Melissa Rogers

Another Grassley Q and A

Senator Grassley has circulated another memo to reporters and editors regarding his investigation of six ministries.  (The full memo appears below the fold.)  Among the notable parts of the memo are the following items:

1.The memo poses and answers the following question: "Why shouldn’t the Church Audit Procedures Act (CAPA) apply to the Finance Committee investigation?"  More on Grassley's answer later. 

2. Grassley suggests to the non-cooperative ministries that their Washington lawyers are taking them for a ride.  He says: 

"The ministries that continue not to cooperate appear to be heeding the advice of attorneys who are not familiar with congressional oversight in general and specifically the Finance Committee’s oversight and legislative work in the area of tax-exempt organizations over the last seven years. These attorneys who aren’t part of the ministries themselves have a natural incentive to prolong the process as long as possible."

So I guess this makes it official -- now the motives of virtually everyone involved in this investigation are being publicly challenged. 

3.  Grassley flags some issues that he says have been identified thus far by the investigation.  They are: related entites; private inurement and benefit; parsonage/housing allowances; whistleblower intimidation; and overseas activities.

4.  Senator Grassley's press release say that, "since Kenneth Copeland has declared publicly that he will not submit responses even if a subpoena is issued, staff also is consulting with Senate attorneys about next steps."

(Thanks to the DMN Religion Blog for the tip.)

Apologies for Absences

Sorry for dropping off the grid last week.  We are dealing with some family health issues.  It won't be the last time I have to be gone for a period of time without warning, but I hope to do some blogging this week.

Technical Difficulties

I won't bore you with the details, but my Internet access is shaky, to put it mildly.  I'm working on this recurring problem, but I am not sure when I will be back in business.  Thanks for bearing with me.

Changes in Attitudes

In 2004, President Bush made the following statement about how previous administrations and government workers had treated religious groups that wanted to partner with the government to serve those in need:

And the truth of the matter is, there's a culture inside government which resents and fears religious charities, and has discriminated against them. We're changing that.

Yesterday, Attorney General Mukasey made the following statement about the same topic:

When the President launched his Faith-Based and Community Initiative in 2001, faith-based organizations faced many and varied obstacles to working with federal agencies. Good faith concerns about entanglement between government and religion led to a situation in which the religious identity of faith-based organizations trying to partner with government often had to be hidden or compromised. In some instances, these organizations were totally excluded from federal programs. Where they were allowed to take part, they were often required to change their religious character or to restrict their religious activities in ways not required by the Constitution.

Of course, religiously affiliated providers were not always excluded, and signs of religion were not always discouraged. But there was a chilling effect, and a lot of confusion. Many organizations doubted that they were eligible to be government partners; and government officials feared that they might be wrongly accused of supporting religion if they were to give a grant or a contract to a faith-based organization.

The President recognized that this meant a lost opportunity to work with some of the best available partners in many communities – the groups who were already established and doing exactly the kind of good work we were trying to support. (emphasis added)

I appreciate the more responsible rhetoric Mukasey is putting forward here, but it should not erase the past.  Responding to the Bush quote above, I said in 2006: "[I]n the ten years I have worked on this issue, I have never seen any credible evidence that there was such a culture of government hostility toward religious groups in pre-Bush administrations."  To the extent there were problems, I said, they were not attributable to resentment and fear of religion: "In my experience, government employees try to get these things right, but some issues are complicated and sometimes they don't have the best guidance.  This isn't animus toward religion."  Apparently, Attorney General Mukasey agrees.  (By the way, in this post I am bracketing my other concerns about the faith-based initiative and simply focusing on this one point.) 

In short, I take the Mukasey narrative to be a tacit admission that the earlier administration narrative was false.  Of course, the stand-up thing for the administration to do in this case would be to admit that it made unfounded and damaging allegations against entire administrations and many well-meaning civil servants.   

God's Servants, not God's Spokespeople

Of the Obama-Dobson debate, the Rev. Kirbyjohn Caldwell says: "Never in the history of American politics has someone said that he is a Christian and someone came back to say, 'No you're not.' "  

I'm not at all sure that Caldwell is right about that as a factual matter, but I think his statement points toward something important.  Shouldn't we all be able to agree that, at least in the civic square, it is not appropriate for someone to say that another person is not the religion he or she professes to be?  That would not prevent people from taking issue with one another's proferred theological or political arguments, which is fair game.  But it would reserve judgment on some ultimate issues, quite properly in my view.  We should not presume to know a person's heart or conscience better than he does himself, and we should always remember that we are God's servants, not God's spokespeople, as the late Barbara Jordan said.

Coverage of "Debating the Divine"

The new book, Debating the Divine, is online here, and there's some coverage of the associated event here and here.  Lots of good conversations are emerging in the wake of the book and event.  I hope to return to this topic in the near future.

Anti-Torture Declaration to be Launched Today (Updated)

"A bipartisan group of 200 former government officials, retired generals and religious leaders plans to issue a statement on Wednesday calling for a presidential order to outlaw some interrogation and detention practices used by the Bush administration over the last six years."  Here's more from the New York Times:

The executive order they seek would commit the government to using only interrogation methods that the United States would find acceptable if used by another country against American soldiers or civilians.

It would also outlaw secret detentions, used since 2001 by the Central Intelligence Agency and prohibit the transfer of prisoners to countries that use torture or cruel treatment. The C.I.A. has allowed terrorism suspects to be taken to such countries.

Among the signers is George P. Shultz, secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan. . . . .

The statement to be issued Wednesday seeking a presidential order does not explicitly criticize recent practices but prescribes rules for the future. Its signatories, predominantly but not exclusively Democrats, include two other former secretaries of state, Madeleine K. Albright and Warren Christopher; three former defense secretaries, William S. Cohen, William J. Perry,and Harold Brown; and three former national security advisers, Anthony Lake, Sandy Berger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. 

The list includes more than 30 retired generals and admirals; a handful of former C.I.A. officers; four former World War II interrogators; and more than 100 leaders of religious congregations, divinity professors and other religious figures. . . .

The one-page statement was organized by three nonprofit groups, the Center for Victims of Torture, Evangelicals for Human Rights and the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.

The declaration will be posted here later today.  I'm one of the signatories.

UPDATE (6/27):  The declaration is here, and the list of signatories is here.  (By the way, I am incorrectly listed as "Dr. Melissa Rogers" -- my advanced degree is a JD, not a PhD, so the "Dr." reference is incorrect.  I've asked them to make a correction, but I wanted to note this for the record.)  Jane Lampman has a story on the declaration in today's Christian Science Monitor.

James Dobson Doesn't Speak for Me

"The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Methodist pastor from Texas and longtime supporter of President Bush who has endorsed Obama, said Tuesday he belongs to a group of religious leaders who, working independently of Obama's campaign, launched a Web site to counter Dobson at http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com."  Here's more from the AP story:

The site highlights statements from Obama and Dobson and asks visitors to compare them.

Caldwell said he has great respect for Dobson's advocacy for families, but said the criticism of Obama was "a bit over the top" and "crossed the line."

"There has been a call for a higher level of politics and politicking," Caldwell said. "So to attack at this level is inappropriate and I think unacceptable and we at least want to hold everybody accountable."

The website is here.  Based on what the website says, it appears that signing the statement requires making (or is taken as) a candidate endorsement in one's personal capacity.  I don't make political endorsements, so I cannot sign the statement.   But I do want to affirm that James Dobson does not speak for me.

Have you heard the radio segment that is at issue?  If not, please listen.  It would take me all day to explain what is wrong with the commentary; unfortunately, I don't have the time.  Let me just say this for now.

Among many other things, James Dobson and Focus on the Family do not speak for me when they advance the notion that a person must be religious to be moral.  They do not speak for me when they suggest that, if the majority agrees, the government may embrace one faith (or a set of faiths) over others.  They do not speak for me when they say that a call for all people to translate their reasoning to accessible claims when they advocate for policy positions is tantamount to telling people that it is immoral to fight for principles that are not embraced by all Americans.  It's long past time for more of us to say that James Dobson does not speak for us.

Olsen's Colbert Round-up

Ted Olsen rounds up some of Stephen Colbert's latest material on religion, including a number of interviews with religious figures (N.T.Wright, Annie Lamott, Rick Warren, and more).  As Ted says, this is TV worth watching.

Briefs filed (thus far) in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (Updated)

A group of religious and civil liberties organizations filed an amicus brief today in support of neither party in the Pleasant Grove City v. Summum case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.  The groups that filed the brief are the American Jewish Committee, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Anti-Defamation League, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and People for the American Way Foundation.  The following is a blurb from an Americans United press release describing the brief:

The case, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, concerns an effort by a religious group called Summum to have its “Seven Aphorisms” displayed in a public park in Pleasant Grove, Utah. Summum argues that it should have the right to permanently display its religious code in Pleasant Grove City’s Pioneer Park because the public land already contains a Ten Commandments monument and other items.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Summum on free-speech grounds. But Americans United and its allies argue that the case should really be looked at as a church-state controversy.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said the case raises an important conflict over the value of religious neutrality.

“It’s not the government’s job to display the symbols of any faith,” Lynn said. “When government officials allow religious groups to place permanent monuments on public land, the government is accountable for the message.

“Our government,” he continued, “should not -- and, under our Constitution, may not -- pick-and-choose among religions. This principle stands at the very heart of church-state separation.”

The AU brief asserts that government cannot play favorites among religions and deny a minority religious request because of discomfort with the less-known religious views.

The opening brief of the petitioners, including the City of Pleasant Grove, is here, and a description of that brief is here. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), whose lawyers are serving on the team that represents Pleasant Grove and the other petitioners, has posted a press release on the brief here.  

Several amicus briefs have been filed in support of the petitioners.  These briefs include ones filed by the City of New York and The Foundation for Free Expression.  According to the Supreme Court docket in this case, the group Fidelis also has filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners on behalf of the cities of Casper, Wyoming; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Ogden, Utah.  Liberty Legal Institute (along with the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and a number of other veterans groups) has filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners as well.  The latter two briefs do not appear to be posted online yet.  I'll update this post with links to those briefs once they are posted.

Summum's brief, along with the briefs of amici that support Summum, is due on August 15.  

UPDATE (6/25):  The ABA has posted more amicus briefs in this case.  (Thanks to Howard Friedman for pointing to this updated page.)  In addition to the ones mentioned above, the following amicus briefs have been filed in support of the petitioners, including Pleasant Grove City:

• Jewish Policy Action Network, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action
• Foundation for Moral Law, National Clergy Council, and Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital
• James Madison Center
• American Catholic Lawyers Association 
• Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

These briefs, plus the one drafted by Liberty Legal Institute on behalf of the American Legion et al, are posted on the ABA site.  Click on the first link in the update for access to all of these briefs. The Boy Scouts of America has filed a brief in support of neither party in this case. A link to that brief also may be found on the ABA page.

California Appellate Court Hears Oral Argument in Reconsideration of Homeschooling Case

A California appellate court hears oral argument today in its reconsideration of the homeschooling case that caused such an uproar recently.  (Howard Friedman has the background on this case.)  The piece notes that "[p]arents and religious groups favoring homeschooling will have Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California's schools chief on their side today when a state appeals court meets to reconsider its ruling that required in-home instructors to have teaching credentials."  It continues:

The state's largest teachers union, however, is arguing before the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles that the judges did the right thing when they declared that state law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.

The court stunned homeschooling advocates when it issued its ruling Feb. 28. After a clamor by homeschooling partisans, and a promise by Schwarzenegger to change the law if necessary to authorize home instruction, the court took the unusual step of calling a new hearing and inviting arguments from education groups, state officials and other parties.

More than a dozen groups and officials responded, most of them arguing that California law already allows parents without teaching credentials to instruct their children at home by declaring their homes to be private schools. State law requires private schools to teach the same basic subjects as public schools and keep the same daily attendance records, but does not require their teachers to be credentialed.

In its February ruling, the court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California's compulsory-education law. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws," and can be prosecuted for failing to comply, the three-judge panel said.

The piece also notes, however, that two teachers unions that were invited by the court to file briefs in the case -- the California Federation of Teachers and United Teachers Los Angeles -- declined to do so.  More on this at the jump.

Coverage of 2008 Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Meeting

Anyone interested in coverage of this year's Cooperative Baptist Fellowship meeting should visit Bruce Prescott's blog.  Thus far Bruce has posted video of an award ceremony for the great civil rights leader and pastor Fred Shuttlesworth and some video of a talk by Susan Pace Hamill, a law professor at the University of Alabama, on Christian ethics and tax policy.  Marv Knox (editor of The Baptist Standard) and John Pierce and Tony Cartledge  (editors of Baptists Today) also have good coverage of CBF events.

"Debating the Divine: Religion in 21st Century American Democracy"

If you are in Washington, D.C.,tomorrow, join us for a Center for American Progress event entitled Debating the Divine: Religion in 21st Century American Democracy.  Here's the blurb:

When is religious engagement in public policy a healthy aspect of democracy and when does it threaten the separation of church and state? Is there too much "God talk" in the public square? How should we incorporate diverse religious identities into our common civic life?

Contrasting views about the role of religion in American democracy have been heating up in recent years. Shedding light on the debate is a new collection of essays, Debating the Divine: Religion in 21st Century American Democracy. Its authors—leading thinkers and scholars—offer provocative, thoughtful views on the role of faith in public life within a diverse society. They tackle honest disagreements and find common ground.

I'll be part of the conversation, along with David Hollinger, Eboo Patel, and E.J. Dionne.  A few other details about the event are below the fold.

Back Next Week

I'll be on a blogging break for a few days.  I'll be back next week.

Henry Institute Survey on Religious Voters in the 2008 Election

The Henry Institute at Calvin College has released the findings of its survey on religious voters and the 2008 election.  Here's a snippet from the report:

Perhaps the most noteworthy overall pattern found in Table 11 [entitled "The Religious Landscape and Projected Presidential Vote: Spring 2004 and Spring 2008"] is the general decline in the level of support expressed for McCain versus that for Bush.  Evangelical Protestants hardly appear to be abandoning John McCain, but their level of support for McCain does not fully match the level of support that they expressed for Bush at roughly the same stage in the 2004 presidential election process.  Traditionalist evangelicals exhibit a higher level of “undecided” voters in 2008 than 2004, while centrist and modernist evangelicals express higher levels of support for the Democratic presidential candidate than was evident in 2004.

Overall, Mainline Protestants appear to be somewhat more supportive of the Democratic candidate in 2008 than in 2004.  However, this marginal increase in the Democratic direction conceals the fact that both traditionalist and modernist Mainline Protestants are actually somewhat more supportive of McCain in 2008 than they were of Bush in 2004.  Where dramatic change has occurred has been among centrist Mainline Protestants, as they have shifted from strong support for Bush in 2004 (50 percent) to a nearly equivalent level of support for the Democratic candidate in 2008 (46 percent). 

Traditionalist Catholics are more supportive of McCain in 2008 than they were of Bush in 2004, but the reverse is true with regard to centrist and modernist Catholics.  Latinos, regardless of whether they are Protestant or Catholic, are much more supportive of the Democratic candidate in 2008 than they were of Kerry in 2004.

Tables 12 and 13 analyze the matchups between John McCain and Hillary Clinton (Table 12) and between John McCain and Barack Obama (Table 13).  Overall, marginal differences are evident among religious voters when the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton as opposed to Barack Obama, though Obama tends to fare slightly better than Clinton in matchups against McCain.  Nevertheless, certain important religious differences are evident should the Democratic nominee be Clinton rather than Obama.  First, Latino Catholics and Jews are far more likely to support Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama, whereas Black Protestants, those of Other Faiths, and the Religiously Unaffiliated are far more likely to support Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton in their respective matchups with John McCain (with Black Protestants reporting a high level of uncertainty in their voting when Hillary Clinton is cast as the nominee of the party).

The poll also asked voters about some policy issues, including free trade, environmental regulation, abortion, gay marriage, and clergy endorsements from the pulpit. On that last issue, only 29% of traditionalist and centrist evangelicals believe that "clergy should be permitted to endorse political candidates during worship services."  Only 27% of modernist evangelicals support that statement.