The news is that that Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama will "make their first joint 2008 campaign appearance to an audience of Christian activists at a Southern Baptist church. "

Here's Joel Hunter, "senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, in Longwood, Florida, and author of A NEW KIND OF CONSERVATIVE, talks to PBS' Religion & Ethics program about religion's role in the 2008 presidential election and the political and religious interests of a new generation of young evangelicals."

According to the Associated Baptist Press,

The presidential candidates have agreed to participate in a "compassion forum" at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif. on August 16. Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, extended the invitation. Warren will moderate the forum, which will focus on moral-values issues -- such as poverty, the environment and global AIDS relief -- in which many centrist and younger evangelicals have taken an increasing interest.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 03:19 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

We've come a long way in just four years.

For me, the 2004 election cycle was a painful experience. As a Catholic, I was deeply frustrated by the way partisan political operatives reduced my church's rich and diverse social tradition to a small set of so-called "non-negotiable" issues.

This year feels much different thanks in large part to events like this weekend's Convention for the Common Good in Philadelphia.

I was blessed to have been part of this gathering of over 800 Catholic activists committed to reclaiming their role as faithful citizens.

I could go on and on about my experience at the Convention--which was led by NETWORK (disclosure: I sit on the board of the NETWORK Education Program) and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good--but what struck me most was the spirit of hope and empowerment that permeated the entire weekend.

As we affirmed the Platform for the Common Good (itself the product of months of preparation and community engagement) I lost any last doubts I still might have had that this year would be different, better. Being with that community this weekend and participating in the rituals of faith-filled democracy had an almost sacramental quality. I know that this year, Catholic voters will find the grace to stand up for the fullness of our faith tradition against those who would confine it to a simple partisan agenda.

Of course, being Catholic, we know that it takes more than a great document to make real change. It also takes works, er, work.

With this in mind, the Convention for the Common Good birthed votethecommongood.com, an online hub for organizing around the platform complete with a form to endorse it and many other ways to take action.

Posted by Beth Dahlman at 10:06 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (4)

At last week's Denver huddle where "about 100 conservative Christian leaders from around the country agreed to unite behind the candidacy of John McCain, a politician they have long distrusted," a document boldly titled "Declaration of American Values" was also birthed. Its thesis:

It is imperative that people of strong Biblical faith stand in unity to affirm the core consensus values that do serve as the basis of America's greatness.

With that in mind, the drafters affirmed 10 values ranging from the sanctity of human life and traditional marriage to gun rights and the perils of progressive taxation.

But, in reading through the accounts, I've been hard-pressed to find names of more than about 20 individuals involved. Though you can see the document on various websites, there appears to be no public list of its signatories.

Is this grand declaration a portrait of any new Evangelical leaders' worldview, or is it just a repackaging of ideas from the old guard? Right now, it's impossible to tell. Until more information is released, the meeting and its product resembles one of the smoke-filled rooms where political bosses used to make their decisions (though, in this case, I'm sure the room was smoke-free).

Compare this with two other recent declarations: An Evangelical Manifesto and An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture, both of which allow the curious to read their full lists of John and Jane Hancocks.

The Declaration of American Values ends with the phrase: “We hereby pledge our names, our lives, and our sacred honor to this Declaration of American Values.” Shouldn't they make such a solemn pledge in public?

Posted by adanielsen at 11:16 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

A new survey of evangelical leaders suggests that choosing a candidate for this group is not about party, not about any single issue -- but foremost, about character and conviction.

While many respondents specifically mentioned judicial appointments; compassion for the poor, and opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage as issues important to their vote, the leading answer to the poll question, “How do you decide which candidate to vote for?” was summarized this way:

“Policy proposals by candidates are likely to run into all kinds of snags—legislative, bureaucratic, judicial and regulatory. Don’t expect that a candidate can really deliver on most promises. But, the virtues and character strengths that a candidate has developed will remain constant. Indeed, those character strengths may be intensified by opposition. So judge a candidate on character as much or more than on policy proposals.”

National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson's reflection on the survey results -- “I couldn’t guess which way many [evangelicals] will vote” -- is consistent with recent polls and evidence indicating that the evangelical vote is "very much up for grabs" this year (as John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life puts it).

Caring most about character sounds pretty consistent with the American population as a whole. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll last year found that 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.

More evidence from the front that it may well be time to stop stereotyping evangelicals and start focusing more on our shared values.

Continue reading "Character, Not Culture War" »

Posted by Katie at 10:07 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Much ink has been spilled and plenty of research done about white evangelical, Catholic and Jewish voters' swing potential this year. Now, a closer look at last month's study from Calvin College's Henry Institute turns up another religious demographic that's breaking away from their traditional voting habits -- mainline protestants (a group historically tilted toward the GOP).

According to the study, 46 percent identify as Democrats and 37 percent say they're Republicans. It's the first time more mainliners have identified with the Democratic party since the New Deal (that's a big deal).

And this has not been a knee-jerk, election year reaction to Obama's use of some Jesus words. A recent Christian Century piece identifies mainliners' steady "slippage" from the Republican ranks. John Dart notes that through 2000, half of mainline Protestants saw a Republican in the mirror but by 2004, the GOP's advantage had slimmed down to 44-38.

For an explanation, Dart looks to Calvin's Corwin Smidt, who says "Social justice issues and the Iraq war might have been the major influences for change by centrist mainline Protestants."

Dart notes some historical context, as well:

Mainline churches were known for having activist leaders who called for change in the social revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s, and in later years brought more women into leadership and struggled with gay issues. "The leadership and clergy acted as the vanguard in the prophetic mode," said Smidt, "and maybe over the years this might have had some impact."

For years, members of the Religious Right have used wedge issues in an attempt to paint protestants into a conservative corner. Looks like the strategy is wearing off.

Posted by adanielsen at 02:31 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Yesterday, we gathered a few reactions to Obama's faith-based initiative rollout in Ohio. Responses keep coming in -- here are a few of the most interesting:

Jim Wallis seems to share David Kuo and John DiIulio's guarded optimism. (Wallis was involved with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives before his opposition to the Iraq War rendered him persona non grata.)

Wallis appreciates Obama's "robust vision" and expresses a desire that future efforts don't "get mired in the endless political debates of the past while God's concerns for the weak and vulnerable get ignored," as happened when the Bush administration politicized the office.

A few others from the Beliefnet blogging tree weighed in:
Dan Gilgoff points out the Family Research Council seizing the chance to reiterate its displeasure with Obama's stance on same-sex marriage. Imagine my surprise.

Rod Dreher also explores the same-sex marriage angle, speculating that "the only churches, synagogues, etc., that would be eligible to receive federal funds would be those that have abandoned traditional teaching on homosexuality."

Taking a broader perspective are Beliefnet's Steven Waldman and The New Republic's Damon Linker. While Linker was personally "disappointed" with Obama, he sees a possible evangelical bump:

"Is it possible that the Democratic nominee for president in 2008 is the better Christian candidate? That is the question Obama's speech attempted to plant in the minds of evangelicals voters."

Waldman points out how Obama's community organizing experience could go a long way in shaping his initiative. He also lists three main benefits a faith-based plan provides the candidate:
1. Appeal to evangelicals.
2. Inevitable attacks from the left: "It provides Obama a low-cost way of showing himself not to be a standard-issue liberal (whatever that means these days)."
3. A chance to rebut all those accusations of elitism: "Obama may not be able to bowl, but he sure can pray. And he can't possibly be a Harvard elitist if he's a Man of Faith. Can he?"

No doubt there will be countless more reactions ranging from "how dare he?" to "how daring!" The devil or (in this case) the g-o-d is, as always, in the details. Between now and November, it will be fascinating to see how Obama's ideas take shape (in terms of policy) and take root (with voters, religious and secular).

Posted by adanielsen at 11:45 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Two experts, TIME's Amy Sullivan (an evangelical) and journalist Mark Stricherz (a Catholic), discuss faith and politics in the 2008 election.

Addressed:

• How many votes can Obama’s religious rhetoric gain him? (06:40)


• Did McCain shoot himself in the foot with Catholics? (03:46)


• The Obama-Dobson smackdown (03:23)


• Is abortion still a big deal to Catholics? (07:24)


• Mark tells Obama to find an anti-feminist Souljah moment (05:13)


• Which VP picks could sway religious voters? (06:44)

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 03:02 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Barack Obama appeared at Eastside Community Church in Zanesville, Ohio, to announced his plan for involving faith groups in social services. Predictably, reactions have been mixed and have, so far, fallen into a few categories:

Been there, but never got to do that: Perhaps the two most germane commentaries came from John DiIulio and David Kuo, both dissatisfied former heads of Bush's faith-based office.

DiIulio referred to Obama's "principled, prudent, and problem-solving vision" and said the nominee's ideas reminded him of "much that was best in both then Vice President Al Gore's and then Texas Governor George W. Bush's respective first speeches on the subject in 1999."

"Many good community-serving initiatives can be built, expanded, or sustained on the common ground that Senator Obama has staked out for us here," he added.

Kuo, according to the AP, "called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver."

When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy, said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. The question is commitment.

Putting it all in perspective: Beliefnet's Dan Gilgoff called Obama's vision "significant " and said that "In effect, he's out-Bushing George W. Bush in one of the President's specialty areas--connecting faith and public policy."

Mother Jones' Jonathan Stein said the plan lacked detail and speculated that "[t]here's no reason to suspect that Obama's outreach to evangelicals is insincere, but that doesn't mean I can't point out that it's also politically advantageous. (Translation: This isn't necessarily a pander, but it has the effects of one.)"

And Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report compares Obama to Bush: "By all appearances, Obama’s vision is consistent with what Bush’s plan would have been, if Bush cared about constitutional law, the interests of taxpayers, the rights of families in need, and the integrity of religious institutions."

No surprises: Tapped's Tim Fernholz calls Obama's "religious outreach...an organic part of his ideology" while Ben Smith over at Politico writes that "Obama's planned speech today on strengthening government support for religion isn't really a move at all, just an emphasis on a stance he's always held that got less attention in the primary."

Two sides of the same worried coin: Citing disparate reasons, several bloggers expressed definite concern. Dr. Bruce Prescott at Mainstream Baptist compares "promoting faith-based initiatives" to "skating on thin ice" and says Obama's plan would "simply be a different form of religion being blessed by the President in the public square."

Over at Street Prophets, Pastor Dan isn't sold, pointing to a high price tag, Kuo's support and the furthering of "a potent stream of patronage" as sure signs of trouble.

Finally, the it's-all-good response: Rev. Chuck Currie of the UCC, an Obama endorser, points to Obama's promise not to make Bush's mistakes and lauds him for the "willingness to address poverty so directly and to look outside the box for answers to America’s most pressing problems."

CBN's David Brody sees today's speech as part and parcel of an approach to faith that has consistently outpaced John McCain's. Looking at it from a local perspective, Brody says: "what’s really not to like if you’re a religious institution looking to help in the community? If Obama’s plan goes according to plan, they’ll be more money for the taking and a better and more effective way to access it. Sounds like a deal."

What'll day 2 bring?

Posted by adanielsen at 05:00 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

"A short film highlighting the work of Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR). Rabbis for Human Rights-North America was founded in 2002 by a group of American rabbis inspired by the work of Israeli rabbis committed to defending the human rights of all people in Israel and in the territories under Israeli control: Israelis and Palestinians, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, young and old, rich and poor, citizens and foreigners. RHR-North America is the only rabbinic association in North America dedicated to human rights for all and which represents more than 1,000 rabbis of every Jewish denomination across the U.S. and Canada."

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 09:30 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

The strains of Woody Guthrie’s “Christ for President” echoed through the sanctuary of D.C.’s Calvary Baptist Church Friday night, setting the tone for a powerful evening of words, worship and activism-- a "theological circus," as dubbed by ringleader Shane Claiborne who, along with co-author Chris Haw and a host of skilled musicians, made a stop there on their Jesus for President book tour.

Shane and Chris are upstarts even by the standards of upstart evangelicals. The media often focuses on Shane's most radical features: his dreadlocks, the "intentional" Christian community in Philadelphia where he lives, his vegetable oil-powered van.

Yet, the most radical aspect of Friday’s gathering was the vision laid out for a new way of political engagement. It is a vision based on the teachings of Jesus and the subversive ways in which the first Christian churches interacted with the Roman empire.

Shane and Chris are fine representatives for a growing generation of evangelicals who refuse to be typecast as conventional political actors. Trading in wedge issues for a focus on poverty, peace and the environment, they are basing their actions on spiritual teachings, not the directives of old-guard leaders or the Religious Right.

They long to see Christians place their faith in the front seat, the state in the back. They want a faith no longer co-opted and changed into some extreme form of nationalism. A political climate stripped of bitterness and partisan hostility (As Shane said Friday night, one thing he's learned from liberals and conservatives is that you can have all the right political answers and still be mean).

The pair also offered some of the most beautiful, stirring calls to non-violence I’ve ever heard. They spoke of soldiers and ordinary citizens, motivated by faith to reject the myth of redemptive violence and change their communities through love. Hearing their stories, I couldn't help but feel a sense of connection to peace activists of generations past.

Shane, Chris and their "theological circus" are modeling a faith marked by serious intellectual/theological engagement and practical acts of love. From what I saw and heard Friday night, there is much reason to hope that young evangelicals will continue to be guided by love and devotion, rather than by tired, unfeeling rallying cries.

Posted by adanielsen at 02:06 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

The Center for American Progress released a new book, Debating the Divine
Religion in 21st Century American Democracy, arguing for some fresh approaches on religion in American public life.

David Hollinger, the Preston Hotchkis Professor of American History at the University of California, Berkeley, argues in his essay for a strong civic sphere in which democratic national solidarity and civic patriotism trump all religious loyalties. He asserts that religious ideas are too often given a pass and argues that they be critically scrutinized.

Eboo Patel, a scholar and activist who founded the Interfaith Youth Core, calls in his essay for the vigorous participation of religion in public life, founded on principles of religious pluralism. He argues that religious voices, in all their particularity, have a legitimate and important role to play in public debate. And he spells out ways in which interfaith collaboration is strengthening civic and political institutions.

Melissa Rogers examines how the tradition of religious freedom can help define the role of religion in current civic debates. Melissa Rogers serves as visiting professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University Divinity School. She previously served as the executive director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life in Washington, D.C. Previous to her leadership at the Pew Forum, Rogers served as general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty based in Washington, D.C. In 2004, Rogers was recognized by National Journal as one of the church-state experts "politicians will call on when they get serious about addressing an important public policy issue."

The iconic public square where Americans of the past used to gather to debate the politics of the day is long gone from most cities and towns, but the spirited conversations that once defi ned these places—both in myth and fact—are alive and well today. The topics of our current political and cultural conversations range from the mundane to the profound, but a recurring theme has to do with religion and politics—in particular, whether religion should be a force shaping our public policies and our common civic life.

Of course, this is not a new conversation. Contrasting views about the role of religion in public life predate our nation’s birth—from the Massachusett s Bay Colony, where officials collected taxes to support the Puritan church and compelled att endance at its services, to the Founders who disestablished religion from the state and drafted the Constitution without mention of God.

In recent years, these conversations have been heating up. Invectives fly back and forth as opponents stake out mutually exclusive claims on behalf of truth, fairness, and the American way. Listening to each side, one is hard-pressed to tell whether we are a God-saturated, intolerant, anti-intellectual theocracy—or a severely secular nation that punishes the practice of religion and banishes God altogether from our laws, policies, and public life.

Debating the Divine: Religion in 21st Century American Democracy aims to turn down the heat and turn up the light. Because the issue of religion in public life is complex, encompassing theory, history, and practice, we purposely did not set up a narrowly-focused debate in which each side shot at the other, and the side with the fiercest arguments and most adherents won. Instead, we have chosen to examine the many facets of the issue in a thoughtful way, in hopes of finding new insights and, perhaps, common ground.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 01:33 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

The Fidel "Butch" Montoya, blogging at the Latino Evangelical, writes:

One of the biggest concerns about the news media covering religious news and issues of Evangelicals revolves around the central fact of who actually represents the point of view of this large diverse group.

The on-going controversy and questions as to whether the Religious Right is dead or is irrelevant to the issues of the 2008 Presidential election continues to generate more questions and interest in the mainstream news media.

This election year we have seen a resurgence of new voices raising concerns and wanting to be heard. Many members of the Evangelical sector of the Church have tired of being aligned with the voices of the Religious Right and in particular of Rev James Dobson.

In Colorado, a diverse and cross cultural interfaith group of religious leaders are tired of being misrepresented by Dobson and his cohorts at Focus in the Family and have formed “We Believe Colorado.” We Believe Colorado has committed to work together on issues of common interest and to represent faith groups not aligned with the dying breed of the Religious Right leadership.

A question continually bought up, “Is why does the cable and network news media think that Rev. James Dobson speaks for the majority of religious and value voters?” That is one question We Believe Colorado can answer. Dobson and company do not speak for the new voices of religious leaders fighting for justice and righteousness and who have no interest in taunting our faith as a wedge issue.

Read More Here.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 10:24 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

The Weather Channel's Forecast Earth talks with Evangelical leaders about the "greening" of God's people. This 8 min. clip features Dr. Joel C. Hunter, author of "A New Kind of Conservative" (Regal) and senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed and Richard Cizik, governmental affairs director of the National Association of Evangelicals.

The June 30 New Yorker has an article (not online) by Frances FitzGerald on "The New Evangelicals: A growing challenge to the religious right."

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 09:07 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

In case you're still not convinced, there's more evidence today that people of faith have enough in common to come together at the table of public discourse and embrace their shared values.

So say data released in part two of the Pew Forum's monumental Religious Landscape Survey. First impressions of the results are good...there is ample encouragement for Americans who would use their faith to build bridges, rather than torch them.

On the following key points, researchers found agreement among most Americans as well as most religious groups (and if not a majority among all groups, at least a significant plurality):

62% of Americans "favor the government doing more to help needy Americans, even if it means going deeper in debt."

61% "say tougher environmental laws are worth the cost."

59% "say good diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace."

62% "reject the notion that religion causes more problems in society than it solves" while 68% are frustrated with the way our political system operates.

String these numbers together and what do you get? Solid evidence that Americans are tired of the politics of division, see religion as a force for good and agree on enough of the day's issues to move forward for the common good.

The study doesn't gloss over points of division--faithful Americans still disagree on issues like abortion and homosexuality--but we can take away hope in the knowledge that Americans from all backgrounds are hungry for new solutions and common ground.

Political and religious leaders, take note: we won't be divided as easily as in the past. A message to this year's candidates: leave the wedge issue politics behind, because the voters already have.

For more on results of the Pew Forum study, check out these sources of early coverage:

USA Today

Washington Post

New York Times

Associated Press

Posted by adanielsen at 12:46 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Here's that increasing meme. . .

Thanks to the AmericanNewsProject:

How solidly Republican will Christian evangelicals be in 2008? As the country enters the next phase in this historic election season, concern about the state of God's earth may be the issue that draws many believers into the Democratic camp.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 09:02 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Here's three short clips of Ray Suarez, senior correspondent for "The News Hour With Jim Lehrer" on PBS, discusseing the politics of faith in America in a special "Inside Media" program at the Newseum.

Sen. Obama's faith

Here he discussion religion in public life in the context of the polygamy case in New Mexico.

On Creation Care

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 02:08 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

In this video with Sally Quinn, Tim Russert discusses his childhood, faith, the Catholic Church, religion mixing with politics, and a life of service.

And over at On Faith, Timothy Shriver writes:

C.S. Lewis once wrote, “You have never met a mere mortal.” Those words came to me as soon as I heard of the sudden and heartbreaking death of Tim Russert. He was no mere mortal.

The last time I saw Tim Russert was just 10 days ago. He came up to me as I was talking to his sparkling wife, Maureen Orth, about the school in Colombia that bears her name and is the focus of her passion. Tim asked me about my uncle Ted, who’s fighting cancer. He told me that he’d written to Ted to express his support. “I wrote him,” he said, “and told him that I was praying for him with my wood bead rosary. I told him that nothing beats praying with the wood bead rosary.”

I’m not sure why, but on that particular day, I had my own wood bead rosary in my pocket, a rosary I’d bought in Nazareth last Christmas. As Tim spoke, my fingers were on the beads and I felt a rush of emotion and strength. I felt an immediate closeness to Tim and an immediate sense that my uncle was in God’s hands at that very moment. I could only smile.

I didn’t have any words. I simply pulled the rosary from my pocket, cupped it in my hands and showed it to Tim. He smiled. “You got it,” he said. And in the moment, I knew I did have “it.” And I knew he had “it” too.

Many things will be written about the greatness of this brilliant journalist in the days ahead, and many people knew him far better than I. But I hope amid all the political and journalistic wisdom, people will remember that Tim Russert was a man raised and steeped in faith—a faith that focused on service, a faith that is confident in God’s plan, and a faith dedicated to the love of peace and the work of justice.

Life was the race that was most important to Tim Russert and he won it by a landslide. It was no accident that he loved people, loved the pursuit of the common good we call politics, loved his family. After all, he loved God and prayed with a wood bead rosary.

Tim Russert was no mere mortal. May his wife Maureen and his son Luke be comforted in believing that the mother of God to whom he prayed was with him at the hour of his death. Amen.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 01:08 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

The poll reading gurus at FiveThirtyEight note a key demo shift. This lackluster appeal to the secular Americans, combined with David Brody's analysis of McCain's slow reach for faith voters seems like trouble.

According to Gallup, John McCain trails Barack Obama by 25 points among voters for whom religion is not "an important part of [their] daily life". McCain leads by 5 points among those who answer that question in the affirmative.

These sorts of numbers are generally described as a problem for the Democratic candidate. However, as Ruy Teixeira pointed out four years ago, if you had to pick a sign of this divide to be on, it might be on the side of the secular. That is because by almost all indicators, religious participation in the United States is decreasing. According to a Pew poll, 45 percent of Americans now completely agree with the statement that "prayer is an important part of my daily life", down from a peak of 55 percent in 1999. (There does appear to have a bit of a "God Bounce"/mini-revival in the mid-late 1990s -- not so much in the number of religious Americans, but in the activity and enthusiasm of those that do practice).

Moreover, the younger generation is less religious than the older generation. 19 percent of those born after 1977 say they are atheist or agnostic, as compared with 11 percent of Boomers (born 1946-1964), and 5 perecnt of pre-Boomers (born before 1946).

Barack Obama, of course, does need to at least hold his own among actively religious voters, who constitute 65 percent of the electorate according to Gallup. He is able to do so thanks to substantial support from African-American and Latino voters, while trailing McCain by 25 points among actively religious, non-Hispanic whites. Nevertheless, if these generational trends hold, then each year a coalition based on actively religious voters will become marginally less successful.

Of course, the religious right will reconstitute some sort of mobilization, but clearly, the indicators place McCain in the middle of something like a Malthusian-scissor faith effect.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 07:23 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

David Brody and Tony Perkins talk about McCain's faith outreach difficulties and Obama's recent visit with evangelical leaders.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 07:21 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

On Hardball, David Kuo and Tony Perkins discuss the politics of evangelical options in 2008.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 07:09 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

When The New York Times runs an A1 story and the Washington Post runs an op-ed on the same day about your campaign's struggles with evangelical voters, it's fair to say that the conventional wisdom is solidifying. An understated aspect of this alleged problem is that it's with conservative evangelicals.

To believe the CW, McCain must be heading straight off a cliff, about to be dashed on the rocks of failure to mobilize “the base.” Not so fast: This particular McCain-is-in-trouble argument is based on his rocky relationships with the usual suspects: Dobson. Hagee. “Agents of Intolerance.” Excuse me while I promptly insert my fingers in my ears and sing loudly. Over at Spiritual Politics, Mark Silk pokes a few much-needed holes in current assumptions about McCain and evangelicals. He writes:

“McCain's real trouble is with evangelical political leaders--with the Religious Right, understood as an organized movement. Those guys don't like him for much the same reason they don't like all this ‘broadening the agenda’ stuff: He, like it, tends to dull the sharp end of the wedge in the culture wars.”

Silk adds that Mike Huckabee struggled to gain traction with the Religious Right for the same reasons. McCain isn’t us vs. them enough to satisfy the premier figures of the movement, he says.

It’s true that these leaders have a great deal of influence and following. Yet, a great number of evangelicals see Dobson and Hagee as leaders of a Bizarro evangelicalism they can’t abide. Evangelicals who believe Dobson, et al. don’t get to cast votes as proxy for an entire, diverse group of people will go a long way in deciding what problems McCain does or doesn’t have.

The final story on how the dynamics of this historic race affect evangelicals is unlikely to be written until after the votes are cast. Clinging to the tired meme that as the old guard leaders goes, so go the faithful, ignores the host of factors that make 2008 such a unique year for evangelical voters.

Posted by adanielsen at 05:31 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

As we approach the general election campaign, looking back at the looong primary season suggests a great deal about what to expect between now and November. As the campaigns heated up in the fall, it didn't take long to see that, for better and for worse, religion would play a prominent role in the race. Since then it has been utilized, politicized and weaponized in ways that capture the better angels and base elements of our political culture, the shifting role of religious leaders in elections, and the broadening agenda associated with people of faith.

Lately we've been so steeped in pastoral perfidy that it's easy to forget about all the other faith and politics storylines of this primary season: religious prejudice hurting Romney and Obama; Catholic, Jewish and evangelical voters in play; the Religious Right edging toward disarray -- it's all been quite a drama. (Incidentally, that's almost a limerick.)

Over the summer and into the fall I'll be looking for most of these storylines to continue developing:

Jeremiah Wright will keep many a Swiftboat Veteran employed. The inefficacy of the Wright ads in North Carolina and Mississippi this spring won't stop 527 groups from trotting him out through the summer and fall.

Democratic religious outreach will rival the Republicans' 2004 efforts not only in scale but in sophistication (while differing in method).

McCain will figure out that there's more to courting white evangelicals than lining up a few big-name endorsers and saying "activist judges" over and over. Look for him to talk to them about compassion issues such as poverty and HIV/AIDS relief too.

When gay marriage turns out to be a flop as a wedge issue the religious right will embarass the hell out of itself with absurd spin the likes of which we've never seen.

Posted by Dan at 06:10 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Via TPM Election Central:

Posted by Dan at 02:09 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

In an addendum to yesterday's Wall Street Journal article about conservative Catholics being swing voters in '08, FoFPL and Catholics United exec. director Chris Korzen stopped by the Huffington Post to remind us of something the media had long forgotten: conservative Catholics have always been in play:

Contrary to popular belief, Bush didn't win Catholics in 2004 because of his positions on life and marriage. He won because of the Kerry campaign's inability to articulate a coherent message to Catholic swing voters, and because of an astoundingly sophisticated media and grassroots operation on the part of the Republican Party and allied "Catholic" organizations. As the party worked the phones and the doors, Catholic League president Donohue peppered Kerry with holier-than-thou invective (a cursory look at the Catholic League's 2004 press release headlines dispels any lingering doubt that the organization has become a front for the GOP), and an obscure group called Catholic Answers somehow found the money to distribute millions voting guides and full page USA Today ads advancing the manufactured theological notion that five "non-negotiable issues" trumped all the others at the polls.

The issues? Abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, human cloning, and euthanasia. Never mind war, poverty, the death penalty, or that whole loving your neighbor thing. Of course, none of these groups have any formal authority to speak on behalf of the Church institution - which, by the way, refused to endorse the right's message. But - with the help of a small handful of renegade or perhaps unsuspecting bishops - these partisan operatives nonetheless managed to fool a sizable bloc of Catholics into thinking that a vote for Kerry meant certain eternal damnation.

Posted by Dan at 03:20 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (2)

I wasn't expecting a faith angle to emerge on the Scott McClellan tell-all, but sure as the sun rises, here 'tis:

CBNNews.com - Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan says his Christian faith motivated him to learn from his mistakes and to write his controversial book about his days as press secretary.

Posted by Dan at 09:33 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Via Mark Silk at Spiritual Politics, the AP reports that Catholic voters are evenly split between Obama and McCain:

Polls this month show the Illinois senator leading McCain among women, running even with him among Catholics and suburbanites and trailing him with people over age 65. Results vary by poll for those without college degrees. And though Obama trails decisively with a group that has shunned him against Clinton — whites who have not completed college — he's doing about the same with them as the past two Democratic presidential candidates.

The story doesn't point to any particular poll, but taking it at face value it suggests that the Catholic vote has staying power as one of the top storylines heading toward November. Place your bets!

Posted by Dan at 02:40 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

Sam Harris and Chris Hedges engage in a debate over the role that religion and politics play in faith-based extremism.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 12:05 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

The Times' Caucus blog reports:

Mrs. Clinton’s choice of a place of worship Sunday morning surprised some Puerto Ricans, and has been discussed on local radio. On an island that is predominantly Roman Catholic, she ended up going to the Pavilion of Victory, an evangelical church in Hormigueros, in the southwest corner of the island.

Among those Protestant strivers, who had been worked into a state of enthusiasm by an hour of singing and dancing to rock and salsa-flavored hymns before her arrival, Mrs. Clinton obviously felt at home. She talked, in English and mostly without translation, not only of her political program, but also of her faith, and in terms that seemed to refer to her uphill struggle and recent difficulties.

She urged the congregation, for example, not to be “deterred by the setbacks that often fall into every life” and also said: “Do not fear to go forward, do not give up.”

“There isn’t anything we can’t do together if we seek God’s blessing and if we stay committed and are not deterred by the setbacks that often fall in every life.”

She added, “If I had listened to those who have been talking over the last few months, we would not be having this campaign in Puerto Rico today.”

A sign of changing religio-ethnic demographics? Check out the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference on CNN.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 12:43 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Will Wilkinson of The Cato Institute, talks about Jeff Sharlet's (NYU's Center for Religion and Media) book on The Family and the global impact of Christian Right free market manipulation.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 08:25 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Here's pretty damning evidence that the simplistic Right/Left polarization of the last generation was driven by Nixon-bred conservatives. According to another person from the inside, namely Pat Buchanan, the politicization of complicated moral issues was exploited for cheap electoral gain. In the May 26 New Yorker article,
The Fall of Conservatism, George Packer writes:

[Pat] Buchanan gave me a copy of a seven-page confidential memorandum—“A little raw for today,” he warned—that he had written for Nixon in 1971, under the heading “Dividing the Democrats.” Drawn up with an acute understanding of the fragilities and fault lines in “the Old Roosevelt Coalition,” it recommended that the White House “exacerbate the ideological division” between the Old and New Left by praising Democrats who supported any of Nixon’s policies; highlight “the elitism and quasi-anti-Americanism of the National Democratic Party”; nominate for the Supreme Court a Southern strict constructionist who would divide Democrats regionally; use abortion and parochial-school aid to deepen the split between Catholics and social liberals; elicit white working-class support with tax relief and denunciations of welfare. Finally, the memo recommended exploiting racial tensions among Democrats. “Bumper stickers calling for black Presidential and especially Vice-Presidential candidates should be spread out in the ghettoes of the country,” Buchanan wrote. “We should do what is within our power to have a black nominated for Number Two, at least at the Democratic National Convention.” Such gambits, he added, could “cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.”

The Nixon White House didn’t enact all of these recommendations, but it would be hard to find a more succinct and unapologetic blueprint for Republican success in the conservative era. “Positive polarization” helped the Republicans win one election after another—and insured that American politics would be an ugly, unredeemed business for decades to come.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 03:16 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

How does Sen. Obama's Christian outreach compares to other candidates? Remember the cross in Gov. Huckabee's campaign ad? Is it ok for Obama to use crosses in his advertising in Kentucky?

A discussion with the DLC's Harold Ford, Jr., former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, GOP strategist Mike Murphy, and Democratic strategist Bob Shrum.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 03:42 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

Over at Religion Dispatches, our friend Robby Jones has a terrific essay about the concurrent rise of progressive religious leaders and decline of the old religious right. (Seriously, I'm not just saying that because he has nice things to say about FPL.)

Walking us through some of the key examples, he takes us from the religious gridiron of Ohio to the national scene to the airwaves, he shows the right's waning fortunes on multiple fronts as progressive religious groups find their voices. It's impossible to clip a fully representative excerpt from such a broad essay, but this passage hits many key notes:

In the meantime, Ohio Christians clearly voiced their preference for a candidate that shared all their values rather than a candidate running on a narrow divisive platform of opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. Blackwell was handily defeated by Ted Strickland, a Methodist minister who stumped as a “Golden Rule Democrat” and who, as a senator, insisted on paying for his own health coverage as long as his constituents were not covered. According to the 2006 NEP exit polls, Strickland gained fourteen points among voters who attended religious services once per week or more, compared to support these voters gave Senator John Kerry in 2004. And voters, including a majority (fifty-one percent) of weekly church attenders, overwhelmingly supported a long-overdue ballot measure to increase the minimum wage.

Especially since 2006, I have been struck (and heartened) by the contrast in the energy, new ideas, and accomplishments among progressive religious groups and the flagging, tired efforts to trot out the same old lines among the religious right. Just two more examples hammer this point home. First, it is worth noting that the once-formidable Christian Coalition, founded in 1989, has virtually imploded. By 2006, its $26 million budget had shrunk to $1 million, and it was $2 million in debt; and its state chapters have been steadily folding or disassociating because the group has become so associated with a narrow, divisive agenda—an agenda of which Americans, including evangelical Americans, have grown weary.

Second, progressive religious voices have moved from being reactive to proactive. In 2004, progressives were on the defensive, having been largely caught off guard by the successful (and distorting) “values voter” campaign. Three of the largest groups on the religious right—the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), Focus on the Family (FOF) and its associated Family Research Council (FRC)—jointly launched this strategy as the “I Vote Values” campaign on April 15, 2004. This coalition effort involved mirrored websites, with SBC hosting ivotevalues.com and FOF/FRC hosting ivotevalues.org. The fact that progressives are still fighting off the misleading stereotypes of “values voters” in the media is testimony to that effort’s relative success.

Well worth a full read.

Posted by Dan at 11:07 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

Steven Waldman, of Beliefnet, and Peter Wehner, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, discuss Waldman's new book: Founding Faith and other topics in religion and politics.

Issues discussed:

• Steve’s new book, “Founding Faith” (10:46)
• Government funds for madrassas and Christian schools alike? (07:13)
• How politics sullies religion (12:22)
• Can Obama win over evangelicals? (06:24)
• Why evangelical leaders hate McCain (06:15)
• Thomas Jefferson: too theologically radical for today’s voters (02:37)

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 12:50 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Randall Balmer, Barnard College, and Jacques Berlinerblau, Georgetown University, share their expertise on the intersection of faith and politics in the United States, with specific reference to the current election cycle, moderated by Sondra Farganis, Director of the Wolfson Center for National Affairs.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 09:17 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

Pastor John Hagee has extended an olive branch to Catholics in the form of an apology letter addressed to Bill Donohue. Donohue--a lay person and self-appointed spokesman for the Catholic Church-- is likely to accept the apology and major media will report that Hagee's "Catholic problem" has been solved.

They shouldn't.

As a Catholic, I appreciate that Hagee took time to clarify his comments about my Church, but he didn't go far enough. Catholics talk a lot about forgiveness--we even have a pretty formalized process for it--and while I'm in no position to judge what's in Pastor Hagee's heart, his apology letter wouldn't fly in the confessional.

As a Catholic, I was taught that in order to receive forgiveness you have to 1) make a full confession and 2) mean it. Hagee's letter is unconvincing on both counts.

Absent from his apology was any sense of remorse for his appalling anti-gay and anti-Muslim statements. While the Catholic Church doesn't have a record of standing up for gay rights, it doesn't care much for hate speech or taking cheap shots at disadvantaged communities.

And while I'm doing my best to refrain from picking at the speck in Hagee's eye (Lord knows I have some planks in my own), I struggle with accepting Hagee's stated commitment to the "common good' and defending "the rights of the poor" as sincere.

For all his lip service to Catholic values, after watching this video -- in which, among other things, he says the unemployed can STARVE -- you'd be hard pressed to see how Hagee and Catholics share the same idea of the preferential option for the poor--a central component of Catholic Social Teaching.:

Hagee's letter might be good enough for Bill Donohue, a partisan operative who'll be more than happy to go back to attacking Democrats full-time, but it's not good enough for me.

While Catholics have been victims of bias and discrimination in the past, most contemporary anti-Catholic attacks (like Hagee's) tend to sound more nutty than truly threatening, so it was hard for me to get too worked up over Hagee's Reformation-era rants. Nonetheless, bigotry is bigotry.

While I pray for the grace to forgive John Hagee, I'll be thinking of my Muslim and GLBT brothers and sisters who still face the threat of violent hate-crimes and other discrimination every day.

They deserve an apology much more than me, and until they get one, this Catholic will still have a Hagee problem.

Posted by Beth Dahlman at 04:16 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

At the Washington Monthly, Kevin Drum writes:

We have, of course, all gotten inured to this over the past few decades. Frothing at the mouth about Muslims and gays and baby killers and Hurricane Katrina just seems like normal stuff from crazy right-wing white preachers. But it's not normal. It's crazy, and John McCain used to agree that it was crazy. But now there's an election coming up, so he's delighted to cozy up with lunatics like Parsley and John Hagee.

A couple of weeks ago, here's McCain on the stage in Ohio:

"I am very honoured today to have one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide, Pastor Rod Parsley....I am very grateful you are here."

"I do not believe that our nation can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam....I know that this statement sounds extreme. But I am not shrinking back from its implications The fact is that...America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed."

This isn't just some dumb campaign gotcha, either. Unlike Jeremiah Wright's egocentric blatherings, which got truckloads of attention but don't, in the end, really matter, this does. That's why I chose to link to al Jazeera's report about McCain's appearance with Parsley in Cincinnati even though lots of other news outlets covered it too. One of the biggest foreign policy challenges Barack Obama will face if he wins in November is the fact that a very large number of Muslims believe that the United States is not merely fighting terrorism, but is engaged in a war against Islam. And why wouldn't they? Rod Parsley says so, and one of our presidential candidates is willing to get up on a stage, shake his hand, and call him a "moral compass."

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 01:48 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

It looks like young, evangelical believers don't fit the MSM patterns of late.

Michael Dudley is the son of a preacher man.

He's a born-again Christian with two family members in the military. He grew up in the Bible Belt, where almost everyone he knew was Republican. But this fall, he's breaking a handful of stereotypes: He plans to vote for Democrat Barack Obama.

"I think a lot of Christians are having trouble getting behind everything the Republicans stand for," said Dudley, 20, a sophomore at Seattle Pacific University.

Dudley's disenchantment with the GOP isn't unique among young, devoutly Christian voters. According to a September 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 15 percent of white evangelicals between 18 and 29, a group traditionally a shoo-in for the GOP, say they no longer identify with the Republican Party. Older evangelicals are also questioning their traditional allegiance, but not at the same rate.

[snip]

Eugene Cho, a founder and lead pastor at Seattle's Quest Church, which caters to a predominantly under-35 crowd, urges young Christians to look beyond the two or three issues that have allowed Christians to be "manipulated by those that know the game or use it as their sole agenda."

"While the issue of abortion — the sanctity of life — must always be a hugely important issue, we must juxtapose that with other issues that are also very important," Cho wrote in his blog on faith and politics.

Polls have shown that young Christians aren't any less concerned about the "family values" issues that have traditionally driven Christians to the Republican camp. (In fact, a study by the Barna Group, an evangelical polling organization, shows young Christians are actually more conservative on abortion than their elders.) It's just that they're also concerned about issues such as social justice and immigration, issues traditionally associated with Democrats.

Judy Naegeli, 25, who works at a Christian philanthropy, says easy access to information about the world via social-networking sites, YouTube and blogs is the reason her generation is more concerned with social justice.

"It's changed our perspective. ... Each generation chooses their cause, and ours is AIDs in Africa, or poverty or social justice," she said.

Although there are exceptions, most of the students I know at Fuller Theological Seminary talk this way as well.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 08:09 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

At Swampland, Ana Marie Cox reports from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (Here with Bob Wright, she starts discussing it, before the video runs out.)

Here is her post: (I reproduced a few of her links, but you know where to get 'em).

Greetings from a dim conference room. Today's diversion from the beach was a presentation from Michael Lindsay in which he presented "eight myths about evangelicals." Lindsay is the author of "Faith in the Halls of Power," and had conducted some of academia's most thorough and sensitive research on evangelicalism. His "myths" are after the jump.

(This is an especially interesting set of statements in light of tomorrow's release of "An Evangelical Manifesto" at the National Press Club, which -- according to Lindsay -- seeks to clarify to the relationship of evangelicals to public life; specifically, to assert that politics is not the main locus of evangelicals' engagement with public life.)

DISCLAIMER: I'm presenting my notes from his presentation, not really commenting on them. I've tried to provide supplementary links where explanation seems helpful, but I don't necessarily hold these views myself or think of them as -- ahem -- canonical. I just thought readers might be interested in some of the latest academic research on this significant force in American culture, and politics. Think he's wrong? Pushback from the peanut gallery is welcome. (And I'll take them to Lindsay if clarification is needed and will, obviously, update if I -- or you -- find a problem in my own interpretation of his points.)

Evangelicals succeed because of conformity and unity. LINDSAY: Divisions about issues (such as globals warming) and priorities vary widely. He cited an example of how some churches have chosen to scale down pro-life activism -- which they fear might be fruitless in the short term -- and instead focus on eliminating or cracking down on pay-day lenders, an issue that is in their own backyards, that they can do something about, and that has just as strong a Biblical justification.

The 2004 election represents the pinnacle of evangelical political power. LINDSAY: In terms of lasting effect and ability to organize a wide coalition, the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act is a better example of the power that evangelicals wield.

There are king makers who can sway the entire movement. LINDSAY: The movement is full of strong personalities -- like James Dobson -- who have a national presence, but who cannot necessarily turn out people on the ground level. The strongest leaders are the pastors of major churches -- he cited Saddleback , Willow Creek and Redeemer as examples -- who can motivate people to real-world activism. "The movement has lots of strong leaders but weak national institutions."

The centers of evangelical power are where the national institutions are: Wheaton College, Colorado Springs, etc. LINDSAY: The centers of evangelical power are where all the other centers of power are for the rest of the culture: New York, Los Angeles, Washington, DC. What's more, these centers of power tend to culturally identify as "elite" just as much as they do "evangelical." Lindsay called them "cosmopolitan evangelicals" and said that they tend to reject the "signifiers" of "populist" evangelicals; he