Melissa Rogers

FLDS Round-up

From today's news:

• Texas child welfare officials claim that more than half of the teenage girls taken from the Texas compound of the polygamous Fundamentalist Latter day Saints (FLDS) are pregnant or mothers, but FLDS attorneys question those claims.   
• Representative Kay Granger (R-TX) has asked the House Armed Services Committee to hold investigative hearings regarding three Defense Department contractors that reportedly have close ties to the FLDS.  She and some other lawmakers want to know if government funds from those deals have been used to support FLDS activities.   
• A federal appellate judge will begin "a private review today of computer hard drives and 1,000 boxes of documents seized from the Yearning for Zion Ranch to determine which may fall under the protections of the clergy-penitent privilege."

There are excerpts from each of these stories below the fold.

Bill Leonard on "Rev. Wright and the Black Church"

Dr. Bill Leonard, dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School and professor of church history, will be on NPR's "On Point" show this morning to discuss "Rev. Wright and the Black Church."   The program is on from 10-11am (ET).  You may listen to the program live here (click on button at top left-hand side of the screen).

Rev. Wright Round-up (Updated)

It appears that C-SPAN will broadcast Rev. Jeremiah Wright's remarks at the National Press Club this morning, beginning at 9am (ET).   There are links below the fold to coverage of Rev. Wright's speaking engagements this past weekend.

UPDATE: I've added a few links below the fold. 

ANOTHER UPDATE:  A transcript of Rev. Wright's talk (including the Q and A) at the National Press Club is here.  Video of the event is here. 

Baptism Check?

"[I]n an April 23 interview on his campaign bus in West Virginia [John McCain] declined to discuss why he hasn't been baptized by [his pastor]. 'It's a personal thing,' McCain repeated three times."  Given the fact that McCain has sent some confusing signals about his religious affiliation on the campaign trail in the past, I can understand a question or two to clear that up.   But badgering the man about baptism?   Is it now an unofficial requirement for a presidential candidate to discuss his or her baptism or lack thereof?  Back off, media.

Thursday FLDS Round-up

Stories from today's news on the legal proceedings regarding the Texas polygamist community of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) include the following reports:

• The Washington Post obtains an affidavit that says that calls that purportedly came from teenage FLDS girl on Texas ranch actually came from a 33-year-old Colorado woman who may have been involved in other instances of making calls to allege abuse by a pastor, uncle, or father. 
• Texas Child Protection Services gives guidance to foster homes about how to care for FLDS children. 
• Some Texas attorneys propose that cases for the 437 FLDS children "be separated and spread among family law judges throughout Texas so emergency hearings can begin immediately." 
• Senator Harry Reid sends a letter to Attorney General Mukasey asking him to get the federal government involved in combatting "pervasive criminal activity" by polygamous communities across the southwestern United States. 
• The Salt Lake Tribune covers a panel discussion of the Salt Lake Bar Association in which various concerns were raised about the government's handling of this matter. 
• After refusing to issue an order earlier this week to keep breast-feeding moms and babies together, Texas District Judge Barbara Walther said yesterday that adult mothers of infants should remain with those infants while the babies are in state custody. 

Excerpts from each of these stories appear below the fold.

"The African American Religious Experience; Theology & Practice" (Updated)

That's the title of a talk the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright will give next week at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.  Here's part of the blurb on Wright's presentation:

The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A Wright Jr.,  senior pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, will discuss the role of faith in the public square in a presentation entitled, The African American Religious Experience; Theology & Practice, at a National Press Club breakfast on April 28th.
        Dr. Wright will also talk about his pastorate, his development as a theologian and teacher, and how the issues of social justice and global inequities have shaped his faith and his fight for those who are most marginalized in society. He will address the legacy and tradition of education in his family. And Dr. Wright will put into perspective theologically, historically and politically, his ministry and public service that has been so widely discussed in the media.

And, as has already been widely noted, Wright will join Bill Moyers this Friday on Bill Moyers Journal.

UPDATE: The Caucus gets a preview of Wright's comments on Bill Moyers Journal.

FLDS Round-up

A round-up of some of today's press on the FLDS legal proceedings in Texas is below the fold.  Stories include reports on controversies over a "tip sheet" that the state has developed regarding the FLDS, the DNA testing of FLDS parents and children, plans for care of the children while they are in state custody, and concerns raised by the Texas ACLU about the proceedings that have taken place thus far.

South Carolina Church Takes Down Sign

The church in South Carolina that had posted a message on its sign attempting to smear Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama has now changed the message on that sign.

The sign in front of the Jonesville Church of God said, "Obama, Osama, hmm, are they brothers?"

On Tuesday, the Church Of God's International Office issued a statement saying that the sign had been removed. (Full Text Of Church Of God Statement)

The message on the sign now reads: "How will you spend eternity, smoking or no smoking?" . . . .

The amount of attention the message received surprised [the pastor of the Jonesville church, Roger] Byrd.

"I'm very surprised," he said, "It shocked me and startled me." . . . .

The WYFF4.com story about the sign was viewed more than a quarter million times by users across the country. Hundreds of negative comments regarding the sign were posted online. On Tuesday, Byrd apparently decided the wording on the sign should be replaced.

He was not available for comment on Tuesday.

The Church of God's International Offices obviously realized that the sign was a problem and likely had some private words with the pastor of the church.  In its April 22 press release entitled Statement Regarding Jonesville, South Carolina Church of God, it says:

The Church of God (Cleveland, TN) makes no endorsement in political campaigns, whether on the state, local, or federal level.  We encourage our local congregations to follow a similar path.  Any endorsement, direct or implied, made by a local church is regrettable and is not supported by Church of God.  To our knowledge the sign has been removed.  While we do support a government based upon Biblical principles and we encourage our members to participate in the political process based upon their personal convictions, the single goal and purpose of the Church of God is the furtherance of the ministry of the gospel.

In terms of the IRS rules, the red flag here related to a possible implied statement of opposition to a candidate for elective public office rather than a possible implied endorsement of a such candidate.  But both implied endorsements and implied statements of opposition are equally problematic under IRS rules.  The IRS has said: "Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate."  So the Church of God is properly taking steps to distance itself from the Jonesville church's action, protect its own status as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity, and send a message to local church bodies, including the Jonesville church. 

Having said that, it would have been better if the denomination had spoken more directly and emphatically to the issues of Christian ethics that were raised here.  After all, the single goal and purpose of the Church that is enumerated in its statement certainly has been damaged by this episode.  In my view, the fact that this denomination may be organized such that local churches have autonomy to make their own decisions does not mean that a national body cannot say what it thinks about those decisions in appropriate cases.  Given the national attention that this case has received, it seems to me that this is one of those cases.  Perhaps the Church of God will have more to say about this case in other statements or communications.

In any case, I hope the Jonesville Church of God and its pastor have had a change of heart as well as a change of their sign's message. 

FLDS Proceedings Include a Tangle of Church-State Issues

The Salt Lake Tribune is providing some good coverage of the legal proceedings involving the polygamist community of the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints in Texas.  Here's a snippet from today's report:

The Texas judge overseeing the polygamous FLDS sect's case has rebuffed pleas to allow breast-feeding mothers to remain with their children in state custody.
    Judge Barbara Walther did rule that the women and children currently staying at the San Angelo Coliseum could meet twice a day to pray without being monitored by state workers.
    Instead, she asked Texas Child Protective Services to find a member of the mainstream LDS Church or some other "appropriate religious person" who would not be seen as "making their service less sacred" to oversee the sessions.
    Walther's suggestion comes just four days after an apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appealed to news media to make a "clear distinction" between the two groups and reiterated that they have no connection.  . . .
        A spokesman for the LDS Church had no comment on Walther's suggestion Monday night. But John Walsh, who has studied both the LDS Church and fundamentalist groups, said it was "problematic."
    "To me it shows that the judge does not have a nuanced understanding of Mormon culture and of the very different churches that are part of the Mormon umbrella," said Walsh, who testified before Walther last week about FLDS practices.
    "She is in essence saying that we want one branch of the schism to supervise the other branch, which in any other religion would be problematic."

Howard Friedman also has another helpful post updating the developments in these proceedings.  For the moment, I am simply tracking these proceedings and the church-state issues they raise.        

Won't you take me to. . . Hucktown?

In a speech last week at Cornell University, Mike Huckabee "said in an ideal society, a fictitious place he labeled 'Hucktown,' citizens would guide themselves with their religious and moral beliefs and would take responsibility for their actions."  The Ithacan reports on the speech, which was entitled “In God We Trust: The Role of Faith in Politics."

Huckabee said he disliked being pigeonholed as the “God guy” during his political campaign, but he liked to be honest about his religious beliefs since they shaped his ideals and personality. He said he would rather be known for his views on education — he supports strong arts and music programs in all schools — and gun control, a topic that came up in the question and answer session.

Huckabee did . . . . encourage religious diversity in politics and praised Congressman Pete Stark (D-Calif.) for being so open about his atheism. He said most politicians are not honest with the public or even themselves about how their religious beliefs permeate their decisions.

“What we need [politicians] to say is ‘My faith is very important to me, let me tell you how it affects me, and if that’s problematic for you, well, then don’t vote for me,’” he said. “My faith does affect me. It makes me have a deep concern about people.’”

Huckabee devoted a good portion of his time to issues such as poverty and hunger. He said in an ideal society, a fictitious place he labeled “Hucktown,” citizens would guide themselves with their religious and moral beliefs and would take responsibility for their actions. This, he said, would be more productive than Democrats and Republicans debating about  government involvement in their lives.

The video of the talk is posted here.  I haven't had time to listen to the whole speech yet, so I don't want to comment on it specifically. 

By the way, if you haven't seen it already, here's HuckPAC.   The Hill blog reports that "[t]he first batch of candidates the PAC will support includes: Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.),  running for a ninth term in the House; New Hampshire state Sen. Bob Clegg (R), who is hoping to unseat freshman Rep. Paul Hodes (D); and Gilbert Baker (R), who is running for re-election in Arkansas’s state senate. All three had backed Huckabee’s run for the White House."   

Some conservatives apparently are a bit disappointed that Huckabee chose to launch a PAC rather than a national organization focued on social issues.  Here's Matt Hall of Townhall:

A Surprising, and Deeply Disappointing, Entry into the Politics of Fear and Smear

When the presidential campaign began, we expected that some would try to smear Senator Barack Obama by attempting to link him to terrorist Osama bin Laden.  We just did not expect that a church would be part of that effort. 

A South Carolina pastor says he wasn't trying to be political when he posted a sign in front of his church linking Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

Pastor Roger Byrd said he just wanted to make people think when he put up a sign reading "Obama, Osama — humm, are they brothers" in front of the Jonesville Church of God on Thursday.

This is terribly shameful, particularly given the fact that the congregation apparently has now voted unanimously to keep the sign up.  It's also dumb, that is if the church is concerned about avoiding IRS scrutiny regarding its tax-exempt status.  A local news outlet got these quotes from the church's pastor:

[Pastor Roger Byrd] said that the message wasn't meant to be racial or political.

"It's simply to cause people to realize and to see what possibly could happen if we were to get someone in there that does not believe in Jesus Christ," he said.

When asked if he believes that Barack Obama is Muslim, Byrd said, "I don't know. See it asks a question: Are they brothers? In other words, is he Muslim ? I don't know. He says he's not. I hope he's not. But I don't know. And it's just something to try to stir people's minds. It was never intended to hurt feelings or to offend anybody."

Obama has said repeatedly during his campaign that he is a Christian and attends Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Despite some criticism, Byrd says that the message will stay on the sign. He took the issue before his congregation Sunday night, and they decided unanimously to keep it.

Byrd also said he doesn't want it to look like controversy forced him to take the sign down.

There are so many things wrong with this, it's difficult to know where to start.  Let me just say a few things.  If a person tries to smear his neighbor, it's pretty safe to say that he is not loving that neighbor.  Then there is that prohibition against bearing false witness against one's neighbor.*   Further, if a church creates false impressions in its community, it's pretty safe to say that the church is not speaking the truth in love or serving as the light of the world.  And if a Christian body stirs up unfounded fears in its community, it is pretty clear that that body could stand to revisit the following verse from scripture: "God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."  (II Timothy 1:7)  Finally, if Christians refuse to turn away from these things, how can we say that we are seeking first to be right with God?   

I'm sure this will burn up the blogosphere, as it should.  But I hope and pray that some group of Christians in this town (Jonesville, South Carolina) will confront the members of this church face-to-face and call on them to repent for this action. 

* added

"Nothing about this case is typical."

Those how Betty Balli Torres, executive director of the Texas Access to Justice Foundation, describes the legal proceedings that begin today regarding hundreds of children who have been removed from a West Texas polygamist community of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Dallas Morning News calls it "the largest child-welfare case in U.S. history. "  Here's more from the Dallas Morning News:

At issue is whether the 416 children in state custody will go to foster homes and group homes, live with relatives or be returned to their parents at the “Yearning For Zion Ranch” in Eldorado, run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Aside from the sheer number of potential victims involved, the case is made even cloudier by the need for hundreds of attorneys and child advocates, special circumstances involving minor mothers and religious customs, and a legal and logistical quagmire that lawyers fear this courthouse in the sparsely populated Tom Green County won’t be able to handle. . . . .

Meanwhile, the New York Times notes that there are disputes about how the children are being treated while in state custody:

Texas child welfare officials and parents of many of the more than 400 children seized in a raid on a polygamist religious compound in West Texas differ sharply on how the children are faring after two weeks in state custody. . . .

A spokesman for the State Department of Family and Protective Services said Wednesday that the children, most of whom are now at the San Angelo Coliseum, a midsize multipurpose arena, were doing well, eating good food and happily playing ball on a local football field under adult supervision.

Some mothers, however, painted a different picture. Separated from their offspring on Monday so that the older children could be questioned about abuse that may have occurred at the compound, the mothers said their children, who had previously been held inside an old military facility called Fort Concho, had wanted only to go home. Colds and a wave of chickenpox had swept through the fort’s close quarters, they said.

“Life at Fort Concho was very much like a concentration camp,” said one mother, a woman who gave only a first name, Amy, in speaking with a reporter.

The question asked by both sides in the tempestuous, complicated aftermath of the raid this month in Eldorado, about 45 miles from here, is what is best for the children who have already been subjected to the trauma of the removal from their homes.

But answers to that question are tied up in emotion, politics and religion, all set against what legal experts say is Texas’s underfinanced and overextended state child welfare system.

Howard Friedman's posts (see here and here) provide helpful background on this matter and the legal issues raised by it.

Judge Rules in Case Involving Portrait of Jesus in Slidell Courthouse

"A federal judge on Wednesday agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana that a decision by Slidell officials to hang a portrait of Jesus on the wall at Slidell City Court was unlawful."  Here's more from the Times Picayune:

The ACLU filed the lawsuit after court officials refused the organization's request to remove the portrait and lettering underneath that says, "To know peace, obey these laws." A week before Lemelle heard arguments in the case in September, court officials expanded the display to include other "notable law-givers," replacing the Jesus portrait with a copy of the Constitution in the center position and moving the portrait to the end of the wall.

Lemelle said at the time that he likely would have granted a request by the ACLU to remove the portrait, as it clearly demonstrated a religious purpose and intent, violating the establishment clause of the Constitution and running afoul of Supreme Court rulings.

But Lemelle said he chose not to order its removal based on the fact that court officials had expanded the display, thereby turning it into one that a reasonable person could assume has a secular purpose. Lemelle, who noted that the case essentially is over, added that he believed court officials had corrected their initial mistake.

The ruling is here.

Transcript of "Compassion Forum" and Programming Note

The transcript of last night's "Compassion Forum" is here.   I'll be tied up today and tomorrow and mostly unable to blog.  In the meantime,  if you have thoughts to share on the forum last night or related issues, I welcome them.

Campaign Round-up

Barack Obama reportedly plans to announce that he has formed a "Catholic Advisory Council" later today.  John McCain is reportedly working on assembling a large advisory committee that will include religious leaders.  McCain also apparently has plans for a "Compassion Tour."   Details below the fold.

Reports on Huckabee's Conference Call

Michael Scherer reports that Mike Huckabee will unveil "Huck PAC" next week, "a new political action committee to support other conservative candidates for federal office, including John McCain's presidential campaign."  Scherer also provides some reporting on Huckabee's conference call last night.  Here's a snippet from Scherer's report:

In addition to campaigning for McCain, Huckabee also said he has plans to write a new book. On what might he now opine? Well, it’s clear he has a lot of strong opinions about the lessons learned from his campaign. For starters, as he said Thursday, Christian conservatives should move beyond their worries about winning and losing, and just vote for their favorite candidate. He said he was still disappointed in the "so-called leaders" of the conservative movement, the "doubters" and the "ones who stand in the pulpits" who did not support him even though he agreed with him. "When it comes to their own political realm they think more secularly than the secular," he said on the phone call. "Some really worship at the alter of electability.”

The Morning News for Northwest Arkansas adds these details:

[Speaking of the religious leaders who did not endorse his candidacy, Huckabee said,] "When it gets to their own political realm, they think more secularly than even the secular people. That was very troubling." . . . .

Evangelical leaders such as Paul Weyrich reportedly have said privately they regret not endorsing Huckabee early on in the race. Focus on the Family's James Dobson gave his support to Huckabee when only Huckabee and McCain remained in the Republican field.

"There were leaders of the conservative movement that, had they stood with me early, I think the outcome would have been different," Huckabee said.

Huckabee said he is now focused on helping elect conservative governors and members of Congress who share his political views.

Aaron Krager also has filed a report on the call.  You can listen to the audio of the call here.

Copeland Ministries Writes to the IRS

"Attorneys for Kenneth Copeland Ministries sent a letter to the IRS' Office of Examinations on Monday saying the church was willing to cooperate with a tax inquiry by the agency."  Here's more from the AP story:

Leaders of the television ministry contend that dozens of questions about expenses, executive compensation and amenities asked by Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, are similar to those posed in an IRS church tax inquiry. In the letter, attorneys for the ministry say the appropriate procedure would be for Grassley to obtain the information from the IRS after the agency conducts an audit of the church.

Copeland representatives previously delivered a letter to Grassley reiterating that the IRS, and not a Senate committee, should be dealing with the questions the senator raised.

"The church is confident that, upon the conclusion of a 90-day church tax inquiry ... the IRS will conclude that it is unnecessary to pursue a church tax examination," the letter sent to the IRS said.

The letter from Copeland Ministries to the IRS is here.  (The letter from Copeland Ministries to Senator Grassley is here.)  Here's a snippet from the letter to the IRS:

The format and content of Senator Grassley's letter [to Copeland's ministry] was substantially similar to that of an Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") church tax inquiry letter sent in accordance with section 7611 of the Internal Revenue Code.  . . .

The Church has indicated to Senator Grassley that it would be willing to cooperate with the IRS to ensure that any information requested through a properly conducted church tax inquiry is provided to the IRS in a timely and efficient manner.  The Church has asked me to write to you separately to pledge its cooperation in that regard as well. 

I don't have time to comment on this letter right now, but I wanted to flag it.

Texas Santeria Priest Files Appeal

"A Santeria priest who lost a federal challenge alleging Euless' ban on animal slaughter encroached on his right to practice religion in his home is appealing the case."  Here's more from the AP story:

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed an appeal Tuesday on behalf of Jose Merced to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

"The First Amendment was written to protect the ability of all faiths to worship in their own homes and in their own way," Kevin "Seamus" Hasson, founder and president of the Becket Fund, a Washington-based civil rights law firm, said in a news release. "People of all faiths should be concerned when the government says someone cannot practice their religion in their own home."

Merced — an Oba, or priest — said animal sacrifices are an essential devotion in Santeria, a religion born in Cuba by Yoruba slaves who fused elements of Roman Catholicism with beliefs they brought with them from Africa.

Merced sought a permit from the city but was denied permission to sacrifice goats as part of a religious ceremony. For the rite, a 4-inch blade is used to sever an animal's carotid artery, letting blood fall on a shrine. The animal is then prepared and eaten.

Euless officials have insisted in court that local sanitation ordinances prohibit the slaughter of certain kinds of animals inside city limits. Officials could not discuss the case because the city does not comment on pending litigation, said Euless spokeswoman Betsy Deck.

U.S. District Judge John McBryde ruled in favor of the city of Euless last month, saying Merced could perform his animal sacrifices elsewhere, but not in the Fort Worth suburb.

Thanks to Howard Friedman for the links to the district court ruling in this case and the Becket Fund's press release.

More on Huckabee's Next Move

"Mike Huckabee will hold a conference call with supporters tomorrow night to discuss his plans for a new political entity and to assure them that he plans to keep an active presence in this campaign and in future cycles, according to an aide. "  Here's more from Jonathan Martin's blog: 

He'll be joined on the call by Steve Strang, a Christian publisher and Huckabee backer whose magazine, "Charisma," just ran a very flattering cover piece on the former candidate that touts his future prospects.

"You will hear insider information about Huckabee’s scrappy campaign that surprised the nation and stunned Republican Party elites," promises Strang in an email to Huckabee backers.  "The 'preacher who dared to be president' will also discuss his plans for the future and reflect on the changing state of the conservative movement."

Huckabee won't formally launch his new political organization until next week -- think tax day, April 15th -- but he'll use the call to begin to develop what his supporters hope ultimately becomes a high-profile role in Christian conservative politics that will enable him to run again for president.

Martin notes that, "[i]n addition to emailing supporters, Huckabee has also had Strang post an advertisement about the call on his magazine's website."  That advertisement says that the topic of the call will be "Christians and the New Political Reality."  The Charisma cover piece on Huckabee is here.  My earlier post on this topic is here.

Yoffie and Hagee May Meet

"Now that they've called each other disrespectful, Rabbi Eric Yoffie and the Rev. John Hagee are ready to meet and discuss their differences - respectfully. "  Here's more from the Jerusalem Post (via Sarah Posner):

The two religious leaders have been squaring off for the past week.

Yoffie in a major speech April 2 called on Jews to dissociate themselves from Hagee and the organization he founded, Christians United for Israel, asserting that the pastor did not respect other faiths or the right of Israeli leaders to make territorial concessions.

Five days later Hagee, a San Antonio-based evangelical mega-church leader and arguably the country's most influential Christian Zionist, fired back in a conference call with reporters. . . .

Hours after Hagee's media call, however, both men were sounding a more conciliatory note.

"I was told he was interested in meeting with me," said Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism, in an interview with JTA. "I'd be delighted to sit down and talk to him."

Hagee's spokesman, Juda Engelmayer, confirmed that the pastor was considering such a meeting.

The Post's account of Hagee's remarks in response to Yoffie are below the fold.

Huckabee's Next Move (Upated)

From the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

More than a month after dropping out of the Republican nomination race, Mike Huckabee plans Tuesday to announce his next steps.

Since yielding to John McCain on March 4, the former Arkansas governor has made and scheduled several church, school and college appearances. He gave a keynote address Tuesday at a health-care conference outside of Palm Springs, Calif., and plans to headline an anti-abortion fundraiser in St. Louis next month.

Meanwhile, his Web site, mikehuckabee.com, began a countdown Tuesday morning to the unveiling of Huckabee’s next political move.

“Coming Soon” it says over a countdown clock.

That is all that is posted on the newspaper's website (apparently you can access more of the article if you are a subscriber to the paper).  Mike Huckabee's website is here.   Hotline on Call notes that Huckabee is "scheduled to give a speech at Cornell University that evening on 'In God We Trust: The Role of Faith in Politics.' "  (The press release is here.)  Here's more from the Hotline report:

"The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred," Huckabee said in Cornell press release announcing the lecture. "We should not banish religion from the public square, but should guarantee access to all voices and views. We should share and debate our faith, but never seek to impose it."

Rumors of Huckabee's next step have been swirling since he won the Iowa caucuses in January. Some have suggested he could play a leading role in galvanizing religious conservatives, or that he could launch a program around his Fair Tax proposal (his big rollout is on Tax Day). Others believe he may become a political commentator or host a television show. He has also been mentioned as a running mate for McCain.

Huckabee's daughter, Sarah, reiterated that the former Arkansas governor is not running for anything this year. The filing deadline to run for Senate in his home state has passed. She said the countdown is for the launch of Huckabee's new web site.

Huckabee might be considering launching a new religious organization that would engage in advocacy on policy and legal issues.  Or, perhaps he will launch a new initiative that relates to faith, law, and politics.  At first glance, the tax idea also seems viable, given the roll-out date and Huckabee's interest in that issue.   But, if Huckabee is going to announce some tax-related project, wouldn't it be a bit weird to roll it out on the same day that he is scheduled to make a speech about another topic?  Huckabee could try to combine all these things, but that seems tough to imagine.   If he gets a television show or otherwise becomes a talking head, however, that would seem to allow him to talk about all these issues and more.

In any case, Huckabee's April 15th speech will be worth reading.  I'll keep watching for hints about where he might be headed with this next chapter in his professional life.   

UPDATE:  In a post that comments on related issues but not specifically on this April 15th roll-out date, Sarah Posner writes:

Two forces are converging to create a perfect storm for Huckabee to emerge as the [politically conservative evangelical] movement's next big political leader. The first is the intense resentment by his supporters that the big names on the religious right . . . didn't line up behind him. The second factor is an emerging consensus among many evangelicals that rejects the vitriolic culture wars and the two or three-issue focus of the religious right.

Drew Dyck, age 31 and editor of New Man magazine, one of the early endorsers of Huckabee's presidential campaign (as was New Man's publisher, Stephen Strang, who is one of the signers of the anti-Romney-as-VP petition), says that his generation is not happy with the old guard's narrow focus and political maneuvering. When I suggested to Dyck in an interview last week that we might be living in a "post-Dobson era," he murmured, "I like the sound of that."

ANOTHER UPDATE:  There's some precedent for a religious leader running for president, failing in his bid, and then converting his campaign's infrastructure into a religiously affiliated advocacy organization.  Remember Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition?  Just something to think about as we wait. 

UPDATE ON 4/10:  A new post on this matter is here.

McCain's Pastor Initiates Interview with Associated Baptist Press

Associated Baptist Press (ABP) says Dan Yeary, pastor of North Phoenix Baptist Church, "initiated an interview with [ABP] in an attempt to quell continued journalistic curiosity about [John] McCain’s faith. . . ."  The lede of the story is that "John McCain has a deep and personal Christian commitment despite his reluctance to speak publicly about it, according to the man the presumptive GOP presidential nominee claims as his pastor." 

As the story notes, there's been some confusion about McCain's religious affiliation.  In 2007, ABP (and other news outlets) reported that McCain identified himself as a Baptist on "Sept. 16 at a campaign stop in heavily Baptist South Carolina."  Here's a snippet from that story:

The Arizona senator, according to the Associated Press, answered a question about how his Episcopal faith affects his decision-making by saying, “It plays a role in my life. By the way, I’m not [an] Episcopalian. I’m Baptist.”  . . . .

McCain, as recently as in a June interview with McClatchy newspapers, has consistently described himself as an Episcopalian. He was raised in the denomination and attended the prestigious Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Va. Biographical sketches in several well-known congressional directories -- information that is usually provided by members of Congress or their staffers -- list McCain’s faith as the Episcopal Church.

According to the most recent ABP story, McCain has not joined the Phoenix Baptist church, and, in official Congressional biographies, his affiliation continues to be listed as Episcopalian.   Cindy McCain has joined the Baptist church.  But Pastor Dan Yeary says he has a good (albeit "not . . .  particularly close," in the words of the ABP writer) relationship with the Arizona senator, who reportedly has attended the church for at least 17 years when he is in town.   In the ABP story, Yeary tries to shed some light on McCain's religious affiliations:

Grassley Hires New Counsel to Handle Tax-Exempt Policy and Investigations (Updated)

From Ya-edu.com:

After Dean A. Zerbe resigned his post as senior counsel to Sen. Charles E. Grassley in February, the nonprofit world breathed a collective sigh of relief. The man responsible for the government’s sharpest scrutiny of nonprofit organizations was gone, and few observers believed his replacement would have the same chops.

Not so fast. This afternoon the Iowa senator, who is the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, announced Mr. Zerbe’s replacement: Theresa Pattara, a former IRS official who recently spent a year working under Mr. Zerbe’s wing.

A tireless investigator with powerful convictions, Ms. Pattara, like her often-quoted predecessor, likes to speak her mind. She intends to follow the trail Mr. Zerbe blazed, continuing an investigation of college endowments and other nonprofit tax matters.

The press release from Senator Grassley's office says that "[p]rior to joining Grassley’s staff, Pattara was a project manager with the IRS Office of Exempt Organizations, where she managed two key projects -- the implementation of the charitable provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 and the revision of the Form 990. Since joining Exempt Organizations in September 2000, she also worked in Rulings and Agreements, Customer Education and Outreach and on the 990 e-file project."

UPDATE:  The Chronicle of Philanthropy story on this matter is here.

USCIRF Urges Bush to Boycott Opening Olympic Ceremonies

"A federal religious freedom watchdog panel has urged President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics unless "there is substantial improvement" in China's treatment of Tibet."  The story is here and the wide-ranging statement of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom is here.  (Thanks to FiPL.)

The McCain Campaign and Signs of Tone-Deafness on Evangelicals

The NYT has a substantial piece on the Rev. John Hagee's endorsement of John McCain and some related issues.  The article says: "A McCain adviser acknowledged on Monday that the campaign had failed to look into Mr. Hagee’s background adequately and said that as a result the campaign’s procedures for vetting endorsers had improved."   

If there ever was a day when a candidate could seek the endorsement of a religious leader and expect people not to look into the record of that religious leader, that day is clearly gone.  On its face, this is fair.  This kind of scrutiny happens with other endorsements, and candidates should not get a pass when it is the endorsement of religious leaders that they seek.  Candidate seek endorsements for political reasons (including the endorsement of religious leaders), and that's worth exploring.  There can be some cases where I think this scrutiny goes awry, but I'll have to write about that another day.

The Hagee endorsement, like McCain's earlier courtship of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, seems to be a sign of a certain tone-deafness or lack of familiarity with evangelicals.  There are certainly other politically conservative evangelicals who would carry less political baggage, appeal to a wider swath of evangelicals, and fit better with the messages McCain is trying to communicate.* 

To reiterate, I am not one who believes that McCain must or should talk about his personal faith (as opposed to his values).  He's certainly free to do that, but I would leave that decision entirely up to him.   I also am not one who believes that the campaign that has the most intentional and closest contact with religious groups is the one that values religion the most.  (Remember the Bush-Cheney campaign's demand for church directories?  That kind of outreach, while highly sophisticated and targeted at religious groups, is a sign of serious disrespect for religion.  By the way, there were some similar allegations about the McCain campaign in June 2007, allegations that the campaign said were unfounded.)  But I do think every campaign should seek to understand the nuances of religious (and other) communities, particularly before they strike out seeking endorsements and speaking engagements at various religious institutions.

*  I added this sentence and revised the one before it to make this post read more clearly.

Another One Bites the Dust (Updated)

"A federal court has dismissed a 10-year-old legal challenge brought by Kentucky taxpayers who questioned government funding of a Baptist social service agency."  Here's more from Adelle Banks' story:

The case involving Sunrise Children's Services, formerly known as Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, initially centered on the dismissal of Alicia Pedreira, who the agency learned was a lesbian. In 2001, a federal judge in Louisville, Ky., dismissed her claims of religious discrimination.

Pedreira and other taxpayers continued the suit, claiming that public funds were used for services "infused with the teachings of the Baptist faith."

Citing a recent Supreme Court decision, the same judge again ruled in favor of the agency, saying that the taxpayers did not demonstrate standing, or their right to sue the government.

In Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Supreme Court ruled last June that taxpayers affiliated with an atheist group did not have standing to challenge President Bush's faith-based initiative.

"We find that the claim of the taxpayers in this case is comparable to that in Hein," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Simpson III in a March 28 opinion.

The ruling does not appear to have been posted yet.   This adds to the list of Establishment Clause taxpayer lawsuits that have met their demise -- at least at this stage of the litigation* -- courtesy of the Hein decision.

*I added this phrase to the original post to clarify the sentence.

UPDATE (4/9):  The decision is posted here.   The following comments are drawn from the conclusion of an analysis of the case provided by Chip Lupu and Bob Tuttle:

We expect the plaintiffs in Pedreira to appeal the dismissal of their Establishment Clause claim for lack of standing, and we believe that the plaintiffs have a good chance of prevailing in this appeal. If the 6^th Circuit reverses the district court, the case will be returned to the district court for a decision on whether or not the transfer of government funds to KBHC violates the Establishment Clause.

Despite the apparent strength of this appeal, there is no guarantee of its success. The district court's opinion in Pedreira is a stark reminder of Hein's potency as a signal that the federal courts may become increasingly less hospitable to lawsuits designed to enforce the restrictions of the Establishment Clause.

CNN to Broadcast Presidential "Compassion Forum"

Jennifer Butler sends along the following information:

CNN will serve as the exclusive broadcaster of a presidential-candidate forum on faith, values and other current issues at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa., April 13 at 8 p.m., officials said Monday.

CNN Election Center anchor Campbell Brownand Newsweek editor and Newsweek.com election anchor Jon Meacham will moderate what is being billed as The Compassion Forum, which will take place nine days before the Pennsylvania primary.

Organized and sponsored by Faith in Public Life, the 90-minute forum will consist of wide-ranging and probing discussions of policies related to moral issues.

It will feature Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the same stage to talk about these topics as each candidate sits down individually with the moderators. Sen. John McCain was also invited by Faith in Public Life to participate in the bi-partisan forum, but only Clinton and Obama have confirmed.

The website for the forum notes that it "will provide the opportunity for candidates to discuss how their faith and moral convictions bear on their positions" on issues such as "domestic and international poverty, global AIDS, climate change, genocide in Darfur, and human rights and torture."

Obama and Clinton Field Church-State Questions

Thanks to Pastordan for flagging this Q and A between the York Daily Record and Senator Barack Obama:

Q: York County was recently in the news for a lawsuit involving the teaching of intelligent design. What's your attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools?

A: "I'm a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state.

But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith. That doesn't make faith any less important than science."

While I'm on the subject of the presidential candidates and church-state issues, I want to share an exchange on school vouchers between Hillary Clinton and the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  The exchange took place in February 2008.  I transcribed it at that time and then forgot to post it.  It's below the fold.    For now at least, I'm posting these things without comment.

Chinese officials order "patriotic campaigns" in Tibetan monasteries

The Associated Press reports that Chinese "officials including the national police chief have ordered boosted 'patriotic campaigns' in [Tibetan] monasteries whose monks led protests that began peacefully on March 10 before turning deadly four days later."  Amnesty International is among the groups working on these issues.  At the moment, Amnesty is collecting signatures for a letter to Chinese president Hu Jintao demanding the release of 15 Tibetan monks who were reportedly detained during the peaceful demonstration on March 10.

Tithe the Rebate

From the Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal:

Bishop Paul Stumme-Diers, who leads the ELCA's Greater Milwaukee Synod, mailed a letter Friday to leaders of the synod's 140 congregations in the seven-county Milwaukee area.

It states that collectively, the estimated 4.8 million members of the ELCA nationwide will receive $1 billion in economic stimulus payments. It urges pastors to reintroduce the concept of tithing, or donating 10% of one's income to those less fortunate.

Stumme-Diers wants church members to consider donating 10% of their rebate checks to their congregations or to other causes that help the poor. He said the unusually harsh winter hurt area churches in the pocketbook, as heating and snow removal costs rose, while bad weather kept people from filling pews, and presumably, collection baskets.

If even half of the estimated 95,000 baptized members in the Greater Milwaukee Synod each donated $30 - 10% of the minimum $300 rebate check - it would add up to more than $1.4 million.

At the ELCA Conference of Bishops last month in California, Stumme-Diers challenged the 65 bishops in attendance to tithe their rebate checks and to take the message to the pulpits in their communities. Stumme-Diers said he and his wife expect to receive $1,500 from the government.

Apparently, other religious groups are considering following this example.

Marcus White, executive director of the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee, which works with some 500 multidenominational congregations to address social issues, said his agency might consider a similar solicitation. . . .

"Contributing to local philanthropic organizations will stimulate the economy because those are dollars that will get spent locally. They would certainly be used for the kinds of supplies and goods that service organizations need, and a lot of that is purchased locally. They will also be used to hire people locally."

According to the piece, "[Stumme-Diers is] timing his letter [to his fellow ELCA members to] arrive before the economic stimulus rebate checks do, in hopes it will spur 'collective conversation in congregations and, hopefully, around dinner tables, where parents and their children can imagine together how best to faithfully use this blessing. ' "  It sounds like a great idea that any denomination or religious body could easily and usefully adapt for their own constituency.

Dorf: A "Tricky" Case and A "Disturbing" Message

Michael Dorf has written a helpful essay on the Summum v. Pleasant Grove case, which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear last week.   (Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.)  Here's how Dorf's piece begins.

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to review a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, granting a small religious organization the right to place monuments in two city parks in Utah. The unusual case of Summum v. Pleasant Grove City sits awkwardly at the intersection of three First Amendment doctrines: (1) the doctrine establishing the rights of speakers, including religious speakers, in a so-called "public forum"; (2) the doctrine delineating government's ability, as a speaker itself, to control the content of its message; and (3) the doctrine concerning limits that the Establishment Clause places on government favoritism among religious messages.

Later in the essay, Dorf explains that "no Establishment Clause issue is formally before the Court," but he also argues that the Court should not ignore the implications of this case for religious freedom:

"I've been to the mountaintop."

An excerpt from the last speech of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Did "Without Walls" Violate the Electioneering Prohibition?

Today's Tampa Tribune reports that "[s]taff members of Tampa Bay's largest church were directed two years ago to make $500 contributions to the campaign of Gov. Charlie Crist, a television network has charged.  The church denies the allegation."  This is a follow-up story on a NBC report from earlier this week about the "Without Walls" church (and, yes, that is the same "Without Walls" church that Senator Grassley is investigating).  Here's a snippet from the NBC report:

NBC News obtained an e-mail (some identifying pieces of information in the e-mail have been removed by NBC) in which a Without Walls church staff member reporting to the Whites appears to direct other staffers to make political contributions to a Republican candidate for governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, who won the gubernatorial race later that year.

In the e-mail in 2006, the staffer writes, "Per our recent conversations . . . This is just a reminder that I need each of your checks for $500 made payable to: Charlie Crist for Governor.  I need to send these our [sic] tonight."

Florida state election records list several $500 donations to Crist dated days later, from individuals listed as recipients in the e-mail.  A spokesman for Gov. Crist told NBC News in an e-mail that neither the governor nor his campaign staff was aware that the Whites' church may have directed such donations to Crist's 2006 campaign.

The IRS prohibits tax-exempt churches from "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for elective public office."  Without Walls International Church declined to respond to NBC News' questions about the e-mail.

(By the way, there are more allegations about Randy White in the NBC story that relate to other factual situations, apart from the ones Senator Grassley is examining and the IRS allegation.)  The Tampa Tribune story carries the following statement from a spokeswoman for Without Walls about the campaign contribution e-mail:

"It is our understanding that no political contributions were solicited on behalf of the church," she wrote. "If individuals solicited contributions for a particular candidate on their own behalf, they would have been doing so just as people who support a particular candidate would do in any organization -- asking among their friends and colleagues at work."

The Tribune story notes that "Without Walls has been one of six high-profile ministries targeted by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee in a series of examinations of tax-exempt organizations."  As the story says, Senate "investigators posed extensive questions about church finances, but not political activity."   According to the story, "[a] spokeswoman for Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who has led the investigations, did not return a call Friday."

Some of my off-the-cuff reactions to the electioneering allegation appear below the fold. 

Florida Commission Narrowly Rejects Voucher Amendment

"A proposed state constitutional amendment to undo a Florida Supreme Court ruling that struck down a school voucher program narrowly failed to win a spot on the November ballot Friday."  Here's more from the Orlando Sentinel:

The voucher amendment failed by one vote. It was a response to a 2006 Supreme Court ruling that ended a pet program of then-Gov. Jeb Bush. It let students from failing public schools attended private schools at taxpayer expense. The justices, though, found it violated a constitutional provision that requires a single system of free public schools. The amendment would have revised that requirement to allow state spending on private schools.

Commissioners Greg Turbeville and Patricia Levesque, both former Bush aides, offered the measure. They said it also would protect from court challenges two existing voucher programs -- one for disabled children and another for low-income students.

Opponents said the amendment would go too far. It not only would permit vouchers but require them, said Commissioner John McKay, a former Florida Senate president who sponsored the voucher program for disabled children while in the Legislature.

The rejected proposal is here.  The Herald Tribune says that concerns about the impact of the measure on public education dominated the debate.  The Tampa Tribune calls this vote "a surprise twist."  It gives more of a flavor of the debate and the frustration some are feeling with the process thus far.

Tony Blair Preaches

Well, sort of.  Seriously though, take time to read the former PM's terrific talk on faith and globalization.  I've pasted in a few of my favorite passages below the fold.  (Thanks to Don Byrd for bringing this speech to my attention.)

Jimmy Carter and Jim Wallis Talk About Faith and Politics

The video is here.

Grassley Reacts to Rebuff by Two Televangelists

Senator Grassley takes the "good cop" approach in dealing with the two televangelists who are refusing to comply with the Senator's requests for information.

Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa . . . played down the significance of [Kenneth] Copeland's vow that he would go to jail before handing over certain information.

"That isn't unusual," Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said in an interview. "And I don't blame them for being cautious."

Citing his oversight of other nonprofit organizations and their tax status, the senator said Copeland's reaction is not all that different than the reactions received from others over the past five years.

"They wonder what you are up to. They wonder what do you want," Grassley said. "They don't understand what congressional oversight is, and, in the case of ministers, they are fearful of the First Amendment (issues)."

When pressed on whether Copeland's vow to go to jail was a bit more unusual, Grassley said he did not want to comment on that specifically.

He also declined to set a timeline for dealing with Copeland and Dollar's refusal to answer questions or handling information from the ministries of Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Eddie Long and Paula and Randy White.

"There is no time limit for us to dwell on this stuff," Grassley said.

"And I want to make people like the Copelands feel as comfortable as they can. If they want to talk to me, I'd be even personally glad to talk to them because if they think we are up to some sort of mischief, I think I can satisfy them that we are just doing what our constitutional responsibilities are."

As I've said before, Congress has set forth certain special rules that the IRS must observe when dealing with churches.  I'd still like to know why Senator Grassley apparently believes that the substance of those rules is irrelevant when Congress performs functions similar to the ones the IRS performs.  And I still think we need to consider the precedent that is being set by this kind of high-profile Congressional investigation of a group of churches.  The government certainly can and should enforce its laws regarding tax-exempt organizations, including churches.   But, when it comes to churches, the government must carefully consider the ways in which it does so.

Got Safeguards?

As this story from the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy makes clear, changing the church-state provisions  of Florida's constitution would not alter the interpretation of the federal Establishment Clause.  For example, the First Amendment prohibits the use of direct government aid for religious activities, and altering the Florida provisions won't change that interpretation.   But that does not not mean that Floridians should not be concerned about the fact that the proposed changes to their state constitution contain no safeguards regarding the use of state funds.  There are at least two reasons to be concerned.

Faith on the Stump

The Politico has a piece noting that John McCain isn't really comfortable talking about his religion on the stump.  He talks about values, but not his faith specifically.  Several who are quoted in the story suggest that this is a problem, and that McCain will need to change.

I hope he doesn't.  If candidates want to talk about their faith, they are free to do so.  But if a candidate does not want to talk about his or her personal religious convictions and practices, we should not pressure them to do so.   We should ask them about their values, and seek proof that those values have actually affected their service to the country.  We should seek to get a sense of their character and determine if they have a strong moral compass.  But one does not have to be religious or openly religious in order to have excellent character and morals.   And one does not have to be religious or openly religious in order to be a great political leader.   As I've said before, we have had great political leaders who were avowed people of faith, and we have had terrible political leaders who were avowed people of faith.  It's well past time for us to become more discerning in this area.

Further, we Christians make a serious mistake when we assume that the people who talk about their faith the most are the most religious.   I mean, really -- don't we all know of instances in which the exact opposite is true?  Too often, many Christians simply presume that a candidate is not very religious when he or she is reluctant to talk about personal faith on the campaign trail.   We must always remember that there could be other reasons.  Jesus himself pointed to one of those reasons.  He said: "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 6:1)   If a Christian believes that talking about his faith on the campaign trail would simply be an effort to use his religion to get votes, then the Christian thing to do would be to avoid it.  We, of all people, ought to at least allow for the possibility that the person who is most serious about faith is the one who is most trepidatious about talking about his or her faith on the stump.  In other words, this is just one of many cases where we need to be very careful not to run together what is politically expedient with what is faithful.

Every candidate should reach out to and listen to people from all walks of life and all religions as they campaign.  Every candidate should take the legitimate concerns of religious as well as nonreligious individuals and groups seriously.  Every candidate should demonstrate an understanding of and appreciation for our country's legacy of religious freedom and articulate his or her philosophy on church-state issues.  If there are legitimate questions about how a candidate's beliefs about religion will affect the way they govern, the candidate should answer those questions.  But we should not require, officially or unofficially, every candidate to talk about his or her personal faith.  And we should not assume that those who choose not to talk about their faith on the campaign trail are not genuinely religious. 

Yoffie on Hagee and Political Alliances

"The leader of the largest branch of American Judaism said Wednesday that synagogues in the movement shouldn't work with the Rev. John Hagee, a Christian Zionist, calling him an "extremist" on Israeli policy who disparages other faiths."  Here's more from the AP story:

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the liberal Union for Reform Judaism, said Hagee and his group, Christians United For Israel, reject any Israeli land concessions to achieve peace with the Palestinians.

Reform Judaism supports creating a Palestinian state; Hagee sees a biblical mandate for the territory so End Times prophecy can be fulfilled.

Yoffie also condemned Hagee's views on Roman Catholicism and Islam. The San Antonio pastor has suggested that Catholic anti-Semitism shaped Adolf Hitler, among other comments. . . .

"On Israeli-Palestinian politics, John Hagee and the CUFI are extremists," Yoffie said, in a speech to Reform rabbis meeting in Cincinnati. "In expressing contempt for other religions and rejecting territorial compromise under any and all circumstances, their views run against the American grain.

The text of Rabbi Yoffie's remarks is here.    The remarks are much more wide-ranging than this AP story suggests.  Yoffie draws a distinction between opening dialogues with other faith communities and forming political alliances with them, and he sets forth some standards that he believes the Jewish community should use when making decisions about entering into alliances on public issues.  (By the way, Yoffie correctly points out that a growing number of evangelicals take serious issue with Hagee's approach on Israeli-Palestinian issues.  For more on that score, click here.)   Whether we agree with Rabbi Yoffie's standards or not, people of all faiths who are engaged in political advocacy can profit from reflecting on them. 

Update on Grassley Investigation

"Another deadline passed Monday in a Senate committee's investigation into a half-dozen Christian ministries that preach a gospel of prosperity, with one group signaling a new willingness to cooperate, another promising information and two more remaining defiant, a Senate aide said."  Here's more from Eric Gorski's latest story on the Grassley-Baucus probe:

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa will continue communicating with the two holdouts - Texas televangelist Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar, a Copeland protege from suburban Atlanta - and considers subpoenas a last resort, said Jill Gerber, a Grassley aide.

"Sen. Grassley is just taking it one step at a time," Gerber said. "We've received a lot of cooperation so far. If he had decided to pursue subpoenas earlier, he might not be getting the voluntary cooperation he is getting now. Patience is something he's willing to exercise."

Dollar, however, responded by comparing Grassley's inquiries into church governance with questioning churchgoers about their prayers and confessions. Dollar's lawyer, Marcus Owens, asked the Senate Finance Committee "to evaluate, on the record, whether to issue a subpoena to the church."

Gorski notes that "[n]either Dollar nor Copeland have shown signs of backing down"  and reports that both recently sent letters to the Senate Finance Committee.  Creflo Dollar Ministries has posted a letter from Dollar to the members of the Senate Finance Committee.  I've pasted in the text of that letter below the fold.  Among other things, the letter says: "While our attorneys have provided you with a discussion of our legal arguments, I am writing to explain to you the theological concerns that the letters [sent by Senators Grassley and Baucus] raise." 

So far, I've been unable to find a copy of the letter Dollar's attorney, Marcus Owens, sent to the Committee yesterday on behalf of the Dollars and their ministry.  Eric Gorski provides a brief description of that letter, saying that Owens alleged "that Grassley's focus on prosperity gospel preachers suggests Grassley's 'distaste for, or disagreement with, these churches' theology and religious practices.' "  Owens also reportedly called "Grassley's inquiry into internal church operations amounted to an 'unprecedented inquiry into the religious activities of a church.'"

The letter from Kenneth Copeland's attorney to Senators Grassley and Baucus is here.  I've pasted in the full text of that letter below the fold.  Here's an interesting portion of that letter that sheds some light on the discussions between Copeland's attorney and the Senate Finance Committee staff and a brief description of Copeland's constitutional and statutory concerns: