Melissa Rogers

Gushee on "A Barmen Ethic"

David Gushee has written a helpful piece describing certain "wellsprings" of "centrist evangelicalism," a label he uses to refer to "an alternative to the Christian Right."  Here's one of the attributes "centrist evangelicalism" must have, according to Gushee:

A Barmen ethic. A mark of centrist evangelicalism as I define it is a resolute commitment to the political independence of the church as it seeks to follow Jesus Christ her Lord. One source of this commitment is deep immersion in study of the Nazi era, agonized encounter with the Holocaust, and close attention to figures like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Niemoller and Karl Barth.

When the Confessing Church gathered in Barmen, Germany, in 1934 and issued its Barmen Declaration under the leadership of Karl Barth, participating members of the Protestant community in Germany said a collective “No” to the corruption of the church by Nazism and the Nazi regime. Their declaration was not perfect. But it was a stark statement of Christian resistance to a disastrous alien politic that was threatening the church’s soul and would soon very nearly destroy the Jews as a people.

It has seemed, to some of us at least, that one of the great dangers in recent evangelical Christian politics has been the cozy relationship between official church leaders and political parties and their leaders. The “church” has gained access at the expense of integrity and has gained worldly influence at the expense of missional clarity. Barmen stands for a Christ-following, biblically serious, theologically grounded church that knows how to resist the seductions of the powers and principalities of the world.

Gushee is quite right.  Religious communities should never be commanded, controlled or co-opted by any political party.  Where evangelicals have violated this notion, we need to repent.  As Gushee indicates, these admonitions also apply to the church's relationship to the state.  I've said before that I believe these ideas are helpfully expressed in the traditional Baptist commitment to religious liberty and church-state separation.  To be authentic, religion must be independent from the state.  Baptists traditionally have believed that religious communities should not tolerate, much less invite, government sponsorship of religious messages or government subsidies for religious activities.  For if the state does these things, then religion will inevitably be warped and weakened.  But if we are careful about these things, then religion will have the opportunity to act with integrity, both within religious communities and beyond.  After all, it is only a religion that is fiercely independent from the state that will be able to call it to account.

More generally, I welcome, encourage, and am also trying to seek out conversations with certain other evangelicals and Catholics on this principle and the other principles Gushee mentions in his piece.  To be sure, we won't agree on all principles, but we will agree on some of them, and that's important territory to recognize and claim. Similarly, even when we agree on a principle, we certainly won't agree on all applications of it (some church-state issues are a good example),  but we will agree on some applications of shared principles.  That too is important territory to identify and claim.  Further, I can think of many cases, with church-state issues being among them, where discussions of areas of disagreement about the application of shared principles will clear up a good deal of misunderstanding and mistrust.  In sum, I believe conversations like the kinds Gushee describes are long overdue, and I appreciate the fact that he is raising these issues and thoughtfully and actively pursuing them.

Report on Copeland's Letter to Supporters Regarding the Grassley Investigation

The Des Moines Register carries a report on the letter Kenneth Copeland wrote to his supporters regarding the Grassley investigation.  Here's a snippet:

"The enemy is not going to steal what the Lord has won through this ministry, and he is not going to use this attack to bring harm to the rest of the churches and ministries in America," Copeland warns in the letter dated this month.

Aides to Grassley said about three dozen supporters of Copeland, who has a television-based ministry, have called Grassley's office to complain, though none appear to have been Iowans. . . .

Grassley has asked Copeland for information about his and wife Gloria's compensation from the ministries, loans, gifts, use of private jets, housing allowances and costs, credit cards, vehicles, ownership of a ranch and more. . . .

[Jill Kozeny, a spokeswoman for Grassley,] said the investigation centers on three areas of concern when it comes to the media churches: the personal use of assets owned by the tax-exempt entities; the way in which money is accounted for between for-profit and nonprofit entities; and parsonage allowances.

But Copeland told his followers that Grassley is after churches that preach what's known as the "prosperity gospel," which says adherents will succeed financially.

Grassley was an author of a 1983 law designed to protect churches from the Internal Revenue Service, Copeland pointed out.

Copeland said Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" to prevent the state from interfering with churches.

"Senator Grassley's letter seeks to do that very thing - interfere with the church - by demanding to see private church documents and information," wrote Copeland.

He said the ministry responded to Grassley by a Dec. 6 deadline "in good faith and as completely and accurately as we could without compromising the constitutionally based privacy, confidentiality and other rights of churches that apply to (Kenneth Copeland Ministries) and all others."

The response included a three-page letter from the Copelands' lawyer, a 23-page question-by-question response and 291 pages of exhibits, Copeland said.

Kozeny said that the submission was not viewed as answering the questions that were asked and that a follow-up letter will be sent by Grassley to Copeland as well as to three other ministries that have not responded at all.

No time to comment on the contents of this report right now. 

IRS Begins Inquiry of UCC Regarding Obama Speech (Updated)

The IRS has notified the United Church of Christ (UCC) that it believes the UCC may have jeopardized its tax-exempt status when it invited Senator Barack Obama, a member of a UCC church, to speak to at its national meeting last June.  Here's a snippet from Rachel Zoll's story:

In a letter the [UCC] received Monday, the IRS said “reasonable belief exists” that the circumstances surrounding the speech violated restrictions on political activity for tax-exempt organizations. The denomination has denied any wrongdoing.

Obama, a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, spoke about faith and public life at the denomination’s June 2007 General Synod in Hartford, Conn.

The IRS said in the letter that it was concerned about articles posted on the church’s Web site and on other sites stating that Obama had addressed nearly 10,000 people at the event. The agency also said Obama volunteers had staffed campaign tables “outside the center to promote his campaign.”

The Rev. J. Bennett Guess, a spokesman for the Cleveland-based denomination, said a group of Obama volunteers was outside the Hartford Civic Center, where the event took place, but that they were told they could not enter the meeting.

The UCC had invited Obama to speak a year before he announced he was running for president because of his involvement in the denomination, Guess said.

Church leaders consulted with lawyers before the event on following IRS rules. Before Obama spoke, a top church official told the crowd that the senator’s talk was not a campaign-related event and that no leaflets or other signs of political support would be allowed.

Nonprofits are barred from endorsing candidates or providing support for campaigns, although groups are allowed to invite candidates to address them and many do so. Guess said no other presidential candidates were invited because Obama was the only one active in the UCC. . . .

Amy Brundage, an Obama spokeswoman, insisted the speech was not a campaign event. In the address, Obama spoke about his personal spiritual journey and had said that faith had been misused in the past to divide Americans, partly because of the Christian right.

The letter from the IRS is posted here.  There are links to the video and text of Obama's June speech to the UCC here.   Here's an excerpt from the IRS letter to the UCC:

Pew Forum's "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey"

Yesterday the Pew Forum released a survey of the religious affiliations of those living in the United States.   Cathy Lynn  Grossman reports that "[t]he findings [from the survey] are being presented in two segments. One looks at religious affiliation (here used to mean identity) and demographic characteristics. The other, to be released in late spring, delves into beliefs, behavior and political views. "  I don't have time to explore the report this morning, but I want to let you know that the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the Christian Science Monitor, among others, have stories covering the survey. 

Here are some key findings from the survey, as reported by USA Today:

•Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

•"Nothing" matters: 12.1% say their religious identity is "nothing in particular," outranking every denomination and tradition except Catholics (23.9%) and all groups of Baptists (17.2%).

•Protestants are fading: 51.3% call themselves Protestant, but roughly one-third of this group were "unable or unwilling" to describe their denomination.

•Immigrants sustain Catholic numbers: 46% of foreign-born U.S. adults are Catholics, compared with only 21% of native-born adults. Latinos are now 45% of all U.S. Catholics ages 18-29.

There are a few more findings taken from the USA Today story below the fold.

Latest Developments in the Grassley Investigation

Eric Gorski reports that Benny Hinn turned over material to the Senate Finance Committee yesterday in response to a request made by Sen. Charles Grassley in November 2007.  "Meanwhile," Gorski reports, "another target of Grassley's investigation, Kenneth Copeland, sent a letter to supporters this month accusing Grassley of targeting the six ministries because of theological disagreements. Grassley denies the charge."  Gorski says Grassley issued a statement on these matters yesterday.  The statement does not appear to be posted on Grassley's website, at least not yet.

First, here is more from Gorski's story on Hinn's submission of materials:

Jill Gerber, Grassley's spokewoman, said it was too soon to characterize the documents from Hinn, but added that Hinn's representatives say "they want to be cooperative and transparent," and understood Grassley's position.

A Hinn spokesman did not immediately respond to calls for comment. Last week, he refused comment about Hinn's plans. . . .

Grassley has said he doesn't think he'll need to resort to subpoenas, but hasn't ruled them out. Grassley is expected to send another round of letters soon reiterating the committee's jurisdiction over tax-exempt policy.

Only one ministry, headed by author and motivational speaker Joyce Meyer, has "substantially answered" Grassley's questions, Grassley's office said.

Two Atlanta-area ministers, Creflo Dollar and Bishop Eddie Long, have refused to cooperate, while Paula and Randy White of Tampa also have failed to provide any information, Grassley's office said.

So does the material Hinn submitted respond to some of Grassley's questions and promise to give Grassley answers to the rest his questions in the future?  Or did Hinn submit some material and then indicate that he will refuse to provide additional information to Grassley, at least as long as there is no subpoena for it?  The comments from Grassley's staffer do not answer these kinds of specific questions.  (Hinn could be saying that he wants to be cooperative and transparent and that he understands Grassley's position, but that he is only going to provide additional information if the IRS seeks it or if the Committee issues a subpoena for it.)  A story from The Tampa Tribune provides a few additional quotes from Grassley and his staff, but they don't shed additional light on the issues flagged above. 

White House Faith-based Office Releases Report

From The Chicago Tribune:

[Today the] White House is celebrating what it calls "The Quiet Revolution,'' with the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funds to faith-based and other non-profit groups and the organization of offices promoting the work of the president's "faith-based initiative'' in 35 states.

In 2006, a voluminous report from the White House today finds, the government distributed $2.18 billion to faith-based organizations delivering social services around the country -- a level of annual spending on this initiative that the Bush administration had reached a couple of years ago. And in 2006, the government distributed $12.56 billion to not-for-profit organizations. All told, some 15,000 secular groups and 3,000 faith-based groups benefited.

The White House is delivering a state-by-state report today to the nation's governors, assembled in Washington for an annual meeting. . . .

"There's 35 faith-based offices set up in different states,'' Bush told them. "And for those of you who've got them, I thank you. We want to help you -- want to coordinate. If you don't have one, I strongly urge you to take a look at what other governors have done."

The White House report is here.  Click here for the text of President Bush's remarks at the National Governors' Association meeting.

Baptists and Other Evangelicals

David Gushee in an ABP story: " 'Most moderate Baptists are center or center-left evangelicals, they just don't know it,' Gushee said. 'I want to help moderate Baptists reclaim the term 'evangelical' and re-associate with other evangelicals who are kindred spirits, if they only knew it.' " 

I agree that Baptists are well-served when we re-connect with other evangelicals where those connections have frayed (and when we establish new connections).  I'm attending Ron Sider's upcoming conference for precisely that reason.  We have a good deal in common with those who not only share our faith but who also stand firm against partisan spins on the gospel, political power plays (both inside and outside religious circles), and take-no-prisoner tactics and attitudes.  We can easily fold into some of the efforts of these kinds of non-Baptist evangelicals, and it would be a good thing if we did so. 

But I also think it's important for Baptists to articulate our own voices on some public issues.  Why?  Because I believe our voices are in some ways distinctive from the voices of non-Baptist evangelicals.  For example, Baptists traditionally have been careful to defend both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.   The work of the Baptist Joint Committee is the best example of that commitment.  Our commitment in this area hasn't been limited to working on church-state issues, however.  Rather, it has influenced the ways in which we talk about our engagement in public issues as a general matter.   It also has led us to encourage policy solutions in other areas (say, for example, in overcoming poverty) that attack problems in effective ways without engaging the government in promoting or subsidizing religious activities.  Some other evangelicals do these things as well, but it's a real marker of traditional Baptists, and I think this kind of perspective can make a valuable contribution to our current conversation about religion's role in American society. 

So, yes, let's invest in building relationships with other evangelicals and folding into their efforts where we agree.  We can learn a great deal from one another and accomplish much together.  But let's also keep working to strengthen traditional Baptist voices on public issues (church-state issues and beyond).  I'm convinced that those are voices that need to be heard today.

"The Scandal of Evangelical Politics: Toward a Biblical Agenda"

Evangelicals for Social Action is hosting a conference at the end of March entitled The Scandal of Evangelical Politics: Toward a Biblical Agenda.  Here's a brief description of the conference:

How should I vote in 2008?

What issues are most important to God?

What does the Bible say about abortion, gay marriage, and immigration?  What about foreign policy, including the conflict in Iraq?  What is said about overcoming poverty in the U.S. and around the world?

Keynote addresses and workshops at this timely and important conference will explore these and other questions to help Christians apply biblical values in the socio-political realm, including the voting booth. It’s a conference that all who strive to be faithful to the gospel in the public square should not miss.

The program for the conference is here.

Iowa Ends Sponsorship of Prison Fellowship Program

"State officials in [Iowa] will end a Bible-based treatment program at the Newton prison that has been the focus of a five-year federal court battle over the role of religion in government services." Here's more from the story:

The Iowa Department of Corrections has notified Prison Fellowship Ministries in Virginia that the program, called the InnerChange Freedom Initiative, will be terminated in mid-March, prison spokesman Fred Scaletta said.

Prison Fellowship, which sponsored the Christian-oriented values program for inmates, had a three-year state contract that ended in June. Prison officials granted the organization a one-year extension; donations covered the expenses.

A provision of the agreement allows prison officials to cancel the program if enrollment falls below 60 inmates. That will happen after a March 14 graduation ceremony for 27 prisoners, Scaletta said.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State in Washington, D.C., has waged a court fight since 2003 against the Newton program. The advocacy group contends the program represents an unconstitutional merger of church and state.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled in December that the program advanced religion at government expense and that taxpayer money could not be used to finance the program.

The court case has received national attention as test of President Bush's push for faith-based initiatives.

Similar treatment programs are sponsored by Prison Fellowship at prisons in Arkansas, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri and Texas. The eight-year-old Newton program has operated solely on donations since last July 1, after Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, signed legislation eliminating a state tax money appropriation.

The story also noted that "Prison Fellowship will still be welcome to minister to inmates at the Newton prison," according to a Department of Corrections official.   Here are more details on that score:

Campaign Round-up

1.  Excerpts from Obama's remarks at closed-door meeting of Cleveland Jewish community leaders (The Page and JTA)

From Obama's remarks (as posted on The Page):

So the point I make is this that I understand the concerns and the sensitivities and one of my goals constantly in my public career has been to try to bridge what was a historically powerful bond between the African American and Jewish communities that has been frayed in recent years. For a whole variety of reasons. I think that I have served as an effective bridge and that’s the reason I have overwhelming support among the Jewish community that knows me best, which is the Jewish community in Chicago. And I think that anybody who has friends among the Jewish community in Chicago should check out those credentials. But I do appreciate the opportunity to clarify those concerns. And as I said that last point I would make is that you know my Pastor is going to be retiring over the next month. So my general view, and the reason that I raise this, this is always a sensitive point, what you don’t want to do is distance yourself or kick somebody away, because you are now running for President and you are worried about perceptions, particularly when someone is basically winding down their life and their career.

2.  Some conservatives still wary of McCain on judges (NYT)

[T]he question of judicial appointments is a matter of fundamental concern to conservatives who see the courts as a counterbalance to the shifting politics of Congress and the executive branch.

Some Republicans say they fear that a President McCain, faced with a Democratic Congress, could use judicial appointments as a bargaining chip to achieve policy compromises.

Conservatives say Mr. McCain needs to make it clear that he intends to name like-minded judges and to hit the issue much harder than he has when appealing to Republicans with doubts about him. . . .

“Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, broke with Mr. McCain over the Gang of 14 but has endorsed his presidential bid. Mr. Cornyn said he would encourage the Arizonan to put more emphasis on his views on judges.

“That is one issue that cuts across all aspects of the Republican coalition,” Mr. Cornyn said. “I will encourage him to make it a prominent part of his pitch.”

3.  Hanna Rosin's quest for tapes of Huckabee's sermons (Slate)

The [sermon] tapes date from the 1980s, when Huckabee was a young Arkansas pastor intent on making a name for himself. At the tiny Immanuel Baptist Church in Pine Bluff, and the slightly less tiny Beech Street First Baptist Church in Texarkana, Huckabee broadcast sermons and other programs over his own TV station. If anyone ever missed a Sunday, no problem. Huckabee taped every homily and gave them out, free, at the church office.

Now, the Huckabee tapes have become the 2008 campaign's version of the Pentagon Papers, or the Lost Ark. Even as his campaign drifts to its end, the mystery remains. The Huckabee campaign won't give them up, and his former parishioners, ever loyal, won't budge. (I did get one, one, measly tape, about which more later.)

4.  David Brody's interview with Hillary Clinton (CBN)

Brody: How did your faith get you through some of those marital difficulties?
Clinton: I believe that there is a purpose to everything that happens. You may not know it. You may not like it. And it is through that foundation of faith being so firm for me that I was able to sort of work my way to a resolution that was right for me. I was well aware of everyone else's opinion and everyone else's second guessing, but my faith protected me and gave me the space and the time to really come to an understanding of what was right for me and my family….

Forgiveness is just a word unless you're really confronted with the necessity of having to exercise it. And then it is the hardest work you are ever called upon to do.

5.  Huckabee meets with Dobson, seeks Romney's Colorado delegates; Texas pastors rally for him (Rocky Mountain News and Fort Worth Star Telegram)

The Rocky Mountain News provides a few details about Mike Huckabee's meeting with James Dobson and his bid for Mitt Romney's Colorado delegates:

Mike Huckabee, the last remaining obstacle to Sen. John McCain's ascendancy to Republican nominee for president, left Texas for a paid speaking engagement in Colorado on Friday and spent an hour with one of his biggest backers - James Dobson.

Huckabee, who has been friends with the Focus on the Family founder for 14 years, did not disclose the details of their conversation but did talk about his campaign, outside the nonprofit's headquarters.

Dobson also didn't discuss what they talked about. . . .

Dobson's endorsement was coveted by Mitt Romney, who won the Colorado caucus and captured the state's 46 delegates.

But because Romney suspended his campaign after bruising losses on Super Tuesday, Huckabee - who finished second to Romney in Colorado - said he hopes that those delegates would support him at the Republican National Convention Sept. 1-4 in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.

Romney has endorsed McCain.

Dick Wadhams, Colorado Republican Chairman, said that the results of Super Tuesday in Colorado were non-binding and that those delegates are "free to follow their conscience" when casting a preference for the party's nominee.

Meanwhile, the Fort Worth Star Telegram reports on some rallies held by Texas pastors who support Huckabee :

Presidential Candidates' Views on Charities and Government

The Chronicle of Philanthropy has provided a brief description of the positions of the presidential candidates regarding charitable giving incentives, federal funding for social services delivered by charitable groups, and national service, among other issues.  It appears that the Chronicle is simply describing statements/votes/actions that were already in the record.  Thus, if you've been following these issues, you won't find much that is surprising or new.  But it is a helpful summary.  There's an excerpt from the piece below the fold.

The right to life, liberty, and to acknowledge "the inerrancy of the Bible"?

I don't have time right now to find the latest language, but I want to flag the fact that "[t]he Missouri House gave preliminary approval Monday to a proposed constitutional amendment that would emphasize the right to pray in any public setting, including public schools."  (My earlier post on this matter is here.)  Here's more from the story:

The action came after more than an hour of debate over whether such an amendment would make any difference and whether the names of individual deities should be inserted into the Missouri Constitution.

At one point, lawmakers voted to insert into the constitution a citizen’s right to acknowledge “the inerrancy of the Bible.” But they deleted that reference on a subsequent vote.

I'm certainly glad to hear that the better part of the wisdom ultimately prevailed on that last matter.   Surely we all enjoy the right to acknowledge, study, and venerate the scriptures we believe are sacred and to interpret those scriptures as appropriate and necessary, in our view.  But trouble is on the way when we start singling out certain scriptures, and certain interpretations of them, for special emphasis in our laws.   I'll have to track down what the House actually approved.  Oh, and please let me know if you find any transcript from the debate over these provisions.  (Thanks to Faith in Public Life for the heads-up on this story.)

Florida Board of Education Approves Science Standards Discussing Evolution by 4-3 Vote

"Over the objections of religious conservatives, a sharply divided Florida Board of Education adopted new science standards Tuesday that embrace evolution. But, in an attempt at political compromise, the board majority also agreed to reword the standards to refer to evolution as a "scientific theory" - a technically accurate description that defused several key opponents but left scientists grumpy about the process. "  Here's more from St Pete Times story:

"Do I believe the theory of evolution? Absolutely," said board member Kathleen Shanahan of Tampa, who was on the winning end of a rare 4-3 vote. "But I believe there's more to explore."

The wording change leaves the door open for that, she said.  . . .

Department of Education officials floated the last-minute revision Friday in the face of mounting opposition from religious conservatives who said the proposed standards were too dogmatic in their treatment of evolution. . . .

A committee dominated by scientists and science teachers crafted the language, and many of them were unhappy with the board's decision to alter their wording. But many were also willing to look on the bright side.

"It's okay," said University of South Florida chemistry professor Robert Meisels. "They basically superimposed themselves on the experts, but that's part of the political process."

The bottom line, Meisels and other supporters said, is Florida students "will get a better science education."

What lies ahead?  The article takes a look.

Wead on the Warpath (Updated)

It's no secret that Doug Wead has been on the warpath about the Grassley investigation.   Wead is an author who formerly served as a religious outreach advisor for President George H.W. Bush.   As it turns out, Wead also formerly served as a board member for one of the six "mega-ministries" that is under investigation by Senator Grassley.  Last week's Des Moines Register reported: "Wead, a best-selling author and historian, is a former member of the board of one of the targeted ministries, and his son is a former staff member."   Unfortunately, the story does not say which ministry Wead and his son used to have ties to, and a quick Google search does not turn up this information.  These ties certainly should not prevent Wead from saying what he likes about the investigation, but they are important pieces of information to consider when evaluating his commentary. 

UPDATE (2/21):  Thanks to Bene D for pointing to a Wead connection to Benny Hinn Ministries.  In the comments on this post, Bene D cited the following information from a 2002 Washington Post story: "Scott Wead, one of Hinn's assistants, responds, "It's a fundamental Pentecostal belief that we are to prosper. Catholics live in huge palaces."  Scott Wead appears to be Doug Wead's son.  I also found this passage in a 2003 piece in the LA Times describing Doug Wead's service on the board of Hinn's ministry at that time (note: I added the bold to this passage to highlight Wead's name):

[Hinn] offers to make available his ministry's general financial picture, along with access to his accountant - both unprecedented. "When it comes to the income of the ministry, I have no problem talking about it or what happens to the money," Hinn says. "We believe our partners are entitled to know what happens to their money." But two weeks later, he backtracks, saying his board won't allow it.

The pastor also promises to expand the ministry's three-member board - the guardians of the nonprofit - and to reveal their names. If they don't like the exposure, Hinn says, they can resign. Several months later, a Hinn spokesman says the board was expanded to five members, but the names will remain secret "for the board members' security."

But just before this story went to press, Hinn and his board changed their minds and had their public relations consultant provide the names. The board veterans are Hinn; Bill Swad, described as an Ohio businessman who authors books such as "Don't Let Satan Steal Your Harvest"; and Steve Brock, a pastor and featured soloist for the Miracle Crusades. New members, according to the ministry, are Bob Inello, a businessman from Boston, and Doug Wead, former special assistant to President George H.W. Bush and author of "All the President's Children."

Wisconsin Exit Polls

Here are some findings from the Wisconsin exit polls (Republican and Democrat):

*  Obama and Clinton evenly split Catholics who voted in the Democratic primary.

* Catholics voters made up 39% of total voters in the Democratic primary and 39% of the total voters in the Republican primary.

* Huckabee bested McCain among evangelicals (56% Huckabee; 36% McCain) and those who attend religious services more than once a week (67% Huckabee; 27% McCain).  In all other Republican religion-related categories, McCain won.

* Exit pollsters did not ask voters in the Democratic primary whether they are evangelical or not.

There are more numbers from the exit polls below the fold.

Missouri Lawmaker Pushes for Inclusion of Religious-Expression Measure on November Ballot

The St. Louis Times Dispatch reports that some Republican lawmakers want to amend the Missouri constitution in November to address issues of religious expression on government property.  Here's more from the story (my apologies for the formatting errors in the quoted text):

Democrats say the resolution is an election-year ploy meant to bring more
conservatives to the polls.

The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Mike McGhee, R-Odessa, simply reaffirms the
right to pray on public property and the prohibition on government-endorsed
religion.

As evidence of the problem, McGhee said he has heard several stories of
students admonished at school for their faith. The stories include a child who
was harassed for bringing a Bible on a school bus and another who was not
allowed to pray during lunchtime.

"These activities are OK," he said. "We just want to let the teachers and
principals know that."

In debate on the House floor Thursday morning, several Democrats criticized the
proposal as a political tool.

"I don't necessarily agree that it's a crisis," said Rep. Trent Skaggs, D-North
Kansas City. "They're playing politics with the sanctity of prayer."

Members of both parties agreed that the underlying right to pray in public is
already protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The House took no action on the resolution this week. If both chambers pass it,
the proposed change will be placed on the November ballot.

As the piece notes, ballot proposals of various types have been used in recent elections to help turn out certain kinds of voters.  This is the first I have seen, however, of a measure that speaks to religious expression in public schools and on other parts of government property.  The piece also reports on some of the jockeying that has already gone on with respect to this particular measure.   Here's an excerpt from the story on those aspects of this matter:

Latest on the Florida Scientific Standards Debate

"In response to mounting criticism from religious conservatives, Florida education officials offered Friday to add the words 'scientific theory' to the description of evolution in the state's proposed new science standards."  Here's more from the story:

"That's not a compromise at all," department spokeswoman Jennifer Fennell said. "We're bringing forth the best options that are still scientifically accurate."

The proposed standards describe evolution as "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" - a description that scientists consider accurate but critics say is dogmatic.

The Board of Education is set to vote on the standards Tuesday.

Fennell said the department ran the proposed wording change by some members of the committee that drafted the standards last year and "the consensus is, it's scientifically accurate."  . . . .

Some supporters said the change was acceptable, because it makes a distinction between "theory," which in layman's terms can mean a simple hunch, and a "scientific theory," which refers to a logical, consistent explanation that's backed by evidence.

"If that's what it's going to take to get the information to the teachers and students in the classrooms, then let's go for it," said Brandon Haught, a spokesman for Florida Citizens for Science.

One board member, though, called the change unnecessary, and one opponent said it didn't go far enough.

The article also reports what Governor Crist had to say on this general subject on Friday.  He said "the approach to teaching evolution outlined in the current standards - which don't mention the word 'evolution' but refer to changes over time - is 'just fine.' "  But he also "said he was content to leave the decision up to the Board of Education." 

Floating Ideas About Changes to Nonprofit Law

There's not much that's new in this report from US News & World Report on the Grassley investigation, but it does provide a helpful summary of some of the objections to the investigation and Grassley's response to them.  It also captures Pablo Eisenberg's thoughts on possible changes in the law that could flow from this investigation:

[T]he idea of the government investigating churches is a sensitive one. The last substantial federal probe of church finances dates to the 1980s, when an IRS investigation led to the indictment of Jim Bakker, the former host of the PTL Club, on fraud charges. The House later considered reforming the tax laws but made no changes and did not investigate the churches themselves. "The IRS has really not gotten involved too much in this, much less Congress," says Gary Snyder, managing director of Nonprofit Imperative. Government oversight of church finances is lax, and penalties for tax violations are rarely dispensed.

One change Grassley could seek, says Pablo Eisenberg, a nonprofit expert at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, would be to impose limits on how much leaders of nonprofit organizations can earn. Congress could also try to demand stricter boundaries between preachers and boards of trustees.

The principle of the first potential new rule seems noncontroversial, but I wonder how the rule would be enforced.   I assume that the second potential new rule would apply to all nonprofits, not just churches.  Even so, one would have to think through how any new rules would apply to churches.  As tax-exempt entities, they must abide by the relevant rules.  But, at the same time, churches are treated as special types of entities in certain respects in order to protect their autonomy from the state.   Anyway, those are just some off-the-cuff reactions.   I'd like to hear more about these ideas.

Meanwhile, the Baptist Bulletin -- the official magazine of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches -- reports that "U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R.) spoke in the chapel service of Faith Baptist Bible College" on Monday, February 11.  Here's more from that story:

Ba-dum-bum

Said at the Washington Press Club Foundation dinner (via dotcommonweal):

Sen. Mitch McConnell dryly scores with his line about the Dem race between "a New York senator who was born in Illinois, and an Illinois senator who was apparently born in a manger."

Report on hearing considering "Workplace Religious Freedom Act"

RNS offers a report on the recent Congressional hearing considering the "Workplace Religious Freedom Act" (WRFA).  As the piece notes, the bill has strong and diverse support from the religious community, but it also has drawn some strong opposition from certain business groups and the ACLU.  Here's how the piece concludes.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a cosponsor of the bill, said she was confident language could be crafted that would satisfy all sides -- as long as all parties are open to compromise.

"We're not that far apart," she said. "If we can come out with a bill that everyone complains about and no one is happy with, that's a good bill."

The ACLU is pushing a much more limited version of the legislation that would strengthen Title VII's workplace accommodation requirements only as they relate to the "scheduling of leave time for the observation of religious holidays or for the wearing of religious apparel or a beard or hairstyle."  (The detailed letter from the ACLU on this issue is here.)  But, as this story indicates, the coalition that supports WRFA (see the back of this testimony for a list of these groups) continues to push for the more comprehensive approach.  Indeed, in their testimony before the House subcommittee, Richard Foltin of the American Jewish Committee and James Standish of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists take vigorous issue with the ACLU's "targeted approach."

If I take Representative McCarthy's comments about compromise literally, I would assume that she is not pushing the ACLU proposal as a compromise because it is my impression that the ACLU would be completely happy with that approach.  The fact that McCarthy is a co-sponsor of WRFA also would lend support to that conclusion -- there's a big difference between WRFA and the ACLU's proposed alternative.  In any case, this matter is certainly one to watch as the Congressional session and the election season continue.  The complete testimony from the hearing is here.

St. Pete Times Poll on Teaching Evolution in Public Schools

With a vote on Florida's science standards swiftly approaching, the St. Pete Times did a poll on teaching evolution in public schools.  Here are some of the results, as reported by that paper:

Only 22 percent want public schools to teach an evolution-only curriculum, while 50 percent want only faith-based theories such as creationism or intelligent design . . . .

Twenty-nine percent said evolution is one of several valid theories. Another 16 percent said evolution is not backed up by enough evidence. And 19 percent said evolution is not valid because it is at odds with the Bible.  . . .

Fundamentalist Christians, often portrayed as the heart of the antievolution opposition, weren't the only ones who expressed doubt. While only 9 percent of respondents who described themselves as evangelicals or fundamentalists wanted an evolution-only curriculum, the numbers still weren't very high for Protestants overall 16 percent or Catholics (21 percent).  . . .

31 percent of white respondents said only evolution should be taught in schools compared with 7 percent of nonwhites.

Here's how one of the questions was asked: "Which of these do you think should be taught in public schools?"  The answers were: evolution only (22%), creationism only (21%), intelligent design only (29%), all three (18%),  none of the above (5%), don't know (5%).  It would seem to me that that question could be improved by asking, "Which of these do you think should be taught in public school science classes?"  That might not change the answers much, but it would clarify the question, and it might help weed out those who simply want there to be some teaching about various religious or philosophical views on the origins of life in public schools, say in a social studies or civics class.   Teaching about those beliefs in that way is certainly constitutionally permissible and it makes a good deal of sense. 

Iowa lawmakers intend to follow Grassley's lead regarding nonprofit oversight

The Des Moines Register is reporting that a bill has been introduced in the Iowa Senate that would generate more money for that state's attorney general to engage in increased oversight of nonprofits.  The sponsor of the bill, Sen. Michael Connolly, says that "the proposal stems from concerns about lack of oversight of ACT, the Iowa-based college-entrance exam developer, and Iowa Student Loan Liquidity Corp., the private nonprofit that dominates Iowa's college loan industry."   Here's more from the story:

Senate Study Bill 3139 would create a new fee on the reports that nonprofit corporations must file to the secretary of state’s office every two years.

Connolly said today that lawmakers will amend the bill so the new fee would be charged only to “public benefit” nonprofits.

That would mean about 12,000 Iowa nonprofits, such as hospitals, libraries and religious groups, would be subject to the filing fee.

Another 14,000 nonprofits known as “mutual benefit” nonprofits, such as trade associations, credit unions and co-ops would not have to pay the fee. By law, the attorney general’s office has less authority over such groups. . . .

The fee amount for public benefit nonprofits is still being ironed out, but the proposal is $25 every two years for those who file electronically or $30 every two years for those who file paper reports. Right now, there is no filing fee. . . . .

State lawmakers said today they want to follow the example of U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican whom they said has been the nation's leader on nonprofit accountability.

The text of the bill is here.  Apparently, this bill has already caused a bit of an uproar. 

State battles over teaching evolution in public schools

Stateline.org provides an overview of some of the battles going on in various states regarding teaching evolution in public schools.  Here's a long snippet:

On Feb. 19, Florida’s Board of Education will vote on proposed revised standards that for the first time require students to learn about evolution as the basis of modern biology. Florida, whose standards currently require students to learn about “biological changes over time,” is one of only a handful of states that don’t use the word “evolution” in their standards. . . .

At least eight local school boards, out of 67 in the state, have passed resolutions objecting to the new standards. . . .

Last week, three Republican legislators — including future House Speaker Dean Cannon — said they were considering filing a bill to force the board to specify that evolution is a “theory” and not fact which would raise questions about the credibility of evolution. . . .

Texas will begin debating its revised standards later this year . . . .

Texas students are required to learn about evolution, but the standards include a provision that allows students to “critique scientific explanations…as to their strengths and weaknesses.” In 2003, that provision resulted in a campaign by conservative members of the state Board of Education to reject biology books that they felt did not adequately cover the weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

"Obama is a Catholic natural" (Updated)

That's a comment from an extremely interesting piece penned by Doug Kmeic, a Catholic law school professor at Pepperdine University who formerly served as a co-chair of Mitt Romney's "Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts."  Read the comment in context (it's in the second paragraph of the following excerpt):

Catholics shed their Republican wardrobe in the 2006 midterm election, favoring Democrats 55 percent to 45 percent—a reversal of their 52 percent to 47 percent support for Bush over Kerry in 2004. Because Democratic and Catholic dogmas collide over the polarizing issue of abortion, Catholics do have to navigate some difficult ethical waters to contemplate voting blue. McCain and Huckabee—unlike either of the Democrats—join in the Catholic prayer for the unborn, but Republican promises have often left those prayers unanswered. While no papal instruction will ever condone the "right to choose," the church does ask for a consistent and realistic defense of life that actually takes steps to reduce the incidence of the practice, not just condemns it. Catholics will note that McCain and Huckabee's pro-life postures collapse when it comes to the death penalty. Even if the Supreme Court decides later this spring that lethal injection is not "cruel and unusual" under our Constitution, capital sentencing is often erratic and erroneous in light of the modern availability and reliability of DNA evidence. It is Catholic instruction that there are better ways to deter violent crime.

Beyond life issues, an audaciously hope-filled Democrat like Obama is a Catholic natural. Anyone seeking "liberty and justice for all" really can't be satisfied with racially segregated public schools that don't teach. And there's something deeply hypocritical about being a nation of immigrants that won't welcome any more of them. And that creation that God saw as good in Genesis? Well, even without seeing Al Gore melt those glaciers over and over again, Catholics chose Al to better steward a world beset with unnatural disasters. Climate change is driven by mindless consumption that devotes more ingenuity to securing golden parachutes than energy independence.

Of course, marriage and family are indispensable as well, and until now, Catholics saw the Republicans as having a lock on the family issue. But if either Clinton or Obama would acknowledge the myriad problems associated with a declining population in the developed world and affirm the importance of both having and raising children (and not just punting these duties over to Hillary's "village"), Catholics could well contemplate a Democratic adoption.

Sorry to tell you this, Sen. McCain, but a good number of the Catholics I know are not certain to light candles at the Republican political altar. Some of us who rode McCain's Straight Talk Express before the Republican commitment to a balanced budget put us on track toward a $400 billion deficit appreciate his confessed desire to redeem himself as a faithful conservative. But there are suspicions. After all, hanging out with Joe Lieberman and Russ Feingold comes well within the Latin canon: Similes similibus gaudent. Pares cum paribus facile congregantur—birds of a feather flock together. So instead, some Catholics may be hoping for a Huckabee miracle. Southern Baptists and Catholics haven't always gotten along, but there is something just downright Knights of Columbus-friendly about the guy—squirrel-roasting aside. Huck's delegate math will need to cash in more than a few chits with St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes, but hey, in theology, if you can make do with five loaves and fishes, what's the big deal about delegates?

So, here's the thing: John McCain will have many Catholics in the pews a little while longer, but more than a few of us are thinking of giving him up for Lent. Reagan used to say that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left him. The launch of "Reaganites for Obama" might not be far behind. We might not be there yet, but we're getting close.

As David Gibson says, Kmiec is not a Catholic liberal.  And, as noted above, he served as co-chair of Mitt Romney's constitutional advisory committee, so that gives you additional information about where he's coming from.  Read the whole thing.

UPDATE (2/15):  Kmiec responds to some criticism of his piece by Ramnesh Ponnuru.  (Thanks to Rod Dreher for the links.)  Interesting stuff.

Rise in Custody Battles Involving Religion

"Across the country, child-custody disputes in which religion is the flash point are increasing, part of a broader rise in custody conflicts over the last 30 years, lawyers, judges and mediators say."  Here's more from the NYT story:

“There has definitely been an increase in conflict over religious issues,” said Ronald William Nelson, a Kansas family lawyer who is chairman of the custody committee of the American Bar Association’s family law section. “Part of that is there has been an increase of conflicts between parents across the board, and with parents looking for reasons to justify their own actions.” Another factor, he said, is the rise of intermarriage and greater willingness by Americans to convert.

Nobody keeps track of who wins in these religious disputes, but lawyers say that judges are just as likely to rule in favor of the more religiously engaged parent as the other way around. That is because, for constitutional reasons, judges are reluctant to base their rulings primarily on the religious preferences of parents.

Judges do not want to take on custody disputes rooted in religion, said lawyers like Gaetano Ferro, who until recently served as president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Mr. Ferro said, “How will a judge say in any rational fashion that Islam is better than Buddhism, Catholicism better than Judaism, or Methodism better than Pentecostalism?”

As a result, more and more states have tried to keep custody disputes out of court by mandating mediation. But the effect has been piecemeal, and religious disputes have proven to be among the most difficult to resolve, lawyers said.

Click here if you'd like to read more about one of the cases mentioned in this piece, the one involving a controversy over the possible circumcision of a 12-year-old boy.

"The Religion Clauses in the 21st Century"

"[The American Constitution Society] and the West Virginia Law Review are pleased to announce that the papers written for 'The Religion Clauses in the 21st Century' symposium held at the West Virginia University College of Law are now available on the ACS website."  Here's more from the ACS website:

Written by scholars in the law of church and state, the symposium papers reflect a variety of perspectives on issues organized according to these themes: "The Religion Clauses in Institutional Contexts," "Government Religious Expression," "Accommodation of Religion," and "Religion and Politics." Two of the papers reflect the views of the featured speakers: Florida State University Law Professor Steven Gey's piece prepares one for "Life After the Establishment Clause" while University of Michigan Law Professor Douglas Laycock's article explores the topic of "Substantive Neutrality Revisited." The set of articles was published in Fall 2007 in Volume 110 of the West Virginia Law Review, which is dedicated to Professor Gey.

The papers are posted here.

"The Influence of Religion on Elections and Legislation"

That's the title of an interesting conference that will take place on Tuesday, March 18, 2008, at Boston College Law School.  Here are some of the details:

The symposium will bring together scholars from multiple nations to discuss and debate the influence of religion on elections and legislation. The scholars will be divided into two panels: the first will take place in the morning, the other in the afternoon. The panels will be moderated by B.C. Law faculty members. Cole Durham will deliver the keynote address following the panels. There will be a buffet lunch for the symposium participants and a dinner for the participants, faculty, student members and program sponsor.
Contributors: Key Note Address Cole Durham, Brigham Young Law School Morning Panel Gerhard Robbers, University of Trier Michael Troper, University of Paris-Nanterre Talip Kucukcan, Center for Islamic Studies in Istanbul Afternoon Panel Mark Scarberry, Pepperdine University School of Law Lloyd Mayer, Notre Dame Law School Paul Horwitz, University of Alabama School of Law Principal Participants: John Garvey, Dean, Boston College Law School Thomas Kohler, Professor, Boston College Law School

Next Steps for the New Baptist Covenant

Here's a rough suggestion for future efforts by those associated with the New Baptist Covenant. 

It has been said that we do not want to create a new denomination or recreate any wheels.  I heartily agree.  But we do need to ensure that we have ways to communicate and collaborate on matters of shared interest and concern. 

My recommendation is that we form a small task force to help us do that.  The task force would have no authority to speak on behalf of Baptists.  It would be a servant body, one whose mission would be to help Baptists (those interested and associated with the New Baptist Covenant) communicate and collaborate with one another on a much greater scale than currently is possible.  The task force would constantly look across Baptist efforts for possible points of collaboration.  It also would serve as a networking center for those who have ideas and suggestions about possible projects and a clearinghouse of information about Baptist efforts.  The task force would facilitate projects, but the projects would be endorsed only by the bodies and people who choose to participate in them.  The task force would not do the work associated with these projects, but it would connect people with shared interests and concerns, thus helping to realize outcomes that would be much greater than the sum of their parts. 

Here are just a few examples of how the task force might function.

Wednesday Round-up

1.  Justice Scalia on torture (Reuters)

Justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday that some physical interrogation techniques could be used on a suspect in the event of an imminent threat, like a hidden bomb about to blow up.

In such cases, “smacking someone in the face” could be justified, Justice Scalia told the British Broadcasting Corporation. He added, “You can’t come in smugly and with great self-satisfaction and say, ‘Oh, it’s torture, and therefore it’s no good.’ ”

2.  "Probe of Religious Discrimination in Prisons Includes Faith-based Ministries" (Roundtable)

Religious discrimination in prisons, including the role of faith-based rehabilitative programs, was the subject of a briefing last week before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is examining the topic as part of its annual report to Congress and President George W. Bush to be submitted later this year.  . . .

As part of its year-long review of civil rights enforcement by the DOJ, the commission will hold another panel briefing on at its Washington, D.C. headquarters September 12 on religious discrimination in the workplace. The commission is also in the process of sending questionnaires to selected prisons to gain more information about religious discrimination in the prisons.

In this story, Anne Farris provides links to the testimony that was given at the hearing.

3.  Spielberg won't assist with Olympics given China's policy on Darfur (Reuters)

Rebel groups in Darfur praised the decision by film director Steven Spielberg to quit as an artistic adviser to the 2008 Olympics but there was no reaction from the Games organisers in Beijing on Wednesday.

Spielberg said he was withdrawing his services because of China's policy on the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region.

His conscience would not allow him to continue his work on the opening and closing ceremonies for the Aug 8-24 Games while "unspeakable crimes" continued to be committed in Darfur.

4.  William & Mary Board refuses to renew president's contract (Associated Press)

The president of the College of William & Mary, who drew heavy criticism for removing a cross from the nation's oldest college chapel, resigned Tuesday after the public school's board told him his contract would not be renewed. . . .

In October 2006, Nichol sparked loud protests when he removed the cross from permanent display in Wren Chapel to make students and visitors of non-Christian faiths feel more welcome at the nation's second-oldest college. . . .

The cross was returned to the chapel in August in a locked, Plexiglas-like case near the altar. It can be removed from the case and placed on the altar by request.

Nichol defended his decision in his e-mail Tuesday. "We are charged, as state actors, to respect and accommodate all religions, and to endorse none. The decision did no more," he said.

Campaign Round-up

1.  From an AP analysis of Republican evangelical turnout and voting in Maryland and Virginia:

Twice as many white born-again and evangelical Christian voters participated in this year's Virginia GOP primary compared with eight years ago in the last contested GOP presidential primary. On Tuesday, four in 10 GOP voters claimed that label, compared with just two in 10 in 2000, who called themselves members of the religious right. . . .

Compared with Virginia, Huckabee's advantage with that voting group was more modest in Maryland. They made up three in 10 GOP voters in that state, and half supported Huckabee. In both states, McCain carried more than six in 10 voters who said they were not born again or evangelical Christians.

2.  Huckabee comments on Romney, Mormonism, and the race  (Salt Lake Tribune)

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says it is "unfounded" for anyone to say he has alienated the Mormon community or that he used rival Mitt Romney's LDS faith as a wedge issue.

Huckabee, talking to reporters Tuesday in Washington, blamed a single remark he made to The New York Times Magazine last year - when he asked whether Mormons believed Jesus and Satan are brothers - as the cause of the angst in the Mormon community.

The LDS Church issued a statement following that remark that acknowledged the belief that Jesus and Satan were both children of God, as well as all of humanity. Still, Huckabee's comment was seen by many as critical.

Some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have charged that Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor, was tapping into wariness about Mormons in campaigning against Romney. Some even raised the specter in letters to the editor that they would vote Democratic if Huckabee were the GOP nominee.

There's more from this story below the fold.

Maryland and Virginia Exit Polls

Here are some findings from the Virginia (Republican and Democrat) and Maryland (Republican and Democrat) exits polls. 

* Virginia Catholic Democrats who attend church weekly preferred Obama over Clinton (55% Obama; 41% Clinton).  Virginia Catholic Democrats who attend church less than weekly showed a slight preference for Obama over Clinton (50% Obama; 49% Clinton).

*  Clinton beat Obama among Jewish and Catholic Democrats in Maryland (Maryland Jewish Democrats: 60% Clinton; 40% Obama/Maryland Catholic Democrats: 48% Clinton; 45% Obama), but Clinton only beat Obama among Maryland Catholics by a narrow margin.  Clinton did better among Maryland Catholic Democrats who attend church weekly (49% Clinton; 38% Obama).  Obama did better among Maryland Catholic Democrats who attend church less than weekly (50% Obama; 47% Clinton).

* McCain continues to run strongly among Catholics.  (Maryland Republican Catholics: 60% McCain; 22% Huckabee.  Virginia Republican Catholics who attend church weekly: 62% McCain; 30% Huckabee.   Virginia Republic Catholics who attend church less than weekly: 73% McCain; 18% Huckabee.)

* Obama continues to win both among those Democrats who attend religious services more than once a week and those who never attend such services.  (Maryland Democrats who attend services more than once a week: 67% Obama; 20 % Clinton.  Maryland Democrats who never attend services: 57% Obama; 42% Clinton.  Virginia Democrats who attend services more than once a week:  77% Obama; 23% Clinton.  Virginia Democrats who attend never services: 55% Obama; 44% Clinton.)

* While Huckabee wins among Republicans who attend religious service more than once a week, McCain wins among Republicans who attend religious services weekly.  (Maryland Republicans who attend more than weekly: 55% Huckabee; 32% McCain.  Maryland Republicans who attend weekly: 50% McCain; 37% Huckabee.  Virginia Republicans who attend more than weekly: 59% Huckabee; 37% McCain.  Virginia Republicans who attend weekly: 47% McCain; 45% Huckabee).

* The spread between Republican evangelicals on McCain and Huckabee was less in Maryland than it was in Virginia.  (Maryland Republican evangelicals: 50% Huckabee; 36% McCain.  Virginia Republican evangelicals: 60% Huckabee; 31% McCain.)   

*  The exit pollsters did not ask Maryland or Virginia Democrats whether they considered themselves to be born-again or evangelical Christians.

*  If you compare the numbers of Maryland Democrats and Republicans, you find that the numbers are pretty close in terms of those who attend religious services more than once a week: 12% Democrats;14% Republicans.  There is more of a spread in the Virginia numbers on this issue -- more than once a week: 12% Democrats; 24% Republicans.

There are more numbers from the exit polls below the fold.

Gore says keep government out of religion

Check out this Al Gore spot on "current."  In it, he calls for keeping the government out of religion.   (Thanks to Brian Kaylor.)

"The Things That Are Not Caesar's"

On March 14, 2008, the Federalist Society will host a conference entitled The Things That Are Not Caesar's: Religious Organizations as a Check on the Authoritarian Pretensions of the State.   (Thanks to Rick Garnett for bringing this item to my attention.)  Here's a description of the event:

Church autonomy issues are at the forefront of contemporary debates in church/state law.  Such issues arise whenever the government seeks to impose a regulatory burden on a church or any religious organization.  Often the regulatory burden comes in the form of generally applicable legislation that is facially neutral with respect to religion.  The regulation may also take place through developments in the common law, such as claims sounding in tort, contract, trust, or real property.

Some of the pressing topics in the area of church autonomy include ministerial exceptions to employment discrimination claims, IRS tax exempt status and political speech, unconstitutional conditions on public benefits, and bankruptcy litigation.  An older and still important line of cases deals with intra-church disputes in which two factions litigate ownership of church property.  Finally, there is the matter of tort claims against a church for clergy sexual abuse, a particularly difficult area that has arguably eroded the scope of church autonomy in other contexts.

To explore these issues in detail, the Federalist Society has gathered some of the leading law and religion scholars in America.  Among the topics addressed at the conference will be the theological and historical roots of church autonomy in both the Catholic and Protestant traditions, the constitutional basis for the church autonomy doctrine in the First Amendment, and particular applications of church autonomy in torts, employment, and other areas of law.

Speakers will include John Garvey, Patrick McKinley Brennan, Kenneth Grasso, Carl H. Esbeck, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Thomas C. Berg, Ira C. "Chip" Lupu, Robert W. Tuttle, Michael P. Moreland, John H. Mansfield, and Douglas Laycock.

Campaign Round-up

1.  "A Catholic Call to Observe Civility in Political Debate" (via Mirror of Justice)

• As lay Catholics we should not exhort the Church to condemn our political opponents by publicly denying them Holy Communion based on public dissent from Church teachings. An individual’s fitness to receive communion is his or her personal responsibility. And it is a bishop’s responsibility to set for his diocese the guidelines for administering communion.

• Catholic politicians who advertise their Catholicism as part of their political appeal, but ignore the Church’s moral teachings in their political life confuse non-Catholics by giving the appearance of hypocrisy.

• Bishops, and all involved in the leadership of The Church, should not permit The Church to be used, or appear to be used, as a partisan, political tool.

Click here for the full statement and the current list of signatories.

2.  John McCain statement to the Federalist Society on the judiciary (via David Brody)

From the Federalist Society:

On November 4, 2008 American voters will elect the forty-fourth President of the United States.  In recent times, Presidents have had the opportunity to appoint close to two hundred Article III judges in a given term, including two Justices to the Supreme Court. These judges serve for life.

In order to educate  the public on how various Presidential candidates plan to fulfill this important responsibility the Federalist Society has invited each of the major Presidential contenders . . . to discuss the kinds of judges he or she would appoint if elected President. We have posted all the material received to date.  We continue to welcome and will post initial responses from remaining campaigns, as well as further responses from Senator McCain and Governor Romney.

From McCain's statement:

I believe that shaping the judiciary through the appointment power is one of the most important and solemn responsibilities a President has, and certainly one that has a profound and lasting impact. When I was running for President in 1999, I promised that, in appointing judges, I would not only insist on persons who were faithful to the Constitution, but persons who had a record that demonstrated that fidelity. A President should have confidence in the judicial philosophy of those he is appointing to the bench. That is why I strongly supported John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court and that is why I would seek men and women like them as my judicial appointees.

McCain's full statement is here.

3.  Hillary Clinton on church-state separation and the nonreligious (The Swamp via Jesus Politics)

Asked about her faith by a student in Larry Sabato's politics class, [Hillary] Clinton said, "I... believe totally in the separation of church and state.. I don’t think faith can provide all the answers -- I think we were given the ability to reason... As president I'd be respectful of the many faith traditions in this country -- or the lack of faith."

4.  Planned Parenthood ad on John McCain regarding Roe v. Wade (See here for a press release and the script for the ad)(via Marc Ambinder)

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund today announced the release of a radio ad educating voters about Sen. John McCain’s anti-choice voting record. Throughout his entire public career, Sen. McCain has voted consistently against women’s health, and he supports overturning the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade.

“Sen. McCain believes government has the right to interfere with the most personal and often the most difficult decisions affecting a woman's health,” said Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. “Most Americans believe just the opposite and, as more voters realize Sen. McCain’s ardent anti-choice position, this will be an issue for him in the general election.”

5.   Coverage of Faith in Public Life poll on evangelicals (Reuters)

Exit polls during the U.S. presidential primaries in Missouri and Tennessee last week show the Democratic Party has some support from white evangelicals, a group strongly associated with the Republican Party. . . .

The findings reinforce other surveys showing that Republicans still command most of the support of this voting bloc but by no means have a monopoly on its affections.

They also show white evangelical Democrats -- like other whites in Missouri and Tennessee -- have a decided preference for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. . . .

Other exit polls taken during the state-by-state presidential nominating contests for both parties have asked only Republican voters about their evangelical affiliation.

This is because white evangelical Protestants comprise a key Republican base who in the past were galvanized to vote by their strong opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage.

Some evangelicals are now seeking a broader Biblical agenda which includes poverty and the environment.

Oklahoma's "Freedom of Conscience Act"

"[Oklahoma] lawmakers gave preliminary approval Monday to a slate of anti-abortion measures that supporters said will strengthen informed consent rules for pregnant women and further tighten state abortion guidelines."  Here's more from the story:

Abortion opponents support eight House and Senate bills filed in the 2008 Legislature, including one that would regulate the so-called abortion pill, RU-486.

Measures approved by the House Civil Justice Subcommittee include one that allows doctors, nurses and other medical providers to refuse to participate in providing an abortion "if the individual's participation in the activity is contrary to the person's religious beliefs or moral convictions."

Lawmakers also approved measures requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound of an unborn child to give the mother an opportunity to view it and post signs in abortion clinics stating it is against the law for anyone, regardless of their relationship with a pregnant woman, to force them to have an abortion. 

The bill dealing with the religious beliefs or moral convictions of health care providers is known as the "Freedom of Conscience Act."  A version dated January 16, 2008  is here.

Bauer Endorses McCain

From the press release:

U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today announced that prominent pro-life and pro-family advocate Gary Bauer has endorsed John McCain for president.

“John McCain has dedicated his life to defending human rights around the world, including the rights of the unborn,” said Mr. Bauer. “I admire his consistent 24-year pro-life record and demonstrated commitment to the values that keep our families and communities strong. John McCain alone has the experience, character and credibility to lead as commander in chief on day one and defeat the transcendent threat of our time — radical Islamic extremism. I am proud to support John McCain for president.”

John McCain thanked Mr. Bauer for his support, stating, “I have long admired Gary’s commitment and passion for our shared pro-life and pro-family values. Gary has always been a forceful, unapologetic advocate for the sanctity of life and traditional marriage, judicial restraint and a strong American foreign policy based on our values. I am honored to have Gary Bauer’s support, and his advice and counsel will be critical as we continue to bring our Party together for victory in November.

Faith in Public Life to Release Poll on Evangelicals and the Election (Updated)

From the FNS Daybook:

The Center for American Progress (CAP) Action Fund holds a conference call briefing, beginning at 11 a.m. (ET) today, to discuss a new Faith in Public Life post-election poll demonstrating the political diversity of evangelical Christians.

Participants will include Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland A Church Distributed, former president of the Christian Coalition; Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners; and Robert Jones, expert and consultant on religion and politics.

UPDATE:  A memo describing the poll results is here.  No time to comment on it, but I wanted to flag it.

ANOTHER UPDATE:  Ted Olsen provides helpful reporting on and analysis of this data.  Ted's posts alerted me to this report on the data by Religion and Ethics Newsweekly (RENW).  Here's the summary paragraph from RENW's piece:

Despite the prominent role of religion this campaign season, exit pollsters have not asked religion questions of Democratic voters in most of the primary contests so far and only limited religion questions of Republican voters. Zogby International has been asking religion questions of likely voters in its pre-election tracking polls and gave Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly exclusive access to that data. It offers a picture of how religious voting groups are leaning this year. Among the highlights: Hillary Clinton has done consistently well among Catholics and especially white Catholics. Barack Obama and Clinton have divided the white Protestant vote, including white born again Protestants. Obama has consistently won black Protestants, especially in South Carolina, and Clinton has won Hispanic Catholics. Obama has done especially well among the most and the least religiously observant. John McCain and Mitt Romney were in a tight competition for white Catholic and white Protestant votes, and although Mike Huckabee has been doing well among evangelicals, he is still not the consensus candidate for born-again Protestants.

"Water Torture" and A Challenge to the Faithful

From an op-ed by Richard E. Mezo, who served in the Navy for six years.

Last week, much to my dismay, government officials testified before Congress that the United States has used the interrogation technique known as waterboarding and would like to hold out the option of using it in the future. As someone who has experienced waterboarding, albeit in a controlled setting, I know that the act is indeed torture. I was waterboarded during my training to become a Navy flight crew member. As has been noted in The Post and other media outlets, waterboarding is "real drowning that simulates death." It's an experience our country should not subject people to. . . .

As the two men held me down, one on each side, someone began pouring water onto the blindfold, and suddenly I was drowning. The water streamed into my nose and then into my mouth when I gasped for breath. I couldn't stop it. All I could breathe was water, and it was terrifying. I think I began to lose consciousness. I felt my lungs begin to fill with burning liquid.

Pulling out my fingernails or even cutting off a finger would have been preferable. At least if someone had attacked my hands, I would have had to simply tolerate pain. But drowning is another matter. . . .

Waterboarding has, unfortunately, become a household word. Back then, we didn't call it waterboarding -- we called it "water torture." We recognized it as something the United States would never do, whatever the provocation. As a nation, we must ask our leaders, elected and appointed, to be aware of such horrors; we must ask them to stop the narrow and superficial thinking that hinges upon "legal" definitions and to use common sense. Waterboarding is torture, and torture is clearly a crime against humanity.

Meanwhile, Scott Horton delivers a challenge to the religious community on this issue in remarks he gave at a conference of the Presbyterian Church earlier this month.  You must read the whole thing to fully appreciate his concluding remarks, but here they are:

[M]y message to you is simple. Remember the courage that John Donne mustered in speaking out. He spoke from the heart and he spoke from the need to make plain to his audience that the church could not be indifferent to torture as a practice. This is a model for emulation today. Can the community of the faithful make a difference on this issue? Yes, they can. They must.

Not in My Name

From an editorial by The Washington Post:

The admission this week by CIA Director Michael V. Hayden that three terrorism suspects were subjected to waterboarding in 2002 and 2003 puts to rest any doubt about whether President Bush authorized torture.

For centuries, civilized countries have considered waterboarding, or simulated drowning, to be torture. The United States rightly condemned as war criminals Japanese soldiers who employed the technique against U.S. personnel during World War II. It prosecuted U.S. military officers who waterboarded prisoners at the turn of the 20th century. The practice, which causes its victims to feel that they are about to die, is unquestionably cruel. Every administration prior to this one has judged it to be prohibited by U.S. law and treaty obligations. It is incontestably a blot on the reputation of this country and a breach of the very values we claim to want to export to the rest of the world.  . . .

Congress must act now to put an end to the continued twisting of the law and fundamental American values. Lawmakers can do so by passing legislation requiring all U.S. interrogators to abide by the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual, which military officials have said allows them the flexibility they need to gather intelligence.

I've pasted in an alert from the National Religious Coalition Against Torture about an upcoming Senate vote on this issue.  (See below the fold.  Also see the website of  Evanglicals for Human Rights.)   When our government engages in torture, it does so in our names.  Those of us who dissent must make our voices heard and work for change.

Upcoming Congressional Hearing Will Consider "Workplace Religious Freedom Act"

Don Byrd has the news about an upcoming Congressional hearing that will include consideration of a bill entitled the "Workplace Religious Freedom Act."

Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Sklar v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Updated)

"A Jewish couple's bid to take a tax deduction they say the Internal Revenue Service reserves only for members of the Church of Scientology is getting a friendly reception from a federal appeals court, increasing the possibility of a ruling that could create a tax break for taxpayers of many religions who pay tuition to religious schools."  Here's more from the New York Sun:

During arguments on the case this week, three judges who ride the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals expressed deep skepticism of the IRS's position that the way the agency treats Scientologists is irrelevant to the deductions the Orthodox Jews, Michael and Marla Sklar, took for part of their children's day school tuition and for after-school classes in Jewish law.

"The view of the IRS is it can unconstitutionally violate the Constitution by establishing religion, by treating one religion more favorably than other religions in terms of what is allowed as deductions, and there can never be any judicial review of that?" Judge Kim Wardlaw asked at the court session Monday in Pasadena, Calif.

"That is not at all what I said," a Justice Department lawyer representing the IRS, Ellen Delsole, said.

"That's the bottom line," Judge Wardlaw and a colleague on the panel, Harry Pregerson, both replied. "This does intrude into the Establishment Clause," Judge Wardlaw added.

The case stems from an agreement the IRS reached with the Church of Scientology in 1993 to end more than a decade of lawsuits, audits, and other enforcement actions involving the tax agency, Scientology entities, and church leaders. The church paid $12.5 million, while the IRS agreed to drop arguments that Scientology, which was founded by L. Ron Hubbard, was not a bona fide religion.

At about the time of that deal, the IRS agreed to allow Scientologists to deduct at least 80% of the fees paid for "religious training and services."

The Sklars took similar deductions for religious education on their returns for the early 1990s, without challenge by the IRS. However, the IRS rejected their deductions for 1994 and beyond.

The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in the case, Sklar v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (case # 06-72961), on Monday, February 4.  You can listen to the oral argument here.  (If this link does not take you directly to the audio of oral argument in this case, enter the case number (see above) in the box at the link and you should be able to access it.)

UPDATE:  I just saw that Howard Bashman has collected materials on this case, including a New York Sun editorial and what I believe is a more dependable link to the audio of oral argument than the one I provided.

Salt and Light, Social Justice, and Church-State Separation

Jim Evans eloquently captures some of the spirit and promise of the New Baptist Covenant.  Here's a snippet from his reflections on the meeting:

It was really quite an amazing experience.  [Black and white Baptists] stood side by side, nearly 15, 000 strong, learning to sing each other's songs.  We sang choruses from the contemporary church movement, we sang traditional Black Gospel, and we sang hymns from the hymn book.  And though we struggled a bit with new rhytmns and cadence, the significance was that we were there trying at all.

And we affirmed with loud voices and the clapping of hands those things that used to really matter to Baptists.  When was the last time you were at a Christian gathering of any kind where a speaker received a standing ovation for affirming the separation of church and state?

Or when was the last time you were at a meeting where people wept during a sermon on the plight of poor children in America?

And when was the last time there was ever a gathering of Christian folk who were able to affirm that salvation comes by the grace of God through Jesus Christ, and at the same time affirm that God calls us through Jesus to champion social justice and non-violence?

We are Christians who seek to be salt and light in the world, who work for social justice, and who support religious liberty and the separation of church and state.  With this recent event, those of us who believe and think in these ways have been put in touch with one another, and challenged to worship and work together in the future.  If we accept this challenge, I believe we could make a distinct and valuable contribution to our nation and our world.

Grassley's New Letters "Could Go Out Any Day"

"U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley is increasing pressure on five large ministries that have refused to respond to his financial inquiry even as political watchers say the investigation could hurt Republicans in the upcoming election."  Here's more from the Tampa Tribune on the Grassley investigation:

Grassley, a Republican and the ranking member of the Senate's finance committee, is sending a second round of letters asking the preachers whether they use church money to bankroll their lavish lifestyles and private businesses. His inquiry is questioning whether they have violated their tax-exempt status.

The new letters, which could go out any day, renew the possibility of issuing subpoenas for information and testimony from those who don't comply, including Without Walls International Church and Paula White Ministries in Tampa.

"I don't intend to give up and go away," Grassley said Thursday. "I work on oversight projects until I get answers and results."

At the same time, he and others who support the inquiry face growing pressure to drop the matter, observers said. Politicians who have relied on the votes of evangelical Christians don't want to see Grassley infuriate a crucial voting bloc.

Doug Wead, former President Bush's liaison to the evangelical community, said the investigation has caused a division among Baptist and Pentecostal voters, a group of evangelicals largely credited with the election of both presidents Bush.

"Grassley has thrown a grenade in the middle of the coalition that any Republican will need," Wead said this week. "If you are a Republican, it looks disastrous."

This isn't the first time Wead has raised these concerns.  More on this topic later.

AP: Dobson Set to Endorse Huckabee (Updated)

"James Dobson, one of the nation's most prominent evangelical Christian leaders, is about to endorse former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, The Associated Press has learned. "  Here's more from Eric Gorski's story:

Dobson, founder of Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Focus on the Family, talked to the GOP presidential hopeful Thursday and later was to release a statement explaining his choice, said Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Dobson.

Huckabee had long sought Dobson's endorsement, believing he is the best fit to advance Dobson's conservative, moral worldview.

Until now, Dobson had never endorsed a GOP presidential hopeful during the primary campaign. But he ruled out front-runner John McCain in a blistering commentary on Super Tuesday, and on Thursday the fight for the GOP nomination narrowed to a two-man race between McCain and Huckabee, who is far behind in the delegate count but pledged to fight on. Mitt Romney, a third hopeful trying to claim the conservative label, dropped out of the race Thursday.

No sign of the statement yet.

UPDATE (2/8):  The full text of Dobson's statement is below the fold. 

Jewish Voters and Super Tuesday

From The Forward:

Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama each won a stamp of approval from Jewish voters Tuesday, as both Democratic presidential contenders captured significant Jewish support in key primary contests. While Clinton laid claim to the overwhelming backing of Jewish communities in New Jersey and in her home state of New York, Obama won the majority of Jewish votes in Connecticut and in Massachusetts, a state he did not carry overall. . . .

“The vast majority of Jews are already locked into place as Democrats, but it’s very helpful to have [John] McCain,” said Jeff Ballabon, an Orthodox activist and GOP fundraiser from Long Island, N.Y. “He’s seen as a maverick, and that comforts a lot of the moderate and swing voters who are not as comfortable with Hillary Clinton but who wouldn’t otherwise be comfortable with a Republican.”

According to David Greenfield, executive vice president of the Brooklyn-based Sephardic Community Federation, Orthodox Jewish voters might be particularly tempted to give McCain a second look, given that one of his most vocal backers is Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew.

The Forward also has a nice piece entitled "Snapshots from Super Tuesday."

McCain's CPAC Speech

From McCain's speech to CPAC:

[Senators Clinton and Obama] will appoint to the federal bench judges who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

Interesting choice of words -- McCain intends to nominate "judges of the character and the quality of Justice Roberts and Alito."  Does that include the constitutional philosophies of Roberts and Alito?  (Many more would agree that Roberts and Alito have strong character and quality as judges than would agree that they have the right philosophies on constitutional matters.)  I would think that McCain did mean to embrace these justices' approaches to constitutional law, but it's a little funny that he did not say it in that way.  (And that's Chief Justice Roberts, Senator McCain, but I'm truly nitpicking on that one.)  Anyway, there's a longer excerpt from the speech below the fold.

Breaking News: Romney to Quit Race (Updated)

Mitt Romney is reportedly dropping out of the race for the Republican nomination for president of the United States.  He may make his speech announcing this news during his appearance at CPAC today.   

UPDATE: You can watch CPAC live here.

ANOTHER UPDATE:  Here's one report on Romney's speech, and here's the text of the speech.   There's a long excerpt from the speech below the fold.  Via Don Byrd, here's a piece, written before the annoucement, that considers the impact of Romney's faith on his run for the White House.

Exit Poll Questions and Reporting on the Questions

We've already talked about the the fact that the exit polls usually ask Republicans more questions about religion than they ask Democrats, and that that is often a problem.  (See, for example, Katie Barge for some good arguments about why Democratic exit poll questions regarding evangelical affiliation are merited.)   It seems to me that a related problem is the way in which some journalists are reporting on the data they have.  For example, here's an excerpt from an AP piece highlighting some findings from exit polls across the "Super Tuesday" primary states.

Highlights from results of exit polling in the Super Tuesday primary states for The Associated Press and television networks. . . .

KEEPING THE FAITH

White, born again, evangelical Christians voted mostly for Huckabee, who got 38 percent of their vote. Thirty percent voted for McCain, while just 27 percent voted for Romney. Huckabee won in Alabama, Tennessee and his home state of Arkansas, states where two-thirds of the voters were born-again Christians. Evangelicals have been Huckabee's base, and they also helped him win in Georgia, his standing bolstered by the six in 10 Republican voters there who were evangelicals. But in California, Romney, McCain and Huckabee ran about even among evangelicals.

This report (or at least the first few sentences of it) creates the impression that all white evangelical Christians in the "Super Tuesday" primary states voted for Republicans, when the truth is that the exit polls did not ask those who voted Democratic whether they were evangelicals, so we simply don't have that information.  When the playing field is not level on religion questions, the least media outlets could do, it seems to me, is ensure that these kinds of results are not presented as if they reflect the votes of all evangelical Christians.  The story referenced above, for example, could have described the data as Republican exit poll data from the outset. 

Other reports on the polling data did somewhat better on this score, even if they did contain other problematic elements.

Why and How Brownback is Backing McCain

Why is Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) backing Senator John McCain for president?  Lots of reasons, but here is the one Brownback considers to be the most important:

"The most important reason to win the presidency is so we don't lose ground on the Supreme Court," said Brownback, who fears a November victory by Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would shift the court's ideological balance to the left. 

Actually, Brownback is understating the case here, I think.   Let me use an example to explain.  If Justice Stevens retires during the next president's term and the next president nominates a justice like Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito (as McCain is promising to do), then that would not only ensure that folks who share Brownback's constitutional perspective "don't lose ground" on the Supreme Court, it would give them what would appear to be a solid majority (Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and the new justice) on many important issues plus Justice Kennedy, who often votes with this group.  In other words, if the next president replaces Justice Stevens with a justice who generally votes like Roberts and Alito (who generally vote unlike Stevens), that does not retard change at the Court, it actually creates change.  On the other hand, if Justice Stevens retires during the next president's term and the next president replaces him with a justice who generally votes like Stevens, then the current balance on the Court will continue. 

Anyway, McCain is scheduled to speak about these matters at CPAC today.  These issues are starting to come into sharper focus on the Republican side, and I would imagine that they will be discussed a good bit more in the general.

How is Brownback supporting McCain?  This article isn't the first to pick up on some of the specifics of Brownback's outreach on McCain's behalf, but it does provide a few new details:

Next Steps for the New Baptist Covenant (Updated)

David Stratton offers some interesting suggestions about how to move forward with the New Baptist Covenant.  (David, the title of your post was so good, I decided to use it here -- thanks!)  As time permits, I'm going to round up recommendations that are made for next steps for this cooperative Baptist effort.  I've already offered a few, as has Adam Taylor (and David Stratton, of course).   I hope to kick in some more suggestions soon, but please comment or e-mail me if you have authored or seen relevant posts or if you would like to comment on the suggestions that have already been offered.

UPDATE:  Other pieces worth reading: Bruce Prescott and Laura Cadena.