O'Reilly, and Hitchens?
The best of the American tradition of liberty for all includes the intellectual freedom -- and responsibility -- to listen to others before attacking them. By continuing to confuse thoughtful, redemptive, contextual Christian theology with reverse racism, these pundits spread cultural ignorance and fan racist fears.
Saturday’s SC exit polls failed to ask Democratic primary voters if they were born-again or evangelical Christians – even though Republicans were asked that question in South Carolina last week.
Republican SC primary voters were asked if they were Protestant, Catholic, LDS, Jewish, Muslim, etc., how often they attend religious services, if they would describe themselves as born-again of evangelical Christians, and how much it matters to them that a candidate shares their religious beliefs. Dem primary voters were asked only about frequency of religious service attendance. This is a pattern that has occurred to varying degrees of severity in every primary state sofar.
Based on the limited SC exit poll data we do have, it is informative to learn that 31% of SC Republican primary voters, versus 25% of Democrats, attend religious services more than weekly – just a 6% gap. It is informative to learn that Obama won 64% of Democrats who attend services more than weekly, compared to Huckabee who won 52% of Republicans. Most surprisingly, vote totals and exit polls show that Democrats who attend worship services weekly or more than weekly actually outnumber Republicans who attend weekly or more often, by a count of 286,374 to 283,468.
It would have been informative to know what percentage of SC Democratic primary voters consider themselves born-again or evangelical Christian, as compared to 60% of SC Republican primary voters who consider themselves such. Unfortunately, we can’t make that comparison, because the exit poll pollsters did not collect that data or any other religious identification information about SC Democratic primary voters.
The only response we have received to the letter from prominent evangelical leaders, including David Neff, editor of Christianity Today and Paul Corts, president of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, to the polling directors of ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and the AP (members of the National Election Pool consortium) asking for this problem to be corrected, was insufficient: “We have limited real estate on our questionnaires,” it read. “We choose the questions based on our internal editorial discussions. To protect the integrity of the process, we routinely do not talk publicly about what questions are on our surveys.”
Just as in earlier primary states, the SC exit polls once again disregarded the increasing ideological diversity of evangelicals and other religious groups, and failed to assess the effectiveness of now-bipartisan faith outreach strategies.
In a heavily religious state such as SC, this is more inexcusable than ever.
Today, Good Morning America interviewed Eboo Patel, Executive Director of Interfaith Youth Core, and some of the IFYC young Fellows who are working toward a multi-religious future.
Eboo helped to create the idea and organization of the Interfaith Youth Core in June 1998. He has worked as an organizer, teacher and artist on four continents. He completed his Doctorate at Oxford University in the Sociology of Religion on a Rhodes Scholarship. Eboo was named one of "thirty social visionaries under thirty changing the world" by Utne Reader in 2002.
Christian leaders to Bush: salvage your moral legacy
This morning a distinguished group of Catholic and evangelical leaders called on President Bush to use his final State of the Union and last year in office to pursue an agenda that will improve his tarnished moral legacy. Ron Sider, Father Larry Snyder, Paul de Vries, Sister Anne Curtis, and David Gushee told the president how he can redress his stances and policies on domestic and global poverty, global warming, Iraq and torture, respectively.
Everyone on the call expressed in concrete terms what the moral agenda for Bush's last year should be, and spoke compellingly about why it's so necessary. I listened in live, and it was an edifying addition to an already bright morning.
Pew Trends: Catholics in Motion and Multi-Issue Voters
In recent elections, worship attendance has been a telling factor in party affiliation and voting patterns. But John Green, Senior Fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, draws on some recent data showing that this correspondence is changing, particularly among mainline Protestants and Catholics. (02:28)
Why is there movement? In this video Green discusses the broadening of issues leading some socially conservative evangelicals to support a Democratic candidate or Giuliani. (02:40)
This week in the epic battle between the Culture Warriors and the Common Do-Gooders we learn more about the true priorities of the major players.
Jesus was a Carpenter and He only Built Three-Legged Stools At least, that is the only explanation Culture War Watch can think of for the ridiculous graphic and the accompanying article chiding the GOP for not keeping the "three-legged stool" of social, economic and defense conservatives together. Looks like Perkins is expanding on his "there's only one way to be a values voter" brand by opening a "there's only one way to be a Republican" franchise.
Since Legislative Solutions to the Abortion Issue Have Worked so Well in the Past: The Sequel Abortion is the main source of ammunition for Culture Warriors of all stripes. Culture War Watch has long been a critic of the way this issue is used as a political weapon. This year, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade brought with it the predictable protests and counter-protests. Luckily for the rest of us, there is a lot more to this issue than what has felt like a 35-year cultural tug-o-war. Pro-life individuals are expressing nuanced views on what it means to embrace that term, and in Congress pro-life and pro-choice advocates collaborated to pass a groundbreaking abortion reduction measure which commits resources to supporting women and families. More of that please. And less like this.
(We'd be remiss to not cheer the just-released statistics showing that the abortion rate has fallen to its lowest point since Roe vs. Wade. It's hard to hate on pro-choice and pro-lifers for scrapping over those spoils.)
Stereotypes still Handier than Actual Evidence FPL has been on a bit of a crusade about poor polling of Evangelical voters in the primaries. We have high hopes that this will be remedied by the time the Democrats vote in South Carolina this weekend. In the meantime, inquiring minds can turn to resources such as Beliefnet's recent poll and the panel they co-hosted today with Sojourners at GW University. One would think that this would be enough to get across the idea that Evangelicals have diverse political priorities and allegiances. But of course, this requires one to actually think.
This Week's Scorecard: The Roe anniversary is usually high season for the Culture Warrior, but the commitment of people of faith to speak out for their true values and the anti-poverty vote in the House are pretty big scores for the Common Do-Gooders. But, the entry of one more voice for the common good in the blogosphere from our friends at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is what put the Do-Gooders over the top this week.
Yesterday, the House passed H. Con. Res. 198 which expressed "the sense of Congress that the United States has a moral responsibility to meet the needs of those persons, groups and communities that are impoverished, disadvantaged or otherwise in poverty."
Now, as Congressional resolutions are non-binding, and many can border on the absurd, it might be easy to dismiss this move as an empty gesture. Of course, only time will tell if Congress will be able to move beyond disappointing gridlock of this last session, but I am optimistic.
The resolution was based on recommendations from the Center for American Progress' Task Force on Poverty so there's a good deal of intellectual heft coupled with the idealistic goal. And perhaps most importantly, the faith community is ready to rally behind this cause. Poverty is a top concern for people of faith of all stripes. No other theme is as common in Scripture as society's responsibility to care for the poor and people of faith have been calling for our government to heed this moral call for decades.
Hopefully this resolution represents the beginning of the last chapter of a great movement. People of faith have made fighting poverty a moral priority, and the House has just formally signaled its agreement with that framework. Now, let's all do our part to make sure Congress follows through on that promise--37 million Americans living in poverty shouldn't have to wait any longer.
"Jim Wallis tells Jon that the world is hungry for the connection spirituality between social justice." They also discuss why Jim thinks that America doesn't want a "religious left" but a religious awakening.
Another poll shows Born-again Christians defying political expectations
Our friend Zack Exley -- whose mix of on-the-ground blogging and commentary on the latest data about the evangelical world is unique and remarkable -- just highlighted a new Barna Group study about born-again and evangelical voters' political affiliations and priorities.
In Barna's own words:
...The survey explored two important slices of the Christian vote: born again Christians, a group of Americans who accounted for about half of all ballots cast in the 2004 election and the smaller, more socially conservative subset of born agains, labeled as evangelical voters. Evangelicals represent about one-fifth of all born again Christians. [Note that Barna surveys do not classify a person based upon a respondent’s use of the terms "born again" or "evangelical," instead basing the classification on what a person believes about spiritual matters.
The nation's 68 million registered voters who are born again Christians were most concerned about personal indebtedness (79%), poverty (78%), and HIV/AIDS (77%) - levels similar to that of other voters. However, born again Christians emerged as distinct from other voters in relation to many other issues. They are more concerned than were non-born again adults about illegal immigration (68%), abortion (67%), the content of television and movies (60%), homosexual lifestyles (51%), and homosexual activists (49%).
The subset of evangelicals (representing about 15 million of the born again voters) displayed a significantly different view on many issues. Evangelicals' top concern - by a wide margin - was abortion (94%). This was followed by the personal debt of Americans (81%), the content of television and movies (79%), homosexual activists (75%), and gay and lesbian lifestyles (75%). Evangelicals were more likely than other adults to be concerned about illegal immigration, but they were less worried about HIV/AIDS than virtually any other segment of the population. One of the most significant differences of opinion expressed in the survey was the skepticism evangelicals harbor toward global warming (only 33% identified it as a major issue) compared to the rest of the population.
As should be clear, Barna's grouping is more nuanced than standard self-identification exit polls, so comparing the two might be an apples-oranges affair, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't ruffle conventional wisdom about Christians and politics .
Sen. Barack Obama made a frank appeal to religious voters at last night's CNN/CBC presidential debate in South Carolina, noting that the Democratic Party has all too often ceded faith ground, essentially buying the Religious Right's argument that conservative and moderate Christians only care about abortion and homosexuality. But as Obama points out, this has been a mistake, as the issues and the demographics of faith are broadening -- every day the FPL News has a story showing this change.
Now that a Democratic candidate is directly appealing to evangelicals on national television in the days immediately preceding a primary, perhaps the networks will bother to count Democratic-voting evangelicals on their way out of the polls on Jan. 26.
By now it should no longer be surprising, but exit polls at the Nevada caucuses asked Republican but not Democratic caucus-goers if they were evangelical or born-again. In case you're keeping score, that's four out of four primaries/caucuses precluding evangelicals from being analyzed as a factor in Democratic voter preferences.
I’m writing from my home in a section of Washington, DC, that burned after Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis on April 4, 1968.
The motel, now the National Civil Rights Museum, has preserved the room in which King spent his last night on earth, and in the anteroom you can play his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech by pushing a red button. A wreath marks the spot outside where he died as his companions pointed at the shooter’s position. It is heartbreaking and inspiring, to an extent that dwarfs the power of words.
The Bible is replete with such powerful stories, and from time to time I thank God for animating them by guiding me to the history of civil rights movement (my undergraduate concentration), and especially to Martin Luther King, Jr. Reading and hearing the words of a person willing not only to challenge the powerful to honor the word of God, but to follow his Christian convictions to an early grave is humbling and gratifying, and it has repeatedly reminded me of the power of faith.
The fire that destroyed my neighborhood following King’s death must be viewed within the context of the world from which he was violently taken. While the rage of oppressed people consumed uptown Washington and gave grist to opportunistic segregationists, a few miles down the street the federal government was escalating a war that was antithetical to everything for which King stood. That he gave a speech condemning the Vietnam war and the socio-political structure that enabled it exactly one year before his death is a detail lost to the cliffs notes history fed to us by popular culture.
Some 40 years on now, we have a Martin Luther King federal holiday, but a mixed (yet sum positive) record of racial and socio-economic progress, and a seemingly steadfast commitment to the militarism and economic inequality King decried in his final years. In recent years it’s become common to commemorate Dr. King by using his holiday as a day of service; in keeping with his words and deeds, we should also use the day to call leaders to honor the teachings of the faiths they espouse.
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
"Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU."
Ouch. Whatever happened to that 11th commandment?
But an interview with beliefnet's Steven Waldman and Dan Gilgoff adds a bit more texture:
Well, I probably said it awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make– and I’ve said it better in the past – is that people sometimes say we shouldn’t have a human life amendment or a marriage amendment because the Constitution is far too sacred to change, and my point is, the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That’s the genius of it. The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture. If we have a definition of marriage, that we don’t change that definition, that we affirm that definition. And that the sanctity of human life is not just a religious issue. It’s an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the point. The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was. Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn’t vote, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there’ve been injustices made because the Constitution wasn’t as clear as it needed to be, and that’s the point.
Just to follow up on that question, according to that standard, if the Constitution and its amendments are subject to biblical interpretations, doesn’t that mean it would be subject to biblical argument over what the proper interpretation is? And where does that leave, say, nonbelievers or members of other faiths in a proudly pluralistic like our own when amendments to the Constitution are subject to a biblical interpretation?
I think that whether someone is a Christian or not, the idea that a human life has dignity and intrinsic worth should be clear enough. I don’t think a person has to be a person of faith to say that once you redefine a human life and say there is a life not worth living, and that we have a right to terminate a human life because of its inconvenience to others in the society. That’s the real issue. That’s the heart of it. It’s not just about being against abortion. It’s really about, Is there is a point at which a human life, because it’s become a burden or inconvenience to others, is an expendable life. And once we’ve made a decision that there is such a time – whether it’s the termination of an unborn child in the womb or whether it’s the termination of an 80-year-old comatose patient -- we’ve already crossed that line. And then the question is, How far and how quickly do we move past that line?
And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?
Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.
Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.
Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change the [constitution] again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic. I wonder if he thinks this stuff through. . .
Earlier this week I joined the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy's (VICPP) Annual "Day for All People" Advocacy Event at the state capitol in Richmond. It drew over 300 attendees and coalition partners including members of the Virginia Organizing Project, The NAACP, and the Virginia Coalition of Latino Organizations to the statehouse to advocate for policies protecting poor and vulnerable families. Their top priority this year is ending predatory payday lending, which can overwhelm already-struggling borrowers with insurmountable debt by charging over 300 percent interest. These loans are often a one-way ticket from vulnerability to poverty.
We spent part of the day with senate and house leaders to discuss payday lending legislation capping interest rates at 36 percent. While escorting my group through the capitol, VICPP's Rev. Doug Smith, pointed out a table in the cafeteria full of lobbyists and lawyers working to protect the payday lenders from the legislation that would prevent them from squeezing borrowers out of their bottom dollars. The industry has plenty of money and resources to throw at legislators, so VICPP's effort to rally bi-partisan support for payday lending regulation is as necessary as it is admirable. Gov. Tim Kaine, whose successful election campaign last year included a strongly faith-based message, spoke at the event and supports regulating payday lenders. Hopefully this broad coalition of religious activists and leaders can win this fight to protect the poor from predators.
To offer your support, check out their "Faithful Pledge" Campaign.
The religious and political winds are changing. Tens of millions of religious Americans are reclaiming faith from those who would abuse it for narrow, partisan, and ideological purposes. And more and more secular Americans are discovering common ground with believers on the great issues of social justice, peace, and the environment. In Souled Out, award-winning journalist and commentator E. J. Dionne explains why the era of the Religious Right--and the crude exploitation of faith for political advantage--is over.
Based on years of research and writing, Souled Out shows that the end of the Religious Right doesn't signal the decline of evangelical Christianity but rather its disentanglement from a political machine that sold it out to a narrow electoral agenda of such causes as opposition to gay marriage and abortion. With insightful portraits of leading contemporary religious figures from Rick Warren and Richard Cizik to John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Dionne shows that our great religions have always preached a broad message of hope for more just human arrangements and refused to be mere props for the powers that be. Dionne also argues that the new atheist writers should be seen as a gift to believers, a demand that they live up to their proclaimed values and embrace scientific and philosophical inquiry in a spirit of "intellectual solidarity."
Written in the tradition of Reinhold and H. Richard Niebuhr, Souled Out will help change how we think and talk about religion and politics in the post-Bush era.
E. J. Dionne Jr. is a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, a regular political analyst on National Public Radio, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a professor at Georgetown University. His books include the best-selling Why Americans Hate Politics (Simon & Schuster), which won the Los Angeles Times book prize and was nominated for the National Book Award.
As the Culture Warriors battle it out in their never-ending quest for general cultural supremacy, they not only wound each other but manage to land a few blows on bystanders whose only crime is standing within earshot. This week, stories of those who have been taken a few punches from the Culture Warriors, even though they may not have been the intended target.
Well Those Christians Get on my Nerves Many conservative culture warriors have framed their fight as a crusade to keep the U.S. a "Christian nation" (as if it were ever a Christian nation in the first place). Unsurprisingly, this has led a large portion of non-Christians to conclude that Christians are annoying and hypocritical, and has prompted moderate Christians to say thanks but no thanks to those Culture Warriors who "speak for" all Christians.
I am Not a Muslim...not that There's Anything Wrong With That Okay okay. We grant that some culture warriors are actually are trying to damage the reputation of Muslims and Islam, but most at least claim that their qualm is with "extremism." Fine. It actually doesn't matter much. The Culture Warriors have managed to inflict enough damage to the reputation of one of the great world religions that presidential candidates actually have to take time out of nationally televised debates to address rumors circulating online and employ some rather Seinfeldian rhetorical flourishes in the mean time.
Ok, I'm Going to Wrap This Up Before the List Gets Too Long Culture War Watch has just realized that when you start to number those hurt by the Culture Warriors you're basically counting the whole world. So, here's one last post to sum it all up. During this year's "war on Christmas" the culture warriors showed their dedication to style over substance. While the U.S. heads into a recession and the planet develops a fever, culture warriors are busy thanking Wal-Mart for saying "Merry Christmas." Thanks Culture Warriors! We'll send in our thank you note shortly. It might be a bit late since we're trying to help the Common Do-Gooders bring us back from the brink of economic despair and the extinction of our species. Please forgive our rudeness.
The Scorecard: Even though I didn't write much about the Common Do-Gooders, I'm too depressed now to give the Culture Warriors any more points after writing this post. Do-Gooders get the week.
Michigan exit polls worse than Iowa, New Hampshire
Because the party stripped Michigan of its delegates, the Democrats spent practically no energy on the Michigan primary. Still, the news networks polled the Democratic voters who did turn out, and the battery of questions was far more skewed than New Hampshire and Iowa polls. Those results have been the subject of extensive analysis already, and voters and the public deserve to know how religion correlated with other factors in voting patterns for both parties.
But we can't, because while the Republican exit polls featured 11 data sets about voters' religion, the Democratic polls had zero.
Sure, the Democratic vote was modest, but the network consortium did take the trouble to poll them, so there's no excuse for entirely excluding religion from the questionnaires. (And I for one would like to know if religious voters skewed toward Clinton or uncommitted, given the role religion has played in public perceptions of her.)
The flaws are myriad. Ignoring Democrats' religion perpetuates the old bromide that faith is a factor in Republican races only, that "values voters" and evangelicals are exclusively a GOP bloc. It disregards the increasingindependence of evangelicals and other religious groups. It fails to assess the effectiveness of the now-bipartisan faith outreach strategies, which is a well known political development.
One defense of the persistent exclusion of evangelical and other religious questions from Democratic exit polls is that the results would likely be insignificant. However, such concerns don't stop pollsters from recording and publishing Republican voters' race, even though the primary voters are so white that no other race's candidate preferences yields statistically significant data. Just as that is a noteworthy fact about Republican voters, it would be useful to know if evangelical and other religious voters' Democratic turnout were just as miniscule (which it is certainly not). We can't get an accurate story if we don't bother to collect the facts. Conscientious reporters, informed citizens, and politicos are all missing out on the changing role of faith in politics.
We are troubled to see candidates pressed to pronounce the nature of their religious beliefs, asked if they believe every word of the Bible, forced to fend off warnings by a few religious authorities about reception of sacraments, compelled to confront derogatory and false allegations of radical Muslim childhood education, and faced with prejudicial analyses of their denominational doctrines.
Exclusionary religious rhetoric by candidates and constant scrutiny of the minutiae of their faiths undermine religion's valuable role in public life.
...
Following Article VI of the U. S. Constitution and the First Amendment, we identify three basic principles.
* No person should be expected to leave their faith at the door when operating in the public square. But it is inappropriate to use religious or doctrinal differences to marginalize or disparage candidates, by either comparison or assertion. No religious test may be applied to candidates for public office - not by the law, not by candidates, not by campaigns.
*Candidates for public office should welcome the contributions that religion brings to society. But just as government may not endorse or favor a religious faith, candidates for public office are obliged, in their official capacity, to acknowledge that no faith can lay exclusive claim to the moral values that enrich our public life.
*Just as government policies must be in service to the nation and not to any religious faith, the same holds true for candidates' positions on policies. While it is appropriate for candidates to connect their faith to their policy positions, their positions on policy must respect all citizens regardless of religious belief.
As the 2008 campaign charges forward, we call upon all candidates, regardless of whether or not or how often they choose to talk about religion, to protect it. We call upon all candidates to join us in affirming these principles.
Ah yes, my favorite faith and politics pundit, Fox News' Fr. Morris. I always like how he prefaces his commentary with a feign to the high road. "Religion always has an influence on one's character."
Apparently, this Sunday his scriptural message is: don't vote for the front runner, vote for limited government. Ah yes, the biblical principle of the limited role of government.
Now there's a ideological concept that I have not learned in my last six years in Protestant and Catholic theological education. I recall Moltmann on hope, and Kant's categorical imperative, but I missed the theological truth that limited government is a universal principle.
It sounds like politics to me. But I guess Fr. Morris kicked it off by saying that this wouldn't be about that. . . oh, and remember the principle of don't vote for the front-runner, who just happens to be Mike Huckabee.
Poll: New Generation of Evangelicals Defy Red/Blue
Relevant magazine -- the flagship publication for young evangelicals, with a circulation of 75,000 and 4 million web page views per month -- recently took a reader vote on political candidates and issues that was at turns insightful, cheeky, bold and surprising. Called "who would Jesus vote for," it provides a window into the red/blue-defying beliefs of an emerging generation of evangelical activists that read the magazine. (The post-partisan group I suspect has been excluded from those pigeonholing exit polls.)
The largest percentages of those surveyed said they are conservative on abortion and gay marriage, moderate on economic issues, liberal on social issues like poverty and health care... and split between Obama and Huckabee, with a slight edge to Obama.
Does it have the validity of a Pew poll? Of course not, but it still presents a profile of a group the media is still learning to depict.
Some results:
How would you describe your political views based on moral issues (gay marriage, abortion)?
Conservative -- 54.6%; Moderate -- 34.3%; Liberal -- 8.6%; Not sure 2.5%.
How would you describe your political views based on economic issues (size of government, spending)?
Conservative 34.0%; Moderate 40.1%; Liberal 17.6%; Not sure 8.3%.
How would you describe your political views based on social issues (healthcare, poverty)?
Conservative 14.2%; Moderate 36.0%; Liberal 43.9%; Not sure 5.9%
Who would Jesus vote for?
Barack Obama 28.7%; Dennis Kucinich 2.8%; Mike Gravel 0.2%; John Edwards 4.7%; Joe Biden 1.4%; Hillary Clinton 1.8%; Mike Huckabee 24.2%; Rudy Giuliani 4.3%; Fred Thompson 6.0%; Ron Paul 15.6%; Mitt Romney 3.7%;
John McCain 6.6%
Who do you think was a better president?
Bill Clinton 55.4%; George W. Bush 44.7%
Given my druthers, I'd like to have seen questions on the environment, but as is this straw poll gives us an interesting glimpse at a new generation of politically engaged evangelicals.
Six years ago Friday, we established Camp X-Ray, the torture chamber and legal black hole that has turned "Guantanamo" into shorthand for America's eroded moral status in the world.
Check out this powerful witness against the absurd depravity of America's treatment of detainees.
Religious Jews in Nevada will have to choose between voting and practicing their faith on January 19, the day of the Republican and Democratic Nevada caucuses. January 19 is a Saturday and the caucuses will be held at 9 and 11:30 am – during morning religious services for observant Jews.
As my friend Melissa Boteach, Poverty Campaign Coordinator at the Jewish Council for Public Affairs writes:
January 19th is one of the most important contests in the Democratic and Republican quests for their parties’ nomination for the presidency. It is also Shabbat.
This year, the Nevada Democratic and Republican parties have decided to hold their primary caucuses on a Saturday, with citizens required to report by 11:30 and 9:00 AM respectively, right during morning religious services. When I called the political parties in Nevada to inquire as to whether or not there were measures being taken to help accommodate those observant Jews who wished to participate in the caucuses, I received mixed results. A young Jewish woman at the Nevada Democratic Party told me that they had tried to put caucus-sites near religious neighborhoods and synagogues so that people could walk; precinct captains would be educated about the need to write down information on behalf of observant Jews instead of asking them to sign-in and write themselves. A gentleman at the Nevada Republican Party told me that the party was not even aware of the problem, but promised to make an effort to educate precinct captains on the issue. Neither had an adequate answer as to why the caucuses had to take place on a Shabbat morning.
Nevada has one of the fastest growing Jewish populations in the country, and its 65,000-80,000 Jewish community members are expected to have a disproportionate impact on the results.
…
On January 19th, Nevada's observant Jews will be asked to make a false choice between practicing their Judaism and participating in a defining American moment. To all Americans, not just American Jews, this should be seen as a disappointment.
This is unacceptable in American democracy. Has anyone seen media coverage of this beyond the Jewish press? Where's the outrage?
Evangelical leaders to media: Stop pigeonholing us
After we blogged about the flawed exit polls that Republicans but not Democrats if they were evangelical or born-again, a wave of interest and outrage spread throughout the blogosphere, the media and the evangelical community.
One day later, a diverse group of evangelical leaders has submitted a letter to the polling and political directors of ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and the AP, calling on them to ask the evangelical ID question to Democratic as well as Republican primary voters.
The signatories are an impressive roster of prominent evangelicals: Joel Hunter, David Neff, Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Randy Brinson, David Gushee, Randall Balmer, Glen Stassen and Paul Corts.
This week, Culture War Watchers learn what happens when events occurring in the real world do not fit neatly into preexisting categories. (Hint: we take a strange journey into an alternative universe where Mike Huckabee is the "religious left".)
(Pst. Hey You, yeah you, the Media, I have a secret: some evangelical voters vote for Democrats! Shh don't tell anybody) After goofing up big-time in its coverage of evangelical voters in Iowa, the media missed an opportunity to correct itself in New Hampshire. Despite the best efforts of so many people in the common good faith movement, the MSM is still learning that neither party "owns" the faith vote. People of faith, including--gasp--Evangelicals are diverse in political opinions. They are liberal, conservative and moderate and vote for independents, Democracts and Republicans. While the poor polling and ridiculous reporting continues ("pious" people apparently only vote Republican) the chorus of voices crying "foul" is steadily increasing. We'll give the MSM the benefit of the doubt one last time though. I mean, it's not like there are any nationally known progressive and moderate religious leaders or a simple place to locate progressive people of faith like, say, a map.
Focus on the Family soldiers on in noble quest to "help families"; Reluctantly spends millions on political action Culture War Watch appreciates Culture War icons like Focus on the Family because they keep us in the blogging business. Confronted with the hard facts that a new generation is turning away from its agenda and embracing new leaders, does Focus throw in the towel, admit it was wrong and adopt a new agenda? No! Focus President and CEO Jim Daley vows to keep up the good work and claims Focus still has its finger on the pulse of youth culture due to the young folks (the women at least) recognizing that "nothing is more important than being there for your kids." (No word on James Dobson's involvement in trying to keep the environment--a huge priority for young people of faith--off the Evangelical agenda). Daley also seems to be trying to take the emphasis off Focus' political activities by saying Dobson was reluctant to enter the advocacy realm. (Again, no word on how once they got in, they seemed to like it just fine. Or at least, enough to spend millions of dollars a year through Focus on the Family's political action arm.)
I'm sure Gov. Huckabee appreciates this
Since the Iowa caucus, several conservative commentators, troubled by some of Mike Huckabee's economic record, have labeled him the leader of the "religious left". This label is most likely confusing for Huckabee, who describes himself as conservative, and for those who actually self-identify as the religious left, who have serious differences of opinion with Huckabee. But wait, there's more. Mark Steyn thinks that a general election match-up between Huckabee and any of the Democrats would end up being a contest between the "secular left" and the "Christian left." Steyn does not seem to take into account the fact that the two Democrats currently leading in the primaries are people of strong faith or that Mike Huckabee is actually pretty conservative on several issues (other than the great liberal cause of creating a flat tax). But, no matter. Our handy stereotypes have served us so well so far. That's how we know that Democrat=godless and that Mike Huckabee=as far left as you can get while still being "Christian." If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The Scorecard: This week goes to the Common Do-Gooders, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are showing that they are taking serious looks at all the candidates and defying the conventional wisdom on what kind of voters vote for what kind of candidates. The culture warriors do get an "A" for effort, however, for doing their best to resurrect their familiar themes and to keep on culture warring in the face of an ever unfriendlier reality.
They did it again! Just as in Iowa, yesterday’s media-sponsored Election Day poll failed to ask Democrats in New Hampshire if they were evangelical. Voters from both parties were asked about their church attendance and if they were Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Something else, or None. But only Republicans were asked if they were born-again or evangelical Christian.
The Religion Newswriter's Association named "Democrats courting people of faith" the #2 religion news story of 2007; all of the leading Democrats speak openly and extensively about their religious faith. Two weeks ago, a Boston Globe story with the headline, “In N.H. churches, candidates find a different breed of evangelical” quoted Rev. Bruce Boria, pastor of New Hampshire’s largest evangelical church, which attracts about 2,000 people each Sunday: "It kind of makes me laugh sometimes when they lump evangelicals all in one group…At my church, there have been people who have opened their homes to Barack Obama" and a variety of other candidates from both parties.
It would be informative to know the percentage of evangelicals who voted for Democrats yesterday. It would be informative to know which Democratic candidates were helped or hurt last night by Democratic evangelical turnout. It was certainly informative to learn this morning that the Republican evangelical vote split pretty evenly among McCain, Romney and Huckabee.
Asking only Republicans about their religion shows that the media is still stuck on the outdated and false notion that evangelical Christians are the GOP's political property. No party can own any faith. Evangelicals have broadened their agenda to include care for the planet, the poor and the stranger, and as a result are increasingly independent politically. Exit polls need to abandon the hidebound frames of the culture war -- evangelicals already have.
Election Day exit polls are conducted by Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), a consortium of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, NBC News and the Associated Press.
The media sponsors of the NEP still need to fix this problem before any more primary votes are cast.
Rush ticked that evangelicals aren't supporting his guy
Apparently Rush Limbaugh hearts fellow country club Republican Fred Thompson. In this video he gets a little jerky in his chair over evangelicals who are supporting Mike Huckabee. It is interesting to see this splitting up of the social conservatives, a separation especially telling in Rush's very revealing statement separating "groups of religious people" who support Mike from the "pro-life groups." Yes, the difference between faithful folks with a broad range of concerns and the old single issue fund-raising and vote machines that got used to telling them what to do. Watch it to believe it.
Evangelical voters made up about 40% of Mike Huckabee's turnout in Iowa, but they only make up about 3% of New Hampshire's population. In this Jan 7 video from Morning Joe, Huckabee and Chuck Norris fight off the sense that this lack of broader faith appeal will hurt in New Hampshire where Huck's in third place in recent polls.
Despite right winger Chuck Norris's camp appeal, he is not the most convincing embodiment of Huckabee's mainstreet appeal. In endorsing Huckabee on fringy World Net Daily, Chuck compared Huck to King David, that fantasy model for Christian and Jewish theocrats. In addition, this is the blog that Norris credits with turning his attention to Huckabee: The Rebelution
Also, as Dan has noted before, if the media wants a good man bites dog story they should check out how many self-described evangelical voters in South Carolina plan to vote for a Democrat this year and which one. On January 19, some entry polling on that question might show an interesting shift.
EJ Dionne: "a real ferment" in the evangelical community
The political press has turned out story after story about Mike Huckabee's pull with evangelicals, and story after story about his populist streak, and the two lines are starting to converge. On Friday EJ Dionne connected the rise of a new political star and The Fall of the House of Dobson with what he calls the "real ferment going on out there in the evangelical community."
Does Pat Robertson imply that the GOP's in trouble?
On Hannity and Colmes, Pat Robertson discusses a recent message from God regarding the presidential election. But he gets a little shaky about the details. Beyond the hilarity, Colmes notes the shift in Robertson's priorities -- eschewing his social conservatism to endorse Giuliani. Robertson responds that Giuliani has assured him that he will appoint judges like Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. (What's wrong with Thomas, Pat?) Apparently Robertson not only knows the political future of the country, but the social future too -- if "moderate" Giuliani gets in.
News coverage of the Iowa caucuses read like it was written in advance. Might you have foreseen that evangelicals would be credited for a Huckabee win and that an Obama victory would be spun as a Clarion Call For Change?
There's a large hole in this conventional wisdom, though: Faith was effectively barred from consideration as a factor in Obama's victory. The CNN entrance and NBC exit polls bothasked Republican caucus-goers if they were "born-again or evangelical," and neitherone asked that question of Democratic caucusers. Democrats instead were asked if they were union members.
Thirty three percent of Iowa evangelicals voted for Kerry in 2004. The Religion Newswriters' Association named "Democrats court people of faith" the #2 religion story of 2007. Winner Barack Obama is wellknown for
