Melissa Rogers

Breakings News: U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Involving Religious Display (Updated)

"The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a free speech case in which a church wants to place a religious monument in a park."  Here's more from Pete Yost's story:

Officials in Pleasant Grove City, Utah, asked the court to step into the lawsuit brought by the religious group known as Summum, saying that if the group prevails, governments would be inundated with demands to display donated monuments.

The dispute stems from Pleasant Grove City's refusal to allow the display of a "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in the same park that is the home for a Ten Commandments monument donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles 47 years ago.

At issue is whether a donated monument displayed by a municipality remains the private speech of the original donor, or is government speech; and whether placing donated monuments in a government-owned park creates a public forum or whether the government retains authority to select which monuments to display.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that monument remains the private speech of the donor and that the park is a public forum. . . .

In response, the church says government bodies always have the option of banning display of all privately donated monuments. Pleasant Grove City has treated donated items as private speech for decades, said the religious group,

SCOTUSblog has posted links to the opinion below and various briefs.  Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice is listed as the counsel for the city, and Walter Dellinger and Pam Harris of O'Melveny & Meyer are listed as counsel of record for the group known as Summum.   The orders list is here.  More on this later.

UPDATE:  See below for links to a backgrounder, more media coverage, and some press releases reacting to the Supreme Court's decision to take the case.  I may add to this list as the day goes on.

A nice (and brief) summary of the case and the proceedings below:  SCOTUSblog (dated 3/24/08)

Media coverage: Christian Science Monitor, Reuters, KCPW 

Press releases: ACLJ, Americans United

ANOTHER UPDATE (4/1): Howard Bashman collects the press coverage of the Court's decision.  And Howard Friedman provides this additional note:

The court took no action on a cert petition in a companion case, Duchesne City v. Summum, (Case No. 07-690). That case poses more complicated factual issues. (See prior posting.) The petition for cert in that case suggests that the Court might hold the case pending disposition of the Pleasant Grove case.

For all of you ballot-initiatives wonks. . . .

Ed Stoddard takes a look at some of the hot-button initiatives that will be on ballots in various states this fall.  As you know, these initiatives are thought to be good ways to turn out certain kinds of voters.  Look below the fold for Stoddard's handy list of "some of the initiatives that already have qualified to be on the ballot or are in the works that could have an impact on the November White House election."  The list does not include the church-state measure that will be on Florida's ballot this fall, but that measure will certainly be worth watching.  (Thanks to Faith in Public Life for the links.)

Conversations About Race in America

TPM Cafe is hosting a discussion this week about race in America.  So far, Ta-Nehisi Coates and Glenn Loury have contributed.  Here's a snippet from the post by Loury:

[A]s I write this, one million young black men are under the physical control of the state; a third of black children live in poverty, and, the Southside of Chicago, with more than one-half million black residents, is one of the most massive, racially segregated urban enclaves ever to have been created in the history of the modern world... These things are a reflection of social, cultural, economic and political forces deeply enmeshed in the structure of American society. They are not merely the consequence of attitudes embraced by some more or less well-meaning but benighted black and white persons.

Miranda Warning for Ministers

The Rev. Luis Cortes had a great line at a conference I attended this weekend.  Before Cortes began his remarks, he warned the gathered religious leaders: "Anything you say today may be used against you in a presidential election."  I can envision a political cartoon featuring some well-coiffed media figure with a microphone administering this Miranda-like warning to a minister before he or she steps into the pulpit.

P.S.  The second frame of the cartoon:  The media figure then turns to the congregation before the sermon and says: "Anything your minister says today may be used against you should you choose in the future to run for public office."  Okay, okay -- I'll stop now.

Editorial on Proposal to Strike Florida Church-State Provision

The Daytona Beach News Journal editorializes against deletion of the current provision in the Florida constitution governing aid for religious institutions.  Here's how the editorial begins:

It is bad enough that the state Taxation and Budget Reform Commission proposed a constitutional amendment axing $9 billion for local school districts. (It would do so by eliminating the state-required portion of property taxes -- without a real guarantee, only a recommendation, that funds would be replaced by the Legislature.) Now it is proposing another amendment that would allow state government to divert education dollars to private, faith-based schools -- schools that don't have to meet the legal accountability laws required of public districts.

There's background on this issue here.

"Lord, Save Us From Your Followers"

There's a new movie out called Lord, Save Us From Your Followers.  The film was made by a Christian, Dan Merchant, who apparently is offering screenings at college campuses.  Here is the filmaker's description of the movie:

Though nine out of ten Americans claim a belief in God, public expression of faith is more contentious as ever.  Even as discussion of religion floods the media like never before, the rhetoric is divisive and hyper as the 2008 elections loom on the horizon.

Lord, Save Us From Your Followers is the energetic, accessible documentary that explores the collision of faith and culture in America.  Fed up with the angry, strident language filling the airwaves that has come to represent the Christian faith, director (and follower) Dan Merchant set out to discover why the Gospel of Love is dividing America. . . .

In the tradition of “entertaining documentaries” like Super Size Me, Bowling For Columbine and What the Bleep Do We Know?, Lord, Save Us From Your Followers, employs the language of pop culture to create a provocative, funny and redemptive viewing experience that will leave the audience talking for hours. . . . .

With exclusive interviews with comedian/Senatorial candidate Al Franken, former Senator and Religious Right inside man Rick Santorum, noted “liberal evangelical” Tony Campolo, conservative radio host Michael Reagan, racial reconciliation activist Dr. John Perkins and features with Bono, Pastor Rick Warren (“Purpose Driven Life”), James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, no stone is left unturned in this engaging, unpredictable and challenging look at the conflict over religion in America.

You can watch the trailer for the movie and some associated video here.

Saturday Round-up

Opponents of gay marriage and proponents of vouchers flex their muscles in Florida, showing those agendas are certainly not dead yet.   In his sermon tomorrow, a Southern Baptist pastor in Georgia will reportedly apologize for homophobia and other sins and issue a challenge to his flock about following Jesus.   And Peter Steinfels relays this breaking news: The Pope is Catholic!  It's all below the fold.

Monks' Cries Heard Beyond Tibet

"China's Tibet problem got a human face this week in images of crying, red-robed monks, giving international concern a new focal point just as Beijing gears up for the arrival of the Olympic torch."  Here's more from the Associated Press:

The outburst by 30 monks at Lhasa's holiest shrine dealt a setback to the government's plans to use a three-day trip for foreign reporters to show that protests and deadly anti-Chinese rioting in the Tibetan capital two weeks ago had subsided.

"We are like prisoners here. There are soldiers all over the place," the monks shouted as officials tugged at the foreign reporters to leave the Jokhang Temple.

The monks called for the return of the Dalai Lama from exile and an end to religious restrictions: "We want freedom."

With the Olympic torch coming to Beijing on Monday, the images of the monks in newspapers and on television across the world have further upset the communist government's plans to use the Games in August to showcase China as a confident, respected power.

Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama is criticizing China’s state-controlled media, "saying its coverage of the unrest in Tibet earlier this month was biased and could eventually 'sow the seeds of racial tension' there."  The Dalai Lama's statement is here.

Breaking News: Grassley Says Long Will Provide Documents

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

One of two recalcitrant metro Atlanta televangelists under investigation by a Senate committee has decided to cooperate.

The Rev. Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia has indicated he will give the Senate Finance Committee the financial and corporate documents sought by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said a Grassley spokeswoman.

Daniel Rene, a spokesman for Long, confirmed that the minister was talking to the senator.

The Rev. Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International in College Park had not responded as of Friday to the March 11 letter asking for cooperation, said Jill Kozeny, on Grassley's staff.

Dollar's attorney could not be reached, but he has contested the request.

Today is a deadline for information set by the Iowa senator and ranking member of the committee. If the ministries refuse, the committee could subpoena the documents. . . .

The Copelands' ministry remains the other holdout, [a Grassley spokesperson] said.

I guess Senator Baucus' backing of the probe, and perhaps some careful negotiation, brought Long around.  To get some idea about Long's earlier posture toward Grassley's request, click here. 

As you may recall, Marcus Owens is representing Creflo Dollar.   Click here for a letter Owens wrote to Grassley some months ago.   For some information about Copeland's representation and current posture toward the probe, click here.

Meanwhile, Benny Hinn Ministries released the following statement today:

Resource on State Constitutional Provisions Regarding Government Aid and Religious Institutions

While we are thinking about state constitutional restrictions on government aid that flows to religious institutions, I want to reference a relevant conference I helped organize a few years ago:  Separation of Church and States:  An Examination of State Constitutional Limits on Government Funding for Religious Institutions.  Here's a snippet from the comments of Professor Fred Gedicks on anti-Catholicism and the Blaine amendments (the name by which some of these state constitutional restrictions are known):

I want to begin by talking about what I think are a couple of distracting issues, perhaps even red herrings. I think one of them is the anti-Catholic origin of the Blaine amendments. I don't want to suggest that it's irrelevant, and I don't want to suggest that it wasn't real, but I think what's more important is the social meaning of these amendments today, not their social meaning 125 years ago. I think Bill Marshall mentioned the anti-polygamy laws, both the federal laws and the ones that now exist in the state of Utah. These have gone through several permutations of contemporary social meaning. Clearly, 100 years ago, they were seen as instruments to force the Mormon church to conform to the Victorian morality of the times. Several decades ago, they were seen as perhaps pro-feminist statutes, striking against patriarchy. Now they are considered child protection statutes. I think there are very few people today who see them as anti-Mormon statutes. In fact, the Mormon church itself is now heavily invested in portraying itself as a mainstream American Christian church, and the last thing the church wants is a return of polygamy. In Utah the church's only regret is that the secular authorities are not more vigorous in prosecuting polygamy.

And so, if we think about the Blaine amendments from that point of view, the fact that think you'd have to read three books and four law review articles and some monographs to figure out if they're anti-Catholic maybe suggests to us that most people don't react to the amendments in that way any longer. 

I'll write more about this topic in coming days.  For now, let me say that I think Fred Gedicks is right when he encourages us to take a closer look at the arguments about anti-Catholicism that are made in connection with these matters.  Like Gedicks, I believe we should focus on the current social meaning, operation, and impact of these measures rather than simply their historical origins.

"Stop It"

That's the title of a Commonweal editorial on President Bush's recent speech to the National Religious Broadcasters.   Here's how the editorial begins:

Earlier this month President George W. Bush addressed the National Religious Broadcasters Convention. His speech offered a troubling, though familiar, defense of the “war on terror,” and a particularly striking description of the ruthless “nature” of the enemy we are fighting, “people who know no bounds of humanity.”

Among the many dubious aspects of the speech was its frank theological premise. We are compelled to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush said, in order to “offer freedom to others who have never known it.” Freedom, the president told his largely Evangelical audience, is not America’s gift to others but a gift from the Almighty. Still, the clear implication was that the United States is the instrument of the Almighty. “The effects of a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan will reach beyond the borders of those countries,” he said. “It will show others what’s possible. And we undertake this work because we believe that every human being bears the image of our maker. That’s why we’re doing this.”

Many bad arguments have been advanced for the war in Iraq, and the president has used almost all of them over the past five years. He has variously claimed that Iraq posed an imminent military threat, was involved in 9/11, demanded humanitarian intervention, or that it offered a rare opportunity to establish democracy in the Middle East. Yet surely the worst, and perhaps the most offensive, argument for launching such a preventive war is the claim that every human being bears the image of our maker. Christians and non-Christians alike should tell President Bush to stop it-to stop using Christian language to justify his decision to go to war. The last people to applaud such sentiments ought to be religious broadcasters.

Read the whole thing.

John McCain's Foreign Policy Speech

John McCain gave an important speech yesterday on foreign policy.   Here's a key passage:

At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust.  Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay "decent respect to the opinions of mankind."  Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed.  We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies.  When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right.  But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them. 

America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model.  How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad.  We must fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are the foundation of our society.  We can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured.  I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.

There is such a thing as international good citizenship.  We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home.  The risks of global warming have no borders.  We and the other nations of the world must get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand off a much-diminished world to our grandchildren. 

The speech began with a moving description of McCain's personal experience with war.  The whole speech is well worth reading.  The full text appears below the fold.

Tibetan Monks Protest for Freedom

"A group of monks shouting there was no religious freedom disrupted a carefully orchestrated visit for foreign reporters to Tibet's capital Thursday, an embarrassment for China as it tried to show Lhasa was calm following deadly anti-government riots."  Here's more from the Associated Press:

Officials arranged the trip for the reporters to showcase that Lhasa was at peace after the mid-March violence and a subsequent government crackdown shattered China's plans for a smooth run-up to the Beijing Olympics.

The outburst by a group of 30 monks in red robes came as the journalists, including an Associated Press reporter, were being shown around the Jokhang Temple — one of Tibet's holiest shrines — by government handlers in Lhasa.

"Tibet is not free! Tibet is not free!" yelled one young Buddhist monk, who started to cry.

There are more details about this incident below the fold.

9th Circuit Upholds Government Display of Ten-Commandments Monument

"A nearly 50-year-old monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments does not violate the Constitution just because it sits nearly alone on public grounds in a Washington city, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday."  Here's more from Reuters:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cited precedent rulings in this latest case, which involves a 6-foot-tall (1.8-meter-tall) granite monument near the Old City Hall in Everett, Washington, about 25 miles north of Seattle.

The court found that the monument did not have a solely religious purpose. "Nothing about the setting is conducive to genuflection," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for a three-judge panel. . . .

The monument was donated in 1959 by a national civic organization that distributed more than 150 such monuments to cities across the country.

Another stands on the grounds of the Texas Capitol and was the subject of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case.

The Supreme Court found that the Texas statue did not violate the separation of church and state partly because it is one of more than three dozen statues that collectively tell a largely secular history of Texas.

The Washington monolith shares its property with only one war memorial, and attorneys had hoped the difference would be enough for a new verdict. . . .

But the 9th Circuit panel said it did not agree, especially because no complaints were received for more than 30 years after the monument was erected.

The opinion is here.  (Thanks to Howard Bashman for the links.)

Campaign Round-up (Updated)

What is a "Casey Democrat"? Why is John McCain in Utah today? How did Barack Obama answer North Carolinians' questions about his religious beliefs?  It's all below the fold.

California Appeals Court To Reconsider Homeschooling Decision

"A [California] appeals court has agreed to reconsider its decision last month that barred homeschooling by parents who lack teaching credentials, raising the possibility that the judges will change a decision that has infuriated homeschool advocates nationwide."  Here's more from the San Francisco Chronicle:

The Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles granted a rehearing Tuesday at the request of a couple who have taught their eight children at home without credentials.

It is not unusual for appeals courts to reconsider decisions, and the result is often a minor revision that leaves the original conclusion unchanged. But the three-judge panel in the homeschooling case hinted at a re-evaluation of its entire Feb. 28 ruling by inviting written arguments from state and local education officials and teachers' unions.

It said it will hold a new hearing in June. . . .

Last month's ruling, if upheld, could put many parents at risk of prosecution for violating the state's compulsory-education law. Homeschooling advocates say 166,000 children in California are taught by at home, most of them by parents who lack teaching credentials.

The law has been largely unenforced for many years, however. State Schools Superintendent Jack O'Connell responded to the ruling by saying he favors parental choice in education. Since taking office in 2003, O'Connell has left enforcement up to local school districts and has suggested that parents could comply with the law by creating private schools in their homes.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denounced the ruling and promised to change the law.

My earlier post on this matter is here.

Breaking News: Florida Commission Narrowly Approves Setting "No Aid" Provision Before Voters (Updated)

"[Florida's] Taxation and Budget Reform Commission entered the centuries-old battle of church versus state Wednesday, narrowly agreeing to give voters the chance in November to remove the constitutional ban on using taxpayer money for religious-based institutions."   Here's more from The Ledger:

It was a direct response from Gov. Jeb Bush’s former team on the TBRC who grabbed the opportunity to not only protect existing voucher programs, but also pave the way for resurrecting broader plans. At least six of Bush’s former employees or appointees are on the TBRC.

Seventeen of the TBRC’s 25 members needed to approve the plan to put it on the ballot. The vote was 17-7 with one member absent. The commission is appointed by the governor and legislative leaders every 20 years with the power to put constitutional amendments directly before voters.

Proponents, led by the executive director of Bush’s education think tank, said appellate court decisions had jeopardized hundreds of millions in state dollars that go to popular programs like Bright Futures Scholarships and the pre-kindergarten plan that allow students to use taxpayer money to attend religious-based schools. Even faith-based prisons and church-run drug rehabilitation programs could face legal challenges, they said.

“There are real threats,” said Patricia Levesque, the executive director of the Foundation for Florida’s Future. “There continues to be attacks on these programs.”

Opponents, including a rabbi, a Baptist minister and the American Civil Liberties Union, told the commission that the plan would unwisely break down the centuries-old wall between church and state.

“They’re just opening up a Pandora’s box to a whole broad range of requirements to spend taxpayer money to support religious institutions. I think it’s a giant step backward,” said Ron Meyer, a lawyer for the teachers’ union who had won a 2005 Supreme Court fight over vouchers.

With this vote, the Commission apparently agreed to put this proposal before voters.   If approved by 60% of voters in November, it would strike the state's current constitutional provision that says that "[n]o revenue . . .  shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."  It would replace that provision with the following sentence: "Individuals or entities may not be barred from participating in public programs because of religion."  There's more background on this issue here. 

The Ledger piece provides a glimpse of some of the competing arguments:

Church Membership and Presidential Politics

From the Pittsburgh Tribune Review:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor made.

"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

"You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said. "I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."

I'm not fond of arguments made by one presidential candidate regarding the church membership decisions of another candidate.  As others have suggested, the decision to join or leave a church is a complex one.  First and foremost, many would say they feel a sense of call to be part of a particular church, and that call may weather serious disagreements with the ministers of the church and fellow congregants.  The decision to join or to leave a church may seem fairly inscrutable to the outside world, but that generally is not what is important.  What is important is a sense of what God would have a person to do. 

Further, church membership decisions also are affected by a mix of other factors, including one's connection to the ministries of the church, Sunday school, or Bible study classes, and the feelings of one's family members.  In short, the decision to join or leave a church is not like the decision to join or leave the ACLU or the NRA.  And, as long as we are going to talk about these things in public, we ought to recognize as much. 

For all of these reasons, I think it is a bad idea for one political candidate to announce what she would have done regarding church membership had she been in another candidate's shoes.  To the extent these comments seem to sanction the general notion of combing over candidates' church membership decisions as part of our presidential politics, they are also troubling. 

Now, it is certainly true that there are cases in which a candidate's membership in a certain church or denomination will raise questions about how the candidate would govern.   Barack Obama has been asked these kinds of questions, as has Mike Huckabee.  In these cases, it seems to me that we ought to focus on the candidates' answers to these questions, their policy and legal agenda and records, and their character rather than simply their various affiliations with religious bodies. 

Lieberman Writes to IRS Regarding UCC and Obama

No time to write about it at the moment, but I want to flag the fact that Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman wrote a letter to the IRS last week regarding its  inquiry into a speech made by Senator Barack Obama at the national convention of the United Church of Christ that took place in June in Hartford, CT.  Here's a snippet from the letter:

On February 20, 2007, the Internal Revenue Service (the "Service") sent the United Church of Christ (the "UCC") national office a letter, stating that, based on Sen. Barack Obama's June 23, 2007, speech at the UCC's 50th General Synod in Hartford, Connecticut, the Service has formed a "reasonable belief" that the UCC violated the Internal Revenue Code's ban on partisan electioneering by churches. I write to express my concerns about that letter and to ask the Service to (1) explain the specific process by which it establishes the statutorily required "reasonable belief" of improper activity and (2) clarify its public guidance on the permissibility of candidate appearances at churches. . . .

Based on th[e] precautions [that the UCC took to avoid electioneering in connection with the Obama speech], I would expect that had the Service contacted the UCC before sending its letter, the Service's concerns would have been addressed. This absence of communication with the UCC is what spurs my request that you explain, in detail, the Service's procedure for satisfying its statutory obligation of forming a "reasonable belief" that a church has engaged in improper political activity.  . . .

A logical inference to the issuance of your letter, therefore, is that if a speaker, invited in a non-candidate capacity, slips into "candidate" mode, then the Service will still hold the sponsoring church liable - even if the church took significant precautions to prevent political discourse. I request that you confirm whether this inference accurately characterizes the Service's position.

Throughout my career in the Senate, I have supported the strong and fair enforcement of our nation's tax laws, including laws applicable to religious institutions. But I am concerned about the chilling effect on legitimate activity by religious organizations that results from initiating a church tax inquiry without first satisfying the reasonableness standard, and I am further concerned by the lack of clear guidance in this area.

In related news,  the IRS granted the UCC a three-week extension to respond to its inquiry in this matter.  The deadline for the UCC's response is now set for Thursday, March 27.

Proposal to Put Florida's "No-Aid" Provision Before Voters (Updated)

The Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission will decide on Wednesday whether to ask the state's voters to strike the state's constitutional provision that says that "[n]o revenue . . .  shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."  As the Miami Herald notes, a Florida appeals court held in 2004 that this provision doomed part of then-Governor Jeb Bush's voucher plan, which would have allowed religious as well as other private schools to receive government funds.   Here's more from the Miami Herald story regarding the proposed changes to the state's constitution:

[Supporters of the proposed changes say that the Florida appeals court ruling on the voucher issue leaves] the door open to a more far-reaching consequence: that scores of programs costing millions of public dollars and serving thousands of people could be vulnerable -- from Baptist hospitals to Catholic universities to church drug-treatment centers to religious voluntary Pre-K schools.

All it would take is the right lawsuit and the right court and the state could be in crisis, says former Bush aide and voucher backer Patricia Levesque, who sits on the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission and has proposed eliminating the strict and far-reaching no-aid language.

But opponents, such as the state teachers union and church-state separatists, say Levesque and religious supporters such as the Florida Catholic Conference are misreading the law, exaggerating the threats to secular programs run by nominally religious groups, and trying to prop up a newer type of voucher program that hasn't been challenged in court and that the Legislature wants to double in size.

Still, both sides agree that Florida's no-aid language is stricter than federal principles of separation of church and state as well as similar prohibitions in other state constitutions.

There's more about the controversy, including the specific language of the proposals and staff reports on them, below the fold.

Gushee on C-SPAN Washington Journal

David Gushee, author of a new book, The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center, appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal yesterday, Sunday, March 23.  The segment of the show featuring Gushee begins around 36:00.

Legal Times on DC Firms Engaged by Mega-Ministries in Grassley Probe

Legal Times reports:  "It’s rare that religious organizations hire major downtown lobbyists. But the parent companies of two media-savvy gospel ministries have recently enlisted government affairs firms to intercede with a higher authority: the Senate Finance Committee."  Here's more from the story on the Grassley probe:

Without Walls hired Holland & Knight to lobby on “IRS church audit procedures” shortly after Grassley sent his letter, and Kenneth Copeland Ministries registered with Miller & Chevalier in March. . . .

If trouble is ahead, the leaders of both churches should be prepared. Miller & Chevalier’s John Gilliland was a counsel for the Senate finance committee, and other members of the team registered to lobby for Kenneth Copeland Ministries worked as liaisons to the committee from the House Ways & Means committee and the White House. Meanwhile, Without Walls International’s team is represented by Holland & Knight’s Kathleen Nilles, a former tax counsel for the House Ways & Means committee who specializes in non-profit tax controversies, and Christopher Delacy, former counsel to Sen. John Warner (R-Va.).

Both ministries seem to have already mastered one of the basics of surviving a congressional inquiry: staying quiet. A spokesman for Copeland Ministries declined comment, citing an “ongoing dialogue with Senator Grassley’s office and others,” and all other parties did not respond to phone calls.

Copeland may be tight-lipped with the press on this matter, but he's not exactly holding back in other forums.  Anyway, among other things, this story serves as a good reminder that what we see in the newspapers is only the tip of the iceberg.

Brian McLaren's "Engaging with 'A More Perfect Union'"

Please take the time to read Brian McLaren latest post that follows up on Barack Obama's recent speech on race, religion, and America.  (For an earlier post addressing some related issues, click here.)  Here's part of Brian's post:

I hope we can go beyond talking about the speech to talking about America and the state of race relations in America. I hope we can go beyond offering old and often utterly predictable opinions and instead, through honest engagement and dialogue about the speech, seek to have our opinions modified and improved and deepened, and perhaps even challenged and changed.

We have many places for people to react and practice opinion-giving and other forms of punditry, but what we seem to lack is space for people to have a more generous and generative kind of intelligent shared reflection and consideration.   So I decided it might be worthwhile to offer some commentary on the content of the speech along with questions for conversation so that people could download the text, make copies of it, and read it through together - stimulating potentially constructive dialogue about a truly important subject.

The best case scenario would be for mixed groups to read and discuss the speech together – gathering a group of friends from work or a sports team or a neighborhood or church. Three questions would guide this kind of dialogue:
What can we learn about America?
What can we learn about people of other races?
What can we learn about ourselves?

The goal here is not agreement, but understanding. Each participant has to desire more to understand than to be understood, and more to learn than to teach.

And here's a snippet from Brian's commentary and questions regarding the speech:

Have you listened to Rev. Wright’s statements? Did you find any truth in them? What offended you or struck you as false or wrong? Why do you think he made these statements? Why would some people say “Amen” to these statements?

Can you think of opposite statements that might be made (or have been made) by a white American that could be equally appalling to African Americans or other people of color? How would people react to these statements? . . . .

Why do you think Sunday morning is the most segregated hour of the week? Why haven’t our churches done more to bring racial reconciliation and deal with deep-seated anger about race? The speech asks us to do two things: to acknowledge that the anger isn’t always productive, and to acknowledge that it is real and powerful. Why is that difficult? Why is it easier to “condemn it without understanding its roots?”

In my view, this is exactly the kind of discussion we need to have.  And Brian's emphasis on working toward understanding (rather than agreement) is spot-on.  Read the whole thing.   

I pledge to engage a group of fellow Americans in this kind of conversation in the coming months.    I'll let you know how it goes.  If you decide to do something similar, I'd love to hear about your conversation.  And, by the way, Brian McLaren says that "[i]f someone would like to start a website to share their experiences from using these discussion questions, send the link and [he'll] post it at www.brianmclaren.net and www.deepshift.org."

P.S.  Because Brian's model uses Obama's speech, I would urge people to conduct these kinds of discussions outside the auspices of any tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, whether a church or other nonprofit.  That's how I read Brian's suggestion of gathering a group of friends, but I thought I should make that explicit.

District of Columbia v. Heller

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument earlier today in District of Columbia v. Heller, the case involving the District of Columbia's gun-control law.  SCOTUSblog provides an index to its coverage of the case.  You may find audio of oral argument there as well as many other resources.  Look below the fold for a snippet from some of the coverage of oral argument and a brief description of some of the amicus briefs filed by religious groups in this case.

Diminishing Racial Divides Within the Christian Community and Beyond (Updated)

The political events of the last few days and Barack Obama's speech earlier today have turned my thoughts back to the New Baptist Covenant, an alliance of Baptist individuals and groups of different races and regions.  I am wondering if this moment could provide us with an excellent opportunity to take the next step in our efforts to diminish racial divides within the Christian community and beyond. 

Here's one rough idea for taking that next step.  Those associated with the New Baptist Covenant could ask a group of Christians of different races and political persuasions to write brief essays about race and religion and perfecting our faith and our country.  Those essays could be posted on a website and meetings could be organized in a variety of cities across America on a series of Sunday afternoons that would use these essays as starting points for conversation.  The meetings would be moderated by a few respected Christian leaders of diverse races and political perspectives.  (For a variety of reasons, however, I don't think politicians should be invited or included in these discussions.  Among other things, that means that these meetings should not be associated in any way with the Obama campaign or any other political campaign.)   The meetings would be aimed at speaking the truth with love, hearing those truths, and seeking to identify practical and positive steps that the community could take to heal racial divides that exist within Christianity and among Americans more broadly.

We made a good start at addressing this issue with the recent celebration of the New Baptist Covenant.  But, clearly, much more needs to be done to diminish the divides.  This would be one way for us to continue to keep the conversations going and to look for practical ways to move forward together. 

UPDATE (3/20):  The New York Times notes that the speech is spurring a host of people to think about how to continue the conversation about race and religion in America.   One of the people quoted in the story is the Rev. Joel Hunter.

Programming Note

My kids are out of school this week, so I won't be doing much writing for the blog.  I'll try to post links to a few items of interest.

Obama to Give Speech About Race and the Campaign Tomorrow (Updated)

"Barack Obama will give a major speech on 'the larger issue of race in this campaign,' he told reporters in Monaca, PA just now."  Here's more from Ben Smith's blog:

"I am going to be talking about not just [his former pastor,] Reverend Wright, but the larger issue of race in this campaign," [Obama] said.

He added that he would "talk about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church issue for example," he said.

He also briefly defended Wright from the image that has come through in a handful of repeatedly televised clips from recent Wright sermons.

"The caricature that’s being painted of him is not accurate," he said.

Obama made some additional comments on these issues in an interview with Gwyn Ifill.   Look below the fold for a long excerpt from the transcript of that interview.

UPDATE (3/18): The text of the speech is here.

California Home Schooling Decision

I have not had the chance yet to read the recent California Court of Appeal's decision on homeschooling, but I want to flag the fact that today's Los Angeles Times reports that "Kevin Snider, a lawyer with the Pacific Justice Institute who is representing Sunland Christian School, which specializes in religious home-schooling, said he would ask Friday for a new hearing at the state appellate court level and also request a hearing before the state Supreme Court."   Let me also flag an essay on this decision written by Professors Vik Amar and Alan Brownstein.  (Thanks to Howard Bashman for highlighting this article.)  I'll have to read the decision before figuring out whether I agree with what Amar and Brownstein have to say about it.  But, in any case, I certainly recommend reading the Amar/Brownstein essay.  Whether one agrees or disagrees with these scholars, their work is always well worth reading.

Statement by Southern Baptist Leaders on Creation Care

This declaration by some Southern Baptists on climate change and the environment has certainly turned up the temperature within Southern Baptist circles.  The signatories include some high-profile Baptist leaders, but the statement was not endorsed by any Southern Baptist entity.  I think David Gushee has some wise words regarding certain reactions to this initiative:

For those who are attacking this statement out of loyalty to a summertime SBC resolution or loyalty to “the convention,” I urge you to respect the conscientious effort of your brothers and sisters in Christ to follow Jesus and obey Scripture, and I remind you that Jesus is the only Lord before whom we must bow.

For those who are attacking this statement as too little and too late, I urge you to consider this proposal: Followers of Jesus should respond to brothers and sisters who are venturing onto the right path not by slapping them around but by welcoming them on the journey and offering a helping hand.

Let me offer my congratulations to Jonathan Merritt and the other signatories to this statement.

More Details Regarding Grassley-Baucus Probe

From Eric Gorski's story on today's release of the Grassley-Baucus letters:

Having [Senator] Baucus on board is crucial for any potential bid to seek subpoenas forcing answers from uncooperative ministries. Grassley critics, including Creflo Dollar, one of the ministers not cooperating, have portrayed the senator as a renegade who has no real power because his party is in the minority. . . .

A [spokesman for Benny Hinn Ministries] said Wednesday the church intends to answer all of Grassley's questions "in a timely fashion" and looks forward to a "speedy and cooperative resolution." . . .

The letters from Baucus and Grassley say the committee is willing to work with [those who have not cooperated with the probe thus far] to protect confidential information. . . .

Ken Behr, president of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability [ECFA], a voluntary group that sets financial standards for its members, said Wednesday that he has been contacted by "a few" of the ministries about the prospect of joining and one is applying to the council.

Behr said that for privacy reasons he couldn't identify the groups, which if they join would be required to disclose detailed reports about their income and spending and meet other standards.

Two quick reactions to this report.  First, let me just note that the statement from Hinn ministries answers my question regarding its current posture on the investigation.   Second, I'm pleased to hear that some of these ministries are considering joining ECFA.  As this report indicates, the religious community is divided in its reaction to the Grassley probe.  But it should be able to unite around a call for these ministries to be accountable and fully transparent to independent religious organizations.   

A Few Initial Observations Regarding the Grassley-Baucus Letters

I've only had time to give a quick read to the letters Senator Grassley and Baucus sent to certain "mega-ministries" yesterday, but here are a few initial observations. 

1) Referring to the first round of letters (the ones that were sent in November 2007), the letters the Senators sent this week say: "The Committee conferred with the Senate Legal Counsel to ensure that the letter was well within the scope of the authority of the Committee and that it does not infringe upon First Amendment rights."  The problem is that the Senators apparently have not "shown their work" on First Amendment issues in these letters, and they did not do so in the earlier letters either.   Indeed, I have not seen any written explanation from Senator Grassley about why the probe does not run afoul of  First Amendment protections.  (As always, please let me know if I have missed anything.)  Particularly in light of the outcry that the initial letters triggered, it seems puzzling and counterproductive for the Senators not to make their case on this issue in writing, both for the televangelists and the public. 

2) The letter says that the purpose of the probe is to "determin[e] the effectiveness of tax policy developed by the committee,"  describing that task as being "distinct from the Internal Revenue Service's role, which is to enforce existing law."   One of the concerns that has been raised, however, is that part of the Committee's function here seems similar to some of the ways the IRS functions.  If that is the case, then shouldn't Congress at least observe the same rules it has said the IRS must observe when it carries out enforcement actions vis-a-vis churches?  Perhaps there are good answers to questions like this one, but the letters do not appear to provide them.

Senators Grassley and Baucus Send Letters to Certain Televangelists (Updated)

The Des Moines Register is reporting that Senator Chuck Grassley said earlier today that he has sent a second round of letters to certain televangelists asking about spending in their tax-exempt ministries.  (For some background on this matter, click here.)  Here's more from the Register story:

Grassley told Iowa reporters in a conference call that the letters went out on Tuesday and will be publicly released later today. He said that two televangelists that have cooperated with his probe, Benny Hinn and Joyce Meyer, were not sent letters.

"They were carefully drafted and carefully redrafted," Grassley said of the letters.

Some of the ministers strongly objected to Congress asking questions, so Grassley said in the letters he has tried to re-emphasize the authority of Congress to oversee the Internal Revenue Service and review tax laws bearing on non-profits.

"Quite frankly, IRS doesn’t know everything," he said.

These letters should make for interesting reading.  They have not been posted on the Senator's website yet.   They may pop up there later today.  NOTE: See update for a link to the letters.

UPDATE:  Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting a part of the story that is at least as important: "Sen. Max Baucus of Montana joined with Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley in urging cooperation from four ministries. . . . Letters to the ministries from Grassley and Baucus set a March 31 deadline for the groups to turn over the requested information."  Baucus serves as the chair of the Senate Finance Committee.  As AP explains, "[h]aving Baucus on board is crucial because Grassley, as the committee's ranking Republican, would need him to seek subpoenas forcing answers from uncooperative ministries. " 

The press release and the letters from Grassley and Baucus are posted here.  I've updated the title of this post accordingly.

ANOTHER UPDATE:  From a related story in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Dean Zerbe, a lawyer who served the committee until going to work for a group of tax specialists Houston last month, said the letter is a clear signal to the ministries who refused to send documents that Baucus backed the effort and to "pull their socks up" and cooperate.

The letter says Grassley and Baucus hope to avoid "resorting to compulsory process."

"That is committee speak for saying that we are going to subpoena," Zerbe said.

Baucus and Grassley together have the power to issue subpoenas for the committee.

Second Muslim Elected to Congress

From the Associated Press:

Indiana voters on Tuesday elected a Muslim to Congress, only the second of that faith chosen in U.S. history.

Andre Carson, grandson of the late Democrat Rep. Julia Carson, was elected to serve the balance of her term in the U.S. House of Representatives in a special election. . . .

The first and only other Muslim member of the U.S. Congress is Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, also a Democrat, who is in his first term.

If Carson decides to use the Qu'ran in his swearing-in photo op, let's hope Rep. Virgil Goode will behave better than he did the last time this happened.

President Bush to Speak to NRB (Updated)

President Bush is scheduled to speak to the National Religious Broadcasters convention this morning.  The Christian Post reports that he will address the "global war on terror."

UPDATE:  The text of President Bush's remarks is here.

Programming Note

I've been kind of limping along in my blogging this week due to a winter bug that has hit our family.  Today it is clear to me that I can't even limp.   I'll be back in a few days.

Non-Campaign Round-up

1.  Press Release on Interfaith Mini-Conference on U.S.-Sponsored Torture (NRCAT)

Don't miss the Interfaith Mini-Conference on U.S.-Sponsored Torture, Fri., March 7, 9 - 11 a.m -[in Washington, D.C.] This event will examine the nature of U.S.-sponsored torture in the context of the teachings of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It will also describe concrete steps people of faith can take to end torture.  Many will be in Washington that weekend for Ecumenical Advocacy Days and/or Interfaith Peace Witness, sponsored by Christian Peace Witness for Iraq and The Olive Branch Interfaith Peace Partners. Please click on Ecumenical Advocacy Days and Interfaith Peace Witness to learn more about these two events and to register.

2.  Ministers condemn hateful rhetoric on immigration (Op-ed from Tucson Citizen via Ian Danley)

While we recognize the need to respect our nation's laws, we believe we can reach reasonable solutions to our immigration problems without having to describe human beings in subhuman terms. We want to urge the leading voices of our local political battles and the candidates who stand behind the lecterns at our national presidential debates to remember that regardless of their position on the immigration issue, hateful, inflammatory speech is unnecessary and unacceptable. As Christians, we never have the option to speak about or treat others in a way that diminishes their worth as human beings. As Americans, we should know better.

3.  "How many non-believers?" (Op-ed by John Allen Paulos)

Are there more atheists and agnostics in this country than is commonly supposed? Two studies -- last week's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey from the Pew Forum and one published two years ago -- suggest so.

The 2006 study from the University of Minnesota does not examine the question of how many non- believers there are but rather makes clear the troubling depth of Americans' distrust of them. . . .

[The Pew Forum survey reveals that] almost one in six (16.1%) of the respondents said they are not affiliated with any particular religious faith, and this figure rises to one in four for 18- to 29-year-olds. Of course, unaffiliated does not mean irreligious, but 4% of Americans say exactly that, with 1.6% and 2.4% describing themselves as atheists and agnostics, respectively. The remaining 12% who are unaffiliated are split more or less in half between those who say they are secular and unaffiliated and those who say they are religious but unaffiliated.

Let me put the two studies together and speculate a bit. Given the negative attitudes toward atheists documented in the Minnesota study, and considering that most people probably don't see much advantage in incurring the distrust of their religious neighbors and colleagues, the testimony of many people formally classified as religious is suspect. Some nonbelievers, it seems to me, are likely either to lie and say they belong to some established creed, or to fudge their responses by saying they're spiritual and believe in a nebulously defined God, or are simply unsure.

Campaign Round-up

1.  McCain and the Hagee Endorsment

Mark Silk has the latest: a statement by John Hagee.

2.  Obama on civil unions, abortion, and Sermon on Mount (Sarah Pulliam)

[Obama's] response came after Pastor Leon Forte, who heads up Grace Christian Center in Athens, Ohio, asked about Obama's faith. The video is available here and the full transcript is available here.

“Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians,” Forte said. “They believe in the social agenda that you have. They have a problem with what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus test about who is worthy and who is not.”

Obama responded by saying he is a devout Christian, he prays to Jesus every night and tries to go to church as much as he can.

"I think what you may be referring to, though, when you say controversies, probably has more to do with two issues, which is abortion and gay marriage, which has become, I think, how people measure faith in the evangelical community."

Obama said that while he does not believe in gay marriage, he does think the state should allow civil unions that allow a same-sex couples to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other.

"If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans," Obama said.

. . . . Obama ended: "That's my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

3.  Huckabee beyond the '08 race (Washington Times via Michelle McGinty)

Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign may be nearing its end, but those around him say he won't disappear and is poised to claim political leadership of conservative evangelicals.

Mr. Huckabee's inner circle says he's the perfect bridge to re-establish the Christian right, which has suffered over the last decade, as a political force that speaks for millions of voters.

"He has become the leader of a new generation of Christian conservative voters," said Rex Nelson, who was communications director when Mr. Huckabee was Arkansas' governor. "The old leadership has either passed on in the case of [the Rev. Jerry] Falwell or become either irrelevant or out of touch — the Pat Robertson endorsement of Rudy Giuliani proves that."

"There is nobody else you can identify outside of Mike Huckabee as a leading person to take on that role, really in a new era where evangelicals care about a lot of things like the environment and working with the poor," Mr. Nelson said.

Religiously Affiliated Law Schools Conference

Boston College Law School is hosting a conference of religiously affiliated law schools from April 6-8, 2008.  Here's the conference overview:

Faith can spark professional formation and intellectual growth as well as spiritual and moral development. The Conference presentations and panels will center on the relationship between religion and a lawyer’s professional formation, that is, how faith can influence the growth of our students as lawyers and the development of our faculty members as scholars, teachers, and mentors. This two-day event should be of great interest both to faculty and to student service professionals.

Here's the schedule for the conference.  Thanks to Rick Garnett for this information.

New Voice Media Group

Check out New Voice Media Group.  It is "a strategic alliance of Baptist communications organizations to provide a 'multimedia platform' for historic and progressive Baptists and other global Christians."   This new platform will "[d]evelop a state-of-the-art 'multimedia platform' to disseminate news, features, opinion and information" and "[c]reate an online gathering place for historic and progressive Baptists and other global Christians to share ideas."  New Voice Media Group is a partnership of four groups: Associated Baptist Press, the Baptist Standard of Texas, Word&Way of Missouri and the Religious Herald of Virginia.  It looks like a very promising venture.

Former SG Waxman to Represent UCC in IRS Matter

Via Don Byrd, I see that the United Church of Christ has retained former Solicitor General Seth Waxman and other attorneys from WilmerHale to represent the denomination in relation to the IRS inquiry regarding Barack Obama's June 2007 speech to the UCC, Obama's denomination.  Here's a statement from Waxman that is included in the UCC story:

"I am confident that, when the IRS learns all the relevant facts, it will conclude that the General Synod of the United Church of Christ did not come close to conducting political campaign activity at its 2007 gathering," Waxman said.

"There is a bigger issue here that affects faith communities in general," Waxman said. "The IRS must proceed with great care and sensitivity to the First Amendment when it initiates an investigation in reaction to a speech at a religious event; and, when it learns that there is no basis to proceed, it must announce that conclusion quickly and clearly. We hope that the IRS does so here."

WilmerHale also said it will not charge the denomination for its attorneys' time, prompting church leaders to halt further appeals for a newly created "UCC Legal Fund," an online effort that raised $59,564 in less than a week. It was expected that the UCC's legal challenge easily could exceed the six-figure mark.

The rest of the UCC legal team includes these lawyers: "Randolph D. Moss, co-chair of WilmerHale's Government and Regulatory Litigation practice group; William J. Wilkins, chair-elect of the American Bar Association's Section of Taxation and a fellow of the American College of Tax Counsel; and Brian J. Menkes, former chair of the D.C. Bar Association Taxation Section, Exempt Organizations Committee."  In short, the UCC has something of a "dream team" to handle this matter on its behalf.