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.

...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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When I found “Wall Street’s Woes come to Church", I thought my expectations were confirmed.

But the subtitle-- “Episcopalians consider new economic landscape, extend help to others"-- told a different story.

Mary Frances Schjonberg writes about new and evolving ministries that cater to the needs of those affected by the Wall Street crisis; churches like Trinity Church, (located at the corner of Wall Street and Broadway in lower Manhattan), which is now offering sessions on "Coping with Stress” and "Navigating Career Transitions.” Others offer job-seeking classes; all offered pastoral support and care for parishioners suffering from doubt and anxiety.

It’ll be interesting to see how else houses of worship respond. What’s yours done so far?

(Thanks to Jeff Weiss over at the Dallas Morning News religion blog for posting this article!)

Jewish Week editor and publisher Gary Rosenblatt examines the election through the lens of the holiday:

As we move toward the final days of the presidential campaign in a nation increasingly divided between Red and Blue, between opposing visions of how America should deal with its growing problems, domestic and foreign, what, if anything, do the High Holy Days teach us?

It’s an age-old challenge for religion, to link our soul-searching to our daily concerns. But in truth the theme of these Days of Awe, like that of this political season, is all about the need for and capacity to change — in this case, the challenge to take stock of our thoughts and actions and turn inward, not to escape reality but to better ourselves in responding to the trials of everyday life.

Judaism is about the here and now. Our sages spent little time postulating on the afterlife, focusing instead on mitzvot whose overarching purpose is summed up by Hillel’s famous axiom: “What is hateful to you, do not do unto others.”

When we are commanded to emulate God and be a holy people, it does not mean to live a life removed from society but rather to engage with others in ways that make them, and us, more human, in the best sense of the word.

Newsday's Bart Jones reports that, in keeping with this spirit, Rabbi Charles A. Klein, chair of the New York Board of Rabbis will prompt his congregation to reflect on our national economic ethos:

Klein said he will tell his flock the crisis raises fundamental questions about who we are as a society and what values we are cultivating.

"What brought the crisis on?" said Klein, who is president of the New York Board of Rabbis. "If it's a result of people accepting the idea that greed is good," then that would contradict Jewish teachings.

Words for believers and nonbelievers alike to ponder.

---White evangelicals are supporting McCain by a marging of 71-23, but those #'s change to 62-30 among WE's under 30.
---Young white evangelicals also have less favorable views of McCain, Palin and Pres. Bush than evangelicals overall.
---A majority of young evangelicals are ok with some sort of civil union/legal recognition of same-sex couples, but are just as pro-life as their elders.

These findings aren't enough to reshape the face of evangelicalism and may/may not make a big difference on the '08 race. They do, however, raise an interesting question. As under-30 evangelicals increasingly move into positions of leadership, how will the movement change?

More data to come between now and the election, I'm sure.

Paulson's observations come at a time when people of faith are increasingly expressing that the economy and the way our country handles its business overseas fall under the category of moral or "values" issues.

While the candidates certainly don't have to invoke the name or language of any faith to recognize an issue's gravity, it will be interesting to see how these topics are framed going forward. Will they dialogue with voters (and each other) about the inherent moral and spiritual ramifications of our nation's actions, or will rhetoric be devoid of these dimensions?

Tonight US presidential candidates will meet to debate foreign policy. Yesterday the United Nations met to discuss our progress towards cutting global poverty in half by 2015.

While most of us in America are focused on our financial mess in Wall Street, there is another major crisis taking place – one of life and death. Right now, the developing world faces a major hunger crisis that threatens to push an additional 70 million into extreme poverty. Just as the US government is taking bold action to stem financial troubles for wealthy banks, people of faith are calling on our leaders to remember their promises to the poor and to take bold actions to stem rising hunger and poverty.

In response to this need for Christians to speak out for the poor, Micah Challenge USA is launching Micah's Challenge to the Future President, an open letter calling on McCain and Obama to support a foreign policy that renews America's commitment to the pledge to dramatically reduce poverty, disease and inequality by 2015 (Sign your name to the challenge).

On Monday, I moderated a press conference panel of American and global evangelical leaders in calling on the UN and US presidential candidates to take bold steps to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This conference was in response to a prophetic Letter on poverty, written by senior evangelical Christian leaders in the Global South, representing four continents and hundreds of millions of Christians. The Letter calls on Christians in the United States to protest the lack of progress that has been made toward cutting global poverty. Yesterday, I attended a meeting of more than 70 national religious leaders to discuss how the faith community is going to respond to the global hunger crisis, which threatens to be overshadowed by our own financial challenges.

The clear consensus of both these events was that is the faith community’s role, more than any other group in the country, to remind Americans of our responsibility to those who are suffering most. Just as we need to urge Congress to remember families losing their homes as they bail out banks, we need challenge our political leaders to remember our promises to those living in extreme poverty around the world.

Micah Challenge USA, a coalition of US evangelical denominations and institutions dedicated to fighting global poverty. Visit www.micahchallenge.us to read the “Letter to the Church in the United States” and ‘Micah’s Challenge to the Future President”

"It's extraordinary to me that the United States can find $700 billion to save Wall Street and the entire G8 can't find $25 billion dollars to saved 25,000 children who die every day from preventable diseases."