Al Gore, who studied religion at Vanderbilt, talks on Current TV about why religion and government should be separate, particularly in schools.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 03:34 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (2)

CNN's Glenn Beck isn't particularly civil or constructive, and he'd probably admit as much. What he wouldn't admit - but is no less true - is that he just doesn't know what he's talking about. Last night Beck had Rev. Walter Coleman of Chicago's Adalberto United Methodist Church (of New Sanctuary fame) on his show, and in addition to badgering, serially interrupting and being generally disrespectful to Coleman, Beck said his church should forfeit his church's tax-exempt status for "making political statements."

I can't fault Beck for not having a lawyer's command of tax-exemption guidelines, but that's no excuse for being transparently ridiculous. In Beckworld, is there no church speech on any political issue at all? Would Martin Luther King's 16th St. Baptist church have to forfeit its tax exemption for "making political statements" about integration? Should the Catholic church forfeit its tax exemption for "making political statements" about abortion, war, or immigration? Or is it just people who irritate Beck on his show?

Just to clarify, Glenn, IRS guidelines don't prohibit political statements about issues; they prohibit campaigning for political candidates.

Posted by Dan at 03:36 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Crossposted at The Beatitudes Blog.

“IRS DROPS THE CASE” proclaims the homepage of All Saints Church, announcing that the Pasadena, California church is free of an IRS investigation into a 2004 election-eve sermon – but not exactly cleared of wrongdoing. In short, the IRS has said that the church’s tax-exempt status is no longer endangered, but that sermon was still an illegal intervention in the 2004 election.*

All Saints, continuing its courageous stand for freedom of the pulpit, is not content to let bygones be bygones. The church is demanding that the Treasury Department investigate several legal and procedural errors that might indicate intervention—politically-motivated intervention (imagine that!) – by the Department of Justice.

In a press release posted on the church’s website the Church’s rector, the Rev. J. Edwin Bacon, Jr. said:

“While we are pleased that the IRS examination is finally over, the IRS has failed to explain its conclusion regarding the single sermon at issue. Synagogues, mosques, and churches across America have no more guidance about the IRS rules now than when we started this process over two long years ago. The impact of this letter leaves a chilling effect cast over the freedom of America’s pulpits to preach core moral values.”

It’s that chilling effect that worries me and should be worrying us all. Just last week, I used the word “Democrats” in a blog, and a colleague advised that I take it out, lest my words be construed as intervention into the 2008 elections.

We are looking over our shoulders because of the All Saints case. We are unclear about what constitutes illegal politicking, and it’s my experience that most folks in the pews (or the pulpits) think that any mention of politics in church constitutes “a violation of church and state.”

Whether or not the IRS gets clear in its explanation of the All Saints investigation, and the difference between issue advocacy and partisan electioneering, we who speak for justice and peace need to be loud and clear: it’s OK, and more than that, morally imperative, for Christian preachers to speak out for peace, and against war, to speak up for justice, and against the powers of domination. If we need to find the right (and yes, legal) words to back us up, all we need do is quote Mary and her radical Magnificat, or Jesus and his revolutionary Beatitudes, and let those who have ears hear.

The IRS might want to keep the waters murky enough to chill us to the bone, but we need to be crystal clear about our responsibility to the truth and our right to proclaim it.

As one of our colleagues (Maher Hathout of the Islamic Center of Southern California) said, in a quote picked up by today’s Los Angeles Times: “We need to work together to prevent intimidation.”

*If you don’t remember this whole saga, this sorry business started with a letter from the IRS that arrived at the church in June 2005, stating that the church’s tax-exempt status was in jeopardy because of a guest sermon preached shortly before election day 2004 by retired All Saints Rector George F. Regas. (BTW, as an “alum” of All Saints I am proud to say that Dr. Regas is one of my heroes and one of our nation’s greatest social justice preachers! In that sermon, Dr Regas imagined Jesus in a debate with both Bush and Kerry. He of course did not endorse either candidate, saying that “good people of profound faith will be for either George Bush or John Kerry for reasons deeply rooted in their faith.” But he criticized the war in Iraq. The IRS declared that this sermon was political intervention into the election.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 08:58 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

This last Easter weekend over 220 bloggers participated in a project to Blog Against Theocracy.

Created by Blue Gal, Les Enragés, Mock, Paper, Scissors, Neural Gourmet, and Talk to Action, it is in support of - but not sponsored - the First Freedom First folks who make great videos on the First Amendment. It was a pretty simple idea, that each blog participating would write at least one post during the Easter weekend discussing how separation of church and state protects all Americans, religious and not.

The project is an interesting example of coordinated activity in the blogosphere. Blogging is becoming more widely accepted as a source of news and analysis, but the use of blogging for coordinated political advocacy is less well charted territory. Hopefully this campaign, which united bloggers of various belief systems and faiths, is only the beginning of coordinated action on a range of issues. It would be extremely encouraging if this or a similar group could move to playing defense against religious oppression to other pro-active campaigns.

Throughout the weekend, the BAT folks recorded several hundred posts in support of the separation of church and state. The Neoskeptic writes about Jefferson's role in shaping religion and American politics (appropriate that he's a UVA alum). Over at Street Prophets, wiscmass writes about the fruits of theocracy. Here's all Street Prophet diaries tagged "Blog Against Theocracy."

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 10:31 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

A former three-term Republican U.S. senator from Missouri and an ordained Episcopal priest, Danforth brings exceptional insight to the debate about the political use of religion and the separation of church and state.

He worries that Republican courting of the Christian Right is distorting notions of public and private morality. He laments that when Republicans voted to have federal courts overrule the state court in the Terri Schiavo case, violating long-held principles, it allowed the Christian Right to take over the party.

Danforth urges more liberal and moderate Christians to challenge the presumptiveness of the Christian Right to speak for all Christians.

Click on the side bar to listen to the conversation. From State of Belief radio.

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 04:27 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

"The IRS Works in Mysterious Ways" opines the Los Angeles Times on the federal investigation into the subtext of a sermon preached at the Pasadena, CA, All Saints Episcopal Church.

The sermon, "What If Jesus Debated Senator Kerry and President Bush", was delivered by the Rev. George F. Regas two days before the '04 election. Now the IRS has annouced that it will investigate to see if the church violated its tax status.

But the issue is more complicated. In fact, recently US Representative Adam Schiff wrote a letter to the IRS and the Secretary of the Treasury in which he expresses serious concern over the fact that the IRS said that they would drop the case if All Saints admits that it did wrong. That part of the case is espeically chilling for those familiar with the logic of 17th century convictions and the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Many in the blogopshere - on the left and right - wonder: is the IRS being even-handed?

Conservative Riddleblog announces:

"While I don't agree with this church on virtually anything--it is far-left both theologically and politically speaking--good on them for standing up to the IRS and for refusing to turn over documents, sermons, newsletters, etc, as demanded! . . . God will deal with this church's rejection of orthodox theology and the gospel in his own time and way. But what they preach is none of Uncle Sam's business."

Irenic Thoughts says,"The sermon was critical of both candidates for their views on war and poverty yet the IRS noted the statements against the President as politicking on behalf of John Kerry.

Below a commentor wrote:

. . ."I remember the reputation of the old Episcopal Church as one with old families with old money sipping single malt Scotch and bridge clubs. There was even a joke about using the wrong fork at dinner and going you know where since it was a sin to to be an Episcopalian and not know proper etiquette. Now I look at the church and I'm proud. TEC has really become a church that wants to build the Kingdom of God right here, right now. We stand up and say war is wrong, social injustice is a sin, discrimination is clearly against the teachings of the Gospel, Etc...I'd be proud to be a member of All Saints."

Socially conservative Thoughts and News writes: I and most Evangelical Christians would not agree with them doctrinally on many issues. . .such as acceptance of homosexual lifestyles. . . but the [ IRS investigation of All Saints] affects both equally, as well as those who attend synagogues, mosques and other religious worship centers."

On the question of equality, the Los Angeles Daily News notes, "In Los Angeles alone, 39 churches, synagogues and Buddhist temples were identified by political candidates as contributing more than $15,000 to their election campaigns since 1998, according to city Ethics Commission records. . While the federal tax agency has taken on All Saints, some say it may be overlooking others' political donations as well as whether churches are using federal funds solely for intended social programs. . .the Rev. Ed Bacon of All Saints notes his church has never violated federal law by contributing to a political candidate."

Here's the rector's sermon: The IRS Goes to Church. And here's a recent Los Angeles Times article and a NPR story on the situation.

Julie writing on her blog, Truth, Justice and the American Way points out: "The summons even requests utility bills to establish costs associated with hosting Regas' speech . . .from the very beginning of our constitutional republic, America's pastors and ministers have courageously engaged the culture. We must not allow the IRS, or any other government agency, to now trample this heritage.

Over at Street Prophets, Pastor Dan writes:

"Apparently, they're trying to shake loose evidence that All Saints has been supporting partisan candidates. The request for utility bills matches a similar demand for 'overhead expenses,' which the church takes to be a reference to staff salaries. That seems like nitpicking to me, especially since Regas didn't endorse or oppose any candidates in his sermon. But I don't know the first thing about the IRS' calculus."

Always helpful, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life provides a Guide on Internal Revenue Code Restrictions on the Political Activity of Religious Organizations.

In light of All Saints, Talk to Action explores the problems surrounding the IRS and church policking.

ReligioNews blog notes: "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, 'The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.' It would be mighty hard to be the conscience of the country if clergy could not speak about the country's rights and wrongs."

Smells like Snapper writes: "When I heard the most recent report on NPR this morning, I had to scramble to find my blood pressure medication before I blew a cardiovascular gasket. . .All Saints' is one of my favorite haunts. I really love the place--who wouldn't love a rector from Mississippi making it big in LA?"

Hollywood pastor Ryan Bell posts photos from the Sep 22, press conference in which the church leaders announced that they would resist the IRS and go to court.

And finally, a former member of All Saints, the Rev. Anne Howard writes in the Beatitudes Society newsletter:

"I first learned about courageous preaching as a member of Regas’ church back in the 1970s. It was his preaching that caused me to leave my job as a newspaper reporter and come to work at All Saints as the Director of the Interfaith Center to Reverse the Arms Race. It was his preaching that helped me connect that anti-nuclear work with faith, and eventually led me to seminary. And it is the legacy of his preaching that has stayed with me through my years as a parish priest, prodding me to speak the truth when I might otherwise stay silent. . . ."

Posted by Alex Carpenter at 06:40 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (1)

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.

I realize that I need to clarify something. I don't think that Casey was able to demand equal time because of his pro-life credentials. That is pure political strategy and simply using the law as it was intended. I still think, however, that his reception by the group has more to do with his pro-life stance than anything else. They may respect him for standing up to his party on abortion and to conservatives on gay marriage, but that's because he manages to stand up to different people on the two issues. If he was also pro-choice, then he'd have left a much different feeling in their bellies when he walked away. He still could have demanded, and probably received, fair and equal time. The result would have been different, though. In fact, I doubt he'd have decided it was worth his time.

The most precious resource in any campaign is time. The PPN has maybe three or four issues about which they want to hear a candidate speak. If he's against them on all four, there's no chance he'll convince a voter to vote for him. From a campaign perspective, that's a waste of time. That's why Democrats have, for so long, eschewed many religious groups. It isn't going to help them and they might say something that really gets the religious people lathered up. It's better to let a sleeping dog lie.

In Casey's case, his pro-life position allows him to make the speech something besides a waste of time. There may be a few voters there that actually vote for him. Regardless, their attacks on him, as Amy points out, are going to be blunted. So while it isn't his pro-life credentials that get him the time from a legal perspective, it is his pro-life credentials that make it worth his trouble.

The problem that this highlights is that there is no similar left-wing religious organization from which a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage candidate could get an equal political boost. That's an organizational problem. Pretty much everyone on the left understands that we are decades behind the right organizationally. I believe that is also tied to the lack of an ideological basis (in political terms) and a strong theological basis (in religious terms) for collective action. Until we find an answer for the charge that we "stand for nothing and fall for everything" we aren't going to change that. People don't generally get out of bed early to vote or take time away from their family to attend meetings dedicated to "good government" - but if you make it about "liberty" or "doing what is right for your kids", then suddenly they are interested.

That is currently where the Prevention First strategy is. It's good policy. As Amy points out, it will do more for cutting abortions than overturning Roe. But, while there is an ideological core to that policy, it is not well articulated. Therefore Senator Reid's speech has some rhetorical highlights, but no really binding ideas that will draw people out of their shells. Because it lacks a well-crafted ideological core, the only soundbites are policy-heavy and can be spun so hard it makes your head hurt. "Better access to birth control pills" suddenly becomes "Your daughter will be given birth control by her PE teacher and you'll never know it."

I want to stress again that it isn't solely the job of our politicians to make create this ideological core. In fact, due in large part to their need to appeal to a larger group, they can't. It's our job as liberal activists to create a rhetorical base that our leaders can tie into in order to make those sound bites. "That isn't conservative," was a ludicrous statement twenty years ago. Today, everyone knows what it means - or at least they think they do. Either way, the core is there and it can be used to spin off sound bites in every direction. Since it's my idea to bell the cat, I'll take a short stab at it - with the understanding that it is likely to make a lot of people uncomfortable. But I think I'll do it at my site rather than further sidetracking the conversation here.

Instead, I'll end today by encouraging the party chairs who are reaching out to groups that may have been less than friendly in the past. You can't steer a parked car, and it's better to try and steer some of the politically active in our direction than it is to build an entirely new field of politically active persons. I don't think that all of these groups are as conservative as the PPN. Rather, they are more "Republican leaning" groups that head in that direction because Democrats simply haven't tried to engage them. Rectifying that oversight should put a number of races into play that wouldn't be otherwise. If nothing else, it should help us engage a wider electorate and that should help us be more respectful of differences and perhaps - dare we hope? - bring a more civil discourse to our politics.

All the Best,
Thurman

Posted by XPatriated Texan at 02:19 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Dear Thurman and David,

I'll harp on this just one more time before moving onto the question David posed, which also addresses a challenge Thurman raised as well.

I continue to disagree that the reason Casey was able to demand equal time with a group that had only been engaging with Republicans was because of his pro-life credentials. For one thing, he was simply making them abide by IRS regulations for tax-exempt groups--you don't have to be pro-life, pro-choice, or pro-wrestling to do that. And, of course, he could have forced them to play by the rules by filing a complaint against them. This, however, allows him to avoid the charge of being anti-religion and actually promote the fact that he's interested in hearing what they have to say. That's very different from agreeing with them, which I think most people have forgotten does not have to be the prequisite to having a conversation.

But more importantly, Casey doesn't agree with the PPN on everything. They have the same approach to abortion, yes, but this group has made the Federal Marriage Amendment a big priority this year, and Casey walked in on Monday and told them in no uncertain terms that he disagrees with their position. I'm told by someone who was there that the crowd seemed to respect him for the fact that he was willing to stand up to his own party on abortion and to even stand up to them on the marriage amendment. Again, I think the key is honest and respectful dialogue. They can still go off and try to smear him as godless, but the charge won't ring true to many voters. And that is repeatable by other Democrats, even pro-choice Democrats.

That said, it does worry me that the two recent Democratic candidates who have seemed to understand religion the best have been pro-life. I don't think for a minute that the only Democrats who can successfully communicate their religious faith and thereby neutralize the charge of godless Democrats are those who are pro-life. But it concerns me that many Democrats and progressives might make that assumption (and perhaps honestly so, given the two most visible examples), and therefore give up on the project of reaching out to religious communities because they will assume that means moving in the pro-life direction.

That's where the Prevention First strategy that David mentioned comes in. Despite the fact that Reid's speech on Monday could not have been more lackluster, and that the Senate Democrats have inexplicably waited eighteen months after introducing this legislation to finally start promoting it, I believe Prevention First could be the key to completely rehauling the abortion debate the way that "Partial-Birth" did ten years ago.

Reid had one line in the speech that I hope Democrats repeat over and over as they introduce this new way of thinking about abortion (I'm paraphrasing here without the transcript): "It's strange that the people who say they're most opposed to abortion are the ones standing in the way of preventing abortion." If Democrats can pull this off, pro-life voters will have to seriously reconsider which party is more pro-life. Here's what I mean: If you believe on principle that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and abortion outlawed completely in the United States, and you won't settle for anything less, well, the Democratic Party is not the party for you (although I'd argue that the GOP doesn't intend in a million years to let any of that happen....) But if what you want is to see abortion rates reduced, let's look at how successful each party's strategy might be.

The GOP wants to overturn Roe. Okay, well, we know that at least 40 of the states would still allow abortion, and in the ten or so that would outlaw it, abortion isn't too available right now. So at most, we're looking at a 10 percent reduction in abortions. Parental notification laws haven't reduced abortion rates, nor have partial-birth bans. So those add a big fat zero to the overall number. Democrats, however, want to make contraceptives more affordable and available, reform adoption laws, restore real sex education, and increase funds for programs that help pregnant women and new mothers. The combination of higher contraception use but lower rates of sex among teenagers resulted in a thirty precent drop in teen pregnancies over the past 15 years. If the same could be accomplished with teens and adults, you're looking at an enormous drop in the rate of unwanted pregnancies, which automatically means a drop in abortion rates.

I realize it's not communicable in a soundbyte. But that, again, is one of the reasons that state party chairs and others have been reaching out to more conservative constituencies to have meetings. Over the course of an hour-long meeting, it's possible to explain this approach and actually get people to sit up and pay attention.

I've worked myself into a small optimistic fever here, so feel free to bring me back to reality. But I'm very interested in your thoughts.

all the best,
Amy

Posted by Amy Sullivan at 09:38 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (37)

Dear Amy and David,

Looks like it's my turn again. You guys are going to make it hard for me to keep it short and sweet!

To turn first towards the Casey strategy, I think there is a consensus that it isn't going to help Casey make inroads with the hard-core Republicans (I disagree that this group is conservative, but that's another topic). I teach my students that there is generally a 30% core of voters who will back either a candidate or a party no matter what. The contest is for the other 40% of voters - the swing voters. What Casey did was neutralize an issue by demanding equal time with a special interest group. It works for him because the make up of the swing group fits nicely into his own constituency - the pro-life crowd. It wouldn't work for me, one of those non-pro-life, non-pro-choice Christian Democrats. To the extent that is true, it is repeatable only by someone with Casey's pro-life credentials.

But you are right to emphasize that this is not the only field upon which politics is played. By embracing his religion, Casey has insulated himself against the "Godless liberal" demogoguery that has been so prevalent in recent years. That is definitely repeatable - and it should be repeated by any candidate who wants a serious shot at winning in the Deep South or through the Great Plains states (the dark red states). An abortion-moderate (I'm afraid that's the best term I have right now) could still insulate their campaign from that pre-packaged slander by speaking openly to people of faith about their faith. John Kerry made a step towards that (bungling it by linking his "faith without works is dead" speech to closely to campaign rhetoric) and I think Kaine improved upon it. Casey is one more step along that path.

But here's the rub: For an abortion-moderate Christian Democrat to speak openly about faith in action, they are going to have to draw upon a theology that allows for abortion. If Kerry had done that, rather than use the pulpit to slap at the President, he might not have had to stumble through an answer of how he can oppose abortion personally but endorse it politically. Developing this theology has to be the job of those of us on the Faithful Left rather than individual candidates.

If one believes abortion is murder, then how can one justify allowing it to be legal without legalizing other forms of murder? If you don't believe it is murder, then what is it in theological terms? What is our moral and legal responsibility to the unborn, the pregnant woman, and the father (who is too often forgotten about in this discussion)? Many of us operate from a sort of gut-level theology without exploring these questions and wrestling them to submission. Because we do, the public discussion is the poorer and there is no collective understanding for a candidate to call upon in a campaign.

I agree that Kaine also reaped the benefit of an authentic persona. I disagree, however, with the comparison to President Bush. President Bush uses his authenticity to push for a positive message - in the sense that he is positively doing something. Kaine used it as a negative message - he wasn't going to change the law. In a sense, Kaine's authenticity wasn't challenged because no one expects the Virginia legislature to pass a bill outlawing capital punishment. If put in a position of choosing between following his theology and signing a bill to outlaw capital punishment and obeying the "law of the land" by vetoing it, we still have no indication which way Kaine would move. I think that's a significant difference. If the issue had been more prevalent and subject to change, I think his authenticity would have hurt him as he would have had to struggle publicly with that question. So I understand the point both of you make on this, but I think a different campaign with a different candidate in a different state would have had very different results - in other words, it doesn't represent a precedent so much as it does a deviation.

In the interest of time, I'll try to summarize my point. Kaine in Virginia and Casey in Pennsylvania both represent deviations from what we are accustomed to seeing. Both of them have used this deviation to their benefit - and there is some lesson to be learned from their doing so. The point Amy makes of being the first Democrat to speak to an evangelical group is an excellent example. The lesson there, I'd say, is not to surrender any part of the electorate. Take your message to every group you can in a language they understand. If they don't like you, they will at least respect that you took the effort to do so. That respect may or may not pay off in electoral terms, but the race is long and the more ears that are bent partially to your message, the more votes are potentially swinging for grabs.

It might be worth thinking about how we make these successful deviations into precedents.

All the best,
Thurman

Posted by XPatriated Texan at 09:30 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (11)

Introducing Faith in Public LIVE: exchanges between bloggers and 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.

Hi Thurman and David--

Thanks for joining me in this first inaugural Faith in Public Life conversation. I have no doubt that our discussion will range in many interesting directions, but I want to start us out by looking at the Pennsylvania Senate race between Democrat Bob Casey and the Republican incumbant Rick Santorum. From almost the moment he entered the campaign, Casey has led Santorum by double-digits, an advantage that appears largely due to Santorum's astonishing ability to alienate voters with a blend of sanctimonious social conservatism and unsavory K Street connections.

But Casey hasn't just sat back to watch Santorum self-destruct (although you could argue that would have been an effective campaign tactic). Instead, he's employed some fairly innovative techniques that have either neutralized Santorum's advantage among religious voters or have actually given Casey an edge. The questions I've been thinking about are whether other Democrats could use those same strategies--and whether they would want to.

Let's take Casey's neutralization efforts first. It's safe to say that Rick Santorum had counted on the groups of conservative clergy and religious activists who were mobilized by the GOP in 2004 to operate as something like a second arm of his campaign this year. Leaders of the Pennsylvania Pastors Network (PPN), the New York Times reported earlier this year, have sought to bring aboard ten field coordinators and plan to focus their efforts on registering "conservative" voters. In March, they invited Rick Santorum to address a training session for activists (he sent a videotaped talk) and they hired a former Bush campaign staffer who coordinated the 2004 campaign's efforts with conservative Christian organizations.

In the past, Democrats would have fumed about this sort of thing, and maybe even filed a formal FEC or IRS complaint. But that would undoubtedly have been gleefully held up by Republicans as proof that Democrats are hostile to religion and want to shut out religious voices. This time, the Casey campaign did something different. After the PPN invited Santorum (but not Casey) to address their members in the spring--in violation of IRS rules for tax-exempt organizations--the Casey campaign contacted the group and said, in effect, it's so great that you're involved in important political efforts. We'd love to come talk to you as well.

That took the PPN aback. They hadn't planned on providing a platform for the Democratic candidate. But it's one thing to neglect to invite both candidates to an event. To ignore a candidate's specific request to come speak after his opponent has already addressed the organization would be a blatant violation of the law. So today (July 31), Casey will be speaking to a lunchtime meeting of the group in Scranton.

The same thing happened with the PPN website. Originally, the group included information on its website about Santorum, the favored candidate. Cue the Casey campaign. Hey, that's great--we'd love to be on there, too. Again, the PPN didn't want to highlight Casey, but they couldn't legally turn down his request and leave up Santorum's information. So rather than give Casey equal space, they took down the Santorum material.

All of this should be comforting to those liberals who have worried that Democrats efforts in the area of religion automatically mean that the party must pander to evangelicals by shifting its social positions to the right. (The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus asked in a column: "What does it profit a party to gain a demographic but lose its soul?")

In this case, the Casey campaign hasn't done anything but engage with a group that was prepared to work solely on behalf of the Republican candidate, and politely ask for equal time (which also happens to be a request that they abide by the law). It's so simple and brilliant that I'm still amazed no one had thought of this before. Democrats can't stop religious conservatives from mobilizing, but they can make sure that those groups don't give Republicans an unfair advantage.

The example of Casey, however, does raise some serious questions for Democrats, because I don't think his campaign can be considered outside of the context of his pro-life stance. I hope we'll move onto that topic in the next few days, because I have wondered--with Casey, Tim Kaine in Virginia last year, and Bill Ritter, the pro-life Democratic candidate for governor in Colorado--whether Catholic Democrats running in redd-ish states nowadays have to be pro-life.

All the Best,
Amy

Posted by Amy Sullivan at 11:00 AM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

Support for school vouchers has become one of the myriad of strategies used by some Republicans to convince Americans that only they care about religious people in America. The transparent logic goes, 'See, we'll give your Christian schools money. We must love you! Especially when you vote for us.' It helps that this vote-seeking melds with the general conservative idea that equal education is not something that the government is capable or obligated to provide.

Luckily, our friends in the blogosphere have been active in taking on the idea that people of faith must blindly buy into the vouchers bonanza. As Peter Laarman writes over at the Huffington Post,

School choice, as part of the GOP’s “Values Agenda,? is quite deliberately framed in biblical terms to appeal to both the white “values base? of the party and to anguished African-American parents whose children may be doing poorly in school whether or not the school itself is underperforming.

Other incisive faithful critiques come from Mik over at JSpot, Bruce at Mainstream Baptist, and the Talk to Action crowd. We're working on getting an education resources page together here at FPL to join the topic-based resources we already offer to the community.

Posted by David Buckley at 12:14 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (0)

As a first-time intern in DC, I have been astonished with the sheer quantity of things to do and see. Leaders in a city of leaders are always looking for a crowd to share their thoughts. Many of these opportunities have a great deal to do with our work at Faith in Public Life, so we will be taking advantage of these Washington resources by attending and offering our analyses.

Yesterday morning, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) chaired a hearing on a bill regarding the public expression of religion. This issue, a favorite used by some religious conservatives to label those who disagree with their agenda as anti-God, has been brought to the House of Representatives by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) with H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005, or PERA.

Current law allows for people to file suit against state and local governments for alleged constitutional violations of the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment; i.e. the 10 Commandments in public courthouses or school prayer. Also, if court affirms a violation has occurred, the individual’s attorney fees are to be paid by the offending authority. PERA would change two aspects of the law: 1) only injunctive relief would be permitted in these cases (10 Commandments need to be taken down, but no monetary award), and 2) the attorney fee-shifting would be eliminated. Individuals would need to pay their legal fees even if the court finds a violation has been committed.

Though testimonies and debate focused on the legal procedures, it is apparent that the intent of the bill was to allow more leeway for religion in the public sphere and to take power away from those who claim to be offended by it. This debate asks a question that our organization, Faith in Public Life, and ourselves, as people of faith, are confronted with continually. What is the appropriate relationship of religious belief in politics and the public sphere? It is discouraging to watch as some individuals exploit faith for political gain by focusing on only a couple sensational issues; and we recognize the danger of a religious majority imposing its beliefs on others. However, we simultaneously believe faith has an important role in building a public conscience and enacting social justice.

We have tried to show that concerned religious individuals have already started to answer these questions. Take a look at our Faith Issues Resources, where you can find links to several resources and voices of faith on this issue of church and state. Several of those voices are highlighted in our Media Speakers Bureau, which includes Melissa Rogers, visiting professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University Divinity School and the founder and director of its Center for Religion and Public Affairs (check out her article Religious Freedom For All: Why the Supreme Court is right and the Family Research Council is wrong about religious freedom); K. Hollyn Hollman and Rev. J. Brent. Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty, which works to further the Baptist heritage that champions the principle that religion must be neither advanced nor inhibited by government; Rev. Dr. Welton Gaddy, President of the Interfaith Alliance and host of State of Belief, which is based on the proposition that religion has a positive and healing role to play in the life of the nation; and Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

Use these resources to learn how people of faith are integrating religion and public life in a meaningful way -- without violating the lines that separate religion and government -- to promote the common good.

Posted by Dave Baron at 01:54 PM | Link | del.icio.us | Digg | Comments (6)