Melissa Rogers

"Eco-Palms" for Palm Sunday

Read all about it.

"PEPFAR Implementation: Progress and Promise"

That's the title of a report on the progress of the implementation of the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003.  The report is described in a Washington Post story.  The Institute of Medicine, the author of the report, provides some background:

In 2003 Congress passed the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act, which established a five-year, $ 15 billion initiative to help countries around the world respond to their AIDS epidemics.  The initiative is generally referred to by the title of the five-year strategy required by the act -- PEPFAR, or the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief.Here's an excerpt from The Washington Post story on the panel:

A requirement of the act which established PEPFAR was that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) provide Congress with an evaluation of the initiative's progress three year after the passage of the Leadership Act.  In response, the IOM Committee for the Evaluation of PEPFAR Implementation examined the initiative, including visits to most of the fifteen PEPFAR focus  countries. Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post story that covers the release of the report:

An independent panel of experts said yesterday that the Bush administration's massive global AIDS program "has made a strong head start" and is "well positioned" to help AIDS-devastated countries control their epidemics.

But, as have other groups, the panel said a congressional requirement for abstinence-only messages "has greatly limited" the ability of countries to design their own AIDS-prevention campaigns. That provision, as well as less controversial ones, should be repealed in favor of less prescriptive budgeting, the report said. . . .

Much of the Bush AIDS program is built on the unusual model of contracting with U.S. charities and universities, including Harvard and Columbia, to arrange for health-care delivery for tens of thousands of poor people. Much of the actual work is performed by hundreds of small organizations, many of them faith-based groups and many delivering health care for the first time.

The Institute of Medicine panel, which interviewed hundreds of people and sent delegations to 13 of the 15 countries, did not address how this model of foreign aid compared with more traditional ones. Because the review was done soon after most of its programs opened for business, it also did not address long-term results, such as infection rates and social stability. Instead, it focused on implementation.

Here's a link to a description of the report.  The report costs about $40.

"Reconsidering the Size and Characteristics of the American Jewish Population"

That's the title of a new Brandeis study that is described in today's Los Angeles Times.  Here's an excerpt from the LA Times story:

The Brandeis report is a study of studies, or a "meta-analysis," which integrated data from 34 existing surveys that asked about religion.

"What some people ask is 'Why does anybody care how many there are?' " Saxe said. "In the Jewish community the numbers, especially since they all hover around 6 million, have particular relevance. In the wake of the Holocaust, where 6 million were killed, how many Jews are remaining and whether the community is regenerating or not — it's a very sensitive issue."

Part of the counting problem the Brandeis study attempted to overcome is the statistical difficulty of surveying a rare population.

About 2% of the U.S. population is Jewish, which means that for about every 100 telephone calls for a survey, only two people will be Jewish.

Another core problem in Jewish demographics is the concept of identity — what does it mean to be Jewish? In the Brandeis study, for the most part, people were counted as Jewish if they said they were, or if they were raised in a Jewish household and were not following another monotheistic religion. Many Orthodox consider a person Jewish only if their mother is a Jew.

The U.S. Census does not ask people about religion, and Jewish demographers in the United States often talk somewhat jealously of Canada's census, which does survey religious affiliations.

The report is here.  And here's a brief description of its findings:

SSRI's newly released study "Reconsidering the Size and Characteristics of the American Jewish Population" finds the Jewish community in the United States is not only larger than previously believed, but more diverse as well. Over six million Americans currently identify as Jewish or are children of Jewish parents, almost 20% larger than earlier assessments. Researchers also discovered that the U.S. Jewish population includes a higher number of non-Orthodox individuals than indicated by past demographic studies. The study points to the need to reconsider our views of American Jewry and the need for greater investment in the community.

"Evangelical Call to Action on Comprehensive Immigration Reform"

This is an interesting press release from Senator Ted Kennedy's office: 

"[On March 29, 2007,] Senators Kennedy, Graham, Salazar, and Menendez and Representatives Gutierrez and Flake joined leading conservative evangelical voices for comprehensive immigration reform. Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and Reverend Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference, along with forty other Hispanic evangelicals, issued an “Evangelical Call to Action on Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”

It appears that the document itself hasn't been posted online yet.  Here's the website of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference.

UPDATE: As it turns out, Faith and Public Life initiated and organized the press conference and has posted video of it here.

Washington State Board of Pharmacy Considers Policy Changes

According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "[t]the Washington State Board of Pharmacy could vote as early as today on policy changes that would allow patients to get prescriptions filled even if pharmacists are opposed to them for moral, religious or ethical reasons."  Here's the proposed policy (pdf).  Public comments on the policy may be found here.

TAP: Six States Reject Federal Abstinence-Only Grants

"With [Ohio Governor Ted Strickland's recent budget announcement that effectively cut off funding for abstinence-only sex education programs,] Ohio became the sixth state -- joining California, Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- to reject federal abstinence-only grants for the coming fiscal year."  That's an interesting point made by Ann Friedman in The American Prospect (TAP).

Representative Cleaver to Organize Global-Warming Conference for Religious Leaders

Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), an ordained minister who still serves as senior minister at St James United Methodist Church, said he is planning to organize a global-warming conference for religious leaders later this year.  Here's the story.

(Thanks to Christianity Today's Weblog.)

Catholics in the Blogosphere

BustedHalo notes: "As part of their Catholic Intellectual Series, Saint Joseph's University's Office of Mission & Identity organized a panel discussion entitled 'Ecclesia Virtualis: Catholics in the Blogosphere.'  The discussion focused on how the internet and blogs affect both the discourse on and the practice of Catholicism in America."  Panel participants were Amy Wellborn, Rocco Palmo, Grant Gallicho, and Bill McGarvey.  The video of the discussion is posted here. 

(Thanks to dotcommonweal.)

Isn't it Ironic?

Ted Olsen provides an excellent piece of analysis on the ongoing saga regarding the National Association of Evangelicals and James Dobson's Focus on the Family.  I hope Ted won't mind if I post his entire point here:

[Newsweek's] real scoop might be in its letters pages. Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family's senior vice president for government and public policy, responds to Lisa Miller's recent piece, "Tree Hugger," on the Focus-circulated letter against Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals.

"[A]lthough most in the media failed to note it, the board reiterated its support for a broader social agenda than just the single issue of global warming Cizik has been emphasizing," Minnery wrote. "We applaud that decision. In fact, we assisted the NAE in writing its well-rounded 'Call to Civic Responsibility' two years ago."

Minnery's statement is worth noting precisely because the letter criticizes a broad social agenda. "Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children," the letter states.

Minnery is not the only one saying that it's Cizik, not James Dobson and the other signatories, who are pushing for a narrow or even single-issue agenda. His statement echoes the assertion of The Institute on Religion and Democracy that "the issue that gets more attention than any other is the environment—especially global warming." It offers a chart of media mentions of the NAE unrelated to the Ted Haggard scandal. "By far the leading issue linked to the NAE was the environment and global warming, with 37 percent of the non-Haggard-scandal mentions," says the IRD's Alan Wisdom. "If this Nexis search is any indication, the NAE certainly has not been caught up in the 'hot button' culture wars issues. Only three percent of the NAE media mentions related to its opposition to same-sex marriage, and less than one percent involved opposition to abortion. … Is it possible that the association has come to resemble its old nemesis, the National Council of Churches?"

Uh, or is it possible that there's a phenomenon known as pack journalism, wherein reporters tend to quote each others' sources, follow up on each others' stories, and feed the same narrative? And it's also possible, as George Gerbner postulated, that mass media coverage cultivates attitudes about people that do not correspond to reality. That media outlets keep covering Cizik's environmental views means that reporters find those views interesting. It doesn't mean that Cizik talks about the environment 37 percent of the time. And that reporters seldom quote Cizik on same-sex marriage and abortion may simply mean that they have others in their Rolodexes that they prefer to call on those subjects.

Focus on the Family executives often complain that reporters distort how much effort they devote to politics and give short shrift to all of the organization's efforts in parental advice, counseling, and other areas where it "focuses on the family." It's a bit ironic, then, that Minnery thinks Cizik is Johnny One-Note.

Indeed.  Do visit Christianity Today's Weblog for more of Ted's insight and for more links than you can shake a stick at.

Jewish Groups Split Over Workplace Religious Freedom Act

The Forward explores some differences among Jewish groups over the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA).  Here's some background on the bill and the controversy that surrounds it:

At issue is a proposed bill, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, aimed at strengthening a federal law that requires employers to accommodate the religious needs of workers. The measure is backed by a coalition that includes more than 40 faith organizations spanning the political spectrum.

The bill is opposed by civil rights advocates and other liberal groups who say it could be used to favor the free-exercise claims of religious conservatives over the civil rights and personal health and safety of co-workers, clients and customers. . . .

Supporters of WRFA argue that civil liberties groups are pushing “nightmare” scenarios unlikely to play out even if new teeth are added to the Civil Rights Act. The backers say a clause in the bill, allowing employers to reject religious accommodations that constitute a “significant burden,” would enable them to refuse accomodations that entail proselytizing, or speech that targets gays and lesbians or other minorities.

I recommend reading the whole article.  The ACLU and others favor amending the bill so that it covers only claims involving religious garb and grooming, and time off for religious observance.  I think my friend Marc Stern hits on a key problem with that strategy:

That amendment “creates two levels of religious claims,” Stern said. “If I’m a Muslim wearing a hijab, I get a higher level of protection. If I’m a conservative Christian saying I can’t dispense contraception — which is exactly the same claim in the workplace — it gets a lower level of protection.”

My view is that there ought to be a higher level of protection for religious exercise across the board.  The flexible WRFA standard will then be able to manage these issues case-by-case in a sensible way.

Here's the paragraph from the story regarding the co-sponsors of the bill:

In the current Congress, the measure has received bipartisan support. In the House of Representatives, its roughly one-dozen co-sponsors include Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who is chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the House’s only Jewish Republican, Eric Cantor of Virginia. The bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate, but last time around it was sponsored by then-senator Rick Santorum, a leading conservative lawmaker and Pennsylvania Republican, and by Senator John Kerry, a prominent liberal and Massachusetts Democrat. Other Democratic backers in the Senate included Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer, both of New York, and Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

It will be interesting to see how the debate over these issues shapes up in both chambers.

Women's Rights Groups File Complaints Regarding the "Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative" (Updated)

The National Organization for Women and Legal Momentum filed complaints yesterday with the Department of Health and Human Services alleging sex discrimination with regard to a program linked to President Bush's faith-based initiative.  Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post story:

It's called the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, and the Bush administration doles out up to $50 million annually to fund its programs to build job skills and help fathers connect better with their children. But the National Organization for Women says the effort is illegal because it's only about men.

NOW and Legal Momentum, another advocacy group, filed complaints yesterday with the Department of Health and Human Services alleging sex discrimination in the initiative that is funding about 100 programs this year.

The complaints cite 34 programs, including one run by the District and two others in the Washington area, that, they say, do not offer the services to women. That, the groups say, violates Title IX, the law that prevents sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and is best known for forcing universities to offer comparable sports programs for men and women.

"What we're asking them to do is to make sure that the grantees provide equal services to women and men," said Kathy Rodgers, president of Legal Momentum. "It should be a parenthood initiative."

Here are some responses from the administration and a couple of government grantees:

Administration officials and grant recipients say the challenge is misguided. The programs may target men, they say, but helping men become better fathers will benefit women and children, too. Moreover, HHS officials say they have told grant recipients they must open their fatherhood programs to women.

"If a woman says she wants to apply and it's not happening, we want to know about it," said Tara Walker, at the Administration for Children and Families, the HHS agency that oversees the grants. "Yes, fathers are the target group, but at the same time allowing equal access is required."

Problem solved? Not exactly, said NOW President Kim Gandy: "The proposals they received and funded clearly indicate that they only intend to serve fathers."

One of the grants NOW objects to is a five-year, $2 million-a-year award to the D.C. Department of Human Services. It expects to help as many as 2,500 low-income fathers with parenting skills, substance-abuse prevention and treatment, job training and educational development, said Debra Daniels, a D.C. spokeswoman.

"It's to stabilize families, to improve the lives of children," Daniels said. Asked if women are eligible, she said, "No, because this is the D.C. Fatherhood Initiative program." . . .

Another group under fire is the Latin American Youth Center in the District, which got a $250,000 annual grant to provide 30 young fathers a year with job training, language classes and parenting skills. But women can enroll, too, said Lori Kaplan, the executive director.

"It doesn't mean that anywhere along the line our moms are getting excluded," she said.

Another part of the complaints alleges that cronyism has been a factor in grant making in this area:

Another grant flagged by NOW is a nearly $1 million annual award to the National Fatherhood Initiative, a Gaithersburg group formerly headed by Wade F. Horn, the assistant HHS secretary who oversees the grant program. In addition to the discrimination issue, Gandy said, the grant smacks of "cronyism." Horn was out of the country and unavailable for comment, but Walker said there was nothing improper about the grant. Officials with the group did not return several calls.

The complaints do not appear to be posted yet on NOW's website or the website of Legal Momentum.  More information about the Bush administration's fatherhood initiative may be found here.

UPDATE (3/30):  Click here for the complaints.

CBF of Virginia Adopts Millennium Development Goals

The  Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Virginia (CBFV) has adopted the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.  We have Collen Burroughs to thank for getting the effort started.  During the recent meeting of the CBFV, Burroughs gave a sermon (pdf) that challenged the organization to adopt the goals.  Here's an excerpt from the CBFV press release on the meeting:

Burroughs encouraged action, saying, "Find your voice CBF Virginia.  Speak up and say what matters and expect the miracle of Christ to multiply your efforts.  Consider adopting the Millennium Development Goals.  Hopefully it will make other people sit up and notice.  Maybe it will move them to change. This is more than our Bold Mission Thrust.  This is our moon shot."

The Millennium Development Goals are: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and develop a global partnership for development. The target date for achieving these goals is the year 2015.

Following Burroughs' sermon, the Reverend Tim Madison, 2006-2007 Moderator of CBFV, called the body into a special business session. Through a motion made by Reverend Nancy Stanton McDaniel, pastor at Rhoadesville Baptist Church, CBFV voted to adopt the goals and, after an immediately following motion from the floor, committed a substantial portion of its new "Emerging Missions" 2007-2008 budget line to supporting them.

Burroughs is exactly right.  Many of us Baptists who left the Southern Baptist Convention have been too quiet on these issues of justice.  It's time for us to find our voices.  Thanks to Burroughs and CBFV for helping us to do so.

Pre-Teens Take Stand for Religious Freedom

A warm and fuzzy religious freedom story in today's New York Times:

The red hijab worn by Asmahan Mansour, an 11-year-old player for the Nepean Hotspurs near Ottawa, had never hurt anyone in the games she played before the Canadian indoor championships last month in Quebec. But as Mansour trotted onto the field for a shift change, about to mix it up with players in prescription glasses and elastic headbands, a referee ejected her when she wouldn’t remove her headscarf.

Safety violation, the ref cited.

R U kidding? Mansour’s teammates thought.

With preteens, thought bubbles are always in text-message form, so their next step was C U later. The girls triggered a tense national debate on multiculturalism — was the hijab a safety issue or religious discrimination? — when they instinctively turned and walked off the field in support of Mansour. The Hotspurs withdrew from the tournament.

“They said, ‘We’re proud of you, Asmahan,’ ” Mansour told Canada’s CTV last month, adding, “And I was very proud of my teammates for having my back.”

You go, girls.  The world would be a better place if we all had each other's backs in this way, wouldn't it?

GodTube

Here it is, and here's a Newsweek report on it.

(Thanks to ThinkChristian and Faith in Public Life.)

Representative Forbes: Over 30 Members of Congress to "Officially Call America Back to Prayer"

Representative Randy Forbes (R-VA) announces that "he and over 30 other Members of Congress from 19 states will hold a bi-partisan press conference on the West Steps of the U.S. Capitol to call America back to prayer at noon on Wednesday, March 28, 2007."  The press release says that, at the event, the Representatives "will gather to officially call America back to prayer and encourage people to sign up to pray for our nation for five minutes each week."

Frankly, members of Congress have no business issuing an "official call" for Americans to turn "back to prayer."  Members of Congress certainly may pray, and they may play active roles within their respective religious communities.  They also may form unofficial groups that meet for worship, prayer, and Bible study on government property just as other unofficial groups do.  But their stations as government officials do not entitle them to attempt to lead us in spiritual pursuits.  We've got plenty of religious leaders who can do that, thank you very much.  It's not the government's job to promote religion; it's the job of religious communities. 

And what about the idea that these members of Congress are going to lead us "back to prayer"?  Who said we ever stopped praying?  Moreover, while it is appropriate to pray for our nation, its leaders, and people, we always must remember that God's blessings are for all nations and all peoples, not just our own. 

When I called Representative Forbes' office to confirm the information in the press release, a staffer told me that a group called "The Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation" is linked to this effort.  I haven't had time to fully explore the website, but here's a snippet:  "Although the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation is a completely private organization receiving no taxpayer support or funds, several current and former members of Congress serve as Advisory Members."   I haven't had the chance yet to see exactly how many names on the list of "Advisory Members" also appear on the list of current members of Congress, but there appears to be significant overlap.  I might have more to say after the press conference, but I will say that the Representatives cannot have it both ways.  If they send out a press release with their titles as government officials, purport to issue an "official" call for prayer, and hold an event on the steps of the Capitol, they cannot say that the whole thing is somehow non-governmental in nature.   

Again, members of Congress can engage in religious activities and speak in personal ways about their faith convictions.   But their jobs as members of Congress are to legislate, not to lead Americans in prayer, and they need to remember that.

Acting Board Chair of We Care America Writes to Dayton Daily News

Today's edition of the Dayton Daily News publishes a letter from the acting board chairman of We Care America.  The letter responds to the newspaper's coverage of an ongoing investigation of the state's past dealings with We Care America under the administration of former Governor Bob Taft.  The current governor, Governor Ted Strickland, launched the investigation earlier this month (see  here, here, and here for background on this story). 

Here is the letter in full:

Recent articles and an editorial have levied accusations and half-truths about We Care America — a non-profit, faith-based organization that applied for and received a contract in a fair bidding process, to assist the Ohio Governor's Office of Faith and Community Based Initiatives ("Faith-based grant company shuts down," March 14).

We Care America provided services that were specifically and legitimately contracted for under a competitively bid service contract. A highly qualified team of professionals provided services to support the Ohio Strengthening Families Initiative over the past year, under direct instruction and supervision from the governor's staff. All activities and purchases were for appropriate and pre-approved activity.

What has been left out of press accounts has been that Gov. Ted Strickland's office resorted to playing this out in the media, as opposed to a face-to-face communication, which WCA requested in two letters to the Ohio Job and Family Services.

Beginning in early January, the faith-based office began failing to pay invoices for past work, and repeatedly broke promises to pay, reaching back to October 2006. This pattern has also affected more than 100 other non-profits that are serving Ohio families.

This failure to pay for services has placed significant hardship and financial difficulty on this non-profit, which does not have the financial capacity to continue extending credit to an administration that is acting in bad faith. These actions and the misinformation provided in past articles have damaged the credibility and integrity of We Care America.

We have operated for more than seven years and trained more than 10,000 groups, in addition to writing successful grants for millions of dollars in funding for compassionate ministries. We Care America is able to account for all expenditures and equipment. We welcome the investigation and will continue to act in a transparent manner.

Perhaps some elected officials are looking for a way to quietly kill one of the most progressive state movements in social welfare in a generation.

John Pentz

Newport Beach, Calif.

Mr. Pentz is acting board chairman of We Care America

I'm glad representatives of We Care America are beginning to respond publicly to some of the issues that have been raised here.  As I said earlier, they should clarify the current status of all of their operations.   It'd also be helpful it they would release the two letters Pentz references that they sent to the Strickland administration. 

Obviously, the two sides have clashing views on a number of key issues.  I have no way to evaluate the charges and counter-charges at this point.  It's good that We Care America is promising to cooperate with the investigation.  I'll keep watching for more news about how the investigation unfolds. 

Tuesday Morning Round-up

I only have time this morning to list some links to stories of interest.  Here they are, listed by article title:

Intolerable Darfur (Washington Post editorial) and Global Days for Darfur (Save Darfur Coalition)

City Sets Limits on Serving Food to Homeless People (USA Today)

Faith and Work Collide in Minneapolis (LA Times)

For Some Black Pastors, Accepting Gay Members Means Losing Others (NY Times)

Coalition Seeks to Reframe GOP Race (Boston Globe)

Conservative Jewish Seminary Will Accept Gay Students (NY Times)

Couric Criticized for Edwards Interview (The Caucus)

Indiana Distributes "In God We Trust" License Plates (Religion Clause)

Santorum to Make Gore-Style Documentaries -- About "Radical Islam" and "Leftists" (TPM Cafe)

Senate Hearing Today on Human Trafficking

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law has scheduled a hearing today entitled “Legal Options to Stop Human Trafficking.”   It will take place at 3:00 p.m. (ET) in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.   The witness list is here.  To watch a live webcast of the event, click here.

"Three Fired US Attorneys Balked at Seeking Death Penalty"

That's the title from an article in today's LA Times.  Here's how it begins:

As a U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., Margaret Chiara, who once studied to become a nun, appealed several times to the Justice Department against having to seek the death penalty. In hindsight, for her it was a risky business.

No prisoner has been executed in a Michigan case since 1938, but the Bush administration seemed determined to change that. Under Attys. Gen. John Ashcroft and Alberto R. Gonzales, far more federal defendants have been dispatched to death row than under the Clinton administration. And any prosecutors wishing to seek other punishment often find themselves overruled.

Chiara was not the only one to run afoul of the administration's death penalty stance.

In San Francisco, U.S. Atty. Kevin Ryan was ordered by Ashcroft to conduct a capital trial for a Californian charged with killing a man with a booby-trapped mail bomb. Ryan persuaded Ashcroft's successor, Gonzales, to drop the death charge; last month the defendant, David Lin, was acquitted in San Jose.

In Phoenix, prosecutor Paul Charlton was told repeatedly, despite his resistance, to file capital murder charges in a case where the victim's body has not been recovered. The woman's remains are believed buried deep in an Arizona landfill, but the Justice Department refused Charlton's request to shoulder the cost — up to $1 million — to retrieve the corpse.

The three prosecutors are among eight U.S. attorneys terminated last year in a housecleaning by the Justice Department. Their hesitation over the death penalty was not cited as a reason for their dismissals, but Washington officials have made it clear they have little patience for prosecutors who are not with the program.

Read the whole thing. 

By the way, the article includes this bit of information: "[Paul] Charlton also did not want to execute a Navajo, deferring to a long-standing informal policy based on the tribe's opposition to the death penalty."  This is the first I've heard of this policy.  Sounds like an interesting research topic.

(Thanks to Howard Bashman.)

"Operation First Casualty"

I've never heard of a war protest event quite like this one:

[On March 19, 2007,] 13 Iraq war veterans in full desert camo [went] on "patrol" from Union Station to Arlington National Cemetery [in Washington, D.C.]. They carried imaginary assault rifles, barked commands, roughly "detained" suspected hostiles with flex cuffs and hoods -- and generally shocked, frightened and delighted tourists and office workers.

"How does occupation feel, D.C.?!" shouted Geoff Millard, head of the local chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War, who previously served on a brigadier general's staff in Tikrit.

They cut a swath across downtown, taking imaginary sniper fire and casualties on the grounds of the Capitol and the Washington Monument, scouting the White House, performing mock arrests at the foot of the Capitol steps and a vehicle search on the Mall. At the Capitol, the veterans almost got detained themselves by civilian peace officers with real guns. The vets brought their act to a military recruiting station on L Street NW and concluded with a memorial ceremony in the cemetery.

The 12 men and one woman included one veteran of Afghanistan, and they represented the Army, Marines and Navy. They were young, intense, disillusioned. Home from the war, on yesterday's fourth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, they wanted to bring the war home to Washington.

They called it Operation First Casualty -- citing the adage that truth is the first casualty of war. The premise of their guerrilla-theater incursion was that, for all the yellow ribbons and "support the troops" sloganeering, life goes on at home pretty much oblivious to what it's like for American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Some video of the event is here.  The "suspected hostiles" were volunteer anti-war protesters, by the way.  In essence, these folks created a symbolic interruption of everyday American routines to remind us about the reality and costs of this war.  For that, I'm grateful.

"Spiritual Coaching"

The New York Times reports on a phenomenon known as "spiritual coaching."  It says that "[i]n a 2006 poll of nearly 6,000 coaches by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the International Coach Federation in Lexington, Ky., 18 percent said their specialty was spirituality."  Here's an excerpt from the story:

Val Hastings, a spiritual coach who runs Coaching4Clergy.com in Douglassville, Pa., poses the question, “When is God most real to you?” The question is especially relevant. He coaches members of the clergy.

“Many spiritual leaders respond by saying something like, ‘I can’t really remember anymore,’ or, ‘I would love to have a whole day to just devote to prayer and reading Scripture,’ ” said Mr. Hastings, a former United Methodist pastor who coaches about 45 pastors, rabbis and priests each month.

“When I began coaching in 1999, nobody knew about coaching, let alone spiritual coaching,” said Mr. Hastings, whose fee over the telephone is $250 for two 30-minute sessions a month. “I was lucky to have one client a month. Now I no longer have to explain what coaching is. Pastors call me and say, ‘Can I hire you?’ ”

Ask Cassandra Christiansen, a spiritual coach in Fairview, Ore., if her field is gaining momentum, and she replies, “A resounding yes.”

“People desire a connection that is soul to soul, not instant message to instant message,” said Ms. Christiansen, who received her credential from the International Coach Federation and coaches clients from around the world by telephone.

She added: “Most people live their life asking questions like ‘What should I do?’ I encourage my clients to begin asking: ‘What does my soul truly desire? What would make my divine spirit sing?’ In the beginning, people are always thrown by the questions. But they always have an answer.”

More on We Care America

Well, apparently some part of We Care America is still functioning.   (See here and here for background on this story.)  A reader sent me a press release with yesterday's date and We Care America's name on it.  (The name of another organization, The Reform Institute, also appears on the press release.  The release, by the way, calls on Congress to "act on comprehensive immigration reform now.")  The press release links to We Care America's website. 

If the organization has time to send out a press release lobbying Congress, it certainly should have time to respond to queries from the state of Ohio about millions of dollars of government grant money.  (And, of course, We Care America should respond to Ohio's inquiries in any case.)  If the Ohio Department of Administrative Services is correct in saying repeated efforts to contact the organization were futile, then this is puzzling.  We Care America should clarify the current status of all its operations and speak to this alleged failure to respond to Ohio government officials.

One more thing.  Earlier this week I linked to another post I wrote in October 2006 regarding David Kuo's account of the peer review process at the Department of Health and Human Services.  I linked to it because I remembered Kuo's allegations of rank bias.  But I didn't go back and read the full post at that time.  I did so this morning.  Here's part of the excerpt from Kuo's book (page 214) that I quoted in the October 2006 post:

Many of the grant-winning organizations that rose to the top of this process were politically friendly to the administration.  . . . . Even more bizarre, a new organization called "We Care America" received a 99.67 on its grant review.  It was the second-highest score.  They called themselves a "network of networks," an "organizer of organizations."  They had a staff of three, all from the world of Washington politics, and all very Republican.  They were on tap to receive more than $ 2.5 million.  To help the Department of Health and Human Services manage the program, an online National Resource Center was set up.  That job was outsourced to an organization run by former Chuck Colson staffers. . . .

It was obvious that the ratings were a farce. . . .

(I added the bold to this excerpt from Kuo's book.)  So we now have allegations that both the federal government and the state of Ohio improperly favored We Care America.  I hope the investigation that has been launched in Ohio will produce answers on what happened here.  And, as I said in 2006, Kuo's allegations need to be investigated as well.

Ohio Cuts Ties with We Care America

A report in yesterday's Dayton Daily News says that "[t]he state of Ohio terminated its 20-month, $2.1 million contract with We Care America, a non-profit hired to administer grants to faith-based and community organizations serving the needy."  Some background on this developing story is here.  The Dayton Daily News apparently based its story on a termination notice that was sent to We Care America on Wednesday by the Ohio Department of Administrative Services.  The Ohio newspaper reports that, according to that notice, We Care America "hasn't responded to various attempts by state officials to get questions answered or more documentation. . . ." 

As noted earlier, the former finance director for the organization has said that We Care America shut down its Ohio and northern Virginia offices when other grants expired and the only remaining work was in Ohio.  So this isn't a huge surprise.  But it does seem strange that people who were associated with the organization apparently have been difficult to reach sometimes, particularly when it's the government calling about the status of a $2.1 million contract.  In any case, I thought I'd note this development for the record.

Revival of Sanctuary Movement

The LA Times reports on "a new sanctuary movement expected to be launched in late April as a faith-based effort to help undocumented families and to press for immigration reform."  The article begins with a description of "a controversial new addition to the historic downtown Los Angeles church: living quarters in which to harbor an immigrant family facing deportation."  Here's an excerpt from the piece:

Inspired by Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who has taken refuge at a Methodist church in Chicago since August to avoid deportation, leaders of the first sanctuary movement in 25 years are interviewing hundreds of prospective candidates for refuge and dozens of churches willing to accept the legal risks of taking them in.

Advocacy groups, including Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice-California, Interfaith Worker Justice and the New York Sanctuary Coalition, are asking each participating church, synagogue and mosque to provide refuge for one or more illegal immigrants. . . .

Although it has no legal standing in the United States, sanctuary as a sacred right of a church is a widely held notion. Those who believe in it think that federal officers are less likely to arrest an undocumented family in a church than in a home or workplace.

To attract as much media attention as possible, the new sanctuary movement will be unveiled in simultaneous news conferences in Los Angeles and New York City.

Crisis of Conscience: Doctors and Execution by Lethal Injection

Stateline.org provides an overview of some of the controversies in various states over execution by lethal injection.  Here's the lede:  "After 897 executions by lethal injection over the past 25 years, the role of doctors in carrying out the death penalty is surfacing as the latest ethical issue to force a re-examination of capital punishment in the United States. " 

Lawsuit Against Northwest Marriage Institute Dismissed

Via Don Byrd, I see that a federal district judge issued a ruling earlier this week in a case involving a government-funded marriage program.  The judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Americans United for Separation of Church and State claiming that federal grants made to the Northwest Marriage Institute (NMI) were used to finance religious activities in violation of the Establishment Clause.  Here's a  quick summary of some of the key points in the decision and my initial reactions to those points.

The judge dismissed the lawsuit because he found that, while NWI did at one time offer only programs that included religious themes and activities, it created a new program in order to be eligible for government funds.   According to a deposition given by the leader of NWI, the organization "shifted its mission from providing Bible-based marriage workshops and counseling to providing marriage workshops without religious references."  NWI no longer offers Bible-based workshops, this leader noted.  In light of that information, the court said:

Were this [c]ourt concerned solely with the Institute's initial Bible-based marriage counseling, it would have no difficulty in finding a violation of the Establishment Clause.  Without question, prior to the change in mission and award of the federal grants, the Institute was pervasively sectarian.   Faith-based marriage workshops and counseling on the words of the Bible is a specifically religious form of marriage counseling/education.  The Bible-based model of marriage education employed by [NWI] makes it impossible to make a distinction between secular and sectarian aspects of its marriage counseling.  The pre-grant Institute is a pervasively sectarian organization. . . .

However, the [c]ourt is not concerned with the pre-grant programs of [NWI].  The Institute altered its mission and no longer offers Bible-based marriage workshops.  A religious motivation o[n] behalf of a sectarian institution in providing secular services does not transform the secular services into a religious activity.

NWI does offer a newsletter with religious content, the court said.  The court referenced testimony saying that "no federal funds are expended in the composition, printing and distribution of the newsletter."  Accordingly, the court said: "The fact that a sectarian organization continues with separate religious activities after receiving grant monies for [secular] endeavors does not constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause."  (In the previous sentence, the court used the word "sectarian" where I have inserted the word "secular" in brackets.  I'm assuming this was a typo and that the court meant to say "secular.")

I think the court makes good sense on all of these points.  First, if direct government aid subsidized a program like the one the court describes in the first paragraph of the block quote, it would violate the Establishment Clause, and it's encouraging to see the court recognize that fact.  Whether one calls these programs pervasively sectarian or something else, they are not suitable candidates for government grants.

Second, the court is quite right to say that there's a difference between a program that includes explicit religious themes and activities and a program that is merely motivated by religious belief.  If a government-funded activity appears non-religious to outsiders, the fact that the activity is spurred by religious motivation does not make it constitutionally suspect.

Third, I believe that the court is right when it says that religious organizations that receive government funds should be able to continue to offer religious activities (such as the newsletter in this case) -- they should be able to do so as long as  those religious activities are privately funded, clearly separated from the government-funded activities, and completely voluntary for any government beneficiaries.  My reservations in this area have been about whether adequate guidance is given to religious organizations and whether that guidance is being adequately implemented.

In this particular case, the court found that there were adequate safeguards to ensure that government funds wouldn't be diverted to religious use.  Here's what it said:

There is no presumption that sectarian organizations receiving government aid require pervasive monitoring.  .  . . [The government programs here] require [NWI to] submit detailed applications on how it intends to use grant monies along with a budget outlining all anticipated expenses.  Federal regulations expressly prohibit grant recipients from using public funds for religious activities.  Recipients must sign an agreement with includes an assurance by the recipient that no funds will be used for religious purposes.   Recipients are required to file financial status reports while the grant is ongoing and a final performance report that details the projects accomplishments.  The government has the authority to audit any program that receives public money at any time.  These monitoring requirements have been found sufficient to satisfy constitutional safeguards and not result in excessive entanglement.

All of these steps are necessary and appropriate.  But I also think governmental agencies need to go a step farther when monitoring religious organizations that receive government funds.  And I believe they can do so without creating excessive church-state entanglement.  There are concerns that are unique to the relationship of religion and government, and we shouldn't assume that religious providers will know exactly how to implement their programs in ways that respect constitutional principles.  There should be more interaction between the state and religious grantees than simply pushing paper back and forth.

A settlement agreement in another case provides some ideas in this area.  It stipulates that the Department of Health and Human Services must make quarterly phone calls to a religious grantee that will include a discussion of "key issues [and] problems . . . ."  It also notes that on-site visits may be necessary to follow up on these phone calls.  (Chip Lupu and Bob Tuttle wrote about this settlement agreement some time ago, and Bob has cited (pdf) it as "a template for adequate guidance given to religious organizations.")   

This kind of interaction would help to protect the religious liberty rights of beneficiaries of government-funded social services.  It also would be helpful to religious social service providers.  Frankly, there is quite a bit of opportunity here for honest confusion, particularly when we are talking about groups that are new to the government-grant business.  Follow-up phone calls and visits would help to deal with practical problems and new questions as they arise. 

It seems to me that policy makers need to talk more about monitoring and fashion some sensible requirements that would go beyond paper communication.  In this context, the kinds of steps I have mentioned wouldn't constitute excessive entanglement between church and state.  Instead, they would signal that the government is simply doing what is must to ensure that these partnerships function in the right ways.

A First for Nevada: Hindu Prayer Before State Legislature

Punjab Newsline reports from Carson City, Nevada:

History was created when Rajan Zed, Director of Public Affairs of Hindu Temple of Northern Nevada, Public Relations Officer of India Association of Northern Nevada, and a Hindu chaplain, read ancient Hindu prayer/blessing in Sanskrit at the opening of the Nevada State Assembly session here today.   

This is the first time any Hindu prayer is delivered in the Nevada State Legislature since its formation in 1864, says Pastor Albert Tilstra, Chaplain Coordinator for Nevada Legislature. 

(Thanks to Dallas News Religion Blog.)

"Maybe the lesson is this: Whether we want the schools to be libertarian or communitarian depends on whose values go to the head of the class."

That's Michael McGough, discussing the Morse v. Frederick case in an op-ed in today's LA Times.  McGough observes that, "[i]n probing whether an Alaska school district was wrong to suspend Joseph Frederick for unfurling his 'bong' banner during an Olympic torch procession, the justices revealed just how conflicted Americans are about the institution of the public school." 

You need to read the whole piece to get full impact of McGough's conclusion, but here it is:

[Chief Justice] Earl Warren was a "liberal," [Chief Justice] John Roberts is a "conservative," but they both exalt the public school as a transmitter of values (respectively, tolerance of other races and opposition to drug use). [Justice] Abe Fortas and [Justice] Sam Alito, despite their political differences, see the school as a stand-in for the state.

You can find support for both positions not just in Supreme Court decisions but also in attitudes toward public education. Not that combatants in the culture wars don't sometimes switch sides for tactical reasons.

The bong-banner boy attracted a friend of the court brief from a legal group founded by Pat Robertson, which told the justices that a) they should dismiss the case as "improvidently granted," but b) if they insisted on addressing the merits, they should rule in favor of the bong dude because of "the larger constitutional principles at stake."

In the good old days, of course, Christians wouldn't have to raise the free-speech banner. Prayers and Bible readings were part of the communitarian "cultural values" imparted in the classroom. But if there are no atheists in the foxholes, there are no statists in the trenches of civil-liberties litigation. Christians are now libertarians, and the sinister statists are those agents of the Homosexual Agenda who won't let Christian kids diss the "gay lifestyle."

Maybe the lesson is this: Whether we want the schools to be libertarian or communitarian depends on whose values go to the head of the class.

(Thanks to Howard Bashman.)

Former Iowa Christian Alliance Leader Joins Romney Campaign

ABC News reports: " 'Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Joe Earle, immediate past Director of Outreach with the Iowa Christian Alliance, has joined his campaign for President,' per a campaign press release announcing the big pickup."  Here's a bit about the Iowa Christian Alliance from its website:

The Iowa Christian Alliance a non-profit organization that seeks to make a difference in the public arena regarding the issues that matter most.  We stand for integrity in government, high moral values, constitutional authority, and Christian principles. Our purpose is to educate and influence voters and politicians to keep their commitment to both liberty and law; that America may continue to be one nation under God. We are not tied to any political party.  We were formerly the Christian Coalition of Iowa.  We are not associated with the Christian Coalition of America.

Utah's "Universal" Voucher Program

The Christian Science Monitor reports on a voucher program recently signed into law in Utah.  Proponents are hailing it as the first voucher program that is "universal."   "It offers up to $3,000 a year to students who want to attend private schools."  The story explains that "[t]he money would be awarded on a sliding scale, the bulk of it going to low-income families, but there would be no upper-income limit for $500 vouchers."  But, the article notes, "[o]pponents have launched a petition drive to postpone [the Utah voucher program] and let voters decide the issue in 2008; legal challenges are also likely."

In addition to considering the Utah voucher program, the article provides a brief status report on the wider voucher movement:

Milwaukee led the way in 1990 and now has nearly 15,000 students using vouchers. A program started in Cleveland in 1995 was challenged all the way up to the US Supreme Court, which ruled in 2002 that it did not violate the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution.

But state courts have struck down voucher systems in Colorado and Florida. Those cases related, respectively, to local control and the state constitutional provision for a uniform system of public education. Many states also have so-called Blaine amendments, which prohibit public funding of private institutions. "We're still waiting to see what will happen if a state court takes on the Blaine amendments head on," [says Chad d'Entremont, assistant director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, a nonpartisan group at Columbia University's Teachers College in New York].

If you are interested in more information on the Blaine amendments and their significance in voucher battles, click here. 

Inquiry Launched Regarding Religious Social Services in Ohio (Updated)

The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy has an important story on an investigation that Ohio governor Ted Strickland has launched into some of the dealings of the Ohio Governor's Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives under the former administration.  (As the story notes, "[u]nlike faith-based offices in other states, Ohio's office is unique in having been established permanently by state law, rather than being the directive of a particular governor.")   Since taking office, "Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland has replaced staff in the Governor's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and ordered an investigation into a contract awarded to a Virginia-based organization called We Care America that was paid to administer a program providing grants to small faith-based and community nonprofits." 

Among other things, the Roundtable references this story from The Dayton Daily News.  Here's how the story begins:

A pot of money intended to help the poor was used to buy two giant flat-screen televisions, pay for two $125-a-month parking spots for a state contractor and purchase a $6,000 study that heaped praise on the state government office that made it all possible.

On top of that, the contractor hired to administer the money — We Care America — is paid about $3,500 a day, including a 15 percent charge for "overhead." And the 50-inch televisions, which cost $15,229 to buy and install, plus 15 percent, aren't fully functional, according to Keith Dailey, press secretary for Gov. Ted Strickland. One is in Columbus while the other is in We Care America's offices in Virginia, he said.

Under the Taft administration, the Governor's Office on Faith-based and Community Initiatives paid one-page monthly invoices from We Care America with apparently few questions.

Concerns about the financial management of the office led Strickland this week to ask state Inspector General Tom Charles to investigate and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services to conduct an audit, Dailey said. Strickland replaced the office staff in January.

Here's the study that's mentioned above.  Among other things, the Dayton Daily News article raises questions about the bidding process whereby Ohio selected We Care America.  Here's a relevant snippet:

In September 2005, the state hired We Care America, a nonprofit based in northern Virginia, to administer $22 million in federal welfare money being doled out over two years to faith-based and community-based groups.

The bid was structured so that bidders had to have experience in three specific areas: helping prisoners re-enter society, mentoring vulnerable youth and counseling couples. Bidders needed experience developing a Web portal and helping faith-based and community organizations.

One bidder, Young Williams, wrote: "We realize that there is probably no firm in the country that can deliver the full range of programmatic and technological services required by this RFP (request for proposals.)"

The Taft administration invited 114 vendors to bid. Seven responded on time. Three bidders — a major accounting firm that conducted the state's Tom Noe audit, a national grants administrator and Indiana University — were tossed out for lacking experience with prisoners, couples and troubled youth, according to rejection letters issued by the state to these bidders. The fourth — Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies —lacked experience developing a Web site, according to its rejection letter.

"It almost seems like they knocked out the folks who would've been stronger competitors," said John Corlett, senior fellow at the Center for Community Solutions in Cleveland.

The three remaining bidders were Young Williams, a Jackson, Miss.-based child support collection firm, the Nehemiah Foundation in Springfield, and We Care America of Lansdowne, Va., which has ties to the Bush administration.

When five state employees scored the proposals, We Care America blew the two competitors away, according to score sheets. A month later, We Care America was awarded a $1.7 million, 20-month contract.

The deal was later increased more than 20 percent to $2.14 million, or about $3,500 a day. Even before the amendments, We Care America was the highest bidder among the three considered.

Phil Cole, executive director of Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies, said he was very disappointed his agency was disqualified for lack of Web development experience, yet We Care America was allowed to subcontract the work.

"We had experience in all those other parts and we're in Ohio. The governor of Ohio should not be sending money out of state," Cole said. His agency put in the lowest bid — one that was 8.9 percent less than We Care America's.

"The only comment I would make to you is that there was a very well-developed Ohio competitive bidding process. We Care America bid on the work, just like other people did," said David Mills, who left last week as the group's vice president of grants and program development. He had been a primary contact for Ohio officials.

The Roundtable story gets some responses to these allegations from Krista Rush Sisterhen, the former director of the Ohio faith-based office.

Sisterhen, the [Ohio] faith-based office's former director, said We Care America was chosen over other bidders through a competitive process in which the state Department of Administration gave the organization the highest score. She is not aware of any inappropriate expenditures on the organization's part, she stated in an e-mail to the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy.

In an Associated Press article, Sisterhen defended We Care's decision to purchase the TVs, as an attempt to set up teleconferencing for training faith-based organizations, though the two-way connection never worked. She questioned, however, their reported cost of over $15,000. And she said it was reasonable to commission a third-party evaluation of the office. . . .

"If you conducted a survey of the political affiliation (if any) of organizations GOFBCI partnered with on the Ohio Compassion Capital Project, contracted with, and made grants to, I think any reasonable person would be hard-pressed to discern a political bias in those partnerships, contracts or grants precisely because awards were based upon the merits of their proposals as determined by the state procurement process," Sisterhen stated. "Moreover, GOFBCI was unaware of any suggestion that We Care America had such ‘ties.' "   

The current status of We Care America is a matter of some confusion.  The Dayton Daily News article referenced above reports that the organization shares a Virginia address with Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministries.  That is consistent with the information on We Care America's website, which says they have a "new national headquarters" in Virginia and notes that "[o]ur offices are in the Prison Fellowship International Headquarters."  But the phones at that office have been disconnected.  And news accounts suggest that the organization is now defunct. 

What exactly has happened to the organization is unclear. The Dayton Daily News reported We Care America's Ohio office has been shuttered. Phone lines at its Virginia headquarters have been disconnected.

We Care's invoices are being handled by the Assemblies of God New Jersey District Council, according to several sources. Attempts to speak with someone there or at the Assemblies of God national office were unsuccessful.

Reached by e-mail, David Mills, We Care America's former vice president of grants and program development, declined comment on the organization. He would say only that the situation in Ohio is "very political" and that the newspaper accounts about his former organization's operations are largely inaccurate.

Dailey refuted the suggestion that the governor's investigation is politically motivated.

"The investigation is based on very legitimate questions being raised regarding the financial management of this office," Dailey said. "With any new administration that has a vision for a direction to take the state, there will be changes both in personnel and in priorities."

Yet the phones appear to be working at We Care America's governmental affairs office in Washington, D.C.  No one answers, but a message machine comes on and gives names of various staff members.  And We Care America's website announces on its front page that David Mills is scheduled to speak at the National New Churches Conference, April 23-24, 2007, listing his title as vice president of We Care America.  Yet, as noted above, news accounts indicate that Mills has left the organization. 

According to the Dayton Daily News, "Americans United [for Separation of Church and State] . . . has requested a slew of public records from the Ohio Governor's Office on Faith-based and Community Initiatives but is waiting to see how Strickland structures the programs before deciding whether to take legal action, Americans United spokesman Rob Boston said."

Obviously, there's quite a bit here to untangle.  I recommend reading both the Dayton Daily News account and the Roundtable story for the full picture.  The questions about the bidding process caught my eye in part because this isn't the first time questions have been raised about bidding processes connected to faith-based initiatives.  For example, in his book, David Kuo made some shocking allegations about the Compassion Capital Fund peer review process.  These charges should be investigated fully and fairly. 

UPDATE:  Here's the article from the Dayton Daily News that describes the demise of We Care America.  It is dated March 14, 2007.  An excerpt:

A contractor being paid $3,500 a day by the state to administer grants to churches and community organizations closed its Ohio and Virginia offices and is now routing its invoices through the Assemblies of God New Jersey District Council.

David Castaneda, who had been handling We Care America's invoices, said the company folded after a number of grants ended in 2006 and all that remained was the Ohio contract.

"Actually, the company pretty much closed. Nobody is working there. It was a decision by the board," Castaneda said.

Castaneda, who had been finance director, resigned in February and David Mills, who had been vice president of grants and program development, left March 1.

Some We Care America phone lines have been disconnected while others go unanswered.

Meanwhile, 15 groups have complained that they have not received payments totaling $78,370 from We Care America, according to Gov. Ted Strickland's office.

So the organization is no longer functioning.  But the questions continue.

"Religion and Morality in the Public Square"

That's the title of a symposium that will take place on March 23 in New York City.  The event is sponsored by St. John's University School of Law.  Speakers include (pdf) Christopher Eberle, Noah Feldman, Richard Garnett, Kent Greenawalt, and Peter Steinfels.  Symposium papers will be published in St. John's Journal of Legal Commentary.

(Thanks to Mirror of Justice.)

Mauro on Morse v. Frederick

Tony Mauro's prediction on Morse v. Frederick:

By the end of yesterday's hourlong argument before the Supreme Court, two things seemed clear on both ends of the spectrum of possible outcomes.

First, the Court balked at giving schools a broad charter to censor any speech that merely falls outside the school’s educational mission. But second, the Court also seemed resolved that Principal Morse — and school officials like her in the future — should not be held personally liable for misinterpreting the welter of nuanced and conflicting Court precedents on student free speech.

Somewhere in the middle is where the Court will likely rule, with a nod toward both student speech and the need for school discipline. And the push toward center ground may come from the Court’s newest justice, Samuel Alito Jr., who in a series of questions made clear his concern about giving school officials too much power to restrict student speech. If student speech can be censored for the sole reason that it is contrary to a school’s educational mission, Alito said, schools can simply expand their mission statements to justify censoring any speech they don’t like.

Mauro also makes these points about Alito's record and likely sympathies in this case:

Alito’s stance seemed to echo a ruling he wrote in 2001 as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In Saxe v. State College, Alito struck down a college speech code that banned verbal harassment, defined to include negative speech about “religious traditions,” values and race. “Such speech, when it does not pose a realistic threat of substantial disruption, is within a student's First Amendment rights,” Alito said in Saxe.

Alito’s mention yesterday of fundamental values may also have been a nod to the arguments that Christian legal organizations have made, perhaps unexpectedly, in support of Frederick’s right to display the bong banner.

Reports on "Christian Peace Witness for Iraq" (Updated)

Here's a report on the "Christian Peace Witness for Iraq" event, including some audio from the worship service.  More coverage of the event is here.

UPDATE (3/21): Streaming video of the worship service is posted here.

Moment of Silence for Fallen Soldiers

Yesterday Representative Patrick Murphy from Pennsylvania noted the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War.  On the floor of Congress, he asked for a moment of silence to commemorate "the nineteen members of [his] unit that did not make it home from Iraq and for the thousands of brave Americans that have fallen."  The video of the moment is here.  It seems to me that this is one of those times when silence is much more powerful than words.

(Thanks to Atrios.)

The Power and Promise of Single-Issue Coalitions

Dan Gilgoff is blogging this week at TPM Cafe.  Today he offers an excerpt of his new book, The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War (earlier posts on the book are here, here, and here), describing some of the story behind the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), which was enacted in 1988. 

One of the interesting things included in the excerpt is a description of how the diverse IRFA coalition came together:

[Michael] Horowitz organized a conference in Washington on Christian persecution in early 1996 and invited his Christian Right contacts to attend. The event was officially sponsored by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). . . .

The conference culminated with the release of an NAE-endorsed “Statement of Conscience,” on international religious persecution, and Horowitz, Cizik, and others were soon assembling a coalition of religious groups to push for federal legislation to codify it. But what was coming to be known as the “religious freedom coalition” didn’t include just conservative religious organizations. Rabbi David Saperstein, the Washington lobbyist for the liberal Reform Judaism movement, was an early ally of Horowitz.

Saperstein acted as a liaison between the conservative core of the religious freedom coalition and the liberal groups it was trying recruit into its ranks. Soon, the International Campaign for Tibet and the Episcopal Church’s Washington office were attending the coalition’s meetings. “Before that, there had hardly ever been any interaction between the fundamentalist evangelical communities and the Jewish community,” said Saperstein, who has battled the Christian Right on issues like gay rights and school prayer. “We’re at odds over two radically different visions of the proper role of religion in American politics and public life.”

As Saperstein explains, there has been more communication and cooperation among these diverse groups in the wake of efforts like the one, despite continuing differences over some important church-state issues and other issues.  The growing interest some conservative Christians are showing on issues like the environment, torture, and health care is causing that door to swing open even wider these days. 

The partnerships that are formed in these single-issue coalitions not only help to advance the particular issue targeted by the coalition, they usually have important byproducts.  For example, they help us understand one another as people rather than political adversaries.  That is a good in an of itself, of course.  It also assists us in finding common ground on other issues -- common ground that had been hidden by mistrust or obscured by our caricatures of one another. 

It's my sense (and it's just a sense, so please correct me if I am wrong) that these single-issue coalitions have not yet taken off as well as they could in local communities (as opposed to the Washington, D.C., community).  Too often, there seem to be only multi-issue coalitions, which tend not to create these incredibly diverse coalitions.   That's not to say that we don't need multi-issue coalitions -- we do.  But we also need single-issue coalitions for the reasons mentioned above. 

RFRA Applies to Guantanamo, Religious Groups Say

The Baptist Joint Committee and other religious groups filed an amicus brief yesterday with the United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit in Rasul v. Rumsfeld.  Amici urge the appellate court to affirm a lower court's conclusion that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applies to governmental actions at the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and was properly invoked by the former detainees involved in the case.  The detainees are four British citizens who say they were "subjected to repeated and systematic acts of harassment based on their Muslim faith, including forced shaving of their beards, interruption or prohibition of their efforts to pray, the denial of prayer mats and copies of the Koran, mistreatment of the Koran in their presence by guards who kicked it and threw it in a toilet bucket, and being forced to pray with exposed genital areas."

The BJC's press release notes that "[t]he plaintiffs brought a suit seeking damages against U.S. government officials, claiming violations of the Alien Tort Statute, the Fifth and Eighth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Convention and RFRA."  While "[t]he district court dismissed the plaintiff’s international law and constitutional claims, [it] ruled that RFRA applies, even to claims arising from those held at Guantanamo Bay."

In addition to the Baptist Joint Committee, the following religious groups also joined the brief: the American Jewish Committee, National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  These groups (as well as others) worked together to urge Congress to pass RFRA in 1993.  It's good to see them working together again on a case like this one.

"All that was missing in the chamber yesterday was black light and Bob Marley."

There are plenty of buttoned-down accounts of the oral argument yesterday in the Morse v. Frederick case.  Dana Milbank's account is not one of them.    In addition to daydreaming about black light and Marley tunes in the chamber, Milbank manages to work in just about every imaginable pot-related pun. "If the justices sounded as if they were doin' the doobies yesterday morning, the case invited a certain amount of reefer madness," he says. 

Milbank also describes this exchange from oral argument:

[Justice] Breyer lamented that the student's action wasn't "a serious effort" to challenge drug laws. "It was a joke -- it was a 15-foot banner," he told the student's lawyer, Douglas Mertz, before demanding: "What's your response?"

"My response, Your Honor, is that, first of all, it was a 14-foot banner," Mertz answered.

"That's an excellent response," Breyer judged.

Okay, so maybe it's not bust-a-gut funny.  But it's about as good as it gets at the Supreme Court.

Oral Argument Transcript in Morse v. Frederick

The transcript of the oral argument in the Morse v. Frederick case is here (pdf).

Edwards Calls for New Cabinet-Level Position as Part of Plan to Tackle Global Poverty

AP has the story.  Here's how it begins:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards on Thursday outlined what he called "an audacious plan" to tackle global poverty that includes educating 23 million children in poor countries and creating a Cabinet-level position to oversee other initiatives.

Seeking to link poverty in other countries to the United States' national security, Edwards argued that militant extremists in nations torn apart by poverty and civil war have replaced government educational systems and are teaching young people to hate the United States.

"When you understand that, it suddenly becomes clear: global poverty is not just a moral issue for the United States -- it is a national security issue for the United States," he said at Saint Anselm College.

The text of the speech is here.

(Via The Carpetbagger)

Morse v. Frederick

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument today in Morse v. Frederick.  Here's a bit of background on the case from Linda Greenhouse's piece:

On the surface, Joseph Frederick’s dispute with his principal, Deborah Morse, at the Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska five years ago appeared to have little if anything to do with religion — or perhaps with much of anything beyond a bored senior’s attitude and a harried administrator’s impatience.

As the Olympic torch was carried through the streets of Juneau on its way to the 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City, students were allowed to leave the school grounds to watch. The school band and cheerleaders performed. With television cameras focused on the scene, Mr. Frederick and some friends unfurled a 14-foot-long banner with the inscription: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

Mr. Frederick later testified that he designed the banner, using a slogan he had seen on a snowboard, “to be meaningless and funny, in order to get on television.” Ms. Morse found no humor but plenty of meaning in the sign, recognizing “bong hits” as a slang reference to using marijuana. She demanded that he take the banner down. When he refused, she tore it down, ordered him to her office, and gave him a 10-day suspension.

Mr. Fredericks’s ensuing lawsuit and the free-speech court battle that resulted, in which he has prevailed so far, is one that, classically, pits official authority against student dissent. It is the first Supreme Court case to do so directly since the court upheld the right of students to wear black arm bands to school to protest the war in Vietnam, declaring in Tinker v. Des Moines School District that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

The court followed that 1969 decision with two others during the 1980s that upheld the authority of school officials to ban vulgar or offensive student speech and to control the content of school newspapers. Clearly there is some tension in the court’s student-speech doctrine; what message to extract from the trio of decisions is the basic analytical question in the new case, Morse v. Frederick, No. 06-278. What is most striking is how the two sides line up.

The Bush administration entered the case on the side of the principal and the Juneau School Board, which are both represented by Kenneth W. Starr, the former solicitor general and independent counsel. His law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, is handling the appeal without a fee. Mr. Starr and Edwin S. Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general who will present the government’s view, will share argument time on Monday. The National School Board Association, two school principals’ groups, and several antidrug organizations also filed briefs on the school board’s side.

As Greenhouse says, it "is hardly surprising to find the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Coalition Against Censorship on Mr. Frederick’s side. . . ."  What has surprised some, however, is the fact that a number of conservative religious groups have taken the student's side in this case.  Why are they involved in the case?  Greenhouse touches on some of the reasons.

The groups include the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson; the Christian Legal Society; the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization based in Arizona that describes its mission as “defending the right to hear and speak the Truth”; the Rutherford Institute, which has participated in many religion cases before the court; and Liberty Legal Institute, a nonprofit law firm “dedicated to the preservation of First Amendment rights and religious freedom.”

The institute, based in Plano, Tex., told the justices in its brief that it was “gravely concerned that the religious freedom of students in public schools will be damaged” if the court rules for the school board.

Lawyers on Mr. Frederick’s side offer a straightforward explanation for the strange-bedfellows aspect of the case. “The status of being a dissident unites dissidents on either side,” said Prof. Douglas Laycock of the University of Michigan Law School, an authority on constitutional issues involving religion who worked on Liberty Legal Institute’s brief.

In an interview, Professor Laycock said that religiously observant students often find the atmosphere in public school to be unwelcoming and “feel themselves a dissident and excluded minority.” As the Jehovah’s Witnesses did in the last century, these students are turning to the courts.

The briefs from the conservative religious organizations depict the school environment as an ideological battleground. The Christian Legal Society asserts that its law school chapters “have endured a relentless assault by law schools intolerant of their unpopular perspective on the morality of homosexual conduct or the relevance of religious belief.” . . . .

The religious groups were particularly alarmed by what they saw as the implication that school boards could define their “educational mission” as they wished and could suppress countervailing speech accordingly.

Via Religion Clause, links to the briefs in the case are here.  I'll write more about this case later.

"[T]he greatest track of virgin timber on the political landscape."

That's how Morton Blackwell, a Republican National Committee member from Virginia, described evangelicals in the late 1970s.  Here's the context for the quote from E.J. Dionne's column today:

In 1979, a group of conservative activists led by Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and Morton Blackwell, a Republican National Committee member from Virginia, went to the Rev. Jerry Falwell, urging him to organize what became the Moral Majority.

Their primary goal was not religious but political: to enlist evangelicals behind conservative Republican candidates. Blackwell candidly called evangelicals "the greatest track of virgin timber on the political landscape." The activists reaped a mighty load.

"Christian Peace Witness for Iraq"

The "Christian Peace Witness for Iraq" is tonight.

"The instinctive view that scientists are trying to rob people of their faith is fading."

That's David Gushee, an evangelical scholar, talking about the evangelical environmental movement and its implications. He's quoted in this article in The New Republic. 

The article also includes this interesting quote from an anonymous source regarding the letter James Dobson and some other conservative evangelicals sent to the National Association of Evangelicals:

Dobson's attack has garnered frowns from fellow evangelicals, many of whom refused to sign the letter. (One of them told me it was "really very vile, not something we expect from brothers and sisters in the faith.")

Churches: No Place for Prophets?

Skye Jethani, associate editor of Christianity Today's Leadership Journal, asks "Where Have All the Prophets Gone?"  In other words, "[w]hy has the local church been so unwelcoming to prophets, and how do we get them back?"  Here's one aspect of the problem and some possible solutions Jethani puts forward.

Church structures are unsafe for prophets
A prophet by definition is going to disturb the status quo, make people uncomfortable, and rock the boat. But when a pastor with a prophetic function is completely dependant upon the congregation for his/her livelihood it creates a conflict of interests. [In their book, The Shaping of Things to Come, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch] state the problem well:

Centralized funding makes the minister or leader economically subservient to the dominant interests of the group. It’s very hard to have a prophetic ministry to the group that provides your salary. And this incapacity to cultivate an authentic prophetic ministry contributes directly to the institutionalization of ministry and the church. Leadership is thus always hostage to the reactionary groups in the congregation. Change becomes inordinately hard.

One way to overcome this problem is to decentralize funding for church leaders. David Fitch wrote about the value of bi-vocational pastors, and Hirsch and Frost recommend more leaders consider raising their support from outside their congregation the way missionaries do. Certainly, these ideas raise other challenges but they might allow a prophetic voice to once again be heard within the local church.

The problem Jethani describes seems quite real.  These proposed solutions, however, seem problematic.   

Off the top of my head, here's one idea.  What about encouraging pastors to invite a variety of leaders with prophetic messages to speak at their churches?  This might make it easier to usher in difficult conversations in the church community.  If you have thoughts to share on these issues, I welcome them.   

Current Legal Trends in Religion and Higher Education

Here's an interesting article about current legal trends in religion and higher education.  I'm not sure I agree with all of the ways in which the article connects the dots, but it's a useful piece. Here's how the article begins:

Last week saw two court rulings and one campus dispute focused on church and state. In all three cases — and in several others in the last year — advocates for religion won, and supporters of a strict separation of church and state lost.

The disputes themselves are quite different, covering a public university’s allocation of student fees (decided in federal court), the right of “pervasively” religious colleges to have tax-exempt bonds issued on their behalf by a state agency (decided by the California Supreme Court) and the right to keep a cross on permanent display at a public college’s chapel (decided in the court of public opinion). But experts on church-state issues and higher education law see something significant in the way these disputes and others are playing out: the long-term legal and political impact of a 1995 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court commonly called the Rosenberger case.

In that 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Virginia could not deny funds to student groups just because they engage in religious activities. In a dissent that might ring true to some dealing with church-state conflicts over student activities today, Justice David H. Souter predicted that the majority opinion would make “a shambles” out of student activity questions at public colleges.

While that case was fiercely argued at the time, advocates on both sides of church-state matters say that for a variety of reasons, its impact beyond the University of Virginia wasn’t immediately as dramatic as it might have been. But now, they said, the philosophy outlined in that decision is taking hold, both judicially and politically, in a way that could leave many colleges facing legal challenges.

And here's a snippet that provides helpful descriptions of some recent court cases in this area and links to stories about those cases:

The developments in the last week include the following:

• A federal judge ruled that the University of Wisconsin at Madison could not deny funds from student fees to a Roman Catholic group just because that group violates the university’s anti-discrimination policies.

• The California Supreme Court ruled that government agencies could issue bonds on behalf of Azusa Pacific University and California Baptist University even though those institutions are “pervasively sectarian.”

• The College of William and Mary announced that it would restore to permanent display a cross that had been removed from a historic chapel, setting off alumni protests and the announcement that one donor was rescinding plans to bequeath $12 million.

In the last year, meanwhile, there have been these developments:

• A federal appeals court barred Southern Illinois University’s law school from enforcing its anti-bias rules against a Christian legal group.

• A federal judge’s orders led the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to change its anti-bias rules so that they would not preclude recognition of a Christian fraternity.

• The Universities of Georgia and Missouri at Columbia, facing legal threats, recognized Christian fraternities that had previously been considered in violation of anti-bias policies.

• Suits arguing that Christian groups are facing discrimination are pending against the Georgia Institute of Technology and Savannah State University.

In one case in the last year, a federal judge ruled that a college — in this case the University of California’s Hastings College of Law — could enforce its anti-bias rules against a Christian group, but that case is being appealed, and even some legal observers who very much applaud the decision in that case aren’t sure it will survive.

The article also includes analysis of the situation by Lawrence White, formerly general counsel at Georgetown University and a lawyer in the counsel’s office at the University of Virginia.  White offers some of his thoughts about why we are seeing so many conflicts in this area right now:

“The political climate now is right for this,” White said. “You have organizations that have dedicated themselves to the issue, a more sympathetic judiciary, and court rulings like Rosenberger.“

Sounds right to me.

(Via the Dallas News Religion Blog.)

UPDATE: I should have said something about the following line in the article:  "In all three cases — and in several others in the last year — advocates for religion won, and supporters of a strict separation of church and state lost."  It's just wrong to say that one side of these debates is the "pro-religion" side.  There are religious people on both sides of these debates.

Webcast of Event Releasing New Report on Uninsured Children

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation will release a new report (pdf) today entitled Whose Kids Are Covered? A State-by-State Look at Uninsured Children.  The report will be released at a press conference featuring Governors Sonny Perdue of Georgia and Martin O’Malley of Maryland.  The event will take place at 10am (ET) in Washington, D.C.  You can watch a live webcast of the event here. 

Here's a snippet from the RWJ press release on the report:

As President Bush, governors and members of Congress debate how much federal funding to devote to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a new analysis provides a clearer look at uninsured children in every state . The analysis, released today by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, shows that since 1997, employer offers of health insurance to parents with lower incomes have fallen three times as fast as offers to parents who earn more money.

The figures underscore that working parents who earn modest incomes are experiencing dramatic erosion in employee benefits. Nationally, fewer than half (47 percent) of parents in families earning less than $40,000 a year* are offered health insurance through their employer—a 9 percent drop since 1997. Meanwhile, offers of health insurance to parents in families earning $80,000*  or more have held steady at about 78 percent.

"In reauthorizing SCHIP, Congress must provide the funds needed to maintain coverage for all currently enrolled kids and the millions more who are eligible, but remain unenrolled. We must ensure that children whose parents work hard, but cannot afford health insurance for their kids can get the health care they need to thrive," said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A., president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "For the last decade, SCHIP has provided a much-needed safety net for our nation's kids, especially as there has been a decline in the number of children in low-income families covered by employer-sponsored health insurance. Parents realize that providing health insurance for their children is becoming more costly and those who earn modest wages are doubly squeezed. They are less likely to be offered insurance on the job, and less able to afford to purchase it on their own."

Many uninsured children would likely be eligible for free or low-cost insurance coverage through SCHIP, which Congress is set to reauthorize this year. Signed into law in 1997, SCHIP provides each state with federal funds to design a health insurance program for vulnerable children. The states each determine eligibility rules, benefit packages and payment levels.

For some information on religious organizing around these issues, click here.

“There’s one Lord, but not just one issue.”

That's the Rev. Paul de Vries, president of the New York Divinity School and a member of the board National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).  He's quoted in a story today by Laurie Goodstein about the recent NAE meeting.  Here's a snippet:

The board also voted unanimously to reaffirm the platform adopted three years ago, which enumerates seven policy priorities, including the environment, human rights and poverty. In doing so, board members said they intended to convey that the evangelical movement had a broader agenda than the one pushed by Christian conservatives and segments of the Republican Party.

“There’s one Lord, but not just one issue,” said one board member, the Rev. Paul de Vries, president of the New York Divinity School. “I am as much against abortion as Jim Dobson and the others, but I want that baby to live in a healthful environment, inside the womb as well as outside of the womb.”

The Rev. Leith Anderson, president of the association, said: “By being able to speak to multiple issues that are impacting our country and culture, we actually increase the credibility of our voice on each of those issues.”

I think Anderson is exactly right.   

Goodstein makes the important point that "[t]he only board member who has voiced public criticism of [NAE staffer Richard] Cizik is Jerald Walz, who represents the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a resource group for conservatives in mainline Protestant denominations."  Here's more from the article about Walz:

Mr. Walz said many board members were angry about the letter concerning Mr. Cizik because it was sent to the news media before the board received it. His was the sole vote against endorsing the document on torture; he said he thought it needed more time for consideration.

There will continue to be fierce pressure on the NAE to drastically narrow the types of issues it addresses.   But those forces don't seem to have much of a toehold within the organization -- at least they don't right now.  If the NAE sticks to its guns on these matters, I think it will continue to attract younger evangelicals.  Indeed, my hope is that it will emerge from this debate as the stronger of these two forces.  Because the NAE is right -- Christians should care about more than one or two public policy issues.  To say otherwise is at least to raise questions about the appearance of partisanship in these matters.  All religious movements will have much greater integrity and force if it is perfectly clear that they aren't shills for any political party.

NAE on Torture

More news from the board meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) last week:

The board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals advanced a broad public agenda at its annual meeting this week, endorsing a landmark document on human rights and torture, and reaffirming its "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Public Engagement," first adopted in 2003. 

The NAE board endorsed "An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture: Protecting Human Rights in An Age of Terror."  The 18-page document, which was produced by Evangelicals for Human Rights and can be viewed at www.evangelicalsforhumanrights.org . . .

"Law and Democracy in the Empire of Force"

Cathleen Kaveny calls attention to an interesting conference that will be held at the University of Michigan Law School on April 13-14, 2007.  The conference is entitled Law and Democracy in the Empire of Force.  Cathleen explains that the conference title "comes from Simone Weil's essay on the Iliad, where 'she uses it to refer not only to systems of military force violence, but to all the ways a culture invites its members to dehumanize others and themselves.' "

I especially like the title of one of the papers that will be presented at the conference.  Here it is: If We Differ over a Moral Question, Call Me Wrong, but Don't Call Me a Relativist.  Professor Howard Lesnick will present that paper.  I had the privilege of studying under Professor Lesnick at University of Pennsylvania Law School.  Cathleen's paper also looks really interesting.  It is entitled Democracy and Prophecy: A Study in Politics, Rhetoric, and Religion. James Boyd White is giving a paper on Law, Economics, and Torture.  Click here for more information about the conference.