The Pro-(Rich) Family Tax Cuts

Tim Fernholz recently flagged a report that religious right groups are starting a major push to make the Bush tax cuts permanent:

The mainstays of conservative Christian activism -- the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition -- are launching a new campaign to protect the wealthy from tax increases, according to subscription-only Roll Call. The tax hikes, they say, are a "family values issue."

If this campaign advocates making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, a central challenge will be putting a "pro-family" gloss on a plan that puts billions of dollars into the pockets of millionaires. This table from the Joint Committee on Taxation comparing Democrats and Republicans' tax proposals clarifies what kinds of families would benefit most from the tax cuts FRC and the Christian Coalition reportedly are planning to defend:

Faith leaders support Cordoba House, Denounce Anti-Muslim rhetoric

Rather than portraying the Cordoba House/Park51 Islamic Center and mosque in Manhattan as what it actually is -- a center promoting interfaith relations, combating extremism, and offering community programs for people of all religious backgrounds -- opponents of the proposed complex such as Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin have stirred up a great deal of publicity by labeling it an "insult" and a "provocation."

Today more than 40 prominent, diverse faith leaders and religion scholars in New York and across the country issued a statement calling the rhetoric of pundits like Palin and Gingrich exactly what it is -- an appeal to "xenophobia and religious bigotry." The statement, signed by leaders ranging from Simon Greer of Jewish Funds for Justice to National Council of Churches President Peg Chemberlin to Salam Al-Marayati, President of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, argues that Cordoba House opponents "would make a more lasting contribution to our nation if they stopped issuing inflammatory statements and instead helped inspire a civil dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims committed to a future guided by the principles of compassion, justice and peace." The entire statement and list if signatories, including numerous rabbis, is here.

Faithful America - Faith in Public Life's online community of more than 100,000 people of diverse faiths - is also standing up to anti-Muslim sentiment and fierce opposition to proposed mosques in communities across the country by circulating and signing a petition to honor the "many contributions of American Muslims toward global peace" and denounce bigotry and limits on religious freedom as a betrayal of American values. The petition will be sent not only to American Muslim leaders, but also to Gingrich and Palin. Sign it here.

A matter of fact

Sunday's edition of Face the Nation featured a very telling same-sex marriage debate between Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and David Boies, the co-lead attorney of the plaintiffs who successfully argued in federal court that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Throughout the exchange, Boies laid bare the inaccuracy and illogic of Perkins's arguments. Have a look:

One part that jumped out at me in particular was Boies's refutation of Perkins's extremely vague mention of social science data allegedly supporting the arguments against same-sex marriage. Boies responded (beginning at the 2:57 mark):

What we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gays and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature or in debates where they can't be cross-examined. But when they come into court, they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away.

And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. And it's easy to say that on television, but a witness stand is a lonely place to lie, and when you come into court you can't do that. That's what we proved. We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost.

Perkins shot back...by changing the subject. With his main argument dismantled, he started talking about evidence that no-fault divorce harms children. I'm not sure what a study about heterosexual divorce has to do with an argument about gay marriage, but I guess Perkins had to say something. Regardless, the entire segment was yet another demonstration that the religious right's arguments against legal recognition of same-sex marriage aren't grounded in empirical evidence. Media Matters has more documentation of Perkins's disregard for the medical consensus that children of same-sex couples fare as well as children of heterosexual couples.

Tea Theology

Religion News Service's Alfredo Garcia has a great story today asking whether the Tea Party is "unbiblical." Garcia neatly encapsulates the arguments offered on both sides of the question. A couple of choice excerpts:

"I think that the general ideology of the Tea party is not a Christian one," said David Gushee, professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University and co-founder of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, a faith-based nonprofit.

"This kind of small government libertarianism, small taxes, leave-me-alone-to-live-my-life ideology has more in common with Ayn Rand than it does with the Bible."

On the other hand, there's this:

Lloyd Marcus of Deltona, Fla., a spokesman for the Tea Party Express, is a born-again, nondenominational Christian who says flatly that "Jesus was not for socialism."

"Yes, the Bible advocates giving, but out of the goodness of our own hearts, not out of government confiscation of wealth or re-distribution of wealth," he said.

An interesting and commonly raised point, albeit one that evades the "render unto Caesar" argument. I'd add that it'd be difficult for Jesus to be a socialist since he lived over 1,800 years before that system was created, but that's a side point. Garcia's story dispenses with Marcus's claim:

But the Bible, and particularly the Hebrew prophets, are also firm on need to protect the vulnerable, which sometimes requires government action, said Simon Greer, president and CEO of the Jewish Funds for Justice, which helped fuel the progressive backlash against Beck.

Greer said his New York-based group is founded on "the fundamental religious call to care for others," which in turn is based "on the belief that we're all made in the image of the divine."

"The only sensible conclusion is that we need mechanisms like effective government ... to solve the pressing problems that our country faces," he said.

Garcia then notes that "American church-goers gave only about 2.5 percent of disposable income to churches in 2007; of that, only about 0.37 percent--roughly $100 per member--went to charities beyond the church. Those figures are down by about half since 1968." [Another side note: over that period, tax rates have been slashed repeatedly.]

Head-to-head with theologically grounded arguments for the common good and social justice, the Tea Party's biblical case for libertarianism doesn't have a prayer.

Compassion vs cruelty

The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer has a post on The Hill's Congress Blog today which contains several common, inaccurate arguments against comprehensive immigration reform. It goes even further though, by making an evangelical case for... well, cruelty.

On the matter of how to address the millions of people who are here in violation of America's immigration laws, Fishcer proposes:

We should instead deal with the 12 to 20 million illegals [sic] currently in the country through attrition, by making access to any taxpayer-funded resource -- whether education, welfare or healthcare -- contingent upon proof of legal residency.

Once illegals realize they will be sent home the moment they come to the attention of any government agency or any branch of law enforcement, they will immediately stop being a drain on taxpayer resources and will be the most law-abiding residents we have.

Note how Fischer euphemizes the denial of people's most basic needs by using the clinical-sounding term "attrition." What he's really proposing is inflicting so much suffering on his brothers and sisters that they will return to the poverty and lack of opportunity they came to America to overcome. Although Fischer sprinkles individual Bible verses throughout his essay to support various arguments that few people contest (for example, citing Acts 17:26 to support the right to secure the border), he doesn't offer any Biblical support for his proposal to deny people education, medicine, housing and food - probably because there isn't any. (As an aside, I'd suggest that if Fischer is convinced of the righteousness of his stance, he should stand guard in the hospital doors himself and turn away a mother and her seriously ill children because she can't prove her citizenship.)

And regarding the issue of the families torn apart by deportation, Fischer suggests:

Enforcing our immigration policy need not break up families. The president sent spouses and children along when he deported the Russian spies, and we can do the same with every illegal alien. We do not want to separate husbands from wives, or children from parents, so our policy should be to repatriate entire families together to preserve family integrity.

At a pro-immigration reform rally in Columbus, Ohio, yesterday, a mother and her two American-citizen daughters (ages 10 and 5) shared the story the girls' father's ongoing incarceration for re-entering the country illegally. That's a violation of the law, and violating the law needs to have consequences. However, deportation of the entire family crosses the threshold of cruel and unusual punishment. If we're serious about valuing family unity, wouldn't a simpler, cheaper, fairer, more compassionate solution be to hold the father accountable for his actions, while giving him an opportunity to raise his daughters, support his family, earn a wage and contribute to our economy and his community?

That's exactly what moderate and conservative evangelical leaders are calling for, and what prompted Fischer's piece. And the contrast between the measured, compassionate, and practical approach taken by the likes of Leith Anderson (of the NAE) and Matt Staver (of Liberty Counsel) and the cruel one Fischer advocates couldn't be more striking.

Different medium, same message

In addition to Faithful America's Christian radio spot responding to Glenn Beck's attacks on social justice, leaders of the faith community are standing up to Beck with a print ad in the most recent edition of the Forward. The centerfold ad, sponsored by Jewish Funds for Justice (which was the subject of one of Beck's most truly hateful tirades), is signed by more than 250 supporters of the group's work for social justice, including numerous rabbis, Christian clergy, and leaders of organizations such as the American Jewish Committee and the Center for Community Change. It states:

On May 28, on his nationally syndicated radio show, Glenn Beck read an excerpt from aWashington Post column by Jewish Funds for Justice President Simon Greer. In it, Simon argued that we are at our best as a society when we put humankind and the common good first. Beck responded: "This leads to death camps. A Jew, of all people, should know that. This is exactly the kind of talk that led to the death camps in Germany: 'put humankind and the common good first.' "

In the wake of this attack on our shared values, we are grateful to so many leaders for standing with us. Because of your support, Jewish Funds for Justice can continue to speak out against this kind of demagoguery and advocate for real solutions to the pressing challenges facing millions of Americans.

Yet another example of the faith community's outstanding work in response to those who demean social justice. As Beck's attacks on people of faith grow ever more vicious, these efforts are more important than ever. You can view the ad here.

Standing Up to Beck's Attacks on Social Justice

Yesterday Faithful America unveiled a new Christian radio ad campaign calling out Glenn Beck for his attacks on churches that preach about social justice. (You can listen to an audio recording here.) The ad -- which has already earned media coverage at Time and The Atlantic -- will run on Christian stations in several cities Beck visits on his national summer tour, airing in each market while he is in town. The campaign will kick off with Beck's July 31st event in Westbury, NY, and continue through later stops in New Jersey, Washington, DC, and South Carolina.

The ads are part of Faithful America's "Driven by Faith, Not by Fear" campaign, an effort to counter the fear, lies and hateful rhetoric of extreme pundits and the Tea Party.

If you're just joining us, Beck kicked off his anti-faith campaign in March, when he linked social justice to communism and Nazism and urged his audience to abandon churches that preach social justice, saying:

"I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes."

Since then Beck has kept up the effort, attacking Sojourners CEO Jim Wallis, Jewish Funds for Justice CEO Simon Greer, and a host of others. Most recently, he lashed out at Black Liberation Theology. And Beck's almost certainly not done yet. Regardless of what he and other demagogues say, Faithful America and the broader religious community dedicated to social justice will continue to stand up to their vitriol and stand up for our values.

The latest abortion funding myth

The National Right to Life Committee claimed yesterday that the Obama administration has allocated federal funds to Pennsylvania to cover abortion. Family Research Council and House Minority Leader John Boehner quickly echoed the claim. According to NRLC's press release:

"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states. "This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion -- but it will not be the last."

This not true. The following passage on page 14 of the Pennsylvania high-risk insurance pool plan clearly states:

Abortions: Includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3204-3206 and 35 P.S. §§10101, 10103-10105. 1. Elective abortions are not covered. Services rendered to treat illness or injuries resulting from an elective abortion are covered. [emphasis added]

NRLC argues that this prohibition is meaningless:

[T]he proposal specifies that the coverage "includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of" several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says that an abortion is legal in Pennsylvania (consistent with Roe v. Wade) if a single physician believes that it is "necessary" based on "all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman." Indeed, the cited statute provides only a single circumstance in which an abortion prior to 24 weeks is NOT permitted under the Pennsylvania statute: "No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion."

However, a statement subsequently issued by the Department of Health and Human Services reiterates that no federal funds will finance elective abortions:

Under the Affordable Care Act and the President's related Executive Order, federal funds made available to states for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan may not be used to fund abortion. We will reiterate this policy in guidance to those running the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan at both the state and federal levels.

Rather than checking the facts, National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council and John Boehner chose to spread misinformation on the sensitive topic of abortion. It's also worth noting that Family Research Council's press release called not only for federal action to ensure that abortion services not receive federal funds, but also for wholesale repeal of healthcare reform and electoral defeat of Members of Congress who voted for it. Once again we see the issue of abortion used as a political weapon serving partisan ends.

UPDATE: NPR's Julie Rovner filed a story that further dispels these misleading attacks, Key excerpt:

Only there's one problem. Both Obama Administration and Pennsylvania officials say the NRLC's interpretation is simply incorrect -- elective abortions will NOT be allowed in the new program.

"Pennsylvania has not signed a contract yet to start operating their Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan," said HHS Spokeswoman Jenny Backus. And when they do, she added, "our contract that states are signing says clearly that we will be issuing guidance on the administration of Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan so they know they will have to live by our guidance per the contract" when it comes to abortion coverage.

And that's no problem, says Rosanne Placey, of the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance. "Very simply, federal law controls. We know that," she said. "We absolutely do not cover elective abortions.

"We are drawing down federal money. We do that in more that one program," she said, including Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Programs, which similarly ban abortion. "We understand that."

UPDATE II: The Department of Health and Human Services issued this further refutation yesterday:

Statement of HHS Spokeswoman Jenny Backus on the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan Policy

As is the case with FEHB plans currently, and with the Affordable Care Act and the President's related Executive Order more generally, in Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.

Our policy is the same for both state and federally-run PCIP programs. We will reiterate this policy in guidance to those running the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan at both the state and federal levels. The contracts to operate the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan include a requirement to follow all federal laws and guidance.

More Catholic than the Bishops?

Deal Hudson, the editor of InsideCatholic.com and George W. Bush's former Catholic outreach advisor, specializes in slicing and dicing Catholic social teaching to serve his partisan agenda.

Earlier this year, he called for a Catholic Tea Party movement. In this scenario, "real" Catholics - Hudson demeans those who disagree with him as "fake" Catholics - should challenge the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a big-government style bureaucracy Hudson and other arch-conservative Catholics believe has drifted to the political left over the last three decades. This logic may seem bizarre given the bishops' high-profile opposition to abortion, gay marriage, President Obama's commencement address at Notre Dame and, most recently, the final version of health care reform. But welcome to the Catholic right subculture, where the only explanation for the USCCB's focus on poverty, nuclear weapons, immigration and climate change is that a lay staff of liberals has hijacked the conference and distracted bishops from their true priorities.

Now Hudson is using the Catholic principle of "subsidiarity" to do political cheerleading for New Jersey's Republican Governor Chris Christie. In a column earlier this week, he praises the Christie administration for reigning in spending and touts his administration's plans to privatize many state functions. He argues that Christie's agenda of limited government and free-market solutions reflect the essence of subsidiarity, which prioritizes local institutions and smaller agencies over a centralized authority. "Gov. Christie represents a pro-life, pro-family Catholic politician drawing upon the principle of subsidiarity to make budgetary and policy choices that look to the private sector, not the federal government, for solutions to pressing problems," Hudson writes.

As Vox Nova points out, touting the notion that "subsidiarity" is a blanket Catholic endorsement of anti-government sentiment and free-market fundamentalism is a favorite tactic of many Catholic conservatives. It's also a profound misreading of Catholic teaching, which highlights the essential role of government and the perils of economic systems that put profits before human dignity. Ever since Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical on capital and labor, the Catholic Church has advanced a positive vision of government serving the common good. In 1919, U.S. Catholic bishops recruited Monsignor John A. Ryan, a priest whose analysis of social inequality was widely read in the decades following World War I, to write their Program for Social Reconstruction. The program called for what at the time were radical measures: minimum wages, public housing for workers, labor participation in management decisions, and insurance for the elderly and unemployed. Many of these ideas helped inspire Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.

Last summer, Pope Benedict XVI released a timely encyclical responding to the global economic crisis that offered a sober critique of unfettered capitalism that left some Catholic conservatives scrambling to downplay passages that take a skeptical view of unregulated markets. Indeed, the Pope goes where many U.S. politicians fear to tread in his call for a more just distribution of wealth and robust protections for workers against the whims of market excesses. If the Pope were running for political office in the U.S., you can imagine Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck slamming him as a socialist.

Hudson has every right to be a fan of Gov. Christie. Neither political party is aligned perfectly with Catholic teaching. But it would be easier to take Hudson seriously as a commentator if he didn't dress up his Republican cheerleading in Catholic clothing.

Enslaved by absurdity

Faithful America's "Driven by Faith, Not by Fear" campaign this summer is mobilizing people of faith across the country to stand up to hateful rhetoric that distorts and inflames our public dialogue. An example of this kind of speech came up at a political rally in Colorado this weekend, where Rep. Michele Bachmann said America has moved toward a return to slavery since President Obama took office. From the Colorado Independent:

In a room of 600 conservative voters brought together by former Colorado Senate president John Andrews' Centennial Institute, along with Liberty on the Rocks and Colorado Christian University, Bachmann brought the crowd to its feet more than once as she called for an end to the progressive agenda she said has taken over Washington.

"'We are determined to live free or not at all. And we are resolved that posterity shall never reproach us with having brought slaves into the world,'" Bachmann read from founding father John Jay , ending her reading with the statement, "We will talk a little bit about what has transpired in the last 18 months and would we count what has transpired into turning our country into a nation of slaves."

Seriously, a nation of slaves? Show me the chains, the lashes, the sale of human beings, the captivity, the brutal working conditions, the denial of basic personal freedom. We have Constitutional amendments ensuring that this never happens again. Suggesting that America is on its way back to slavery couldn't be more misleading. People of faith need to stand up and declare that this kind of rhetoric has no place in public discourse. It's antithetical to our values. To join Faithful America's summer campaign to counter misleading fearmongering such as Bachmann's, visit Faithfulamerica.org.

Also, Colorado Christian University, which participated in the event, lists among its strategic objectives "be seekers of truth" and "debunk 'spent ideas' and those who traffic in them." I hope they execute these objectives in the wake of Bachmann's remarks. The most cursory search for truth would reveal her accusations to be groundless. Furthermore, conservative arguments that progressive policies will lead to the demise of freedom - accusations made about Social Security, Medicare and now health care reform - have repeatedly not come true. How long until such rhetoric gets classified as a "spent idea"?

Tony Perkins's Greatest Hits

As part of this week's Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination, committee members have invited various witnesses to give expert testimony.

Republicans have already been embarrassed into retracting one of their witnesses, Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin, who was forced to retire from the Pentagon during the Bush administration for framing the war on terrorism as a holy war between Christians and Muslims.

But still on the list is another witness of questionable credibility readers of this blog will know well: Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council. Perkins will presumably be testifying about his view that Kagan is anti-military "because they have not yet bowed to the demands of the militant homosexual movement."

We've been tracking Tony's various extremist statements and false claims for years, but we felt his Senate testimony this week would be a good opportunity to compile them all into one document (available online in pdf form here).

Hopefully members of the committee and the media will keep in mind Perkins's obvious bias and disregard for the truth when he's on the stand.

The people have spoken

In the last few months, Newt Gingrich has been on a media blitz to promote his new book, To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine.

We've documented before how Gingrich's buzzwords only cheapen real faith, but now it looks like we weren't the only ones turned off by it.

From Roll Call today (password protected):

Only a handful of people turned out for the signing of Gingrich's latest book, "To Save America," at the downtown Borders bookstore on Friday...Before Gingrich's event got under way, only six people stood in line in hopes of seeing Gingrich, with the rest of the crowd made up of Gingrich's staff, Borders staffers and journalists.

Looks like the free market Newt holds so dear has spoken...

Catholic News Agency: All the News That's Fit to...Spin?

An old journalism professor once barked at my class: "If your mother tells you she loves you... Check it out." Catholic News Agency, which often operates more like a conservative propaganda outlet than a legitimate news source, has been called out for fabricating quotes attributed to Cardinal Francis George in this article describing a closed meeting at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' recent spring assembly. The executive session included discussions about the Catholic Health Association's high-profile rift with the USCCB over health care reform legislation.

Helen Osman, the Secretary for Communications at the bishops' conference, writes in the USCCB blog that the Catholic News Agency simply "cobbled together its own fabrication of the session." Osman, who attended the executive session closed to reporters, also went back and reviewed the transcript to verify the errors. In contrast to CNA's report, Cardinal George "never used the phrase 'so-called Catholic,' accused the Catholic Health Association of creating a 'parallel magisterium' or said the meeting of the three bishops with Sr. Keehan had 'frustrating results," Osman writes. Disagreement between the USCCB and CHA over health care legislation has been well documented. But, as Osman points out, to "confuse the situation with quotes that aren't true is just plain dishonest."

Even worse, CNN picked up Catholic News Agency's flawed report in this online story. Many of us who work at the intersection of faith and politics have come to expect spin from outlets like Catholic News Agency or Raymond Arroyo's segments on EWTN. CNN should know better than to use CNA as a credible news source. CNN would have been better off doing their own digging or calling John Allen, a National Catholic Reporter correspondent regarded as one of the most respected chroniclers of Catholicism in the world. Allen covered the same meeting and got on-the-record quotes from Cardinal George that offered a conciliatory tone toward CHA. He also included a quote from Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., that could be read as thoughtful criticism of the bishops' conference approach to health care legislation. "I've been associated in one way or another with the Episcopal conference of the United States since 1972," Bishop Lynch said. "I have never before this year heard the theory that we enjoy the same primacy of respect for legislative interpretation as we do for interpretation of the moral law."

Not surprisingly, there is more to this unfolding story than you're ever going to be reading about in Catholic News Agency.

Gingrich softens his tone, but still questions opponents' faith

Last month former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich dismissed faith leaders who worked to pass health care reform as socialists looking for another opportunity to redistribute wealth. This came on the heels of his release of a book warning of Democrats' "secular-socialist machine" working to drive God out of public life. Before that, he played an instrumental role in stirring up opposition to the president's commencement speech at Notre Dame, saying Obama has "anti-Catholic values" (at the time, Gingrich had not yet converted to Catholicism). In other words, Gingrich has a track record as a self-appointed judge of other people's faith.

Now it sounds like he's changing his tone, if not his tune. On a segment responding to President Obama's remarks on the power of prayer in his speech about the BP oil spill last night, Fox & Friends host Gretchen Carlson gave him an easy opportunity to question the sincerity of President Obama's faith, asking

But Mr. Speaker, did you find it at all disingenuous, because some people are analyzing that this morning as saying it was disingenuous from a president who does not go to Church on a regular basis?

Gingrich answered:

Well, I hope he means it. [...] I'm sad that it took a crisis of this scale, but I'm delighted that the president has recognized that we in fact all are subordinate to a larger God and that we need to seek guidance from that God.

Gingrich declined to directly challenge Obama's faith, and even gave him qualified praise, but saying "...I hope he means it" is a subtle way to cast doubt on the president's faith. Why would Gingrich "hope" President Obama means it, unless he suspected the president was being insincere? For Gingrich, the segment is a step toward civility, but it shows he still has a lot of room to improve when it comes to respecting other people's faith.

To petition or not to petition

Michael Sean Winters had a thoughtful post at America last week reflecting on a recent petition campaign by Catholics United in response to the news that a Catholic elementary school in Massachusetts denied admission to a student because his parents are in a same-sex relationship. The petition quickly amassing over 5,000 signatures (including mine) encouraging Archbishop O'Malley to affirm a diocese-wide policy preventing this kind of discrimination.

While affirming that he appreciates Catholics United's general work providing a counterweight to conservative Catholic groups who treat GOP talking points as religious doctrine, Winters sees this petition as misguided:

"But, the school case in Boston is not about politics. Better to say, the most important thing is to make sure that it doesn't become about politics. I am sure that for every one of the 5,000 signatures Catholics United got for its petition, a conservative group can marshal an equal number of signatories urging Cardinal O'Malley to take the opposite course and ban the children of same-sex couples from attending catholic schools. A pastor has an obligation to keep his flock together as much as possible. I do not see how petition drives, the counter influences they elicit, or any of the accoutrement of contemporary politics will advance the cause of unity among the faithful."

Winters's concern about stoking culture war flames is reasonable, but I think he misses the forest for the trees in this particular instance. Catholics United didn't politicize this issue; it was political the instant it hit the national media, where years of conservative Catholic politicization of LGBT issues has portrayed the Church as a monolithically conservative institution pitted against liberal secularists. Moreover, the school incident fit into an existing political context because of its similarity to a recent case in Colorado, which garnered national attention and galvanized the Catholic right, ultimately prompting Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput to issue a statement defending the policy of expelling children of same-sex parents.

I share Winters's concerns that political efforts can threaten the unity of the faithful, but I think responsibility for divisiveness lies with advocates of "litmus-test-Catholicism" who use disagreements like these to separate the Church into good and bad Catholics. The way to change this narrative isn't to sit quietly and hope -- hesitation to speak out against partisan polarization in the Church is exactly what got us here in the first place. There's no going back to a time when events like this school's decision escape media attention or go un-remarked upon by conservative partisans. To be an effective counterweight, groups like Catholics United need to stand up and demonstrate that the Catholic Right does not speak for the whole Catholic church.

Regardless of whether the petition influenced Archbishop O'Malley, it certainly had an effect on the media coverage of the story and disrupted the idea that the school pastor or Chaput's previous statement spoke for all Catholics on this issue. Combined with Archbishop O'Malley's ultimate decision to help place the child in another Catholic school, I think the story stood out as a welcome change in Catholic coverage, showing a compassionate, reasonable side of the faith over a politicized, divisive one.

To be clear, I don't mean to read Winters's post as a general dismissal of progressive faith work. Fair with both his support and critiques, I think his opinions are valuable insights for progressive groups, and I'd be interested to hear more of his thoughts on how they can best make an impact in the Church and the public square.

Death camps?!?!

Glenn Beck took to the airwaves today to respond to a letter from Simon Greer, president and CEO of Jewish Funds for Justice, which recently targeted Beck with a brilliant Twitter campaign in which people tweeted haikus about social justice to Beck. On the show, Beck quotes from Greer's letter:

"...Government makes our country function. To put God first is to put humankind first. To put humankind first is to put the common good first."

Glenn Beck responds:

"This leads to death camps. A Jew, of all people, should know that. This is exactly the kind of talk that led to the death camps in Germany. Put humankind and the common good first."

I am totally flabbergasted by this insane "logic." Particularly in light of Newt Gingrich's comments today, in which he backed down from his comparison of the Obama administration to Nazi Germany, I would've thought conservative commentators would have started to wise up. Incendiary and irrational statements like this, particularly ones which reference a horrific moment in history, are not only cruel, but also undermine the shreds of credibility they have left.

Listen to the whole excerpt here, or see the transcript over at Media Matters:

UPDATE: Simon Greer responded with a powerful statement today:

...Glenn Beck has a history recklessly invoking Nazi Germany and the Holocaust in order to advance his political agenda. But never before has Beck accused Jews - including survivors of the Holocaust and their children and grandchildren - of paving the way for fascism. Through his comments, Beck has demonstrated that he has no idea what leads to fascism. Jews and others, who were victims of the Holocaust, do not have the luxury of his ignorance.

Beck's reflexive hatred for government is rejected by Americans of all backgrounds, who have seen the powerful role government can play in providing us with greater freedom, security, and opportunity. I am proud of the work we do at Jewish Funds for Justice, where our belief that we are all made in the image of the divine compels us to petition private enterprise, charities, and yes, the government, to do their part to ensure our shared divinity.

The right-wing freak-out

We've been following the ridiculous arguments right-wing organizations have been making about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for a while now. So it comes as no surprise to us that this week's news of a DADT repeal has them upset. But even I wasn't anticipating the depths to which they'd sink this time.

The right has gone into full freak-out mode, portraying LGBT soldiers as dangerous rapists whose "disease-tainted gay blood threatens our troops." If polemical religious right arguments are to be believed, without DADT, LGBT Americans will join the military en masse (because they aren't serving already), sexually assault their straight counterparts, and intimidate their superiors into covering it up under threat of political correctness?

The basis for these revolting claims? An "analysis" produced by FRC Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg who claims his review of a Department of Defense report on sexual assaults reveals that homosexuals are "three times more likely to commit sexual assault than heterosexuals."

Sprigg's theory doesn't really deserve a response, but Joshua Tucker at the Monkey Cage provides a statistical dismantling anyway:

1. First and most significantly, the study provides no evidence of the proportion of same-sex assaults that are committed by homosexuals. This is crucial to the study, because the authors want to leverage the information in the study to argue that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military. But their data measure assaults by men against men or women against women, not the number of assaults by homosexuals. Thus without any understanding of the proportion of same sex assaults that are committed by homosexuals, the inference that homosexuals are more likely to commit sexual assault is invalid.

2. Second, we don't know if the proportion of homosexuals in the military matches the proportion in the general population. The authors of the study assume that the proportions are similar, but if homosexuals are overrepresented in the military relative to the general population, then the inference is invalid. Moreover, it is not even clear that the general population is the right reference group; the military is overwhelmingly made up of young men. So even if we think the demographic composition of the military reflects the general population - which it may very well not - we'd still want to know something like the prevalence of homosexuality among 18-30 year old males, not among the population as a whole.

3. Moreover, even if we assume that the proportion of homosexuals in the military mirrors the proportion in the general population, the conclusions of the study are dependent on a low estimate of homosexuals in the general population (<8.15/3, or <2.7%). Other studies have found higher estimates.

While it's disheartening to see attacks are coming from groups claiming to espouse Christian values, maybe the extreme nature of their arguments will convince Congressional leaders who have sided with them in the past and are threatening to block the bill to re-think their alliances. The House is expected to vote on repeal tonight and many in the faith community hope they'll stand up against attacks like these in favor of dignity and equality.

Socialists?

In a recent National Review interview about his upcoming book, disgraced former Speaker of the House and recent Catholic convert Newt Gingrich had some rather uncharitable words for people of faith who supported health care reform (h/t Think Progress):

NATIONAL REVIEW: How do you explain all the Christian leaders who backed up ObamaCare? It wasn't -- there were a lot of religious leaders who supported that effort.

GINGRICH: I don't think being the leader of an organized group necessarily means that you're going to -- you will or won't understand the critique that I just outlined. ... A lot of religious leaders who come out of basically a socialist background. They don't create wealth. They don't create jobs. They in fact redistribute wealth and so from their perspective this is just one more opportunity to redistribute -- this is sort of compulsory charity, what we used to call taxes.

This is just lazy. Rather than tackling the moral and theological arguments of faith leaders who support health care reform, Gingrich breezily dismisses them with buzzwords and platitudes that don't even fit the policy. (Much to the chagrin of actual socialists, the health care reform law President Obama signed last month keeps most of the system in private hands.) I'd expect more than the latest right-wing boilerplate about socialism -- which Thomas Frank refers to as "an enhanced version of the old favorite epithet, 'liberal'"-- from a self-styled intellectual and guardian of Christian values such as Gingrich.

Also, suggesting that people of faith who dedicate their lives to caring for the sick and the dying see health reform that will save thousands of lives and give millions of people access to quality healthcare saw reform as "just one more opportunity to redistribute" wealth is ignorant and disrespectful. While he is jockeying for the spotlight and using cheap rhetoric to impugn their motives, they are honoring the tenets of their faith by seeking to alleviate the deadly shortcomings of our health care system.

I'd suggest that Gingrich introduce himself to faith leaders who support health care reform, listen to their theological reasoning and their stories about the people they have seen suffer and die because they lacked health insurance. He might learn something.

Politics vs Principle

Wanted to flag this post by Michael Sean Winters on the continuing fallout of the healthcare debate in the Catholic community, because he raises an extremely important yet seldom-raised point:

Bishops, of course, have unique authority when they teach on faith or morals. But, they have no such authority regarding the interpretation of civil legislation or their best guesses as to how market forces will respond to that legislation. ... the USCCB also has no divinely guaranteed authority when it comes to intelligently awarding grants through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. We Catholics are not automatons. We can disagree with bishops about such matters. Our differences may be stupid, they may be short-sighted, they may be based on a difference in perspective, but they are not grounds for a charge of disloyalty (emphasis added).

What Sr. Carol Keehan and other Catholic supporters of the health care bill did was exercise their best judgment on how to apply Catholic moral principles (like opposition to abortion) to complex legislation. Based on expert legal analysis, they came to a different factual, not moral, conclusion than the USCCB -- that the health care bill did not, in fact, fund abortion.

This, however, does not stop people like former Republican operative Deal Hudson from attacking Keehan. Hudson alleges Keehan had no other option than to fall in line with not just the USCCB's moral claims, but also their legal claims about the healthcare bill.

All this is a bit rich coming from Hudson, who is quick to ignore the USCCB himself when it suits him. He recently called for Catholics to "tea party" the USCCB, and has himself made Winters' point about the differences between the bishops' authority in moral vs legislative matters:

Catholics need to realize there is no "Church view" on the present health-care bill, but there is a position being taken by the bishops' conference. The Church teaching Catholics are obliged to consider comes in the form of moral principles that must be applied prudentially to the legislation under consideration.

I guess in Hudson's mind, the USCCB has no authority on healthcare reform, unless that authority could help the GOP.

Right's Wrong on Kagan and DADT

Leaders on the religious right responded to Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court today by alleging that she has "disdain for the military" and falsely claiming that as Dean of Harvard Law School she "kick[ed] the military off campus during the height of the Iraq War." These inflammatory and misleading claims stem from Kagan's restriction of military recruitment on campus due to the military's discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. (Side note: a large majority of Americans agree that DADT should be repealed.) Media Matters has a thorough takedown laying out numerous facts that debunk these attacks against her. Among the key points:

REALITY: Kagan consistently followed the law, and Harvard students had access to military recruiters during her entire tenure as dean. Throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Moreover, Kagan consistently followed existing law regarding access to military recruiters. Kagan briefly restricted (but did not eliminate) access to recruiters only after the U.S Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that law schools could do so.

...

FACT: Military veterans at Harvard Law dispelled notion that Kagan was "anti-military." Military veterans at Harvard Law School strongly dispute the idea that Kagan was anti-military and stated that she had a "strong record of welcoming and honoring veterans on campus." In response to the Washington Times op-ed, three military veterans who were Harvard law students at the time wrote a letter to the Judiciary Committee that said, in part: "As Iraq War veterans who currently attend Harvard Law School, we wanted to inform the Committee of Dean Kagan's strong record of welcoming and honoring veterans on campus." The veterans also wrote a letter to The Washington Timesthat [sic] stated, in part, that while they opposed the restrictions on military recruiters, "During [Kagan's] time as dean, she has created an environment that is highly supportive of students who have served in the military."

The fact-check includes an exhaustive refutation of misleading claims that Kagan barred military recruiters. Read the whole thing.

Franklin Graham's Selective Hearing

Last week, Franklin Graham was disinvited from a Pentagon prayer service for calling Islam an evil religion. Since the announcement, Graham has gone on a media blitz, playing the victim and reiterating his hateful remarks. Among numerous inflammatory and dubious claims, he had this to say to Newsweek's Jon Meacham yesterday:

"I am who I am. I don't believe that you can get to heaven through being a Buddhist or Hindu. I think Muhammad only leads to the grave. Now, that's what I believe, and I don't apologize for my faith. And if it's divisive, I'm sorry. I think yelling "Allahu Akbar" as you're flying jet airplanes through buildings and killing 3,000 Americans--that was evil and it was wicked. And I've not heard one Islamic leader around the world stand up and say that was a terrible thing."

The only way he could not have heard any condemnation from Muslims is if he's been covering his ears for the last nine years. For starters, there are things like this...and this...and these. You know what, Rev. Graham should probably just read the whole list.

Don't Ask (about our logic)

I've wondered for a while what role military chaplains would play in the debate about repealing "Don't Ask/Don't Tell," so last week when the Family Research Council and Alliance Defense Fund introduced a letter from 41 retired chaplains advocating preservation of the policy, I took notice. The letter, announced with great fanfare at the National Press Club, which made headlines with religious and secular press, was treated with skepticism in Stars and Stripes (an official military news publication):

Conservative groups predict tight restrictions on chaplains' religious speech if the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law is overturned, with some evangelical Christian groups contemplating pulling their ministers out of the ranks.

"The approved gospel will be a politically correct gospel," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian lobbying group that deals with marriage and family issues. "If chaplains are limited in the moral teachings they can present [because of a repeal], you will see orthodox Christian chaplains leaving the military."

Religious leaders in and outside the military doubted those predictions.

Air Force Chief of Chaplains Maj. Gen. Cecil Richardson said he thinks a repeal will be a "difficult transition," but "I don't know a single chaplain who wants to get out because of that issue."

In addition to this refutation from the Air Force Chief of Chaplains, the letter pushed out by FRC and ADF was laced with dubious reasoning, as Mark Silk points out:

The letter sent to President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates by a group retired chaplains begging for retention of Don't Ask/Don't Tell is not exactly a testament to intellectual honesty. The chaplains--evangelicals and other conservative Protestants--are exercised that if the military "normalizes homosexual behavior" it will impinge upon their own religious liberty. But as they are well aware, clergy don't enjoy the same degree of religious liberty when they're employed by the military as they do as civilians. There are rules limiting proselytizing, for example, and although these have always stuck in the craw of evangelical chaplains anxious to exercise the Great Commission, they have had to abide by them. If they can't, then they can always pursue their calling outside the confines of military service.

Deep into the letter, the signatories do admit that military chaplains only have their jobs by virtue of the need to enable other service personnel to exercise their own right of religious free exercise. The letter goes on to claim that limiting chaplains' religious freedom will limit the free exercise rights of "the men and women in uniform who share their faith and rely on their instruction." Why? Because it says so.

The truth is that by not forbidding it American society "normalizes" what a lot of religious folks consider sinful behavior: divorce, extramarital sex, alcohol consumption, dancing, gambling, abortion. It's simply necessary for Americans to recognize that the norms of civil society are not necessarily the same as the norms of their particular faith. And that goes for the military portion of civil society as well.

Tea Time for Dobson

Earlier today James Dobson issued a retraction of his endorsement of Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the state's U.S. Senate primary contest, and has now thrown his weight behind Rand Paul, son of Texas representative and 2008 presidential contender Ron Paul.

The reason for the switch? Dobson claims he was "misled by senior members of the GOP" on Paul's abortion views, which have been the subject of debate between the candidates. Left unexplained though is if the only change Dobson cites is that he now finds the two candidates' abortion stances equivalent, why go through the "embarrassing" switch? Dobson identifies no particular faults with Grayson that would indicate a reason to retract his endorsement.

The end of Dobson's message gives a clue. Amidst a list of particular policy positions Rand supports, Dobson highlights the most distinct difference between the two candidates: Rand "identifies with the Tea Party," making him "[Dobson's] kind of man." (Paul's lead in the polls may also make him Dobson's "kind of man").

Dobson's flip continues a recent trend of social conservatives jumping at the chance to call the Tea Party "movement" their own. Last month, Tony Perkins trumpeted his constituents' engagement with the Tea Party as a warning to the RNC, and two weeks ago Sen. Jim DeMint claimed that a "parallel spiritual revival" would accompany the movement. All three seem to be trying to hitch the religious right wagon to what they see as "the next big thing" of conservative politics.

Whether blinded by the perceived political power of the movement, or simply ignorant of its substance, Dobson and others seem to be neglecting to ask whether the Tea Party really does share their values. Characterized by out-of-touch attitudes towards race, hostility to the poor, and a propensity towards violent threats, Tea Party activists have earned condemnation from not just the left. Even fellow conservative leader Chuck Colson has warned Christians of the extremes of the group.

But despite their relative marginality, the Tea Parties continue to receive disproportional amounts of media coverage. And as long as they continue receiving media attention, we shouldn't be surprised by the usual suspects trying to share the spotlight.

Now what exactly does a "secular-socialist machine" look like?

Today's Washington Post features a polemical and off-base column from none other than Newt Gingrich, in which he claims that "the Obama-Pelosi-Reid system is clearly a secular-socialist machine" and that "Obama is the most radical president in American history."

Gingrich claims that President Obama-- a Christian who is outspoken about his personal religious beliefs -- is "secular" because Obama described the U.S. as a "secular country that is respectful of religious freedom," and because he appointed David Hamilton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. (Hamilton ruled on a church-state case that caused a bit of a brouhaha on the right.)

It's pretty ironic that Gingrich's piece runs right on the heels of the announcement that President Obama's administration will fight to keep the National Day of Prayer, appealing a federal judge's recent ruling that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.

Yep, that sounds exactly like the actions of a "secular-socialist machine."

It's also easy enough to address the ridiculousness of both of Gingrich's claims directly. In fact, Dan tackled the Judge Hamilton issue quite well a while back. And I think it's pretty clear that the President understands the importance of faith to the life of our country. (Also, last year in the same speech Gingrich quotes, the President also said "I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation -- we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.")

That doesn't sound so radical to me.

A new low for the American Family Association

The American Family Association has said some pretty atrocious things before (remember when they said the U.S. ought to deport all Muslims...?), but today I think they hit a new low.

On the AFA's blog today, blogger Elijah Friedeman claims:

...If a radical homegrown terrorist group attacked the United States, following after the example of Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City, it would be horrible, outrageous. If Al Qaeda managed to attack us again, killing thousands of people, the nation would be devastated, saddened and enraged. However neither of these terrible events would affect the existence of America. Big government, on the other hand, is set on destroying the individual on which America is built... It is amply clear that big government is a larger, more insidious threat to America than any other group in the world. Period.

Horrifying, especially as this week, the country remembered and mourned the loss of 168 men, women, and children, who were killed in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, an anti-government extremist. I think we know all too well what extreme rhetoric can lead to, as President Clinton eloquently said this week:

...We should never forget what drove the bombers, and how they justified their actions to themselves. They took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them. On that April 19, the second anniversary of the assault of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, deeply alienated and disconnected Americans decided murder was a blow for liberty.

H/T: Think Progress

Tempest in a Tea Pot?

I've been meaning to blog about recent polls pertaining to Tea Party supporters all week. Last week's New York Times/CBS News poll, which Beth alluded to yesterday, revealed a wealth of information, including findings that Tea Party activists tend to be churchgoing, angry, conservative, gun-owning, relatively affluent, middle-aged white males. Politico also did some exit polling of an April 15 Tax Day rally in Washington, showing nearly equal proportions of social conservatives and social libertarians at the event. (Politico's sample appears to be a small subset of Tea Partyers, though - the New York Times/CBS poll showed that 13 percent of Tea Party supporters have attended rallies.)

I was chomping at the bit to tie together these and other findings into a broad analysis of the overlap of the Tea Party and the Religious Right. It was going to be such a grand project...then this morning I read a Politico article with a rather deflating title -- "The tea party's exaggerated importance." Co-written by Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith, it argued in part:

In fact, there is a word for what poll after poll depicts as a group of largely white, middle-class, middle-aged voters who are aggrieved: Republicans.

...

The tea parties' main expression has been public gatherings. But last week's Tax Day crowds were not representative of a force that is purportedly shaping the country's politics. About a thousand people showed up in state capitals like Des Moines, Montgomery and Baton Rouge - and even fewer in large cities like Philadelphia, Boston and Milwaukee. In some cases, turnout was less than the original protests spurred by the stimulus, bailouts, financial crisis and new Democratic president last April 15th.

In Washington, about 10,000 people showed up on the national Mall last week - a rally worth covering but far fewer than the tens of thousands who marched in support of immigration reform in March.

As an avid armchair analyst of the Tea Party, I found this almost disappointing on the one hand, like I'd been making a mountain out of a molehill. But on the other, it's much more encouraging to find data suggesting that they aren't the vanguard of a "spiritual revival" akin to the Great Awakening, as Senator DeMint told David Brody yesterday. In fact, they resemble garden-variety conservatives more than a burgeoning religious force taking the country by storm. I still think tracking and analyzing the Tea Party is important, but articles like these are a good reminder to not blow things out of proportion.

FRC's latest distortions reveal partisan agenda

As the Family Research Council's Action PAC ramps up its attacks against Democratic Members of Congress with an ad campaign rife with misinformation about abortion and health care reform, another false claim on their part further demonstrates their partisan agenda. Two of the Democratic Members of Congress they are aiming to unseat this year didn't even vote for the health reform legislation FRC claims as the impetus for their campaign targeting.

FRC issued a press release yesterday announcing their "20 in 10" campaign targeting "the districts of 20 Democratic incumbents who voted for President Obama's abortion-funding health care bill." However, two of the Members FRC is targeting- Reps. Glenn Nye and Walter Minnick -- voted against health care reform. They both happen to be in very tight races for re-election, though. The Cook Political Report rates both contests as tossups.

The language on the FRC Action PAC website describing the "20 in 10" campaign contradicts the language in the FRC Action PAC press release, merely indicating that the targeted Democrats face "pro-life, pro-family" challengers and are vulnerable:

...FRCACTION PAC has spent many months researching races we see as vulnerable and that will have pro-life, pro-family candidates to fill the void. As a result of the "health care" bill, we have expanded and revised our original "target list" from the "dirty dozen" to the "20 in '10" list. The expansion reflects those so called "pro-life" Democrats who seemed destined to heroism when they joined forces with Bart Stupak on a House bill that would have precluded any use federal dollars for abortion, but who caved under White House and Democrat [sic] leadership.

Given all of the misinformation and inconsistency swirling around FRC's website and press releases, it's hard to get to the bottom of the reasoning behind their political targeting. But their glaringly false statement about Congressmen Nye and Minnick, alongside their inaccurate claims about health care reform and abortion funding, suggests that the "20 in 10" campaign uses the issue of abortion funding in healthcare as a false pretext to carry water for the Republican party. They should immediately correct their misleading statements about health care reform, as well as the false claim that Rep. Nye and Rep. Minnick voted for this legislation.

If FRC disagrees with these 20 Members of Congress on principled reasons, they're free to support whatever challengers they see fit. But deploying distortions and lies in the service of their campaign is not the way to go about it.

Fact-Checking FRC's Radio Ad Attacking the Health Care Bill

A recent radio ad from the Family Research Council's Action PAC ran in Rep. Bart Stupak's district and may be up on the air soon in the districts of another 20 pro-life Democrats. The misleading ad perpetuates myths about abortion and health reform that have been refuted time and time again.

Listen to the ad here. Here's the transcript:

Woman 1: What's that noise?

Woman 2: That's our congressman, Bart Stupak, opening the back door for a health care law that would allow our tax dollars to pay for abortions.

Woman 1: I thought he was pro-life. Didn't I hear he got President Obama to sign an executive order stopping taxpayer funding of abortions in the health care bill?

Woman 2: Yes, but even the abortion industry agrees that the President's order has no legal standing. It's worthless!

Woman 1: So how will the bill force us the pay for abortions?

Woman 2: Well for starters it allows plans to receive tax-payer subsidies to cover elective abortions and it funds school-based clinics with no restrictions on abortion referrals for young girls. Plus, it gives $11 billion to community health care centers that could pay for abortions."

Woman 1: Wow! Well if Representative Stupak is going to open up the back door for the abortion industry, I think it's time to show him the exit door.

Family Research Action Council PAC is responsible for this advertising paid for by Family Research Council Action PAC at frcactionpac.org and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

The first falsehood is the claim that Representative Bart Stupak opened up "the back door for a health care law that would allow our tax dollars to pay for abortions." A few seconds later, the "evidence" for this claim is provided in three parts (which are fact-checked individually below) -- 1. taxpayer subsidies, 2. school-based clinic referrals, and 3. community health care centers. The ad also contains serious misinformation around the President's executive order on abortion funding restrictions.

1. Taxpayer subsidies

As we (and many others, including Pulitzer-Prize winning PolitiFact) have fact-checked many times, no tax dollars will go towards the provision of abortion services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The legislation, passed by the House and the Senate and signed into law by President Obama on March 23, bars the use of any federal subsidies for abortion coverage, except in cases allowed by the long-standing Hyde amendment--- rape, incest, or to save the life of the pregnant woman. [See pages 779-782 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.]

Anyone who receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance and opts for a plan that includes abortion coverage will have to pay a separate premium out of their own pocket for this coverage. This separate premium will have to cover the full cost of the abortion coverage and be kept in a separate audited account.

Also, as NPR noted last week, the legislation allows states to ban all abortion coverage through the exchanges - even if a woman pays for it with her own money. In fact, at least three states -- Missouri, Tennessee and Louisiana -- are already pursuing this path, even though the exchanges won't be functional until 2014. Some pro-life groups are already taking advantage of this provision in the bill, even as they spread misinformation about the legislation.

2. School-based health clinic referrals

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act prohibits school-based clinics from providing abortions and requires school-based clinics to comply with parental consent and notification laws at the state level, some of which may restrict referrals from employees at school-based clinics. See the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, page 430:

''(3) SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTER.--The term 'schoolbased health center' means a health clinic that-- ''(A) meets the definition of a school-based health center under section 2110(c)(9)(A) of the Social Security Act and is administered by a sponsoring facility (as defined in section 2110(c)(9)(B) of the Social Security Act); ''(B) provides, at a minimum, comprehensive primary health services during school hours to children and adolescents by health professionals in accordance with established standards, community practice, reporting laws, and other State laws, including parental consent and notification laws that are not inconsistent with Federal law; and ''(C) does not perform abortion services.

Like most statutes governing abortion, the legislation does not specifically address the issue of referrals, neither explicitly barring nor mandating what types of referrals counselors, nurses, or other professionals may offer students in a school-based health clinic. The status quo will not be changed by this legislation. Any state and local restrictions on referrals will be left untouched, and states are free to craft legislation that prescribes what counselors, nurses, or other employees may or may not say to students in a counseling or referral scenario.

School-based health care clinics are extraordinarily important providers of care for low-income and vulnerable children and youth. While teen pregnancy is an unfortunate fact of life in our society and no efforts will be able to eradicate teen pregnancy completely, school-based health care clinics help children and teens to receive the medical care they need. As Linda Jusczcak, Executive Director of the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care, said on March 21:

School-based health centers ensure that more than 1 million children and adolescents across the country gain access to high quality, comprehensive medical care, mental health services, preventive care, social services, and youth development. These services are provided without concern for students' ability to pay and in a location that meets children and adolescents where they are: at school.

Further, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes $250 million dollars over ten years to support pregnant teenagers and young mothers, allowing them to complete their education and carry their pregnancies to term, rather than choosing to have an abortion. [See Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, pages 813-817.] This provision is based on pro-life Senator Bob Casey's Pregnant Women Support Act, a bill that was crafted in coordination with numerous faith-based pro-life organizations, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association.

The FRC Action ad chooses to scare listeners into thinking the health care bill opens up new avenues for young girls to get abortions, when in fact state and local restrictions on referrals will be left untouched, and states are free to craft whatever legislation they please regarding referrals. Meanwhile, the ad completely ignores the benefit of school-based health centers for adolescents and $250 million in new funding in the legislation for an innovative, life-affirming program that will positively impact young women facing crisis pregnancies.

3. Community health care centers

As we've noted in previous fact-check posts, community health care centers do not provide abortions. As the National Association of Community Health Centers stated last month,

"...Health Centers do not plan to, nor are they seeking to, become providers of abortion. On the contrary, last year health centers provided prenatal, perinatal, and post-natal/post-partum care to 1 of every 8 children born in the U.S."

Also, as health care policy expert and law professor Tim Jost has noted, funding for community health centers cannot pay for abortions because these funds will go into an existing pool of federal money that is explicitly prohibited from paying for abortions:

"The Senate bill... provides that this funding [for community health care centers] is to be transferred to HHS accounts to increase funding for community health centers and does not provide for segregating these funds. Since all other HHS funding, including expenditures from trust funds, is subject to the Hyde Amendment, these funds cannot be used to pay for abortions."

Furthermore, as Jost points out, federal regulations that have been on the books for decades prevent community health centers from legally doing so:

The Federal Regulations, 42 C.F.R. 50.301, 50.303, which date back to the 1970s, prohibit "any programs or projects supported in whole or in part by federal financial assistance, whether by grant or contract, appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services and administered by the Public Health Services," from the performance of abortions except for cases of rape, incest, or physical life endangerment of the mother.

In fact, the $11 billion in the health care bill for community health centers will enable health centers to care for almost 20 million more patients, including many pregnant women and children in rural areas. While the FRC Action ad twists the facts in order to scare listeners into believing that community health centers will provide federally-funded abortions, it ignores the direct benefit pregnant women and children they claim to advocate for will receive from increased funding for these centers in the health care bill.

4. Executive Order

The ad also includes a falsehood about the executive order President Obama issued on March 24, 2010, which underscored existing restrictions on any federal funding of abortion. It's important to note that the executive order ensures enforcement and implementation of longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion-- restrictions that are present in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The ad's claim that an executive order has "no legal standing" is wrong. Under the Constitution, the President is in charge of the executive branch and an executive order directed at a federal government agency (part of the executive branch) is effectively law. (See U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I.)

Also, executive orders have been an integral part of American governance for hundreds of years, and major steps in American history have happened via executive order (such as the Emancipation Proclamation).

As Representative Stupak has said,

"Throughout history, Executive Orders have been an important means of implementing public policy. The most famous Executive Order was the Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Lincoln in 1863. More recently, in 2007 President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13435 restricting embryonic stem cell research. This Executive Order followed the principle of the sanctity of life, and was applauded and welcomed by the pro-life community. That these same people would now claim President Obama's Executive Order maintaining that same principle is not worth the paper it is written on is disingenuous. Why is an Executive Order signed by President Bush applauded, yet President Obama's is condemned?"

As Rep. Stupak alludes to, pro-life groups (including religious organizations) praised President George W. Bush's executive orders curtailing research on embryonic stem cells. James Dobson, then head of Focus on the Family, responded to Bush's 2001 executive order with celebration:

"[President Bush] deserves praise from citizens who understand that it is never justified to destroy one life in order to possibly save another."

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which argued that the executive order on abortion funding restrictions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was not adequate to uphold the Hyde Amendment, applauded President Bush's executive order on stem-cell research in 2007.

Professor Jost's helpful analysis of the executive order notes that in addition to the Emancipation Proclamation, executive orders from Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson desegregated schools and ended discrimination in federal programs. Jost says it succinctly: executive orders "independently have the force of law."

"A hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean"

Yesterday, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, instructing her to "ensure that patients can receive compassionate care and equal treatment during their hospital stays," by giving patients the right to designate visitors. This directive addresses the current flaws in our hospital status quo, which can lead to gay and lesbian patients being separated from their families in the toughest of times (like Janice Langbehn, who was barred from entering the hospital room of her partner of 18 years, Lisa Pond, after Lisa suffered an aneurysm and was dying). But this memorandum isn't just about the LGBT community; it also allows widows, widowers, nuns, priests, unmarried couples, and others to designate their loved ones as visitors, even when not legally connected.

The directive speaks poignantly of the need for compassion and companionship at life's darkest moments:

There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital. In these hours of need and moments of pain and anxiety, all of us would hope to have a hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean -- a loved one to be there for us, as we would be there for them.

The faith community is speaking out in support of these new guidelines and the way in which they further our society's recognition of the humanity and dignity of every person. For a list of statements from religious groups and partners, check out the press release here. I thought this statement from Richard Cizik at the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good was particularly powerful:

"It is not only a policy that reflects the compassion of the American people, but it is an across-the-board guarantee to people of all faiths and traditions to have access to their loved ones in times of grave emergency and distress. To have access to loved ones in all conditions of life is something Evangelicals see as compassionate and just."

Sadly, what should be cause for celebration has been marred by a few fringe organizations attacking the directive as a stepping-stone in a quest to "redefine marriage."

Today, in a live discussion at the Washington Post, Peter Sprigg from the Family Research Council reiterated his organization's opposition to the President's directive, saying:

"Granting patient's autonomy and self-determination in deciding who can visit them or make medical decisions in an emergency is a good thing, and with advance directives it does not have to be based on a family or marital relationship--or even a sexual one. Unfortunately, this issue has been inflated in support of redefining marriage."

While we can and should have a civil and respectful conversation about same-sex marriage, it seems abundantly clear from reading the President's memo that this conversation is entirely separate from the directive on hospital visitation. It seems cruel to deny the reality that many individuals (gay, straight, young, old, nuns, widows, mothers) have suffered through a serious medical trauma alone. This announcement is a welcome opportunity for common ground. Regardless of how we feel about gay marriage or any other issue, can't we agree that no one should die alone? No one should be separated from a loving partner or a steadfast friend in time of deep pain and distress.

More on the religious right and the Tea Party

Following up on last week's post about the religious right and the Tea Party, some interesting new developments further complicate the relationship between the two camps.

Fox News - which has actively promoted the Tea Party movement - published an article today about the nascent group, saying in part:

while organizers have held the tour as a way to stay front-and-center as a political force, the rallies have also attracted the kinds of mistruths, exaggerations and conspiracy theories that make Tea Party leaders cringe. Though the movement is still trying to shore up its credentials as a grassroots power that's here to stay, the so-called "fringe" and its accompanying antics continue to give critics fodder.

The story quotes participants on the "fringe" of the Tea Party Movement claiming that President Obama is a Stalinist, a fascist, a "secret Muslim," and/or a non-citizen, as well as perpetuating debunked myths that health care reform will establish "death panels."

In another troubling report, a recently released poll from the University of Washington reveals a prevalence of racism among people who identify with the Tea Party:

On whether blacks were intelligent, 45 percent of the tea-party supporters agreed, compared with 59 percent of the tea-party opponents. And on the issue of whether blacks were trustworthy, 41 percent of the tea-party supporters agreed, compared with 57 percent of the tea-party opponents.

The survey, which included about 1,000 respondents in six battleground states (like Michigan and Nevada) and California, found similar margins on questions regarding Latinos.

In a recent Christian Post essay, Harry Jackson said "[d]espite the machinations of a handful of fringe participants, I am sure that racism is not the source of the movement's energy," and recommended that Tea Party leaders get a "PR makeover." It'll be interesting to say what Jackson and other Tea Party apologists have to say about this new poll data, and continuing reports of racist outbursts and conspiracy theories within the movement. (It should be noted that Jackson condemned protesters for actions such as spitting on Rep. Cleaver at a rally on Capitol Hill on the eve of the House health care reform vote.)

The Tea Party is going through a rushed adolescence right now, seeking to channel its youthful outrage into mature political power before the November elections. And the religious right - which is politically weaker than it's been in decades - is trying to figure out how to rebuild its influence in this changing political environment. The way in which conservative Christian political leaders address the delusional, incendiary beliefs and deep-seated prejudices of their potential allies will speak volumes about their principles.

Religious right leaders divided about Tea Party

The possibility of the Tea Party movement and the religious right joining forces has been an object of considerable speculation of late. Two recent articles by major religious right figures add some new wrinkles to the conversation. Writing in Christianity Today yesterday, Chuck Colson - a driving force behind the Manhattan Declaration - firmly rebuked the Tea Partiers' political philosophy (or lack thereof) as inconsistent with Christian political engagement:

Populist movements in the U.S. can be healthy, as when Andrew Jackson broke the grip of the eastern elite on the presidency, or when William Jennings Bryan, three-time Democratic candidate for President, led a movement to give greater voice to the disillusioned masses. But this time, a massive wave of anti-government sentiment could shatter the political consensus, which may well leave the country virtually unmanageable. The inevitable consequence of all of this should deeply trouble Christians, who, of any segment of our society, understand the necessity of a strong government...

...The tea party movement may have a lot of traction in America today, but it makes no attempt to present a governing philosophy. It simply seeks an outlet--an understandable one--for the brooding frustrations of many Americans. But anti-government attitudes are not the substitute for good government.We should be instructing people enraged at the excesses of Washington and the growing ethical malaise in the Capitol to focus their rage at fixing government, not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

We Christians are to be the best citizens, praying for our leaders and holding them in high regard, even as we push for the reforms desperately needed to keep representative government flourishing. Only when we funnel frustrations into constructive reformation can we expect a government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people.

On the other hand, Harry Jackson - a Manhattan Declaration signer and a mainstay in politically engaged conservative Christian circles --praised the Tea Party's philosophy in the Christian Post, while providing mild criticism of its excesses:

In response to Tea Party critics, conservative media pundits have spent countless hours defending the movement and its motives. I believe that the Tea Party deserves the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, it must dispel the idea that it's a new manifestation of older racist movements.

Ironically, the Tea Party movement has become a victim of its own success. Its popularity represents a threat to "business as usual" inside the Beltway. It is time for real, collaborative leadership to emerge and give direction to the Tea Party. As someone who believes that the Tea Party movement is a return to foundational American values, I suggest a PR makeover. The worst thing that could happen to this movement is that its important message gets marginalized because of poor messaging and management.

After the ugliness and hate the Tea Partiers displayed around the healthcare vote, these leaders of the religious right agree that the movement presents a problem, but don't see eye to eye about whether it's a matter of style or a matter of substance. It'll be interesting to see who sides with Colson and who sides with Jackson in this evolving discussion.

UPDATE: Adding yet another viewpoint, in an interview with ABC's Topline yesterday, Tony Perkins not only warned that the Republican party faces competition from the Tea Party movement for social conservative voters, but also said "...our constituents across the country -- who by the way are very engaged right now -- they're a part of the Tea Party movements, they want to effect change [emphasis added]."

Donahue defends Beck, but who's the "phony"?

While an amazingly diverse array of faith groups have condemned Glenn Beck's smears on churches who follow the call to social justice, conservative Catholic Bill Donahue has jumped in to defend him:

Beck didn't say Christians should abandon their religion. He recommended shopping around to find a more conservative parish if one is dissatisfied with hearing left-wing sermons. Nothing new about that. In the Catholic Church, there are priests who are stridently left-wing and stridently right-wing; many parishioners shop accordingly. Protestants shop by leaving one denomination for another. And so on. Some of those who have criticized Beck have done so in a sincere way. Others are just phonies.

Donahue goes on to downplay Beck's remark as "flip" even though Beck's made similar accusations several times before.

Donahue's defense is rather perplexing. First, Beck did not say "shop around." He said to "run as fast as you can" if you find the words "social justice" on your church's website.

As Matthew Yglesias points out, this would require all Catholics to leave their churches since "social justice" is all over the Vatican and USCCB websites.

Furthermore, contrary to what Donahue implies, "social justice" is not just some "left wing" concept Catholics are supposed to take or leave as it fits their political sensibilities -- it is a core tenet of the faith:

• The Second Vatican Council established the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace to help make sure Catholic parishes were talking about social justice!

• The Catechism says social justice (in particular the principle of solidarity) is a "direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood."

• Pope Benedict's latest encyclical Caritas in Veritante was all about social and economic justice. It even included a healthy critique (gasp!) of unchecked capitalism.

Donahue is generally quick to chime in when a conservative Catholic, fairly or unfairly, is criticized in the press.

But does Donahue, the self-anointed defender of the Catholic Church against "defamation" "whenever and wherever" it occurs speak up and quote the Catechism or the Pope when a tenet of his Church is attacked by a conservative?

No. Instead he makes excuses for his ideological compatriot.

I'm not sure Donahue is in a position to call anybody else a "phony."

A history lesson for Pat Robertson

On the 700 Club today Pat Robertson said one of the most ignorant and offensive things I've heard in a long time (h/t Thinkprogress):

ROBERTSON: [S]omething happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. Napoleon the Third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, "We will serve you if you get us free from the prince." True story. And so the devil said, "OK, it's a deal." They kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free.

But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor...

Aside from being absurd on its face, Robertson's claim doesn't square with his own theology. Haiti has been "cursed" by, among other things, invasion, occupation, isolation and oppression at the hands of Western powers such as France and the US. So by Robertson's logic, the US has been used as the devil's tool. Hardly squares with his "Christian nation" theology. Furthermore, I'd like to share with Robertson a quick history lesson on "pacts with the devil" in Haiti -- the French colonial rulers of Haiti found it more cost-effective to work African slaves to death than to provide them with even the barest necessities, all the while claiming Christian missionary motives for slavery (for example, Baptism was compulsory). Think for a second how that flouts the teachings of Jesus. And just to add another bit of foundational blasphemy, this oppressive regime was started under the rule of Louis XIV, who claimed to rule by divine right.

To recap: a monarch who proclaimed to have been installed by God oversaw the development of a regime that used a veneer of religion to make the systematic killing of slaves seem like something other than the moral outrage that it was. And in Robertson's mind it was the resistors of this system who were in league with the devil.

And in case it doesn't go without saying, the notion that God would smite hundreds of thousands of Haitians because of some alleged "pact with the devil" more than two centuries ago is just plain hateful.

On another note, The Washington Post has an extensive list of contacts for relief agencies on the ground in Haiti that need donations.

UPDATE: Matt Yglesias has a good take on the so-called "pact with the devil" the Haitian revolutionaries made. It's especially worth emphasizing that they conceived of the white slave-owners as worshiping a separate God because of what the slaveowners did in God's name.

UPDATE: Robertson's spokesperson has issued a statement.

Corporate Profits vs Developing World Survival?

Unsurprisingly, CitizenLink, a publication of Focus on the Family's political arm, has posted an article critical of the Copenhagen climate talks.

Somewhat unexpected, though, is the article's indifference to the suffering of the world's poorest citizens and Focus's faith-free justification of it.

The article portrays the Copenhagen talks as some kind of handout of fancy green technology to poorer countries: The countries gathered will attempt to form a strategy to fight global warming that includes saying there will be "money sent to 'developing countries' to aid in making them 'eco-friendly'"and "cutting-edge green technology sent to those countries at no charge."

This, scare-quote heavy summary is a misrepresentation of what aid to developing countries really is. It's not what we normally think of "green" here in the US (installing bamboo floors instead of Brazillian hardwood) it's literally about survival for the people scripture calls on us to care for the most. In the developing world, climate change is causing massive floods, crop failure, disease and starvation, but CitizenLink seems to think we shouldn't help.

Most disappointing is that CitizenLink uses sources from the conservative Heritage Foundation and the health insurance, tobacco and oil industry champion Americans for Prosperity to make it's case, but not one reference to scripture or the "Biblical perspective" the site purports to offer.

For those playing at home, that's moneyed corporate interests: 2; Bible: 0.

A Declaration of...what, exactly?

Earlier today a who's who of the conservative religious community unveiled the "Manhattan Declaration," an exhaustive articulation of some of their longstanding views on a number of issues, which stated in part:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Although the document itself doesn't say so, coauthor Chuck Colson told The New York Times' Laurie Goodstein that

"We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues...A lot of the younger evangelicals say they're all alike. We're hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues."

I'll leave the task of addressing the substance of the Declaration's positions to others (Amy Sullivan did a fine job) and just ask why Colson would think re-releasing existing arguments about an already clearly defined platform will win over young Christians who have already staked out their own agenda.

UPDATE: In a similar vein, Dan Gilgoff notes

It's an interesting goal that says a lot about the fears of a graying generation of culture warriors, but the big question is how to instill the declaration's principles in the new generation. Releasing a 4,700 word document at the National Press Club doesn't seem like the straightest path to young people's hearts.

FRC scales back attack on Rep. DeGette

The Family Research Council has issued a correction of their press release yesterday that accused Congresswoman DeGette of "religious bigotry" based on a misquotation. Good for them.

However, after acknowledging the inaccuracy of yesterday's attack they slammed her again, saying

"However, Rep. DeGette accused the Catholic Bishops of controlling the outcome of the health care legislation and also accused them and other conservative Christians of violating the 'wall of separation' between church and state.

If they're basing that charge on DeGette's ABC interview from yesterday, that's still a rather dubious charge, as her remarks contained no reference to the Catholic Bishops "controlling the outcome." But I won't assume FRC is basing the entirety of their accusation on that interview, even though they don't cite any others.

Again, here's a transcript of Rep. DeGette's remarks to ABC (ellipses indicate beginning of responses to new questions):

FRC falsely accuses Member of Congress of 'religious bigotry'

Earlier this evening the Family Research Council sent out a press release with the headline "FRC Calls On President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Reid to Repudiate Diana DeGette's Religious Bigotry," which stated

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins today called on President Obama and Congressional leaders to repudiate comments made by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) to The Hill's Michael O'Brien that "religiously-affiliated groups...should be shut out of the process" in the health care debate because of their support for the Stupak/Pitts amendment. She told The Hill, "Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country," she said. "I've got to say that I think the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups shouldn't have input."

Two problems with that.

1) Congresswoman DeGette's remarks didn't come from an interview with The Hill's Michael O'Brien. Rather, they came from O'Brien's report about DeGette's appearance on ABC News's "Top Line" broadcast today.

2) In that Top Line appearance, Congresswoman DeGette said religious groups should have input in the debate.

The Hill has issued a correction of their story. FRC should do the same.

I can understand why FRC would want to rebuke a Member of Congress for claiming that people of faith should be excluded from a political debate. What I can't understand is sending out a press release calling on the President of the United States and Congressional leaders to denounce a Congresswoman's "religious bigotry" without even bothering to check what the alleged bigot actually said. That doesn't take too much effort -- all you have to do is watch the video, which is easily found on the ABC News homepage. Accusing a public official of bigotry is serious business, and should be done cautiously, not opportunistically.

Here's a transcript of the portion of her interview that dealt with religious groups' role in the healthcare reform debate:

UPDATE: Richard Land apologizes for healthcare-Holocaust comparison

Beth recently posted about Richard Land's incendiary statement that

What they are attempting to do in healthcare, particularly in treating the elderly, is not something like what the Nazis did. It is precisely what the Nazis did.

In addition to garnering some attention in the blogosphere, Land caught the eye of the Anti-Defamation League, which condemned his remarks. Yesterday the ADL announced that Land submitted a letter of apology. While his claim that "It was never my intention to equate the Obama administration's healthcare reform proposals with anything related to the Holocaust," is incongruous with his original remarks, the apology is still a welcome development.

A Pretty -ahem- Liberal Interpretation of the Word "Translation"

You've probably already heard about the Conservative Bible Project - folks are weighing in on this bit of misguided hubris right, left, front, and center. Even those of us who get our news from Comedy Central have had a taste of the debate. If you haven't heard, the gist is that the Wikipedia knock-off "Conservapedia" is planning to create a more conservative-friendly Bible that will remedy "the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations" -- liberal bias. It will do so through numerous means, among them: targeted omissions (getting rid of, for instance, Jesus' pesky throwing stones line), emphasis on the "logic of hell", and avoidance of unisex words and "other emasculation of Christianity."

I'm sure I could question a number of things about this particular venture, but the question that keeps coming to my mind is... What are they so scared of? The people at Conservapedia are hardly the first to try to take control of this text and submit it to their own will, and they will doubtless not be the last. What is it about the Bible that we find so threatening?

While I could pick out a few choice passages that Conservapedia is trying to eliminate and explain why they might be scary to them I could just as easily point you to a few passages that are quite scary to me. Because the truth is, the Bible can be a pretty scary book. It is, after all, about challenging the status quo, about flipping power-structures. About getting out of our individual comfortable niches and turning toward communities and ideas that might not look quite like our own.

Yet while I can relate to this desire to make the scriptures a bit more palatable, I also believe that I am called to face head-on those aspects of God that most scare me - not to retreat to my own ideological corner or hide behind watered-down truisms.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the message of the Bible is more powerful than I am; and I'm pretty sure it's more powerful than the folks at Conservapedia, too.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Tip/Wag - Conservapedia, Louvre & Honda Unicycle
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

"Values Voters" Partisan Priorities

This weekend, conservative religious activists gathered in Washington, DC for the annual "Values Voters Summit," sponsored by the Family Research Council's action arm.

While "values voters" might connote a broad-based coalition, this was by and large an event for Christian Republicans.

The event's Presidential Straw Poll, but most striking is their list of potential targets for Congressional races.

The list and descriptions reads more like it was produced by the RNCC or Karl Rove than a faith-based organization.

A sampling of the list, posted by the Washington Independent (emphasis mine):

• Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.)* - Won in 2008 by only 727 votes! From conservative district.
• Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) - Liberal in a moderate to conservative district.
• Rep. John Boccieri (D-Ohio) - One of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's priority candidates. District usually votes conservative.
• Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) - Liberal in conservative district-beatable.
• Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Col.) - Has never won a statewide race. Conservatives can take back this important seat.

The full list contains a few references to abortion, but overall candidates appear to have made this list due to perceived political vulnerability, rather than their stance on FRC's core issues.

Now of course, connecting faith to politics is hardly new, nor is it the sole domain of conservatives. But I would hope that this level of purely partisan electoral calculus is something both sides would seek to avoid, for our faiths' sake as much as any political outcome.

*Disclosure: before running for Congress, Perriello was active in the faith-based community and helped found FPL's sister organization, Faithful America

Teach your children well

In Wednesday's Washington Update Tony Perkins took aim at President Obama's upcoming address to American school children and flubbed the facts in his very first sentence:

The U.S. Department of Education announced that Barack Obama will become the first President to address the nation's schoolchildren next week.

Obama is not the first president to address the nation's schoolchildren, and the Department of Education's announcement does not make this claim. In fact, the article to which Perkins links states that President George H.W. Bush made such an address in 1991. President Reagan addressed American students as well.

Perkins also took to FOX News to criticize the President's address and misrepresent his education record. Thinkprogress has a terrific fact-check of Perkins' dubious claims.

Following up on both of these attacks, FRC kept at it in yesterday's Washington Update, claiming that one of the 8 exercises listed on a sheet of suggested post-speech activities -- "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president" -- was "the core question" related to the President's address. (Note, the lesson has since been replaced, as FRC acknowledges.) However, the other 7 questions centered directly on the students' goals for themselves, and the Department of Education describes the content of the speech thusly:

the president will speak directly to the nation's children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

(Perkins also mused that "The timing of the speech is certainly suspect as he is embroiled in a very controversial policy debate..." but perhaps the timing of the President's address to schoolchildren is related to the fact that the school year is starting.)

You might think that an address by the President of the United States -- whoever it is -- encouraging children to work hard, set goals and take responsibility would be that rare speech that wouldn't get politicized and demagogued by the religious right. Unfortunately, you'd be wrong.

Religious right gets health care very wrong

In a rather surprising story, Religion News Service's Kristen Day recently reported that

Conservative Christian groups on Wednesday (Aug. 26) ramped up opposition to health care reform, saying the current system "has problems" but "it is working."

Such statements just don't reflect the facts on the ground. It's estimated that 137,000 people died between 2000 and 2006 because they were uninsured. Premiums have risen four times as fast as wages in recent years, leading to huge profits for insurers, strained family budgets, and people losing coverage. The Urban Institute projects that the number of uninsured Americans will reach 60,000,000 within ten years if reform is not passed. As things currently stand, 47,000,000 Americans lack health coverage, and insurance companies have the incentive and the ability to jack up premiums and co-pays at will, refuse to insure people with pre-existing conditions, and deny needed treatment to seriously ill policyholders. For those that scripture commands people of faith to care for -- the poor, the sick, the powerless -- our healthcare system doesn't just have problems, it is a problem.

It's also strange to see this new line of attack from the religious right. They've been opposing health care on a number of dubious grounds for months - an "abortion mandate," euthanasia, rationing, and so forth. Not only is this new attack on as factually shaky ground as their previous charges, but their argument inverts the priorities of the Gospel by defending a system that works for the rich at the continued expense of the poor and breezily flouts of the common good. There's certainly room for reasonable disagreement among people of good will on various aspects of reform, but it's hard to make an honest, moral case that the status quo just needs a couple of tweaks.

Renewing America with misinformation?

In case you haven't heard, Newt Gingrich is back in business. A few months ago, he founded "Renewing American Leadership" (the website leaves much to be desired, namely any information whatsoever). Back in March, Dan Gilgoff at U.S. News and World Report covered the inception of Gingrich's new project, explaining that the "organization [is] devoted to bringing conservative evangelicals and Catholics into the political process and to strengthening the frayed alliance between economic and religious conservatives." This week, Gingrich's team sent out an email (click here to see it) asking their supporters to "reclaim our Judeo-Christian heritage." The very concept of America's "Judeo-Christian heritage" as presented by Gingrich is itself debatable, but the inaccuracies and misinformation in this email are obvious. A sampling:

Renewing American Leadership CLAIM: "Obama radicals are willfully ignoring the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion."

FACT: There is a difference between government-established religion and freedom of religion. President Obama and his administration are continuing an age-old American tradition (and respecting the Constitution) by ensuring the government does not endorse or establish a religion. But the administration respects a robust First Amendment and Congress has not and will not make a law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. In fact, in his landmark speech in Cairo, President Obama said, "People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul."

Renewing American Leadership CLAIM: "Obama's administration is reversing the "Conscience Rule" to protect doctors and nurses who refuse to perform abortions due to religious reasons."

FACT: As reaffirmed in a recent meeting between Catholic reporters and the President, President Obama wants to keep in place the three separate laws that protect healthcare providers from performing abortions against their will. In that meeting, Obama said he is a 'believer in conscience clauses' and that a new policy would 'certainly not be weaker' than what existed before Bush expanded it late in his administration." As we've pointed out many times, the Bush expansion was hasty and problematically vague, and numerous conscience protections have been, and will continue to be in place.

FRC's linguistic gymnastics

We've challenged the "facts" used by Family Research Council in their emails to supporters about health care. In an update this week, we noticed some key differences in the language FRC is using to misleadingly mobilize opposition to reform.

A few weeks ago, they told their email subscribers that "Obamacare" would "force taxpayers to provide abortion coverage for the first time in U.S. history." (This, of course, is incorrect, as we debunked here.)

This week, FRC has shifted. Now they say that health care reform has the "potential... to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortionists."

Again, no citations or footnotes from any of the proposed pieces of legislation, so it's hard to know where their "facts" are coming from. Still, an interesting semantic shift from the Religious Right--from "abortion" to "abortionists," and from "force" to "potential."

More misinformation on hate crimes

As legislation to expand hate crimes protection to include "gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability" winds its way through Congress, fear-mongering on the right is continuing apace. CBN News reports that at this week's Southern Baptist Convention, Chuck Colson is warning pastors that such a law could put them at risk of prosecution for preaching that homosexuality is sinful.

Simply. False.

As we've stated before, the hate crimes expansion deals with acts of violence, not sermons, and it explicitly protects religious liberty and free speech (as does, not insignificantly, the Constitution). The specious speculation to the contrary -- at the annual conference of America's largest Protestant denomination, no less -- presents an obstacle to needed protection, and it nurtures division. Thankfully, numerous denominations and faith leaders -- from a range of faith traditions and with different perspectives on LGBT rights -- support extending hate crimes protection and are speaking out for the cause. Hopefully their voices ring loudest when the Senate votes on hate crimes.

FRC's Careless Attacks

The health care campaign launched last week by local pastors from across the country along with Faith in Public Life, Faithful America, PICO, Sojourners, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Gamaliel brought together grassroots and national religious groups to call on Members of Congress to make quality health care truly affordable for every American family. The nonpartisan effort, which includes radio ads and events in congregations, has drawn attention to the moral urgency of our nation's health care crisis and the faith community's commitment to reform that makes care affordable for all families.

Unfortunately, in their Washington Update this evening, the Family Research Council mischaracterized and distorted this effort to baselessly claim that it is advancing "an anti-faith, anti-family anti-freedom agenda." (Scroll down)

FRC asserts that the effort is a "ploy" "in concert with the Obama administration to garner support for government-controlled health care." In fact, the radio ads as well as the leaders and organizations involved in the campaign lifted up values and broad principles for health care reform, all focused on making quality health care choices affordable for all families. Moreover, the ads have run in states and districts represented by both Democrats and Republicans. Leaders in both parties need to hear the faith community's concerns and work toward reform that addresses them.

FRC also claims that the effort is part of a "new strategy to use the veneer of religion to cover a socialist agenda that will federalize another 17% of our nation's economy." Not only does the campaign urge leaders of both parties to pass reform that simply puts quality health care within reach for all families, but the clergy participating in the campaign hail from progressive, moderate and conservative congregations alike. Their commitment to health care reform is rooted in firsthand experience with the unmet needs of families in their own congregations and communities, as well their faith commitment to caring for the well being of all people.

We have confidence that these faith leaders and the families they serve will be heard by the decision-makers who hold the power to reform our system, and that misleading claims and speculation will fall on deaf ears. But charges that quality, affordable health care for all Americans is "an anti-faith, anti-family anti-freedom agenda" require correction. As FRC ironically stated in their attack, "we must be careful to separate the rhetoric from reality."

UPDATE: Faithful America is raising money to continue airing these health care ads in key states. You can chip in here.

Emerging Religious Right Meme -- Sotomayor the Racist

A growing number of prominent religious conservatives are mounting an effort to portray Sonia Sotomayor as a racist or "reverse racist" by taking out of context a quote from a lecture -- titled "A Latina Judge's Voice" -- she gave in 2002 at a conference at the University of California School of Law. Speaking about the ways in which life experience, gender and ethnicity affect judicial reasoning, particularly regarding areas of the law pertaining to discrimination, Sotomayor said

First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

[Note: an extended passage providing more context is after the jump, and the entire speech is available here.]

Some responses from the Right...

Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright: "Revealing her immodest bias, she stated that a 'Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.'"

Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land: "We are going to make our constituency aware of her record," he said, "and certainly her statement that someone from her background can render a better opinion than a white male."

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins: "Needless to say, that statement is troubling - if not offensive - on many levels."

Newly minted, self-appointed guardian of Catholic values Newt Gingrich (via Twitter): "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism"

Beliefnet columnist Rod Dreher: "I want someone to explain to me how Sotomayor's statement does not mean that white males, by the facts of their gender and ethnicity, make inferior judges. It seems pretty obvious to me that she believes that."

Rod, however, later read the full speech and followed up with a post titled "I was wrong about Sotomayor speech," in which he says

"Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet -- and this is a key point -- she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial point..."

Given the contrast between the controversial, out-of-context soundbyte and thoughtful nuance of the speech itself, the racism charge will surely remain a salient attack, but don't believe the hype. Greg Sargent has more.

UPDATE: Media Matters and Thinkprogress have documented the widespread circulation of the racism charges in broadcast and print media.

President "hides" Jesus...in plain sight

A misleading story about Pres. Obama's recent speech at Georgetown is making the rounds in conservative media today. Under the headline "REPORT: Georgetown Hides 'Jesus' for Obama Speech at White House's Request...", The Drudge Report circulated a link to a CNSNews story which claimed in its headline "Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request," but reported in its lede that

Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram "IHS"--symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ--because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there. (emphasis added)

So Jesus was singled out not by Obama, but by CNS and Drudge. FoxNation later ran the same headline on their front page, leaving the true context tucked away on the story page.

Within hours Bill Donohue chimed in in typically histrionic fashion, saying:

The cowardice of Georgetown to stand fast on principle tells us more than we need to know about what is going on there, but the bigger story is the audacity of the Obama administration to ask a religious school to neuter itself before the president speaks there.

Catching wind of the developing meme, the White House issued a corrective statement to David Brody:

The President appreciated the gracious hosts at Georgetown University where he delivered his speech on the state of the economy. Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events. Any suggestions to the contrary are simply false."

It's also worth noting that the speech itself explicitly referenced the Sermon on the Mount. If the president was "hiding" Jesus, he was doing so in plain sight. Brody goes on to say

Georgetown University is saying that The White House made the request to cover all symbols around the stage but it's important to point out at there are dozens of religious symbols in Gaston Hall and those were not covered up. Also, other still pictures from the event show portraits of Jesus in the background which are off center from the stage. In addition, I can tell you that it has been my experience on the campaign trail that advance teams do typically make backdrops as generic as possible. It's pretty much standard fare to make them that way.

But "Obama advance team requests generic backdrop for Georgetown speech" is such a dull headline...

Religious Right Backs the Tea Parties

As generational changes threaten to permanently diminish the religious right's hold on political power, they're reinvigorating their alliance with economic conservatives by backing today's "grassroots" Tea Parties against government spending. Yesterday Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council joined up with longstanding Tea Party backers such as Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association to promote these lobbyist-organized demonstrations.

Here's what they don't get -- teaming up with Fox News, corporate lobbyists, and conservative ideologues to gin up outrage about government spending and progressive taxation does not resonate with the generation they need to win over in order to give their movement a new lease on life. Their effort shows the extent to which the religious right's leadership remains entrenched in the conservative political establishment, which is steadily losing influence and popularity. For example, Tony Perkins signed a joint statement of support for the parties with Edwin Meese, Grover Norquist and Brent Bozell today, which contains no faith-based arguments but does conflate tax increases on the wealthiest Americans with across-the-board hikes that aren't happening, while invoking buzzwords such as "death tax," "big government" and "free-spending liberals." The religious right's support for the Tea Parties is a partisan exercise, not a religious one. It will not help their cause.

Look who's meeting with the White House

Last night Rachel Maddow weighed in with bemusement and a bit of dismay that White House faith-based office staff are meeting with reps of FRC, Concerned Women for America, and others.

Rachel's skepticism is understandable (those groups have some pretty extreme views and have been openly hostile toward the administration), but having White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Director Joshua Dubois meet with them is consistent with Obama's record and rhetoric as a candidate and as president. In early primary debates he said he'd be willing to meet with leaders of hostile governments, including Iran; as president-elect he expressed his desire to be president of all Americans, not just those who voted for him; and as president he quickly met with a group of conservative columnists who don't always engage him in good faith. Obama made clear that this would be his approach in his victory speech:

There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

Steve Benen, who Rachel quoted on-air, adds:

To put this in perspective, imagine George W. Bush aides agreeing to meet with representatives of the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and People for the American Way, to discuss culture war issues. If that sounds like a ridiculous scenario, then you can appreciate why this meeting between Obama's faith-based guy and leading activists from the religious right is unusual.

I'm not necessarily troubled by their chat, anymore than I was concerned about the president stopping by George Will's house for a dinner with Krauthammer, Brooks, Kudlow, Barone, and Kristol. If Obama and his administration are interested in honest discussions with conservatives, and they want to engage detractors in a good-faith dialog, fine. I'm skeptical it will amount to much, but I certainly respect the administration's mature approach to spirited discourse.

We concur. Meeting with political adversaries doesn't require compromising principles, and argument hones ideas. Part of being big is dealing with people who are small.

Dobson steps down

James Dobson has resigned as chair of Focus on the Family, but he's not exactly retiring:

Conservative evangelical leader James Dobson has resigned as chairman of Focus on the Family but will continue to play a prominent role at the organization he founded more than three decades ago, The Associated Press has learned.

Dobson notified the board of his decision Wednesday, and the 950 employees of the Colorado Springs-based ministry were informed Friday morning at a weekly worship service, said Jim Daly, the group's president and chief executive officer.

Dobson, 72, will continue to host Focus on the Family's flagship radio program, write a monthly newsletter and speak out on moral issues, Daly said.

Dobson's resignation as board chairman "lessens his administrative burden" and is the latest step in a succession plan, the group said. Dobson began relinquishing control six years ago by stepping down as president and CEO.

But don't think this marks too much of a shift at Focus...

The new board chairman is retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Patrick P. Caruana, a longtime board member and a former executive with defense contractor Northrup Grumman.

"I don't see any dramatic departure from what Focus stands for," Caruana said of Dobson's leaving the board. "There are obviously younger people the ministry would like to reach, and we're on track to do that."

We're not rid of the good doctor yet, and the ship doesn't seem to be shifting course. Time will tell, of course, and I'd love to be wrong. Either way, though, the guard is changing.

Fact-checking FRC again

In yesterday's FRC Action email Perkins promoted a talking point about the stimulus package that not only comes straight from the GOP leadership, but also happens to not be true.

Perkins:

Apart from the bottom line, many of the problems we documented last week still exist, like the billions of dollars slated for ACORN...

Factcheck.org:

The bill does include funds for which ACORN would be eligible to compete - against hundreds of other groups. But most is for a housing rehabilitation program ACORN says it never applied for in the past and won't in the future.

For the past two weeks, Republicans have been raising a new charge against a familiar enemy, claiming that the Democrats' stimulus bill includes as much as $5.2 billion in "goodies" for the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN). Last fall, Republicans accused ACORN of "massive voter fraud," a claim which we said was exaggerated. The group has since become a favorite target of Republicans, so it understandably raises a few hackles when House Republican leader John Boehner's Web site proclaims that the bill provides "a taxpayer-funded bonanza" for ACORN. And Republican Sen. David Vitter goes even further, telling Newsmax TV that the provisions amount to "a political payoff." Also, the National Republican Trust PAC has taken up the issue in fundraising pitches. But these claims are wildly exaggerated and rely upon faulty logic. (emphasis added)

There are no "billions of dollars slated for ACORN" in the stimulus bill. FRC is either lying or being negligent in not knowing that they are misleading their constituency. It's also worth mentioning that Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs are parroting the ACORN attack too. Carrying the same water as those right wing all stars shines a new light on Perkins' newly professed nonpartisan leanings.

A quick word on the Super Bowl...

From David Gibson at Commonweal:

...any faithful Catholic should be outraged at this morning’s Super Bowl headlines announcing “Steelers beat Cardinals.” I will look for Bill Donohue’s righteous anger at some point today. (”Would The New York Times have allowed a headline saying ‘Steelers beat Rabbis’? Of course not! This is a blatant double-standard. And of course, it’s no surprise that President Obama was rooting against the Cardinals….”)

AIDS, children's healthcare and the "pro-family" agenda

Yesterday's FRC Action email alert shows just how narrow the religious right's definition of "pro-family" and "pro-life" are. In the course of commenting on the Chambliss-Martin Senate runoff in Georgia, they say

Martin and Chambliss's stark differences, particularly on the life issue, will have an immediate effect on the next session, where Democrats have already outlined broad changes to President Bush's policies. Not only does the new administration plan to expand embryonic stem cell research, but the Senate leadership will further expand SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) and impose a condom-based approach to the billions in PEPFAR funding.

Authoritative research shows that expanding SCHIP gives poor and near-poor children health insurance, and comprehensive HIV/AIDS policy including condom distribution is critical and demonstrably effective.

I don't know how many times we have to say this to the religious right: if you're going to call yourself pro-family and pro-life, support policies that help families and save lives. Free-market fundamentalism and allegiance to abstinence at the expense of effectiveness are not family values.

Another day, another appalling layoff

Today comes news that Oral Roberts University, Augsburg Fortress publishing (Lutheran) and the National Cathedral are all laying people off, adding a couple hundred more drops into the 10.1 million-person sea of domestic unemployment. In the case of Augsburg and the Cathedral, the cuts appear to be the consequence of marketplace changes and the economic crisis that's crippling so many other sectors of society.

The same characterization isn't perfectly apt for Oral Roberts, though:

Just days after Oral Roberts University announced that it will give former president Richard Roberts more than $440,000 in severance pay, the Tulsa school said it will be eliminating 100 jobs, about 10% of its workforce, in January 2009.

“Like any business, a university cannot spend more revenue than it collects,” wrote board chair Mart Green and interim president Ralph Fagin in a letter to the ORU family. “We have a responsibility to all of you to be good stewards of our resources.”

For those who don't keep up with religious right higher education news (and I know there's at least a few of you), Richard Roberts had a rather scandal-plagued term and left ORU $55 million in debt.

There's a greater point here than "look, Oral Roberts is shafting its workers!" Incidents like this illustrate assumptions that progressives and most moderates accept but conservatives, including the religious right, tend to reject -- that the labor market is amoral and often immoral, that economic well-being and poverty are not measures of one's moral fitness, that private institutions are prone to mismanagement and corruption just as governments are. There's no bright side to layoffs such as these, but I hope we can turn them into teachable moments about the economy.

Focus on the Family sheds jobs, saves marriage

Focus on the Family cut 202 jobs yesterday (149 layoffs, 53 unfilled positions eliminated) -- nearly 1/5 of their workforce. While it might seem tempting to express pleasure at culture warriors' pain, I don't get any satisfaction from hearing that these folks just lost their livelihood in an area "where job growth is flat and unemployment has crept up over 6 percent." As with the other 10.1 million unemployed Americans, we should pray that the erstwhile Focus employees avoid economic hardship or overcome it in short order.

However, these cutbacks illustrate the contrasting definitions of what it means to be "pro-marriage" and "pro-family." Focus threw $500,000 into the campaign for Proposition 8 in California, which "protects" marriage from the grave threat of same-sex unions, and shortly thereafter they cast 149 of their employees out onto the cold sidewalk. Any family therapist, social worker or clergy member will tell you that economic hardship is the leading cause of divorce. Taking away same-sex couples' rights to marry in the name of "protecting marriage" and then subjecting your own staff members to the very pressures that lead to divorce -- and doing so when the job market is extremely tight -- is at best shortsighted and at worst shows an indifference to the hardships families face in tough times. Perhaps in light of its struggles, Focus might come to realize that things like unemployment benefits, living wages and children's health insurance programs support families in ways that abstractions like "protecting the sanctity of marriage" never could. One hundred forty nine people in Colorado Springs have a huge newfound obstacle to providing for their families, and Focus on the Family's tireless efforts to protect them the scourge of same-sex marriage in California will not keep food on their tables or rooves over their heads. Supporting them and the millions of other Americans who are out of work requires focusing on the common good, not the culture war.

Emperors with no clothes?

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

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

In his latest email, Tony Perkins bragged about getting 17,000 people to email Bob Schieffer and demand he grill the candidates on one of FRC's core issues, gay marriage, during the last presidential debate. (Bob didn't bring it up, probably because people don't think same-sex unions are such a bad thing.)

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

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

Recently, Sojourners was able to get 20,000 people to join their call for justice in the government's Wall St. bailout plan. Sojourners has been a leader in the evangelical movement for social justice for many years, but is not regarded by the media to be nearly as powerful as FRC and Focus on the Family.

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

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

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

African Lives vs. a Tank of Gas

If the religious right isn't dead 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.

900... is that all?

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.

God's Candidate

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?

McCain Disfellowships Pastors

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.

Flip on Catholics, Flop on Jews: The Religious Right's Hagee Men

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 state for the Rapture?

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?

Some Corrections on Compassion...

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.

James Dobson: Should I Sway or Should I Go?

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?

E. J. Dionne Jr. on the Dying Religious Right

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."

Tom Lantos had honor. Michael Savage, not so much

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.

Dobson Endorses Huckabee

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.)

Huck losing the party's 'faith'

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:

Rush ticked that evangelicals aren't supporting his guy

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

Huck and Chuck: Too close for comfort?

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.

Is exploiting tragedy a family value?

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?

No mas war on Christmas

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.

Maybe he needs glasses?

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 did help win Bush 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 about.

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, a member of Jackson's group 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."

More evidence of Perkins' faulty eyesight after the jump

Continue reading "Maybe he needs glasses?" »

Posted by Beth at 3:50 PM | Comments (1) |

Faithful Progressives: Family Research Council is scared of you

November 20, 2007

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:

(Full document linked below the fold.)

Continue reading "Faithful Progressives: Family Research Council is scared of you" »

Posted by Dan at 5:11 PM | Comments (3) |

Congressman: Catholics United 'the devil.' Olbermann: Congressman 'worst person in the world.'

November 14, 2007

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.

Continue reading "Congressman: Catholics United 'the devil.' Olbermann: Congressman 'worst person in the world.'" »

Posted by Dan at 9:24 AM | Comments (2) |

NPR: The Christian Right and the '08 Election

November 9, 2007

"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.

Continue reading "NPR: The Christian Right and the '08 Election " »

Posted by at 2:59 AM | Comments (0) |

Analysis and discussion of Religious Right in presidential politics

November 8, 2007

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.)

Continue reading "Analysis and discussion of Religious Right in presidential politics" »

Posted by Dan at 5:08 PM | Comments (1) |

Sometimes power is the principle

November 8, 2007

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.

Continue reading "Sometimes power is the principle" »

Posted by at 2:38 PM | Comments (1) |

You'll never believe this

October 23, 2007

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?

Continue reading "You'll never believe this" »

Posted by Dan at 11:39 AM | Comments (7) |

What's new in the neighborhood? A coming W.alues V.oters split

October 23, 2007

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.

Continue reading "What's new in the neighborhood? A coming W.alues V.oters split" »

Posted by at 4:02 AM | Comments (8) |

The Right's DeLay tactics

October 22, 2007

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.

Continue reading "The Right's DeLay tactics " »

Posted by at 3:39 AM | Comments (0) |

Poll results

October 20, 2007

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

Continue reading "Poll results" »

Posted by Dan at 2:42 PM | Comments (3) |

Huck a boy!

October 20, 2007

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"

Continue reading "Huck a boy!" »

Posted by Dan at 11:09 AM | Comments (0) |

Rudy: Much better than expected, still miles from the mountaintop

October 20, 2007

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.

Continue reading "Rudy: Much better than expected, still miles from the mountaintop" »

Posted by Dan at 8:32 AM | Comments (3) |

Friday night with Mitt Romney

October 19, 2007

Bob Jones III’s endorsement will go a long way in South Carolina, the early primary state in which The Mormon Question looms 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.

Continue reading "Friday night with Mitt Romney" »

Posted by Dan at 7:05 PM | Comments (2) |

Looking for love in all the wrong places?

October 16, 2007

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.

Continue reading "Looking for love in all the wrong places?" »

Posted by Dan at 12:48 PM | Comments (5) |

Family Research Council misrepresents Third Way

October 15, 2007

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.

Speaks for itself.

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.

Continue reading "Family Research Council misrepresents Third Way" »

Posted by Dan at 9:17 AM | Comments (2) |

Perfectly unbelievable

October 12, 2007

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.

Continue reading "Perfectly unbelievable" »

Posted by at 4:34 AM | Comments (1) |

David Kuo notes the waning power of the old religious right

October 3, 2007

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.

Continue reading "David Kuo notes the waning power of the old religious right" »

Posted by at 8:50 PM | Comments (0) |

Tony Perkins says Guliani isn't on the side of life

October 3, 2007

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.

Continue reading "Tony Perkins says Guliani isn't on the side of life" »

Posted by at 7:01 PM | Comments (0) |

Hardball on a Christian right third party threat

October 2, 2007

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.

Continue reading "Hardball on a Christian right third party threat" »

Posted by at 5:59 PM | Comments (0) |

A party where few are showing up

September 18, 2007

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."

Or maybe the big losers are the folks who threw this party. It looks like voting against the top four wasn't enough revenge for being ignored:

"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?

Continue reading "A party where few are showing up" »

Posted by at 2:09 PM | Comments (0) |

View God's Christian Warriors

August 27, 2007

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

Continue reading "View God's Christian Warriors" »

Posted by at 2:13 PM | Comments (0) |

God's Compromised Warriors

August 27, 2007

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.

Continue reading "God's Compromised Warriors" »

Posted by at 12:40 PM | Comments (0) |

God's Jewish Warriors and the problem with pragmatism

August 22, 2007

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 split the difference. It's clear in the people that she interviews who participate in the Israeli occupation that when a human lies, preemptively attacks, and occupies, 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 Amanpour goes beyond the personal, to explore the last four decade of Jewish history that these individuals influenced -- in part -- through their Godly warring.

Continue reading "God's Jewish Warriors and the problem with pragmatism" »

Posted by at 1:05 PM | Comments (3) |

God's Warriors Today

August 21, 2007

Reflecting on this week's six-hour prime time series, God's Warriors, CNN's Christiane Amanpour says, "I did come away with a sense that we -- or those people who don't want to see religion in politics and culture -- if we don't look into it and see what is going on, we're in danger of missing it and not be able to react to it properly."

Last night I attended a dinner party, packed mostly with graduate students in religion. One student mentioned an article that he was writing on the recent spate of New Atheism. A budding scholar of the Early Modern period, the question he seeks to answer is, why now? Atheists have been around to a louder or softer degree for centuries. And the title of the article hints at his answer: Religion after 9/11.

As has happened in other times of national, even international crises, the metaphysical battle lines between good and bad become more political than pious. (See the Lisbon earthquake, the Spanish Armada, the Thirty Years War.) Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism gets at this human habit to see in times of trouble a Time of Trouble. If there's one thing that al Qaeda, Likud, and the Patriot Pastors of Ohio agree upon, its that they are on the good side of a Big War.

Christiane Amanpour sets out to explore this religious warrior mentality and examine “ the intersection between religion and politics and the effects of Christianity, Islam and Judaism on politics, culture and public life.” In this preview, Amanpour talks with the late Rev. Jerry Falwell shortly before his passing, about his fight against abortion and confronts him on his disgusting claim that 9/11 was caused by America’s tolerance of homosexuals. It also looks at other Christian zealots who have bombed abortion clinics and murder doctors who perform them in the name of religion."

The documentaries will air beginning Tuesday, August 21 through Thursday, August 23, at 9 p.m. ET.

Oh, and the dinner? Some pro-life Catholics argued over the Supreme Court with some pro-choice Protestants and everyone declared that the desert brownies were divine.

Continue reading "God's Warriors Today" »

Posted by at 1:09 AM | Comments (8) |

Remembering how Rove treated Christians

August 14, 2007

Amidst all the analysis of Rove's legacy, a few writers have focused how Karl Rove manipulated American Christianity.

Salon's Lou Dubose (h/t Dan) writes:

The "guns, God, and gays" campaigns that defined Texas politics and the politics of the South became the model for Republican Party campaigns across the country. It was Rove who was responsible for the whispering campaign that characterized Democratic Gov. Ann Richards, Bush's opponent in the 1994 governor's race, as a closet lesbian, in a successful attempt to peel away conservative Christian votes in East Texas.

Perhaps the most recent example of a successful social-issues campaign was in Ohio during the 2004 election, which provided critical electoral votes to secure George Bush's second term. With Bush in peril of losing to John Kerry, the Republican National Committee looked to David Barton to go into Ohio and turn out the base. Barton is a former vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party and one of the founders of the WallBuilders, a Christian advocacy group working to restore God to His central position in American history, and in the history and social studies curricula of the nation's public schools.

And at Street Prophets, the Rev. Deb Haffner riffs on his reason, that he's "leaving for family." She writes:

You know, that Karl Rove resigned yesterday to spend more time with his family...of course. Not because of continuing controversies around Valerie Plame, the dismissed US attorneys, the plummeting esteem of the administration, and so on, but because after 35 years working for Mr. Bush, he realized he had neglected his family and it was time to come home. Oh, and that he had to make up his mind by Labor Day. For resigning members of the Bush administration, family is like the "dog ate my homework" excuse.

Continue reading "Remembering how Rove treated Christians" »

Posted by at 11:04 AM | Comments (0) |

The real abomination

July 13, 2007

In case you haven’t heard, the first Hindu prayer from the Senate floor was interrupted this week by zealous attacks from individuals affiliated with the right-wing group Operation Save America.

Continue reading "The real abomination" »

Posted by at 12:30 PM | Comments (0) |

Weekend Funny Pages

April 27, 2007

Hat tip to Chuck Currie for getting us into the weekend spirit right. Ready to kick back with the funny pages?

James Dobson vs Doonesbury: Is James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, afraid of cartoons or just the truth?

Continue reading "Weekend Funny Pages" »

Posted by at 5:05 PM | Comments (0) |

UPDATE: IRD joins anti-Cizik attacks: How dare he defend Darfur and oppose torture!

March 8, 2007

We wrote a few days ago about how Jim Dobson and assorted other on the far right had issued a public letter going after the job of Rich Cizik, director of the National Association of Evangelicals' Washington office. Cizik's sin: speaking out for the majority of evangelicals who think that serious action needs to be taken to combat global warming.

Well, never wanting to miss the opportunity to attack an advocate for the common good, the Institute on Religion and Democracy has gotten into the act with this press release, which adds to Cizik's list of abominations: defending Darfur and opposing torture. This is all in the lead up to the NAE's board meeting tomorrow. Cizik's job seems safe for now, but it's worth watching this developing story.

Continue reading "UPDATE: IRD joins anti-Cizik attacks: How dare he defend Darfur and oppose torture!" »

Posted by at 9:31 AM | Comments (1) |

The only time we hear about Dobson's passion for protecting the poor…

March 2, 2007

Once again, pretty much the only time we hear about Dobson's passion for protecting the poor is when he's attacking other evangelicals on global warming. Where was Dobson and his passion for helping the poor, for example, when he took issue with Christians for protesting federal budget cuts to programs for those most in need?

Continue reading "The only time we hear about Dobson's passion for protecting the poor…" »

Posted by Katie at 11:06 AM | Comments (1) |

Cizik attacked by Dobson and Friends

March 2, 2007

The diversity of the evangelical social agenda has become a regular trend in coverage of religion and politics. Rich Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals has been among the most articulate proponents of this broad social agenda, speaking out eloquently on issues like global warming and genocide in Darfur. This agenda has allowed innovative partnerships to form to fight global warming, combat modern slavery, and work for an end to genocide in our day.

Well, James Dobson has apparently had enough of all that.

Continue reading "Cizik attacked by Dobson and Friends" »

Posted by at 10:02 AM | Comments (2) |

Conservative reactions to the Christian right's search for a candidate

February 27, 2007

Sunday's NYTimes included a David Kirkpatrick article about a secretive meeting of conservative Christian leaders including Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Grover Norquist. They were meeting, as usual, to discuss American politics but this year the mood is different due in part to the difficulty finding a GOP candidate that represents their issues correctly while also being able to actually win in '08.

In light of this dismay, here's a roundup of what conservative blogs are saying.

Continue reading "Conservative reactions to the Christian right's search for a candidate" »

Posted by at 1:34 PM | Comments (2) |

Whose family does the Family Research Council represent?

January 19, 2007

On Thursday the new House leadership reached its goal of six major bills passed in its first one hundred hours of floor time.

In fact, they completed everything in only 42 hours. Here is a very informative graphic on each of the six proposals: Sept. 11 Commission, Stem Cell Research, Minimum Wage, Prescription Drugs, Student Loans, Energy Policy.

Strangely, notice what the right-wing Family Research Council said about the success of the newly-elected Congress:

"Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and company introduced measures to fund anti-life research, silence voters through lobbying reform, increase taxes, and police thoughts through a new 'hate crimes' law."

"Silence voters through lobbying reform" is an interesting choice of words for what many Congressional ethics watch groups herald as the most significant tightening of ethics rules. But then note who is on the schedule to speak at the Family Research Council's Blog for Life event today.

Yes, former Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) friend of many military contractor lobbyists just like his jailed friend Duke Cunningham.

Continue to see what his hometown paper says about him. . .

Continue reading "Whose family does the Family Research Council represent?" »

Posted by at 10:00 AM | Comments (0) |

Religious conservatives and secular folk together?

November 13, 2006

Amidst the post-election brouhaha over conservatives and secular folk, it's worth noting the following TIME op-ed about the first Muslim elected to Congress:

Continue reading "Religious conservatives and secular folk together?" »

Posted by at 6:32 PM | Comments (0) |

Seeing Red: A Journey Through the Moral Divide

November 10, 2006

"Two Jews, a Hindu, and a born-again Christian, disillusioned after the 2004 election and troubled by the idea that their nation is bitterly divided over morality, set out to investigate the power of evangelical Christianity in American political life."

The result is a new documentary: Seeing Red: A Journey Through the Moral Divide

Continue reading "Seeing Red: A Journey Through the Moral Divide" »

Posted by at 6:30 PM | Comments (0) |

VIDEO: Falwell on Evangelical Frustration and Haggard Scandal

November 3, 2006

Yesterday afternoon as Rev. Ted Haggard resigned his position with the National Association of Evangelicals and temporarily stepped aside from his church in Colorado Springs, CNN's Situation Room featured an extended spot on the disillusionment with the Republican party in the evangelical community. See the below story, featuring an interview with Religious Right poobah Jerry Falwell.

Continue reading "VIDEO: Falwell on Evangelical Frustration and Haggard Scandal" »

Posted by at 3:26 PM | Comments (0) |

An Afternoon Sermon

November 2, 2006

One idea we've had at FPL is to feature some particularly inspiring sermonizing on the site from time to time. In light of this morning's forum with Rev. Butler and Bishop Robinson, the following words seem especially fitting. Father Matthew Ruhl, S.J., is the pastor of St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Kansas City, MO. This homily is a discussion of Matthew 28: 18-20, a reading known as the Great Commission in which Jesus directs his disciples to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.”

Continue reading "An Afternoon Sermon" »

Posted by at 4:27 PM | Comments (0) |

The Common Good, Gay Rights, and Faith

November 2, 2006

With last week's New Jersey State Supreme Court ruling, the Religious Right has once again tried to trump up voter fears with the specter of gay marriage destroying the traditional American family. This strategy has worked in the past, although the latest poll numbers from CBS show that Democrats enjoy an ADVANTAGE among evangelicals right now. This morning at the Center for American Progress, FPL Executive Director Jennifer Butler moderated a discussion with Bishop Gene Robinson. Most remember Bishop Robinson's election as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, and the strife that has ensued within the Anglican communion since then. Check out CAP's website for video of this very interesting event. The Bishop's remarks were notable for both their wisdom and charity (even to those with whom he disagrees), two virtues that are rare in our public discourse.

Continue reading "The Common Good, Gay Rights, and Faith" »

Posted by at 3:57 PM | Comments (0) |

OH-Gov: At Debate, Blackwell Dodges "We Believe Ohio" Question

October 17, 2006

During the Ohio Gubernatorial debate between Ted Strickland (D) and Ken Blackwell (R), Ohio Associated Press reporter Julie Carr Smyth asked Blackwell why he has refused to meet with We Believe Ohio.

Continue reading "OH-Gov: At Debate, Blackwell Dodges "We Believe Ohio" Question" »

Posted by at 8:30 PM | Comments (0) |

VIDEO: Perkins on Hardball Defends 'Marriage of Convenience' with GOP

October 16, 2006

Chris Matthews' had Tony Perkins join him Friday evening to discuss David Kuo's newly released expose on the manipulation of Christian conservatives by the Bush Administration. Interesting to see him pressed on what exactly the GOP has delivered to his supporters. He talks about the relationship as a 'marriage of convenience.' One assumes that the right to this kind of marriage is in fact universal.

Continue reading "VIDEO: Perkins on Hardball Defends 'Marriage of Convenience' with GOP" »

Posted by at 11:51 AM | Comments (2) |

AUDIO: Dobson tells Ingraham about the Demoralization of the Religious Right

October 3, 2006

Focus on the Family's James Dobson last night told Laura Ingraham about the frustration coming from the Religious Right base. He's still on the GOP bandwagon, but clearly thinks there are significant chunks of his faith community who are leaving him behind...

Continue reading "AUDIO: Dobson tells Ingraham about the Demoralization of the Religious Right" »

Posted by at 12:29 PM | Comments (1) |

AUDIO: Rev. Jennifer Butler with Bob Kincaid on the Religious Right Globalized

September 27, 2006

Rev. Jennifer Butler, Executive Director of Faith in Public Life, recently joined radio host Bob Kincaid to discuss her new book, The Christian Right Globalized. Rev. Butler reveals how the Religious Right, after decades of building an infrastructure to impact American politics, is moving to use international institutions to advance their policy agenda on a global scale. Audio inside...

Continue reading "AUDIO: Rev. Jennifer Butler with Bob Kincaid on the Religious Right Globalized" »

Posted by at 9:59 AM | Comments (4) |

"Non-partisan" Values Voters Summit shows its true partisan loyalty

September 26, 2006

The supposedly non-partisan Values Voters Summit sponsored by the Family Research Council this weekend was rife with slurs against Democrats—who had apparently been forgotten when the invitations were sent out.

Continue reading ""Non-partisan" Values Voters Summit shows its true partisan loyalty" »

Posted by at 5:09 PM | Comments (0) |

UPDATE: Rev. Bob Edgar Goes to the Right Wing Airwaves

September 14, 2006

Bill O'Reilly must not have been ready for Bob's message, because they've had to cancel for today. Hopefully Rev. Edgar will get to make his return soon. Next week, Faith in Public LIVE will return with Rev. Bob Edgar exchanging posts with Pastor Dan of Street Prophets. Rev. Edgar has just released his latest book, Middle Church, in which he talks about the common ground religious values that unite Americans. This afternoon he'll go to one of the nation's most conservative media sources to defend his view. Details inside!

Continue reading "UPDATE: Rev. Bob Edgar Goes to the Right Wing Airwaves" »

Posted by at 3:02 PM | Comments (0) |

Down, Religious Right Groups Lie, Role Over

August 9, 2006

Yesterday, the Colorado Springs Independent reported that Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals attacked the Christian Coalition. Why? Because according to him (not the New York Times) the Christian Coalition twisted words.

Continue reading "Down, Religious Right Groups Lie, Role Over" »

Posted by at 2:59 PM | Comments (0) |

Faith in Public LIVE: XPatriated Texan on Spending Time Wisely and Developing an Ideological Core (Part 7)

August 3, 2006

Dear Amy and David, Don't worry about the optimism, Amy. We all need plenty of it! Actually, I'm fairly optimistic as well, I guess I just look for boulders on the highway too much.

Continue reading "Faith in Public LIVE: XPatriated Texan on Spending Time Wisely and Developing an Ideological Core (Part 7)" »

Posted by XPatriated Texan at 2:19 PM | Comments (0) |

Faith in Public LIVE: Sullivan on Honest Disagreement and Prevention First (Part 6)

August 3, 2006

Could pro-choice candidates replicate Casey's engagement with the Pennsylvania Pastors Network? How might Prevention First reshape America's abortion debate? And what does this all have to do with pro-wrestling? Amy continues the discussion.

Continue reading "Faith in Public LIVE: Sullivan on Honest Disagreement and Prevention First (Part 6)" »

Posted by at 9:38 AM | Comments (0) |

Faith in Public LIVE: XPatriated Texan on Casey, Kaine, and Deviation (Part 5)

August 2, 2006

Thurman Hart of XPatriated Texan continues the exchange with Amy Sullivan and David Buckley

Continue reading "Faith in Public LIVE: XPatriated Texan on Casey, Kaine, and Deviation (Part 5)" »

Posted by XPatriated Texan at 9:30 AM | Comments (11) |

Faith in Public LIVE: David Buckley on the Middle Ground (Part 4)

August 1, 2006

We're coming through Day 2 of the exchange, and I think it's been stimulating stuff so far. Before Thurman weighs in, I want to add a few thoughts on the difficulties and opportunities when articulating policies that look for the middle ground.

Continue reading "Faith in Public LIVE: David Buckley on the Middle Ground (Part 4)" »

Posted by at 3:13 PM | Comments (0) |

Faith in Public LIVE: Amy Sullivan, XPatriated Texan and David Buckley (Part 1)

July 31, 2006

Introducing Faith in Public LIVE: exchanges between bloggers and a noted leaders in faith and public policy. Check back and comment throughout the week as this exchange grows, and visit this space every week to see a new series of conversations and debates. This first edition kicks off with thoughts from Amy Sullivan, editor of Washington Monthly and author of an upcoming book on faith in politics. She writes about the Casey campaign, the Pennsylvania Pastors Network, and the potential benefits of just showing up. Check back soon to see responses from Thurman Hart of XPatriated Texan and David Buckley of FPL.

Continue reading "Faith in Public LIVE: Amy Sullivan, XPatriated Texan and David Buckley (Part 1)" »

Posted by at 11:00 AM | Comments (0) |

The Right Matter

June 23, 2006

Another stained glass ceiling was shattered last week when Katharine Jefferts Schori became the Episcopal Church’s first female Presiding Bishop. Many of our friends in the blogosphere rejoiced. Unfortunately the joyful sentiment was not universal...

Continue reading "The Right Matter" »

Posted by at 2:58 PM | Comments (1) |

First Ever Progressive Faith Blog Con!

June 16, 2006

It's an exciting time to be a blogger interested in faith and progressive politics. There are more of us every day (we'll be featuring some of the best here at FPL), and national leaders in our community are becoming more and more aware of how important blogs can be in spreading the good news about their work. With all that energy in the cyber-air, it's almost providential that we get to announce that the first ever Progressive Faith Blog Con is on its way.

Continue reading "First Ever Progressive Faith Blog Con!" »

Posted by at 5:08 PM | Comments (1) |

Welcome to Blogging Faith

June 16, 2006

Welcome to Faith in Public Life’s corner of the blogosphere! We’re glad to join the hundreds of bloggers out there in this growing and exciting community. Like any responsible new neighbor, we’ll try to make a good first impression, keep the yard looking tidy, and not make TOO much noise.

Continue reading "Welcome to Blogging Faith" »

Posted by at 8:57 AM | Comments (4) |

Monthly Blog Archives

-- Select Month -- September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006

Blog Categories

-- Select Category -- AIDS Black Church Blog Con Catholic Church/State Civil Rights Civility/Civil Dialogue Common Ground Community organizing Compassion Forum Convention blogging Corporate Accountability Culture War Watch Darfur Death Penalty Disaster relief Dispatches from the field Economy Education Elections Environment/Climate Change Evangelical Fact-Check Faith and Politicians Faith in Public LIVE Faithful America Financial reform FOX News FPL Free Speech Hate crimes Health Care Human Rights Ideologue Pundits Immigration Iran Iraq Jewish Judicial Nominations Latter-Day Saints LGBT Issues Mainline Media Analysis/Commentary Miscellaneous Moral Budgets Muslim Nuclear Weapons Peace/War Polls Poverty/Hunger Pregnancy/Abortion Religious Right Responding to Tragedy Roundup Sex education Stem-cell research Tea Party Torture We Believe Ohio White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships Workers' Rights Younger/New Generation

Post Tags