If the religious right isn't quite gone yet, messaging like this should only hasten its demise.

Monday, Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council sent out an email message blasting the PEPFAR (AIDS relief) bill. In a bizarre turn, it compliments the program's success against the epidemic, but then criticizes the Senate for expanding it. Who knew the notion of "too much of a good thing" would apply to life-saving AIDS treatment and prevention?

PEPFAR is a very popular program, and AIDS relief is a top priority for ideologically diverse people of faith. Former Bush adviser Michael Gerson has taken his fellow conservatives to task for holding up this critical funding.

While not a perfect program, PEPFAR has generally been successful, and the new bill hopes to build on this success, setting a treatment goal of 3 million people. For those 3 million individuals, PEPFAR can make a life-or-death difference.

What does PEPFAR mean for Tony Perkins?

Dollar signs, apparently. And cash register sounds.

From the subject line "Cha-Ching!" to the accompanying graphic (a bag of money with a map of Africa superimposed on it) FRC shows a tin ear and little regard for the compassion-motivated concerns of people of faith.

This year Perkins has made an energetic effort to prove his (and the Religious Right's more generally) engagement with compassion issues. He even went so far as to write a book with Bishop Harry with the stated goal to "expand the religious Right's influence into immigration policy, poverty and social justice, racial reconciliation, and global warming."

Does Perkins really believe that statements like

For some context on how enormous the [PEPFAR] entitlement is, consider this. Americans use about 384.7 million gallons of gas a day. With prices at $4 a gallon, $50 billion would give every U.S. driver about 32 days of free gas!

are compatible with that goal?

While it's tempting to tap into the (understandable) economic anxiety many Americans are feeling right now, "life-saving AIDS treatments are kinda pricey" falls flat as a moral message. Diverse people of faith agree that AIDS relief is one of the most pressing moral issues of our time, and using our worries about prices at the pump to discredit a program that saves millions of lives suggests a lack of commitment to this commendable cause.

Posted by Beth Dahlman at 11:49 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (2)

When a person has been in the spotlight as long as Dr. James Dobson, a narrative tends to emerge. In Dobson's case, news coverage and conventional wisdom have coalesced to depict him as a game-changer, able to overload the fax machines and email servers on Capitol Hill with a single nod to his supporters.

But how true is that conventional wisdom today?

On Wednesday, in response to the launch of www.JamesDobsonDoesn'tSpeakforMe.com, a website created by a group of Christians led by Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell following Dobson's attacks on Obama and his religious views, Dobson's Focus on the Family Action sent an email to supporters asking that if they "support Dr. Dobson and appreciate his strong stand for Christ" to "please send a respectful e-mail to the anti-Dobson Web site." The action alert was part of Focus on the Family Action's Citizenlink e-mail news service, which is distributed to about 100,000 subscribers. They even created a form to make it easier for supporters to quickly send emails supporting Dobson.

Yesterday, 24 hours after the alert was sent, Focus on the Family's CitizenLink could only boast that "nearly 900 family advocates" had emailed www.JamesDobsonDoesn'tSpeakforMe.com to voice their support for Dobson. In contrast, according to the www.JamesDobsonDoesn'tSpeakforMe.com website, 10,000 people have signed their statement saying Dobson doesn't represent their views. Meanwhile, in less than 24 hours, more than 5,000 people signed the Faithful America petition telling the cable news networks to cool it on their Dobson coverage.

Let the numbers speak for themselves. For all the media's portrayals of Dobson as a galvanizer of the masses, the disconnect seems clear.

It's time for some major reexamining of the entire landscape of faith and politics. Good thing we are finally beginning to see some of that, too.

Posted by adanielsen at 03:24 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (3)

So that's why John McCain sought him out. La Aprobación de Dios.

Think Progress has the Scott McClellan deets on the Bush+Hagee relationship.

According to an interview on NPR's Fresh Air, McClellan says that Hagee had "sway" in the White House. I wonder if this is why. . .

Despite accusing Bush Sr. of collaboration with the Antichrist, Hagee delivered for George W. Bush in his 2000 book, God’s Candidate for America. In that book, Hagee was unequivocal that Jesus would vote for Bush. “If you are concerned about the sort of America your children and grandchildren will grow up within,” Hagee wrote, “then you need to cast your vote for George W. Bush and the Republican Party.”

And where was the IRS?

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 01:21 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

This evening, Sen. McCain has also dumped Ohio's Hot Rod Parsley.

Dan Gilgoff, whose God-o-meter puts McCain one spot away from a secularist, helps to explain some of these pastor problems.

For McCain, the most glaring example of his unwillingness to treat religious outreach seriously is that his campaign still lacks a fulltime religious outreach director. Bush had a handful of such strategists aboard his 2000 and 2004 campaigns, including such talented figures as former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed. Both Obama and Clinton hired fulltime religious outreach directors as soon as they launched their campaigns early last year, and have filled out their faith-based teams with more personnel since then.

It appears the the same person vetting McCain's lobbyist advisers may also be moonlighting in religious outreach.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 12:49 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

Last week, scrubbing away under the political pressure, Bill Donohue followed the need of McCain and absolved anti-Catholic John Hagee for his whore of Babylon language.

Now, with Talk to Action's release of new audio evidence that Hagee also thinks that God led Hitler to kill Jews for the good of apocalyptic theology, McCain has denounced his Hagee man, but Donohue seems stuck between his flip and his flop. Does he stick with his new pal who was anti-Catholic last week, or stand up for serious Catholic theology which finds no room for arguments that God had six million Jews killed in order "to hunt" the rest to Israel to set the Rapture stage?

Thus far, Donohue has released a statement sticking with his first flip to Hagee calling him sincere, friendly and "a genuine friend to Israel." With friends who sing and pray for the destruction of Jerusalem, who needs to listen to actual Jews? Say like president of the Union for Reform Judaism, Rabbi Eric Yoffie (back on May 15):

“Christian Zionists, and especially Christians United for Israel, do not offer unconditional support for the Jewish state. They offer support for a particular religious vision, particular Israeli leaders, and particular political factions, all of which reflect their own prophecy-driven view of the Middle East,” Yoffie said in an April speech, calling Hagee and his group “extremists.”

Yoffie thinks that Hagee “is not the kind of friend that Israel needs,” said spokesman Donald Cohen-Cutler.

Now, what will McCain do about his other pastor problem, the Ohio Hot Rod?

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 06:23 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Sunday’s Compassion Forum, organized and co-sponsored by Faith in Public Life, brought together conservative, moderate and progressive religious leaders to ask the presidential candidates pointed questions about pressing moral issues that are bridging ideological divides in the faith community. The diversity of the Forum’s board members and political supporters speaks to the unifying power of these issues.

Unfortunately, an email sent yesterday from Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins to FRC readers contained inaccuracies and mischaracterizations of the bridge-building event.

Perkins claimed that he was not invited to the Forum. In fact, Perkins was invited to attend the Forum AND the VIP reception for faith leaders held beforehand. He never responded to the invitation.

Perkins called the Compassion Forum’s board “radical.” In fact, The Compassion Forum Board of religious leaders includes numerous conservative leaders: the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, the vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the president of the Palmetto Family Council, and the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, just to name a few. Moreover, as Perkins acknowledged, The Compassion Forum was endorsed by Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. Rick Santorum. Perkins ignored that the Forum took place at Messiah College, an evangelical college in rural Pennsylvania, and will be broadcast on the Church Communication Network (CCN) to more than 1,000 churches next Sunday.

Perkins claimed that “the bulk of last night's program was taken directly from the playbook of the Religious Left, focusing not on the issues closest to Christians' hearts but on climate change, AIDS, and global poverty.” Poll after poll shows that climate change, AIDS and global poverty are moral priorities for evangelical Christians. Moreover, Perkins' claim ignored the Forum’s extensive and thoughtful discussion of abortion. Both candidates were asked if they believed life begins at conception and Senator Obama was asked two additional questions related to abortion.

Notably, Perkins mentioned that he wrote a book with Bishop Harry Jackson arguing that many of the issues addressed at The Compassion Forum “demand the church’s attention” but that “our priority as Christians should be as those of the Founding Fathers; protect the sanctity of human life, preserve marriage, and defend religious liberty.” It is curious that Perkins invoked the Founding Fathers rather than Jesus and the prophets when staking his agenda, and that he chose to place abortion and the fight to “preserve marriage” into the American Revolution. It is also worth noting that on the same day that Perkins chose to attack The Compassion Forum, Bishop Harry Jackson chose to call the Forum “excellent”, “flawless”, and “great”.

Posted by Katie at 04:51 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

James Dobson seems to be of two minds when it comes to voting. Back on February 5, 2008, mouthpiece Laura Ingraham read a statement from the Focus on the Family founder in which he restated what he's said before, that this election presents the worst choices in his lifetime for those who care about the American family.

But on Sunday, on Hannity's America, Dobson now sounds like he's thinking about pulling the lever. Might that have something to do with McCain's outreach (John Hagee) to that crowd of late? And why is Mitt Romney not clashing with John McCain of late?

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 11:27 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

Washington Post writer and Brookings Institution fellow E. J. Dionne Jr. speaks about his new book "Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right." Speaking before an audience of Bay-area political reporters and students at UC Berkeley's Journalism School Thursday, Dionne announced that "the era of the religious right is over."

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 04:34 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Today numerous public figures gave thoughtful remembrances of Rep. Tom Lantos, the Holocaust survivor and defender of religious freedom and human rights who passed away last night.

Nancy Pelosi:
“As the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to Congress, Tom Lantos devoted his life to shining a bright light on dark corners of oppression. He used his chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee to empower the powerless and give voice to the voiceless throughout the world."

Paul Zeitz, executive director, Global AIDS Alliance:
"Chairman Lantos was an indispensable leader in the field of global AIDS and poverty. The fight against HIV/AIDS has lost a real hero. His leadership will be sorely missed."

Michael Savage:
"I think he was one of the most -- he was a scoundrel. And I'll tell you why I detested Tom Lantos. The man survived the Holocaust of World War II and used it as a weapon the rest of his life."

Beneath contempt.

Posted by Dan at 04:45 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

In a move that should shock no one (save perhaps for its immediacy), James Dobson has endorsed Mike Huckabee for president.

How quickly they come around when it all falls down. It wasn't so long ago that Dobson and the Arlington Group cartel fretted about Huckabee's electability and patiently waited for Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson to gain viability with the base. With both now on the sidelines, JDobs was forced to choose between a heretical senator and an unviable governor, and chose the latter.

What this portends for the rest of the religious right is anybody's guess, but for the electorate at large, it probably doesn't matter.

(h/t to Christianity Today.)

Posted by Dan at 12:03 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (3)

Apparently the folks over at National Review Online, which endorsed Mitt Romney, are worried about Huckabee's faith.

Mike said:

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

NRO blogger and GOP strategist Lisa Schiffren complains:

"Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU."

Ouch. Whatever happened to that 11th commandment?

But an interview with beliefnet's Steven Waldman and Dan Gilgoff adds a bit more texture:

Well, I probably said it awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make– and I’ve said it better in the past – is that people sometimes say we shouldn’t have a human life amendment or a marriage amendment because the Constitution is far too sacred to change, and my point is, the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That’s the genius of it. The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture. If we have a definition of marriage, that we don’t change that definition, that we affirm that definition. And that the sanctity of human life is not just a religious issue. It’s an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the point. The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was. Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn’t vote, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there’ve been injustices made because the Constitution wasn’t as clear as it needed to be, and that’s the point.

Just to follow up on that question, according to that standard, if the Constitution and its amendments are subject to biblical interpretations, doesn’t that mean it would be subject to biblical argument over what the proper interpretation is? And where does that leave, say, nonbelievers or members of other faiths in a proudly pluralistic like our own when amendments to the Constitution are subject to a biblical interpretation?

I think that whether someone is a Christian or not, the idea that a human life has dignity and intrinsic worth should be clear enough. I don’t think a person has to be a person of faith to say that once you redefine a human life and say there is a life not worth living, and that we have a right to terminate a human life because of its inconvenience to others in the society. That’s the real issue. That’s the heart of it. It’s not just about being against abortion. It’s really about, Is there is a point at which a human life, because it’s become a burden or inconvenience to others, is an expendable life. And once we’ve made a decision that there is such a time – whether it’s the termination of an unborn child in the womb or whether it’s the termination of an 80-year-old comatose patient -- we’ve already crossed that line. And then the question is, How far and how quickly do we move past that line?

And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?

Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change the [constitution] again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic. I wonder if he thinks this stuff through. . .

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 02:56 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (2)

Apparently Rush Limbaugh hearts fellow country club Republican Fred Thompson. In this video he gets a little jerky in his chair over evangelicals who are supporting Mike Huckabee. It is interesting to see this splitting up of the social conservatives, a separation especially telling in Rush's very revealing statement separating "groups of religious people" who support Mike from the "pro-life groups." Yes, the difference between faithful folks with a broad range of concerns and the old single issue fund-raising and vote machines that got used to telling them what to do. Watch it to believe it.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 12:19 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Evangelical voters made up about 40% of Mike Huckabee's turnout in Iowa, but they only make up about 3% of New Hampshire's population. In this Jan 7 video from Morning Joe, Huckabee and Chuck Norris fight off the sense that this lack of broader faith appeal will hurt in New Hampshire where Huck's in third place in recent polls.

Despite right winger Chuck Norris's camp appeal, he is not the most convincing embodiment of Huckabee's mainstreet appeal. In endorsing Huckabee on fringy World Net Daily, Chuck compared Huck to King David, that fantasy model for Christian and Jewish theocrats. In addition, this is the blog that Norris credits with turning his attention to Huckabee: The Rebelution

Also, as Dan has noted before, if the media wants a good man bites dog story they should check out how many self-described evangelical voters in South Carolina plan to vote for a Democrat this year and which one. On January 19, some entry polling on that question might show an interesting shift.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 02:15 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

In keeping with the right's proud tradition of cynically exploiting tragedy, Tony Perkins blames the media for Sunday's church shootings in Colorado. From yesterday's FRC Action alert:

It is hard not to draw a line between the hostility that is being fomented in our culture from some in the secular media toward Christians and evangelicals in particular and the acts of violence that took place in Colorado yesterday. But I will say no more for now other than that our friends at New Life Church and YWAM are in our thoughts and prayers.

This shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, religious conservatives blamed Katrina on everything from abortion to lack of terrorism preparation, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed 9/11 on abortionists, lesbians, et al., Tom Delay blamed Columbine on depravities ranging from evolution to "working mothers who take birth control pills," and Newt Gingrich says liberalism is responsible for the Virginia Tech massacre, Columbine and Susan Smith drowning her children.

But is it too much to ask Perkins to let a tragedy settle for a few minutes before he cheapens it?

And frankly, these stunts smack of bigotry. At the Values Voters Summit I heard speaker after speaker blame black poverty and violence on individual choice and single parents, but when middle class white people flip out and gun people down, all of a sudden it's the fault of some indirect, nebulous, cultural cause.

Posted by Dan at 10:23 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

The fine folks at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good are taking it to THE MAN this holiday season. Namely, to men like Billo, John Gibson and William Donohue who crusade -- like the children in 1212 -- against the phantom "war on Christmas."

Catholics in Alliance writes:

Targeting department stores, local governments and school systems for replacing Merry Christmas with "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings," Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson of Fox News have led the charge against what they call a "secular progressive agenda" determined to drive religion out of the public square. William Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights ominously warns of "cultural fascists" taking over Christmas.

It's time for a ceasefire in the Christmas culture wars.

Here's uncommonly good Alexia Kelley on The O'Really Factor inviting O'Reilly, Gibson and Donohue to join the faith community in a new campaign of civility and conscience that restores our focus on the common good during this holy season.

Find out more about the letter to cultural warriors to ceasefire and come enjoy a common good Christmas.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 12:57 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

Apparently, Tony Perkins and I don't read anything the same way. Not Scripture, not articles in the Washington Post.

The latest example is in today's "Washington Update" which began with an analysis of a piece in yesterday's Washington Post. Perkins claims that the article is evidence of, "how major issues like abortion and marriage are uniting African-Americans and allowing the Republican Party to make potential inroads into this community."

Well, that's true I guess, the article (featured on yesterday's Daily Faith News Reel) does touch on how anti-gay marriage initiatives in 2004 helped Bush win a higher percentage of the African-American vote than Republicans normally do, but it seems a bit ridiculous to suggest that's what the entire piece was on.

In fact, most of the article focused on how African American evangelicals have traditionally, and continue to, give strong weight to a whole range of issues including education, civil rights and poverty, as well as abortion and same sex marriage.

Like in this quote:

"Morality is different in terms of the way we see it and white evangelicals see it," said Pastor Lyle Dukes of Harvest Life Changers Church in Woodbridge, ... who supported Bush in 2004. "What we think is moral is not only the defense of marriage, but we also think equal education is a moral issue. We think discrimination is immoral."

Dukes is looking at candidates in both parties this year.

and this one:

On his way out of the noon Bible study at Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in the District the other day, Stephen Peagler, 27, said he is a faithful churchgoer who believes that abortion and same-sex marriage are wrong. But, he said, when it comes to voting, he's looking for a candidate who will address issues that are more relevant in his everyday life. And Democrats are more likely to deal with the high incarceration rates of black men and underperforming inner-city schools, he said.

But all this seems lost on Perkins who somehow sees this article as an opportunity to bash Democrats' faith outreach initiatives claiming it is, "ironic is that while some leaders of the Democratic Party have started embracing the language of faith with the hopes of attracting religious voters, most still want to hold the party line of abortion on demand and remain estranged from traditional marriage."

Of course, Perkins has some words of caution for Republicans too, especially if they nominate somebody who has a less than perfect (in his eyes) record on abortion and gay rights (I have not idea who that could be).

According to Perkins (emphasis mine):

While the Republicans experienced the powerful pull of social issues on African-Americans in 2004 because of the marriage issue, they are increasingly distancing themselves from these key issues that speak the true language of faith and bring Christian voters into the fold. If issues that are important to so many Christians, both black and white, are ignored by both parties then ultimately both parties may find they are ignored by many Christians.

Well, kudos to Perkins for "standing up" to Republicans, but he never really grasped the concept that there are other issues important to people of faith which influence voting behavior.

You know, like, poverty. Which is discussed in over 2,000 verses in the Bible. But I guess, to Tony's eyes, that's not enough words to form the "true language of faith."

Posted by Beth Dahlman at 03:50 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

I get Family Research Council's fundraising appeals, and the latest one contained a shocking revelation: I should fear...me. Well, not me personally, but politicians who agree with my belief that people of faith should focus on a range of issues beyond same sex marriage, abortion, stem cells and public display of religion.

Here is the latest Leftist ploy:

So to make sure they win at all costs, they are hijacking the language of faith in order to sell their anti-faith programs, hiding the truth about their real agenda -- and purposely confusing people of faith.

Among these anti-faith programs are "tax hikes and 'global warming' initiatives." (The letter really does set global warming aside in quotes, as though it is a hoax.)

This scheme really matters, too:

And the bad news is, it just might work unless Family Research Council and supporters like you expose them!

It is at once heartening and discouraging that FRC is threatened by a broadening agenda among people of faith. On the one hand, the fear indicates that the progressive faith movement is gaining serious steam. On the other, it's disappointing that this is feared rather than embraced.

Perkins says liberals are trying to "confuse and divide people of faith." You read that right, the religious Left are the ones dividing people of faith. The Right cares not for wedge issues. Look at the inclusive common good agenda FRC is protecting:

Throughout the huge and pivotal national debate that lies ahead in 2008, we will flood the media with the facts about who actually believes and will act upon vital family issues such as:

- Is America still one nation under God?

- Should public displays of America's religious heritage be allowed?

- Should Congress enact dangerous "hate crimes" laws that could be used to destroy religious freedom in America?

- Is every human life a gift from God that should be protected?

- Is marriage the union of one man and one woman only?

These are the vital family issues. If as a person of faith I am concerned about global warming ("the defining challenge of our age," according to the UN Secretary General), the 47 million Americans who lack health insurance, economic justice, equal protection for the LGBT community, and comprehensive immigration reform, I have been distracted by the Left.

Silly me.

Posted by Dan at 05:11 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (3)

Last month our friends at Catholics United ran radio ads pointing the consistency of 'pro-life' members of Congress who voted against providing health insurance to millions of uninsured children. One of these Congressmen, Thad McCotter (R-MI), lashed out, calling them "false prophets" and "the devil."

“This type of rhetoric is simply inappropriate, especially from someone serving in a senior leadership position. Criticizing the inconsistencies of McCotter’s pro-life beliefs belongs in our public debate, insinuating that an organization represents the devil does not,” said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, in response.

Keith Olbermann was slightly less diplomatic, but inspired in his own right:

UPDATE: ThinkProgress has audio of the "sinful" Catholics United radio ad.

Posted by Dan at 09:24 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (2)

"With Pat Robertson coming out in support of Rudy Giuliani yesterday, the show looks at candidates' efforts to woo Christian conservatives. Has the Christian right's clout in national politics diminished?"

Guests:

Charles Boswell, senior pastor at Immanuel Baptist Church in Wichita, Kansas.

David D. Kirkpatrick, Washington correspondent for the New York Times

Matthew Continetti, associate editor of the Weekly Standard

Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and author of “The Divided States of America?”

Particularly interesting is Richard Land's defense of the Southern Strategy as non-racist religious right support for Ronald Reagan contra Paul Krugman's recent argument.

Listen here.

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

The Newshour's report on the Religious Right's changing role in politics:

and Joel Hunter and Harry Jackson's discussion of the matter:

(You might've seen the transcript on FPL's daily newsreel email.)

Posted by Dan at 05:08 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

I guess televangelist Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani counts in the category of "if you live long enough there's not telling what you'll see." Far from the Robertson of old who struck a chord of conservative discontent among Iowa Republicans 20 years ago while vying for the coveted spot of GOP front runner, he endorsed Giuliani with virtually no explanation. Unless you count his claim that he "knows how the game is played" and that he desperately wants to keep a Democrat out of the White House. Neither seem like good reasons to drop a moral crusade against gays and so-called abortionists that has lasted a lifetime for him.

Not that I have ever agreed with him on either of his signature moral issues. But I might have had even a little respect for his decision had he come out and said God has told him that Rudy Giuliani would make a great president (as he said in 2004 about George Bush). And it would have sent me dancing in the streets to hear him finally admit what God has probably been telling him for years...that blaming gays and young women faced with difficult choices in pregnancy for the demise of Western civilization is not only Unchristian but Unamerican.

Of course moral leaders want to win, but not usually at the expense of moral principle. Hard as it is for me to admit, I sort of miss the old Pat Robertson who stood for something.

Posted by Ron at 02:38 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

What would you say if I told you Pat Robertson said the Family Research Council only speaks for a faction of evangelicals?

You'd certainly have cause to accuse me of fibbing, but you'd be wrong. In an on-air exchange with David Brody, Robertson said

"I'm not sure that that group in Washington is really representative of evangelicals across the spectrum. This is the Family Research Council and some of the James Dobson supporters, I just think that's just a narrow slice of evangelical thought."

Was he acknowledging the broadening agenda embraced by people of faith, or was it a petty shot at a turf rival? I report, you decide. Check out the video; Robertson's remark is not quite halfway through the clip.

My two cents: He's speaking about "the evangelical spectrum" and "evangelical thought" in the context of a political discussion, so it's fair to infer that he's talking about the spectrum of political beliefs, and I doubt Robertson thinks FRC's agenda isn't narrow enough (after all, how much narrower can it get?). Then again, I can only delve but so deeply into the Right's internal squabbles. But Robertson's words contrasts Richard Land's contention that the latest CBS poll overstates the breadth of evangelical priorities.

Am I losing my mind?

Posted by Dan at 11:39 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (7)

After years of propping up W., the Family Research Council inAction crowd apparently threw their weight behind Huckabee and/or Romney.

A quote from AU's Barry Lynn: “This may be the biggest collection of theocrats in one room since the Salem Witch Trials.”

But that misses what the conference actually revealed, a brewing fight between the grassroots and pundit leaders.

Coming out of the con, Gov. Huckabee was the news as Brody notes, but Marc Ambinder tackles the issue that's been bugging some folks: with all the socon values Arkansas Huck embraces, why is there such tepid support. Marc quote's a Redstate poster who intimates something that anyone watching the nonexistent Christian right support for SCHIP can see:

"Even Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, said he hoped the social conservative candidate would be palatable to the fiscal conservatives out there. Huckabee is not."

Clearly for the religious right, the Club for Growth sets the monetary values.

And this brewing fight between right elites and the rank-and-file is exactly what Amy Sullivan sees a-comin':

the real struggle in the 2008 Republican primaries will be not between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney or social conservatives and fiscal conservatives but between Christian Right leaders and the conservatives in the pews.

Why? In part because the leadership has become rich, and increased in good relationships with folks like Norquist.

The New Republic's Noam add a Machiavellian layer:

I'd add that social conservative leaders generally prefer to support mainstream, front-running candidates because mainstream front-runners don't usually need much help winning elections. And when they do win, they can turn around and claim to have put them over the top. Low risk, high reward, in other words. But more marginal candidates like Huckabee need a lot of help winning, probably significantly more so than the elites can deliver. Worse, if you get behind a Huckabee and he comes up short, it exposes your movement as relatively powerless. And, of course, even if he wins you can't really take credit. So the crass calculation here is the opposite: high risk, low reward.

For example, Justin's Thoughts "Christian. Conservative. Patriotic." who was live blogging the conference and had this to say after Huckabee spoke:

As a evangelical Christian, I loved everything he said. The Governor didn't make a political speech. It sounded much like a sermon. . . .This man needs our support. I really believe that the resurgence of Mike Huckabee is an act of Providence.

Can't argue W.ith that, as they say.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 04:02 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (8)

While the Family Research CouncilAction "Values Voters" were praying for someone like Reagan to appear this weekend, their old pal Tom DeLay set up tent, back for some more DC business. The Politico writes:

His new firm, First Principles, had its opening party last night, bringing in the Texas contingent — Sen. John Cornyn, former Rep. Henry Bonilla, Rep. Mike Conaway — and also Rep. Patrick McHenry, Pastor Rick Scarboro of Vision America, former Rep. Bill Paxon and Ken Blackwell (who is rumored to be doing work with DeLay).

Being D.C., things got started at 6 p.m. but went into the wee hours of the night — goers were probably encouraged by the fully stocked bar and cigars. We’re told: “His new office looks like it was decorated by Stephen Colbert and Rush Limbaugh. I never knew you could fit so many elephant and eagle figurines into one space."

You might remember Vision America and Ken Blackwell from the infamous "Patriot Pastors" network that We Believe Ohio moderated.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 03:39 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Before the announcement, you ought to know that I have a 2nd place bet with another blogger. It was pointless to bet on the winner because we're both sure it's Huckabee. She has Romney for runner-up, and I have the rest of the field. That sums up the weekend nicely.

Speaking of other bloggers, Rob Tice Lalka cranked out some terrific live-blogging over at Faith Democrats this weekend. His ability to simultaneously describe and analyze is outstanding. Take a look.

Poll results:

Top Issues

1. Life
2. marriage
3. tax cuts
4. permanent tax relief for families

Candidates

1. Romney - 1595
2. Huckabee - 1565
3. Paul - 868
4. Thompson - 564

Missed the part about the online polling. Shocking result, but it looks like I still win my bet.

UPDATE: ON-SITE VOTE TOTALS MORE IN LINE WITH EXPECTATIONS

1. Huckabe - 488
2. Romney - 99
3. Thompson - 77
4. Tom Tancredo - 65
5. Giuliani - 60
6. Hunter - 54
7. McCain - 30
8. Brownback - 26
9. Paul - 25

Posted by Dan at 02:42 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (3)

Huckabee floored them. He could do no wrong. His third sentence summarizes the natural advantage that guaranteed him adulation and freed him to talk about whatever he wanted to:

"I stand here not as one who comes to you, but one who comes from you."

To varying extents, everyone else here had to sell himself to the audience, which took time and focus away from their platforms. Huckabee just got down to preaching.

Well, sort of. The first thing he did was drop an Al Gore joke (probably the 14th I've heard here) and then make fun of hippies. After that, though, it was a sermon to a swaying choir. Standing ovations were frequent, sharp whistling pierced the dark air, and the audience sounded like the evangelical congregations I remember from my time in Huckabee's Arkansas. It wasn't just "amen," it was "that's right," and "yes", and "come on, Mike!"

The congregants spent a lot of time on their feet, and I didn't always understand why. But it was clear that these people love the holy rolling populist preacher. Beyond abortion, same-sex marriage and war!, he talked about some off-beat issues like rebuilding America's arms-manufacturing base, "feeding ourselves" (agriculturally speaking) and the Fair Tax. No matter what he said, the audience cheered and cheered.

Oh, and he said we might not need so many immigrants if we didn't abort so many babies.

Most noteworthy, though, was his declaration of independence from the Republican Party, which sounded like a warning:

I don't want expediency or electability to replace our vales. We live or die by those values," he said. "I want to make it very clear that I do not spell with 'G-O-D,' 'G-O-P.' Our party may be important, but our principles are even more important."

His exit music?

"This is ooouuuur country"

Posted by Dan at 11:09 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Bill Bennett warmed up the crowd for Rudy by speaking about "preemptive cultural surrender" in the war on terror, using the Screwtape Letters to paint liberals as deceptive devils who would lead us to defeat. Enables Rudy to leave it alone for a while.

Rudy started on an entirely different note: shared values and shared goals. He did a decent job of sticking to this theme while also acknowledging his differences with the audience.

His appeal to religion was fascinating: "We've gotta find a way to be more inclusive. Christianity is built around inclusion...Isn't it?" He appealed to Christianity's early history as a faith that thrived as a result of his message of love, hope, and forgiveness. A mild challenge, and a unique tack.

Think about the implications of the fact that Rudy felt compelled to say "Please know this, you have nothing to fear from me."

He talked about the private nature of faith in his Roman Catholic upbringing. I don't know how effective this will be, but I like that he says it.

Still, when he says "I see clearly the value of people of faith" in politics, he reinforces that he is an outsider here. This became especially conspicuous when he spoke of the Constitutional protection of religion rather than America being a Christian nation.

He was at his best when he spoke extensively about driving the pornography out of public view in New York, and about cutting off funding for a religiously offensive exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Very smart, and very well received. His other shrewd move was spending more time on school choice than any other candidate.

Abortion reduction and adoption promotion got plenty of time, but a rather lukewarm response, especially in comparison for other candidates' calls for outlawing abortion. He got better applause when he talked about the conservative credentials of his judicial advisory board.

His security section, saved for last, was surprisingly nondescript. The only distinguishing factors were his focus on Israel and his mention of Darfur.

His discussion of his personal life was so cursory that it barely warrants mention. He went there, he didn't have to, and he probably didn't help himself.

Posted by Dan at 08:32 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (3)

Bob Jones III’s endorsement will go a long way in South Carolina, the early primary state in which The Mormon Question loomed largest, but Romney still has everything to gain or lose here in this early stage of his courtship of the Religious Right. Let’s see what kind of response he gets...

A very West Wing entrance, with a side of megachurch. Before any specific observations, I've gotta say Mitt nailed it. Hard. A couple of things worked to his advantage: 1) He had 100 campaigners here, according to a leafleteer I asked. 2) He spoke after dinner, when everyone was rested and ready for another round. Best time slot of the day.

He kicked off saying "I'm pro-family on every level, from personal to political...America's future will not be determined by heads of state, but by heads of households." For some reason he was interrupted by the loudest applause of the day. Everyone said something to that effect, but when Mitt said it people got amped. Then he quoted CS Lewis. From jump, the crowd popped with a boisterousness not seen all day.

And then...family family family family. He hit on the economic, moral and practical advantages of the two-parent, two-sex family, but skillfully slipped in some respect for single moms such as his sister Jane.

He raised some eyebrows on bloggers row when, after citing the Moynihan report, he said "Hats off to Bill Cosby, by the way, for telling it like it is." I'd have felt unfair and shameless going there myself, but I'm not Mitt Romney.

He smartly hit the outrage button on the Maine middle school birth control story. Why did others fail to do this?

Did you know that the "strength and preservation of a civilization" is at stake in the same-sex marriage debate? Me neither.

While Romney confessed to being a pro life "convert," he claimed "I will be a pro-life president, just like I was a pro-life governor." The applause sounded like buy-in.

"By the way, you might've heard that I'm Mormon..."

...Did not lead to The Mormon Speech. Instead of addressing that, he switched gears to talk about how he could keep the Reagan coalition together. Talk about a letdown.

Then it was "We're not going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton." What a zinger.

He wound down by skillfully hammering the family family family message, then backed away to a soundtrack that sounded like hail to the chief with a bass line, looking like a frontrunner.

Posted by Dan at 07:05 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (2)

I'm not one to poke fun at people, but this ad for Family Research Council's upcoming values voters summit is too clever by half:

If this month's religion and politics news is anything near accurate, the religious right might find itself all dressed up with no place to go.

I will be live-blogging from FRC's values voters summit this Friday! Stop by for my reports on the political courtship.

Posted by Dan at 12:48 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (5)

Some culture warriors just won't come out of the trenches.

On Friday Tony Perkins sent Family Research Council email subscribers a newsletter titled "No Surrender," which compared the culture wars to the Cold War and misrepresented Third Way's "Come Let Us Reason Together" on multiple counts.

Referring to the supporters of paper, Perkins says "some people want to bring the 'culture wars' to an end by quitting the fight for core moral principles."

None of the statements of support for the paper advocate abandonment of anyone's core moral principles, nor does the paper itself. In fact, the papers' authors and supporters repeatedly point out that the success of the paper rests on the fact that it honors the principles and values of both non-evangelical progressives and conservative evangelicals.

One of Perkins' core moral principles is "the unalienable right to life of every unborn child," and Come Let Us Reason Together describes and supports a comprehensive abortion reduction policy, which advances this principle. Yet for some reason, Perkins feels compelled to distort this fact using artful omission.

Let's compare.

Perkins:

It also suggests uniting around the goal of reducing abortion by distributing contraception -- even though abortion has skyrocketed in the years since the introduction of the birth control pill. [Note the specious logic.]

Third Way:

Among its central provisions, Ryan-DeLauro calls for sex education with an abstinence emphasis and medically accurate contraceptive information, better access to contraception for low-income women, after-school programs for kids, and help for parents on communicating their values to their teens. It also expands Medicaid coverage of pregnant women and S-CHIP coverage of children, addresses domestic violence against pregnant women, helps pregnant women and young mothers stay in school, and expands adoption assistance.

He also takes some liberties interpreting the paper's statement on sexuality issues.

Perkins:

It says that homosexuals deserve the same "public benefits" (i.e., marriage or civil unions) as others.

Third Way:

Protecting the human rights and dignity of all, even for those with whom one disagrees, is not only a consistent thing to do; it is a proud American tradition and a high moral and religious calling. America was founded on the principle that all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and one of the deepest insights that is common to virtually all faith and moral traditions is that we should want for our brothers and sisters the same protections, public benefits, and opportunities we want for ourselves. No legislation to protect the human dignity of gay and lesbian people should or need abridge the religious liberty of religious communities.

I don't see any mention of gay marriage or civil unions in here, but I can see how Perkins might read it in between the lines. Note however that he didn't ask the study's authors, who are very accessible, what they meant, and note that he excluded the sentence in the report that follows the one he quotes, which directly addresses FRC and the religious right's long-held objection to pretty much any legislation that does anything for homosexual Americans. Perkins' assessment is more self-serving than thorough.

Perkins also has the temerity to say that "civil dialogue is possible" amidst this series of dubious assertions. Yet in addition to shading the truth about Third Way's report, he takes a derisive tone by repeatedly using the word "progressive" in quotes, as if people who identify themselves as progressives use the word as some ruse, or as if the term itself is illegitimate.

Perkins proves himself a resolute culture warrior by attacking Third Way's report, and in so doing shows why the culture wars are bound to produce nothing but division and mistrust. War is inherently destructive, and the metaphorical culture war is no exception.

Posted by Dan at 09:17 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (2)

In Ann Coulter's latest book-hawking tour, she slips up and tells the world what the Christian Right really thinks of Jews. (And America has the right to believe that until they publicly distance themselves from her comments below.)

Trotting out old ideas of supersessionism (right after saying how tolerant her brand of Christianity is), pulling an old reverse discrimination trick (by appealing to a fictional Seinfeld episode), and equating Heaven with a rich, monochromatic, heavily guarded political convention -- it's clear that she really doesn't believe it. She just sells it.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 04:34 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

It seems pretty clear that the Religious Right's lockstep support for the Iraq war is coming back to hurt the old leadership. In expending their moral influence on hyping the post-9/11 neoconservative clash of civilizations fantasy, they have confused their believers and lost the more reflective members: pro-life and pro-pointless slaughter?

Because Giuliani is running to be the president of 9/11, as both the Onion and Thomas Friedman note, the religious right is getting split by its own rhetoric. As Chris Matthews notes, what these religious right leaders really care about is raising money on pro-life issues and wielding influence over GOP candidates. Now a new generation of Christian conservatives care about a broad range of issues -- split in part by the Giuliani fear-factor and the Huckabee faith-factor.

According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, evangelicals 18-29 have gone from a 55% GOP party affiliation in 2005 to 40% in 2007. In this six minute interview, David Kuo, a beliefnet.com contributer and former Bush official, notes that this old guard 3rd party saber-rattling signals more desperation than intelligent design.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 08:50 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

The real story here is the split between the social conservative leadership and the rank-and-file social conservatives. While old school religious right leaders like Tony Perkins and Richard Viguerie met in Salt Lake City over the weekend to threaten the GOP to be listen to them more, in fact as this journalist David Gregory notes in this report, the average social conservative actually support Giuliani.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 07:01 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Chris Matthews talks about the possibility of a conservative Christian "pro-life-only party" with Newsweek's Howard Fineman, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and the Chicago Tribune's Jill Zuckman.

And then Chris Matthews chats with Pat Buchanan about the future of the Republican party as social conservatives fail to coalesce around a single candidate. They discuss a possible Giuliani/Huckabee ticket as a compromise.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 05:59 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Here's another brick in the wall separating the Christian right from the rest of the country. The Values Voters debate not only didn't attract the top four Republican candidates, but their failure to show antagonized -- and further marginalized -- the likes of Phyllis Schlafly, Paul Weyrich, Rick Scarborough, self-proclaimed representatives from "America's Largest Voting Block."

(If you don't know who these folks are, I recommend a visit to Talk to Action.)

Apparently they conducted a straw poll and Huckabee won overwhelmingly. According to debate's press release:

"The big losers last night were the no-show candidates Fred Thompson who placed at 4 percent, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain who each received 1 percent and Mitt Romney who was the only candidate to receive zero votes at the end of the night."

"How can we expect these no-show candidates to take on Osama Bin Laden and other world leaders when they're afraid to show up and answer questions from Phyllis Schlafly?" asked Rabbi Aryeh Spero of the Jewish Action Alliance, and Values Voter debate panelist. Rick Scarborough, President of Vision America, and Values Voter Debate Committee member added, "If you care about our votes, you need to care about our values enough to show up."

Or perhaps pollsters are doing some work and realizing that even most Republicans don't want this crowd's mix of privatized Social Security, increased funding for abstinence education, opposition to hate crimes legislation and attacks on embryonic stem cell research?

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

In case you missed it, feel free to watch Christiane Amanpour's CNN documentary, God's Christian Warriors below:

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 02:13 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Soon I'll have the full installment of CNN's God's Christian Warriors up, but I wanted to point out -- in a quick montage below -- a theme that ties all three the Jewish, Muslim and Christian right together: the repeated compromise of morality for MORALITY.

Of course compromise is the mechanism of democratic politics and leads to the natural dilution of power among interest groups. But on the religious right among the three monotheistic religions, the desire to not compromise like the rest of the "world" leads to an interesting pattern of internal compromises of personal theology over personal morality. Lying to build settlements, blowing up people to stop the violence, advocating war while believing in the Prince of Peace.

This is classic ends-over-means morality.

And, of course, this sort of ethical compromise is not news to anyone who's followed the rise of the religious right, but now the question is: how do we turn the rubberneck of the media away from this religious wreckage and back to the growing movement of Jews, Muslims and Christians who know how to get to the voting booth without c(r)ashing in their values?

In this eight minute montage, the news is not that the violent rhetoric of fundamentalism leads to both state-sponsored violence (Iraq war and '67) and terrorism, but how, in political acts, True Believers can lose their morality to their theology. See for instance, the early juxtaposition of Sunday-school teaching Jimmy Carter with barely church-attending Ronald Reagan. From there onward, the rhetoric of war, of no compromise, leads repeatedly to an Abramoff-esque morality of saving and then selling out souls for personal gain.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 12:40 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Like many Americans, my heart's an idealist and my head's a pragmatist on things religious and political. I often search for ways to split the difference between these two all too often separate states of being. However, last night Christiane Amanpour showed the danger that occurs when religious idealism and political pragmatism substitute soul above everything else. It's clear in the people that she interviews who participate in the Israeli occupation that when a humans lie, preemptively attack, and occupy, they lose their head and their heart in the process.

She set it up with this contrast of two warriors on the same side in 1967. . .

But it goes beyond the personal, to explore the last four decade of Jewish history that these individuals influenced -- in part -- through their Godly warring. During the interviews with the settlers, one cannot miss the struggle in the faithful as they admit that they lied and killed in a pragmatic pact with their ideals. As the Times noted, the most interesting aspect of this is the footage of the fund raising in America that support this cultural war. The mix of money and religio-political strategy should give folks of any faith -- liberal or conservative -- pause at the cost to morality and dignity that comes with the territory.

As evangelical blogger Peace and Piety writes: "Watching this, I found myself engulfed in disbelief, awe and amazement at what faith can accomplish. When faith is used to try and transform the masses, it destroys civilizations, neig