Cross-posted at Raising Kaine.

Faithful America, an online community of more than 80,000 people of faith administered by Faith In Public Life, yesterday became the subject of a political attack ad for speaking out against the abuses committed Abu Ghraib in 2004.

The misleading ad, which is running on southern Virginia television stations, refers to Faithful America as a “liberal group that ran ads on Arab TV apologizing for the actions of U.S. troops.” The attack does not mention that the Faithful America ads were a specific response to the abuses committed at Abu Ghraib, or that America’s political and military leaders similarly deplored and condemned the abuses of detainees at the Iraqi prison.

Faithful America mobilized around the tragic brutality at Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 by raising money from its grassroots network to place an advertisement on Arabic-language satellite television expressing sorrow for the abuse. The ad said:

As Americans of faith, we express our deep sorrow at abuses committed in Iraqi prisons,” the ad stated. “We stand in solidarity with all those in Iraq and everywhere who demand justice and human dignity. We condemn the sinful and systemic abuses committed in our name, and pledge to work to right these wrongs.

We stand by Faithful America's response to Abu Ghraib, and we're circulating a petition calling for this distortive and offensive ad to be taken down. It doesn't belong on the airwaves in the 5th District or anywhere else.

Posted by Dan at 12:25 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Have you heard about Senator Elizabeth Dole’s latest attack on her Democratic opponent, Kay Hagan?

Ok, so obviously the attacks have something to do with this:

Senator Dole is down in the polls and it seems she might be grasping at straws. To me, there are a few takeways from this absurd ad:

1. Accuracy: Kay Hagan is not godless. She is an active member, elder (part of a council that makes decisions about the life and work of the church) and a Sunday School teacher at a Presbyterian church. She attended a fundraiser that was co-hosted by 35 people, including a member of an advisory board for a political action committee called “Godless Americans." As Jeffrey Weiss over at the Dallas Morning News has noted, you’ve got to wonder who thought this would be a good name for an organization. It’s one thing to organize a PAC to endorse candidates who share your views but it’s not clear to me who they can fully support: there are hardly any atheists in American politics. Regardless, the point is—Kay Hagan isn’t “godless” and the ad is completely misrepresentative of the truth.

2. Civility: This is a pretty sleazy ad. The Fayetteville Observer says Dole is “probably winning the honor, so far, of fielding the nastiest, most misleading, negative ad of the campaign.” It’s not just that the ad is inaccurate, it’s also a total smear.

3. Atheism as a civil rights issue: Ok, I’m religious, I admit it. I’m probably not the most sensitive respondent to these claims. And if I were a political candidate, I’d probably be wary about hobnobbing with a group called Godless Americans. I’m skeptical about Godless Americans’ “atheism as a civil rights issue” claim. Just as we have no religious test for political office, there’s nothing in our U.S. constitution that says an atheist/secular humanist/freethinker can’t hold office. Ellen Johnson of Godless Americans claims:

"Every other group in American history, from women suffragettes to blacks, gays and even the religious right has taken those first steps toward recognition by marching on our nation’s capital. It’s now our turn!"

Does she have a point? In 2005, 50% of respondents said they had an unfavorable view of atheism. In 2003, over half of respondents said they wouldn’t vote for a well-qualified atheist for President. In 2007, only 45% said they would vote for a well-qualified atheist for president.

I don’t know, maybe this is a new civil rights movement. The Economist thinks there’s potential for this group to really mobilize.

At the end of the day—today—though, the facts are these: Kay Hagan is not an atheist and North Carolinians are not choosing between a Christian and a “Godless American.” They are choosing between two candidates, both of whom believe in God, and only one of whom feels the need to slander the other one’s religious views.

UPDATE: Hagan is suing Dole over the ad.

Posted by Kristin at 01:47 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Following yesterday's launch of a new Christian radio ad supported by nationally prominent evangelical and Catholic leaders calling for common ground solutions to reduce number of abortions in America, the website Lifenews.com posted an article that ignored the coalition of pro-life leaders supporting the ad and made numerous false accusations about its content.

While Lifenews.com found it “curious” that the nonpartisan ad did not endorse a candidate, it is more curious that Lifenews.com failed to mention the name of a single Christian leader supporting the ad, many of whom have been involved in the pro-life movement for decades and none of whom have endorsed a candidate. Evangelical and Catholic leaders supporting the ad include National Association of Evangelicals vice president Rev. Rich Cizik, Catholic University’s Life Cycle Institute director Steve Schneck, megachurch pastor Dr. Joel Hunter, Calvin College professor and author Steve Monsma, Evangelicals for Human Rights president and author Dr. David Gushee, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference president Rev. Samuel Rodriguez and Christian marketing firm executive Joe Battaglia.

Lifenews.com claims that the ad "downplays abortion in voting." The nonpartisan ad does not in fact mention voting, but it does asks for listeners to take the issue seriously. As the ad scripts states, it’s time to “get serious about protecting life" and "move the conversation beyond bumper sticker slogans."

Lifenews also disputes the ad’s statement that “the number of abortion is unchanged from 32 years ago.” In response to this statement in the ad, Lifenews said “Not so...The abortion rate, which Faith in Public Life notes in its ad, shows a drastic change from its highest levels in the years after Roe.” But the ad did not cite the abortion rate. It cited the number of abortions in America. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the same research institution Lifenews.com cites to support their argument, there are 1.2 million abortions in American today (the most recent year for which there is data is 2005); 32 years ago, in 1976, there were 1.179 million abortions. LifeNews goes on to claim that the nonpartisan ad “adopts the mantra of the supposedly pro-life Obama apologists, who claim pro-life advocates have been unsuccessful in reducing abortions.” The ad does not claim that advocates on either side of the issue of abortion have been successful or unsuccessful. Instead, it asks both “Democrats and Republicans to come together around solutions based on results, not rhetoric.” If 1.179 million abortions was a problem worth mobilizing a movement around in the 1970’s, surely 1.2 million abortions should not be seen as a success today.

Posted by Dan at 12:53 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Come Saturday, will you be enjoying leftover Halloween candy?

Some religious Americans won’t. They’ll be engaged in fasting, the ancient spiritual exercise of fasting which allows us to “enter into deeper relationship with God, [be] changed by that relationship, and then [be] sent out into the world.”

Jesus said in the Gospel that “Man does not live on bread alone” but rather by “every word that comes from the mouth of God.” It can help Christians to focus and enter more deeply into prayer.

So it seems that, especially in these days leading up to a landmark election, Christians of all stripes agree that we cannot live on bread alone. But, the devil’s in the details, as they say. What words are "coming from the mouth of God"? How do we know? And how do we respond?

Some Christians will think the words from the mouth of God are about human despair, suffering, and hunger. These Christians fast to discern ways to respond to the global food crisis. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), my denomination, encourages its members to join in 40 hour fasts for the first weekend of each month. These fasts are meant to help Presbyterians pray for guidance on how to respond in love to suffering and hunger around the world.

This weekend, Presbyterians will focus on Haiti, a poverty-stricken nation that has been called the “World Hunger Poster Child.” Malnutrition is the leading cause of death for children in Haiti. Desperate Haitians spend precious pennies on “mud cakes”—made from dirt—just to subsist.

By fasting, Christians in America (the wealthiest country in the Western Hemisphere) express solidarity with those in Haiti (the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere) and look for the ways God is calling them to serve those in needs.

Some Christians this weekend will be fasting for another reason. “The Call California” —a “corporate prayer and fast” will be held in a stadium in San Diego, but not to find ways to help those suffering from malnutrition and disease. Rather, this fast is about California’s Proposition 8—a proposed ban on same-sex marriage. The event is subtitled “A Battle to Save Marriage.” The organizers believe that “our nation is in desperate need of the mercy of God and a great Spiritual Awakening” and that traditional marriage must be saved.

Watch the video:

Which would you fast for? Children eating mudcakes or marriage in California?

Posted by Kristin at 05:51 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Earlier this week We Believe Ohio, a diverse interfaith coalition of clergy from across the state, gathered to recap their Political Sleaze-Free Zone efforts throughout the year-long campaign season and call for civility and security on Election Day. More than a dozen candidates for federal, state and county office -- including Democrats, Republicans and independents -- endorsed the campaign and adhered to its principles of honesty, positivity and a focus on common good issues.

As we inch toward November 4, it's more important than ever to emphasize these goals. Ohio was hemorrhaging jobs even before the economic collapse, and foreclosures and layoffs are accelerating. Insecurity and poverty increase anxiety and tension. An overwhelming turnout is expected on Tuesday in this charged atmosphere. Inadequate staffing, overcrowding and suppression efforts will likely result in hours-long lines, just as in '04, in highly competitive and vote-rich Ohio.

Talking to We Believe leaders this week, I got the sense that tension is rising and clergy, especially those whose houses of worship serve as polling places, are praying for a peaceful day. I've heard reports that state election officials have received death threats, and I've listened to threatening voicemails at Ohio ACORN offices that are so vile I won't link to them. Prayers for a peaceful day are warranted.

Our sanitized popular history largely downplays the fact that elections haven't always been the most civil or honest affairs. Given the power and resources at stake, our fallen nature, and a political and social culture that prizes stability while excusing extremism, we have every reason to not take civility and security for granted. That's why I'm grateful for faith leaders such as my friends in We Believe Ohio, and why I'm praying for the election.

Posted by Dan at 10:12 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

I'll have more to say about the faith community's effort to infuse integrity into the 2008 campaigns on Monday, when We Believe Ohio calls attention to the success of their Political Sleaze-Free Zone effort, but I need to visit another point right now. Earlier this week the Family Research Council accused Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner of being derelict in enforcing election laws, omitting the detail that the Supreme Court had already ruled against her accuser.

In a later email alert FRC, noting that the Supreme Court ruled only the government could file suit on the matter, all but accused Attorney General Michael Mukasey of "dereliction of duty" for not opening litigation against Brunner. Now we know why Mukasey has been so derelict -- because his own Justice Department thinks she's doing a good job.

Twice this week FRC has attacked Ohio voter registration, and twice the facts have gotten in the way of their case. Questioning the legitimacy of the ballot in a close race less than two weeks before an election can cast doubt on the outcome's validity, so it should be done with great caution, not presumption of wrongdoing or indifference to facts. If you're trying to bring a faithful witness to politics, it's best to start with an informed one.

Posted by Dan at 06:40 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Michael Sean Winters sums up the moral significance of the economic crisis as well as anyone:

...The conventional wisdom is not exactly accurate...The economy did not displace moral issues: The economy is a moral issue. Providing for one’s family is a moral obligation, one that is suddenly uncertain. Buying a house and making the mortgage payments is a moral accomplishment, requiring discipline and delayed gratification. Faulty economic theories were part of the reason for the credit crunch, but greed has played its part. The anger felt on Main Street is not mere anti-elitism: The barons of high finance treated people’s hard-earned life savings as mere fodder for risk-taking. An economy that had been characterized by an idolatrous worship of the laws of the market suddenly sees the need for social solidarity in the form of government bailouts.

The economic crisis, in short, is more than an economic crisis. It is a cultural crisis, even a spiritual crisis...(emphasis added)

If this crisis reminds us to invest greater moral energy into our economy and community, if it causes bankers and bus drivers alike to ask the age-old question "Who is my neighbor?," maybe all the pain, terrible and tragic as it's been, won't be in vain.

Posted by adanielsen at 10:43 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

H/T to Mark Silk for bringing the lowdown on the latest Pew poll. Silk shows how as Obama has gained steam in the national polls, that trend has been reproduced among people of faith.

Since September, as Obama has gained steam in the national polls, large religious demographics are trending in the same direction:

---He's opened up leads among mainline Protestants (from down 10 points to up 5) and Catholics (going from up one point to up 16).
---He's narrowed the gap among weekly worship attenders. In September, he was trailing by 18 points, and that margin is now just 7.

No matter what the results are in two weeks, it will be fascinating to see how the history of this election will be written and what long-term impact it will have on the greater faith-and-politics landscape. Naysayers would call a closing of the God gap an economy-driven fluke, but would conventional wisdom follow?

Posted by adanielsen at 11:06 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Once again, the Family Research Council bears false witness, this time about voter "fraud" in Ohio. In today's FRC Action email, we're alerted to an urgent development:

As ACORN pounds the pavement for new voters, the allegations of fraud are boiling. More than 200,000 (over a third) of Ohio's 660,000 new registrations have been flagged as mismatches. While Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (D) says she is committed to making Ohio's election an honest one, she has yet to comply with federal law. It demands that she safeguard the democratic process by verifying the thousands of registrations in question. Last week, she refused. Sensing that the election could be compromised-and seeing no attempt by the government to correct it-the Ohio Republican Party sued Brunner for compliance with the law. Democrats called it a partisan attack.

Perkins & Co. are omitting a rather important detail of the case. From the AP (four days ago):

The Supreme Court is siding with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices on Friday overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

Accusing someone of refusing to obey the law, and failing to mention that the United States Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the target of your attack. As sins of omission go, that there is a pretty deadly one.

Posted by Dan at 06:37 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

David Brooks, the New York Times' resident armchair anthropologist, today revisited his American caricature, er, archetype, Patio Man:

For all the talk of plumbers and investment bankers, populists and elitists, Patio Man is still at the epicenter of national politics. He is the quintessential suburban American, the service economy worker, the guy who wears khakis to work each day, with the security badge on the belt clip around his waist.

He lives in northern Virginia, along the I-4 corridor near Orlando, Fla., in or near Columbus, Ohio, along the Front Range of Colorado, in the converging megalopolis between Albuquerque and Santa Fe and in many other places...

If you wanted to pick words to capture Patio Man’s political ideals, they would be responsibility, respectability and order. Patio Man moved to his home because he wanted an orderly place where he could raise his kids. His ideal neighborhood is Mayberry with BlackBerries.

David doesn't give data, so I assume Patio Man is a composite of impressions gathered from extensive personal contacts in a broad range of places. Since I visit my native Northern Virginia often and have spent the year traveling to suburban areas of Ohio, Colorado, Missouri and Pennsylvania, I'll grant myself the same license.

(Note: David doesn't go into detail about Patio Woman, so I will leave her alone for now.)

Patio Land is megachurch country. Some of the nation's highest-profile congregations and church networks are in Patio Man's exurban habitat, where The Purpose Driven Life sells like hotcakes. Patio Man may or may not go to a large, contemporary "seeker-friendly" church, but some of his co-workers and neighbors do -- and they probably invite him. In Patio Man's world of new neighbors, new-ish subdivisions, and long commutes, megachurches are one of the few anchors of community. I can't say Patio Man is an evangelical, but evangelicals are influential in his world. They're in his neighborhood, his county government and school board, and all over his radio dial.

Patio Man is genuinely and justifiably anxious right now. HIs home and modest retirement portfolio have depreciated precipitiously, gas prices have made his commute as expensive as his utilities, and the interest rates on his credit cards have doubled. Patio Man's budget is a lot tighter than it was 3 or 4 years ago, and he knows it's not all his fault. Everyone's talking about the strain: Patio Family, Patio Friend, Patio Pastor, Patio Politician, Patio Pundit. Meanwhile, other issues like the war, the environment and abortion have not disappeared, even if they're out of the headlines.

It's election time, and Patio Man is going to vote, but he won't be taking marching orders on one or two issues, and he won't be weighing discreet and competing categories like "moral values" versus "the economy" or "national security" versus "the role of government." Like most everyone else, Patio Man is filling out a ballot, not a scorecard. Like most everyone else, he'll votes his ideals and his anxieties, his issues and his values. Hopefully he won't be spun as a "values voter" or a "checkbook voter" or some other clumsy category. On Nov 4 and after, it'll be important to ask the right questions so we don't end up with some distortive caricature like we did in 2004. "Patio Man" is stereotype enough; I don't want to hear about the Patio Voter. So media folks, if you're listening, take a hard look at your exit- and post-election poll questions before it's too late.

Posted by Dan at 10:02 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

In less than six months since his column began, the New York Times had already issued at least three corrections for factual errors in Bill Kristol columns.

Today, he's given his editors another reason to keep their red pens close at hand.

Kristol's assertion that the 9/11 attacks "did not result in a much-feared (by intellectuals) wave of popular Islamophobia or xenophobia" in this country will surely come a surprise to the millions of Mulisms and immigrants in this country.

This goes against plentiful data and the lived experience of Muslims, Arab Americans and immigrants in our country.

Many Muslim Americans reported increased hostility toward them after 9/11. Shockingly, Kristol's "non-existent" Islamophobia and xenophobia have also proved deadly for a number of Americans who became victims of hate crimes after 9/11. (See Divided We Fall for a moving account of this painful reality. Disclosure: a friend of mine worked on the film).

On its surface, Kristol's column reads as a populist critique of out-of-touch "elites" who don't trust the people they claim to speak for (unpacking the irony of making that charge from the opinion page of the New York Times would need a blog post of its own). His obliviousness to the post-9/11 reality in this country, however, has shown him to be just as out of touch and elitist as the public figures he rails against.

For Kristol, "the people" seem to be the people who look, think and act like him. No wonder he trusts their judgment.

Posted by Beth Dahlman at 10:28 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (5)

Originally published in the New Yorker.

Posted by Dan at 10:13 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Within his eloquent remarks on Meet the Press yesterday, Colin Powell made one of the most pointed defenses of Muslim Americans I've heard this year:

And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

It's particularly important for a conservative of military background to say this. Not all or even most conservatives consider Muslim and terrorist synonymous, and religious prejudice is not unknown in moderate or even progressive circles, but it's simply a fact that the most open and virulent bigotry against Muslims is on the Right. On the extreme wing, Powell is already an apostate, but by publicly defending Muslims in moral language and military terms, I think he can reach a lot of people who are unconsciously or passively prejudiced.

Posted by Dan at 09:22 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Pt. 2 of Krista Tippett's radio series "The Faith Life of the Party" features the thoughts of conservative columnist Rod Dreher (Beliefnet/Dallas Morning News).

Responding to Amy Sullivan's claims that Democrats face a double standard when proving their faith, Dreher discussed the "culture war" going on inside churches. A former Catholic, Dreher (now Eastern Orthodox) said some conservative Catholics treat progressive Catholics as if they're "really faking" their faith. Those types of divisions within churches gets projected onto those in the public square, he said.

While I didn't personally agree with most of Rod's viewpoints, I was encouraged by his bold stance he expressed on torture. His words give hope that both conservatives and progressives can work together to redress this horrible national sin:

"The silence of conservative Christians on the torture issue has been a true scandal…that will be remembered in history, I believe, as a real stain on our conscience and I wish that conservative Christians would be more open about it because it is absolutely indefensible."

Fits in with Krista's description of the conversation as an exploration of "the little-known story of religiously influenced impulses within the conservative movement that diverge from the Religious Right." Full recording here.

Posted by adanielsen at 10:34 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, in partnership with the Jesse Miranda Center for Hispanic Leadership, Faith in Public Life, America’s Voice Education Fund, and Dr. Gastón Espinosa, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University sponsored a national survey of Latino Protestant registered voters to assess their views on immigration and the 2008 election. This growing voting bloc provided crucial support for George W. Bush in 2004 and was widely viewed as a key emerging constituency for the Republican Party in elections to come.

This survey finds that Latino Protestants have shifted their support to the Democratic presidential candidate by a wide margin in 2008 and immigration is a key factor in influencing their vote. However, Latino Protestants are as likely to associate negative rhetoric on immigration with both parties as they are with only Republicans – indicating that Democrats have not distinguished themselves as champions for immigration reform.

KEY FINDINGS:

Latino Protestant Support for the Republican Ticket Nearly Cut in Half.

• Latino Protestant registered voters favor Democrat Barack Obama over Republican John McCain by a 17-point margin (50.4 percent to 33.6 percent with 10.4 percent still undecided). This margin of support for Obama is slightly lower than his lead among the Latino population overall.

This is a dramatic shift from 2004 when George W. Bush soundly won the Latino Protestant vote. According to 2004 (i) post-election survey data, Bush won 63 percent of these voters, up from 32 percent in 2000(ii).

Latino Protestants view immigration as a faith issue.

• 76.8 percent say their religious beliefs are important in influencing their views on immigration (54.6 percent say very important). Only 19 percent say their religious beliefs are not important in influencing their views on the issue.

A candidate’s position on immigration is a key factor for Latino Protestants in determining their vote and more trust Democrats to deliver.

• 82.8 percent say a candidate’s position on immigration is important in determining their vote this year (54.6 percent say very important).

• Democrats receive more than twice the amount of trust to pass immigration reform that reflects the values of Latino Protestants (42 percent, compared to 20.2 percent for Republicans).

• 89.2 percent say immigration is important (65.6 percent very important) for the next Congress, 7.6 percent view it as a low priority or not a priority.

Immigration reform is a priority for Latino Protestants on par with abortion and far more important than gay marriage.

• Immigration Reform - 70.8 percent extremely or very important (23.6 percent extremely important)

• Abortion - 74.8 percent extremely or very important (34.8 percent extremely important)

• Gay Marriage - 55.8 percent extremely or very important (28.4 percent extremely important)

Latino Protestants associate negative rhetoric about immigrants with “both parties.”

• 62.2 percent say they have heard public officials speak negatively about immigrants.

• 43.4 percent of those who have heard public officials speak negatively about immigrants associate this rhetoric with both parties.

• 40.5 percent associate it with only Republicans while only 7.7 percent associate it with only Democrats.

Latino Protestants favor the Democratic candidate when considering Democratic and Republican plans for immigration reform.

• 65.2% support the Democratic candidate’s plan for immigration reform (22.8% support the Republican candidate)

• 57.6% support “Candidate A” when given the same candidate positions without a party name associated with the position. (30.8% favor “Candidate B”)

• However, fully 30.8% of Latino Protestant say they would leave their political party if the party does not find a more positive way to address immigration reform and welcome immigrants (42.8% say they would not leave their party.) This further indicates the volatility of this group of voters.

Posted by Dan at 12:39 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

For years, reporters and pundits alike have treated figures like Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson as hugely powerful public figures capable of commanding huge armies of supporters to do their bidding.

It seems once again the media have been spun. Big time.

In his latest email, Tony Perkins bragged about getting 17,000 people to email Bob Schieffer and demand he grill the candidates on FRC's core issues, gay marriage and abortion, during the last presidential debate. (We were glad to hear some much-needed discussion of common ground solutions on abortion, but we weren't surprised Schieffer didn't ask about marriage, that issue is loosing its polarizing power).

Perkins should not be boasting. While 17,000 emails may sound like a lot, an organization of FRC's size (and multi-million dollar budget) should be able to do much better.

Faith in Public Life has only recently relaunched FaithfulAmerica.org, and our members regularly respond to actions in numbers approaching 10,000 (for a handy comparison of our orgs' size: in 2007, FRC had more employees making over $100,000 per year than FPL had employees).

Recently, Sojourners "Call to Lament and Repent" of the Iraq war gathered over 26,000 signatures. A 2004 petition drive, "God is not a Republican...or a Democrat" gathered over 64,000 signatures! Sojourners has been a leader in the evangelical movement for social justice for many years, but is not regarded by the media to be nearly as powerful as FRC and Focus on the Family.

Well, the numbers just don't support that assumption. We wrote about this back in June, when Dobson was only able to get 900 people to "defend" him when people of faith started to resist his narrow vision of faith and politics--a number dwarfed by activists speaking out for the common good.

It's time to pull back the curtain and face the truth: Dobson and Perkins are not nearly as powerful as they've led us to believe. Behind the massive budgets and flashy publications lie men representing a wilting political movement. People of faith, especially young people, are moving past the culture wars and are embracing the common good.

Polls show this. Deep down, Perkins and Dobson probably know this. It's time the media caught up.

Posted by Beth Dahlman at 10:25 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (2)

Not so long ago, candidates talked about abortion only through the lens of litmus tests and Roe v. Wade, "activist judges" and "strict constructionists." Fortunately, we've had moments of more productive dialogue in 2008. Despite Bob Schieffer's framing of abortion as a judicial issue, common ground and abortion reduction made it onto the national stage again last night -- and the focus groups loved it. Look at the overwhelmingly positive response from the dial group:

(H/T to Mara.)

Posted by Dan at 09:38 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

A conservative anti-abortion group is distributing voter guides, designed to look like official Catholic church materials, that include the false claim that "endorsing, support, or voting for Obama in the 2008 Presidential election flagrantly violates Catholic teaching."

According to the National Catholic Reporter, the brochure's creator meant the resemblance to the Bishops' document to be "comic relief." Well, this Catholic isn't laughing.

I have no problem with those who might disagree with me politically arguing their case. I do, however, have a problem with them distorting the teachings of my church for partisan purposes.

The brochure from Operation Rescue claims that official teachings of the Catholic Church require voting for a "pro-life" candidate above a "pro-choice" candidate in all cases, with neither consideration for other issues , such as war, poverty or the death penalty, nor appeals to one's personal conscience, allowed

The brochure's logic:

These other issues can be extrinsic evils, but they are not greater than or even equal to the intrinsic evils of abortion and euthanasia.Our consciences are not ours to form as we think best; they must be formed by the Laws of God and the teachings of the Church, not personal political preference.

Randall Terry, the author of the brochure and a noted extremist, should listen to his own advice. Of course a faithful Catholic should take into account Church teaching when forming her conscience. Maybe that's why the Bishops put out a document called "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship."

The Bishops' document reveals a much more complex (and accurate) picture of Catholic teaching than is convenient for Mr. Terry's purposes. On the one hand, they agree that issues of abortion and euthanasia are different in kind from other moral issues. On the other hand, they explicitly do not say that one must always vote for the anti-abortion candidate. In fact, the Bishops explicitly criticize using the issue of abortion to ignore other pressing moral concerns:

Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life
and dignity:

The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.

The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act.

These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues.

Debates about the common good and how it relates to voting are good and healthy. It is important to hear from Church leaders, laypeople, liberals and conservatives. Different perspectives enhance the public debate. Lies and distortion don't.

For an example of a much better independent Catholic voting guide, checkout Vote the Common Good.

Posted by Beth Dahlman at 11:28 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

For my money, some of the strongest journalism on faith and spirituality comes from Krista Tippett's radio show, Speaking of Faith. Recently, Tippett has explored the political party-faith relationship in a two-part series called "The Faith Life of the Party." Pt. 1 is a conversation with Time Magazine's Amy Sullivan.,

Despite CW that the Obama/McCain race has signaled a shift in which party is most comfortable talking about faith, Among other things, Amy says Sarah Palin highlights a religious double-standard in politics, and Democrats still face a "very high bar" to prove they are "authentic people of faith."

For example, see the questions that still surround Obama's faith despite the comfort he's shown in speaking at Call to Renewal in 2006, the Compassion Forum during the primaries, and the Saddleback Forum in August. Meanwhile, within hours of being selected, Gov. Palin was accepted as a member of the Religious Right without ever calling herself an evangelical or referring to her faith on the campaign trail.

Amy attributes the double standard to three culprits: the Religious Right, religious Democrats who "drew back into the shadows," and journalists who embraced the stereotypes. I think that pretty well covers it.

Posted by adanielsen at 10:09 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

All politics is local: one of the great truisms in American public life. In the new issue of Religion in the News, Mark Silk shows that when it comes to faith and presidential campaigns, it's all regional.

Since 2001, Mark's been part of a project examining the role of faith in eight separate regions of the U.S. The series has displayed ways in which regional attitudes toward faith affect presidential races. This time around, he concludes that "every regional religious culture with the exception of New England has helped shape the outlooks of the four politicians running for national office."

Mark classifies McCain's interaction with faith as typical of the "the competing impulses that beset" the Southwest (unfocused when it comes to faith: loyal when it comes to his church yet unable to embrace the "moral values agenda). Obama, he labels a "hybrid character," whose faith story reflects his diverse upbringing and ultimately a Midwestern sense of community and pluralism.

Mark also identifies the VP candidates as products of their regions. Joe Biden comes from the mid-Atlantic, "a place where individuals understand themselves as belonging to one or another swatch of an ethno-religious tapestry made more worthwhile by the presence of others" while Sarah Palin's "public career reflects the kind of tension" that comes from practicing Southern-fried evangelicalism in a largely unchurched, frontier state.

The big question, as Mark sees it, is

How the presidential race turns out will, as in the past, open the door to regional religious influences. Will it be a libertarian/evangelical ethos out of the West, or a species of Midwestern communitarianism? And how, after eight years of George Bush’s Southern Crossroads, will the country react?

Having lived in all of these areas, I'm especially curious.

Posted by adanielsen at 11:14 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Commenting on Nate Silver's new electoral modeling which singles out Southern Baptists as responding distinctively to the economic crisis, Andrew Sullivan speculates that it doesn't matter to them:

...The reason the economy is playing differently among Southern Baptists may surely be that many are voting primarily on religious, cultural and theological grounds.

The economy is irrelevant compared with religious identity. What this campaign may be doing is stripping most secular Republicans and independents from the GOP coalition...

I don't think so. According to The Young and the Faithful, which we released yesterday, white evangelicals rated the economy and energy as more important issues than abortion and same-sex marriage, and only 35 percent said they would not vote for a candidate who disagreed with them on abortion. On the other hand, a strong majority of white evangelicals favored a smaller government providing fewer services to a larger government providing more services [despite a 20-point generation gap between younger evangelicals (18-35) and their elders].

It's fair to wonder what degree of overlap there is between Nate's Southern Baptists and our white evangelicals, but considering that Southern Baptists are by far the largest evangelical protestant denomination, and that no research suggests they are politically distinct minority subculture within white evangelicalism, we're probably dealing with similar bodies here.

I'm not saying that "religious identity" has nothing to do with Southern Baptists' distinct response to the economy, but another important factor to consider is bedrock economic assumptions among evangelicals 35 and over. At the 2007 Values Voters' Summit, Richard Land extolled the benefits of tax cuts for the rich and equated progressive taxation with socialism, and the mostly middle-aged crowd around me responded as though it was gospel truth. To say that economics is irrelevant misses the fact that many conservative evangelicals just believe "limited government" and supply-side economics work.

it's encouraging that this belief has less sway among the young.

Posted by Dan at 02:33 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

We just released the results of a new poll providing a groundbreaking look at the faith and political views of young people in the 2008 election cycle. Sponsored by Faith in Public Life and conducted by Public Religion Research, the The Faith and American Politics Survey is a large national survey with an unprecedented over sample of Americans ages 18-34.

The results of the survey are based on telephone interviews with a representative sample of 2,000 American adults and a large over sample of younger adults (18-34). The young adult sample size was 1,250 and included both land line and cell phone interviews. The survey was conducted under the supervision of Opinion Access Corp August 28 - September 19, 2008.

Download the audio from our press conference (attached upper right) to listen to commentary on the results from Dr. Robby Jones, Amy Sullivan and Michael Lindsay.

The poll’s results are analyzed in a new report, The Young and the Faithful which finds that:

• Monthly worship attenders swing to Obama in 2008. The greatest shift in candidate preference between 2004 and 2008 has occurred among voters who attend religious services once or twice a month, moving from 49% support for Kerry in 2004 to 60% support for Obama in 2008. McCain maintains a significant advantage among voters who attend more frequently, while Obama has a nearly identical advantage over McCain among those who attend less than a few times a month or never.

• More Americans think Obama is friendly to religion than McCain. Forty-nine percent of Americans say Obama is friendly to religion, while 45% say McCain is friendly to religion. More than seven-in-ten (71%) say it is important for public officials to be comfortable talking about religious values.

• Young first-time voters are heavily supporting Obama. Among young first-time voters, who make up close to one-third of this age group (ages 18-34), more than seven-in-ten (71%) support Obama, compared to slightly more than half (53%) of young voters who have voted in previous elections.

• Younger Catholics more strongly support Obama, abortion rights, and more active government than older Catholics. While older Catholics (age 35 and older) are split between the candidates (46% for McCain and 44% for Obama), among younger Catholics Obama leads McCain by 15 points (55% to 40%). Six-in-ten younger Catholics say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared to half of older Catholics. Younger Catholics are more pro-government than any other religious group, with two-thirds preferring bigger government with more services, compared to 41% support among older Catholics.

• Younger white evangelicals strongly oppose abortion rights but are less conservative and more supportive of same-sex marriage than older evangelicals. Young white evangelicals are strongly opposed to abortion rights, with two-thirds saying abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. Yet, less than a majority (49%) of younger evangelicals identify as conservative, compared to nearly two-thirds (65%) of older evangelicals. Among young evangelicals, a majority favor either same-sex marriage (24%) or civil unions (28%), compared to a majority (61%) of older evangelicals who favor no legal recognition of gay couples’ relationships.

• Younger white evangelicals are more pluralistic and more supportive of active government at home and of diplomacy abroad. While less than one-third (30%) of older evangelicals say a person can be moral without believing in God, 44% of younger evangelicals affirm this idea, a 14-point gap. A majority (56%) of younger evangelicals believe diplomacy rather than military strength is the best way to ensure peace, compared to only 44% of older white evangelicals. Younger white evangelicals are also more likely than older white evangelicals to favor a bigger government offering more services, by a margin of 21 points (44% and 23% respectively).

• Americans say economy, energy and gas prices, and health care are the most important issues in 2008.Americans rank the economy (83%) and energy/gas prices (76%), and health care (71%) as the most important issues in the 2008 election. Economic issues topped the list of most important issues among all religious groups.

• Americans rank abortion and same-sex marriage as the least important issues in 2008. Only 43% and 28% respectively say these issues are very important issues to their vote in 2008. White evangelicals do not rank abortion or same-sex marriage in their top five most important voting issues.

• Americans see room for common ground in abortion debate. A majority (53%) of Americans believe political leaders can work to find common ground on abortion while staying true to their core beliefs, including majorities of white mainline Protestants (59%), Catholics (55%), and the unaffiliated (52%).

• Generation gap on same-sex marriage is large and increasing. Nearly half (46%) of young adults say gay couples should be allowed to marry, compared to only 29% of Americans overall. Over the last two years, support for same-sex marriage among young adults has jumped 9 points (from 37% to 46%), and the generation gap has nearly doubled.

• Support for same-sex marriage is significant among young religious Americans. Among young white mainline Protestants and Catholics, close to half (48% and 44% respectively) support same-sex marriage. Young white evangelicals are 2.5 times as likely as older evangelicals to say that gay couples should be allowed to marry (25% to 9%).

• Addressing religious liberty concerns strongly increases support for same-sex marriage. When respondents were provided with an assurance that “no church or congregation would be required to perform marriages for gay couples,” support for same-sex marriage increased by 14 points in the general population and among younger adults.

• Young adults prefer larger government that provides increased services. Nearly six-in-ten (57%) young adults say they prefer a larger government providing more services rather than a smaller government providing fewer services. Among Americans as a whole, less than half (45%) want bigger government. The generation gap is evident among every religious tradition. Two-thirds (67%) of younger Catholics say they prefer bigger government, and younger white evangelicals are 21 points more likely than older evangelicals to support larger government (44% to 23% respectively).

Posted by Dan at 11:24 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Agenda-setting theory, in a nutshell, is this -- the media can't control what you say, but it can control what you talk about. Debates are agenda-setting writ large. For 90 minutes, a very few people decide what topics the candidates will talk about in front of millions of viewers. There is great power in that. So, given the electorate's justifiable concern with economic issues and the media's understandable if not laudable preoccupation with the race's day-to-day blow-by-blow, I find it heartening that two consecutive debates have had questions about genocide in Darfur. Framing the discussion around US military intervention surely gives short shrift to the nuanced approach Darfur demands, but forcing the candidates to talk about this issue that isn't at the top of The National Agenda seems to me like a self-evident good. If nothing else, it builds a bridge from the activist community to the public at large and helps us keep Darfur from slipping off of the national radar.

Posted by Dan at 10:55 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

The Center For American Progress did a roundup of faith leaders' statements, blog posts and actions in response to the economic crisis:

The meltdown of global financial markets is more than an economic crisis. It is also a moral crisis that exposes the fatal flaws of unfettered capitalism and rebukes the worship of free-market forces whose excesses are having brutal consequences for everyday Americans.

As politicians and economists offer proposals for what should be done, religious leaders and communities are speaking out as well. They are criticizing the immoral culture of greed and lack of regulation that led to this crisis. They are providing assistance for those in need. And they are offering a prophetic voice for economic justice and the common good, as evidenced by the sampling of responses that follow.

Recommended.

Posted by Dan at 04:07 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Tonight's "town hall" presidential debate comes at a moment of high acrimony in the campaign. Speaking for myself, a few weeks ago I thought surely, surely, we'd seen the worst, but it was just a foretaste of the feast to come.

So it's a particular relief that tonight's questions will come mostly from audience members who do something other than gossip about the presidential campaign for a living. Since the pre-primary debates, time and again we've seen better questions from audiences than moderators or pundits. (With obvious exceptions, of course.)

Granted, the network gets to choose who asks the questions, and followups aren't allowed, but it's still likely to be a different universe of questions than we'd get from a pundit-only panel. I doubt any faith leaders will get airtime, but a person can hope. I'm picturing clergy in garb stepping up with a call for repentance for false witness. Won't happen, but it's fun to indulge the fantasy for a minute.

I can't promise a full-fledged liveblog, but I'll at least have some post-debate comment.

Posted by Dan at 02:05 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

From the department of provocative headlines: "Maybe We Should Blame God for the Subprime Mess."

And from the department of serious questions, the article -- by Time's David van Biema -- asks what role prosperity theology has in the mortgage crisis.

Prosperity theology's tenet that "God will 'make a way' for poor people to enjoy the better things in life," and its emphasis on upbeat faith as a key to material bounty seem conducive to a less-than-cautious approach to borrowing, and David quotes prosperity theology expert Professor Jonathan Walton saying “prosperity theology ha[s] developed an additional, dangerous expression during the subprime-lending boom."

Namely, belief that divine intervention rather than bad banking policy was delivering home loans to borrowers with bad credit scores.

However Walton also thinks the theology can be "empowering to those who've seen themselves as financially or even culturally useless," and that, "in some cases the philosophy has matured with its practitioners, encouraging good financial habits and entrepreneurship.”

Seems like the system and the culture as a whole, not just the Prosperity Gospel, need to mature.

Posted by Kristin at 02:59 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (2)

Kudos to Gwen Ifill for asking questions about Darfur and climate change at last night's debate. Darfur in particular was a pleasant surprise. It's very easy to let the genocide fade from the campaign as it falls out of the news and economic anxiety mounts, so putting it on the agenda for a nationally televised debate was an important and deliberate decision. Notice the streaming line graph at the bottom of the screen gauging approval ratings among undecided voters -- they respond overwhelmingly to the call for action to stop the slaughter.

Next week, let's have some questions about climate change as a moral issue. The policy questions are most important, but these debates are also a teachable moment for the American public about climate change's catastrophic, disproportionate impact on the world's most vulnerable people.

Posted by Dan at 11:20 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

So today's meme about the financial crisis seems to be "blame the consumer." Andrew Sullivan attributes it to "rank greed and irresponsibility from ordinary Americans on a massive scale," George Will blames "households [that] decided that it would be jolly fun to budget the way government does," and Tony Perkins says Americans' values trickled up to Wall Street.

This fits in with a worldview whose primary unit of analysis is the individual rather than the system, which implicitly excuses misuse of power. Personal responsibility has to be a factor in assigning blame and turning things around, but people do not make bad choices in a vacuum, and focusing primarily on defaulted borrowers reeks of scapegoating.

My brother, who along with my father owns a real estate title agency, processes more than 50 foreclosures per week. He said they fall into two categories -- people who bought multiple investment properties as the bubble peaked, and first-time homebuyers with adjustable rate (ie, subprime) mortgages, which are often taken out with no down payment. The latter make up a large majority of his defaults, so let's focus on them.

These mortgages are basically lemons. They only make sense under the assumption that income and property values will continue to increase in perpetuity and lenders will refrain from raising interest rates. Should borrowers understand that? Sure.

Should lenders whose job it is to understand mortgages be held accountable for selling them to people who pretty clearly can't afford them? Yes. (If you think the sales dynamic is a buyer demanding a loan they can't afford and a conflicted broker reluctantly assenting, perhaps I could interest you in a subprime.)

Should the barons of Wall Street who treated these unbacked notes like sure profit be punished for playing fast and loose with oure entire financial system? Definitely.

I don't wish to strip consumers of all agency here, but where there is asymmetry of information and money (in other words, power), there should be asymmetry of blame. Sticking primary responsibility on consumers' greed is a power-coddling cop-out. Avarice, recklessness and ignorance fueled this crash, but don't tell me it was some grassroots movement of borrowers rising up to demand untenable loans. Fasttalking marketers exploited ignorance and encouraged irresponsibility, getting obscenely rich while wreaking a crisis that would not have happened without them. They knew (or were professionally negligent in not knowing) that they were trading in lemons. Find me a Scriptural rationale for letting those people off the hook and saving our rebuke for those who have lost their homes. Please.

Posted by Dan at 02:00 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (3)