Melissa Rogers

Obama Ends Membership in Trinity United (Updated)

"Senator Barack Obama is ending his membership at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a congregation he has belonged to for about two decades and one that had become a lightning rod in his Democratic presidential bid."  The New York Times says that "Mr. Obama informed his campaign advisers of his decision today, according to people familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the candidate. Mr. Obama is scheduled to explain his decision tonight in South Dakota."

Lynn Sweet of The Chicago Sun Times adds these details:

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe just told me Obama's availability--where he will talk about ending his long relationship with Trinity will take place at about 8:15 p.m. eastern time tonight, from South Dakota, where he is campaigning in advance of Tuesday's primary vote.

Obama quits his church following Father Michael Pfleger's sermon ridiculing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from the Trinity pulpit last Sunday, reigniting stories about Obama's associations with the inflammatory Trinity pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who stepped down from his role as senior pastor to hand over the top job to the Rev. Otis Moss III. Obama's move comes as Moss praised for his "message" after Pfleger a scorched Clinton.

I'll add a link to Obama's remarks on this subject once they are posted.

UPDATE:  Dan Gilgoff interviews "a source close to the Obama campaign who is familiar with the process that led to senator's resignation" from Trinity United. 

ANOTHER UPDATE:  The Politico, The Chicago Sun Times, and The New York Times have stories on the press conference.  TPM Election Central has the video of the press conference.  There are some snippets on each of these things below the fold and a few initial reactions from me. 

FINAL UPDATE: Here's the transcript of the Q and A between Obama and reporters at the press conference.  I don't have time to comment on it now, but I highly recommend reading the exchange.  ADDED (6/2):  For the text of the letters between the Obamas and Trinity United, click here.

Aftermath of FLDS Rulings

The LA Times takes a look at the long-term impact of the Texas raid of the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (FLDS) community in that state:

As officials haggled Friday over how to return more than 400 children to their parents, it was becoming increasingly clear that Texas' audacious attempt to rein in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had backfired -- and become a lesson in the difficulty of cracking down on the 10,000-member polygamist sect." 

"If you want to make any change . . . it has to go case by case, one child at a time," said Ellen Marrus, co-director of the Center for Children, Law and Policy at the University of Houston. "It's going to be very slow."

The children, who have been in foster homes scattered around the state, were set to be reunited with their families beginning Monday. But the deal was complicated when a trial judge late Friday refused to approve it unless dozens of parents filed pledges not to leave Texas -- a process that could take several days.

Legal analysts said that reuniting the FLDS families would make it harder to prove any children were abused. "It's very hard to talk to a child about what's going on in a household," Marrus said, "when they're in that household."

The piece also adds this interesting detail:

Many here cheered the raids, but on Friday residents were fuming. "I absolutely don't agree with what they do," Curtis Phillips, 33, said of the FLDS as he worked the register at the town's feed and mercantile store. "But blowing in that ranch like cowboys and taking all those kids -- that was just stupid. That's why people like me don't trust the government."

Curtis Griffin, 45, owner of the local fuel depot, counts many FLDS members as customers. He blamed Sheriff David Doran, who is up for reelection, for mischaracterizing the entire sect as pedophiles.

"I said from the word go, if there's sex with underage girls, nail their butt," said Griffin. "But nail the right people. We're going to wind up with a $30-million bill here in this little county because these people didn't have their ducks in a row."

The town also was abuzz over an anticipated mass voter registration by the FLDS. Hours after the court first ruled against the state, two members of the sect walked into the county clerk's office and requested 300 voter registration forms, a potentially tide-turning number in a county with 1,800 voters.

Doran, who has been sheriff here for 12 years, downplayed that. "I'm not worried about it. The citizens have always stood behind me, and if the community feels this is an attempt to take over Schleicher County, I know they'll stand together. Once we begin impaneling some grand juries and the criminal case comes to light, we'll see the tide turn once again."

The Salt Lake Tribune has more details on the Friday hearings.

Progressive Baptist Convention Invites All Presidential Candidates to August Convention

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that "[t]he Progressive National Baptist Convention [PNBC] hopes to have presidential contenders Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain speak to its annual convention in Atlanta in August."  As the piece notes, the PNBC "is one of the larger black denominations in the U.S., claiming more than 2,000 churches and 2.5 million members in the U.S. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a member." PNBC has invited all three presidential candidates to address the organization's national convention, which will take place from August 3-8. 

Some religious organizations have no interest in inviting political candidates to speak to their meetings.  That's fine.  But it's also fine for a religious organization to invite political candidates to speak to them, so long as:

• It provides an equal opportunity to political candidates seeking the same office;
• It does not indicate any support for or opposition to the candidate (this should be stated explicitly when the candidate is introduced and in communications concerning the candidate’s attendance); and
• No political fundraising occurs.

What is not fine is when a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, religious or otherwise, invites only one competitor in a political race to speak to its group in that competitor's capacity as a political candidate.  The PNBC sets a good example by extending this invitation equally to all the presidential candidates.  It not only respects the law, but it also respects the principle that good Christians can disagree about who should be the next president of the United States.

What's Good for the Goose?

Cardinal George reprimands Father Pfleger for his partisan and personal attack on Hillary Clinton.  George said:

"The Catholic Church does not endorse political candidates.  Consequently, while a priest must speak to political issues that are also moral, he may not endorse candidates nor engage in partisan campaigning.

"Racial issues are both political and moral and are also highly charged. Words can be differently interpreted, but Fr. Pfleger’s remarks about Senator Clinton are both partisan and amount to a personal attack.  I regret that deeply.

"To avoid months of turmoil in the church, Fr. Pfleger has promised me that he will not enter into campaigning, will not publicly mention any candidate by name and will abide by the discipline common to all catholic priests."

George's comments sound like an appropriate statement to me.  To be sure, they go farther than what the law requires; but they articulate a perfectly appropriate standard for a religious community to set.   Like Mark Silk, however, I wonder if this actually will serve as a standard that applies across the board.  More specifically, I wonder whether Monsignor Jim Lisante's partisan prayer at the annual dinner of the New York Republican Party -- the one bashing Barack Obama and endorsing John McCain -- will draw a similar rebuke from any in the Catholic hierarchy. 

Tony Blair Faith Foundation

The New York Times reports on the unveiling of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation:

Tony Blair, the former prime minister of Britain, formally unveiled plans in New York City on Friday for an ambitious new charity that he hopes will enlist religion as a force for economic development and conflict resolution, rather than violence and strife.

In a news conference kicked off by former President Bill Clinton and attended by religious leaders, donors and United Nations representatives, Mr. Blair said one of his main goals was to support religious leaders who were working to counter extremism within their faiths.

“Though there is much focus, understandably, on extremism associated with the perversion of the proper faith of Islam,” Mr. Blair said, “there are elements of extremism in every major faith.” . . .

Mr. Blair’s charity will help develop an interfaith dialogue and conference center in London, and create materials to educate people about world religions. Mr. Blair himself will teach a course on religion and globalization at Yale that can be reproduced elsewhere.

The foundation will also encourage religious groups to collaborate on specific antipoverty projects. Its first focus is to join the growing campaign to eradicate malaria by distributing mosquito nets.

The website for the new foundation is here.

Indiana Tax Court Says Christian Campground Qualifies for "Religious Purposes Exemption"

AP reports:  "A Christian campground is entitled to a religious tax exemption even though some recreational activities may have occurred there, the Indiana Tax Court has ruled."  Here's more from the story:

The ruling overturned decisions by the Indiana Board of Tax Review and Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals denying the religious exemption for the Cedar Lake Conference Association, which owns and operates the Cedar Lake Bible Conference Center RV Park and Campground.

The association is a not-for-profit corporation whose stated purpose is "to conduct religious services and promote religious education," according to court documents. The 27-acre RV park, which includes an archery range, walking trails and a prayer garden, was used by churches, prison ministries and other organizations as well as by people who did not attend its programmed religious events. . . .

The state board had found that the association failed to prove that the RV park was predominantly used for religious purposes because it did not document a breakdown of the time spent on religious and non-religious activities.

But the tax court found that the association had maintained the RV park was integral to its religious mission and that more than 67 percent of the park's income came from individuals who participated in its religious programs.

The tax court found that "it is apparent that CLCA predominantly used the RV Park for religious purposes" and "the fact that some recreational activities may have taken place on the RV Park does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that CLCA's use of the property does not further its religious purposes."

The decision of the Indiana Tax Court is here (pdf).

Separation of Solidering and Proselytizing

"A U.S. Marine handed out coins promoting Christianity to Muslims in the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, outraged Sunni officials said Friday. The U.S. military responded quickly, removing a trooper from duty pending an investigation."  Here's more from the AP report: 

It was the second perceived insult to Islam by American service members this month. A U.S. sniper was sent out of the country after using a Quran, Islam's holy book, for target practice.

Photographs of the coins, which were inscribed with phrases in Arabic, were widely distributed via cell phones in Fallujah and were seen by an Associated Press employee.

One side asked: "Where will you spend eternity?"

The other contained a verse from the New Testament: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16."

Such actions by American service members threaten to alienate Sunni Arabs who have become key allies in the fight against insurgents, a movement that started in Anbar province, which includes Fallujah.

Distribution of the coins in Fallujah was particularly sensitive because the city, 40 miles west of Baghdad, is known for its large number of mosques. It was the center of the Sunni-led insurgency before a massive U.S. offensive in November 2004.

The Washington Post reports these additional details:

Mohammed Jassim al-Dulaimi, 43, said a Marine forced one of the coins into his hand Tuesday morning as he passed through a checkpoint at the western entrance to Fallujah. He said he was shocked when he read it.

"The claims that the occupation is a Crusader War make sense now," Dulaimi said

A U.S. statement referred to the coin incident as "an allegation" and said "appropriate action" would be taken if the claim was substantiated.

"Regulations prohibit members of the coalition force from proselytizing any religion, faith or practices," said Col. Bill Buckner, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. "Our troops are trained on those guidelines before they deploy."

If this allegation is true, it is a costly mistake, and it should at least prompt the military to consider whether its training on these matters could be improved.  Soldiers retain the right to practice their faith, but the military properly draws a line at evangelizing while on the job.

Technical Difficulties

I won't bore you with the details, but I have had serious technical difficulties all week, and things are only marginally better today. The main problem is shaky Internet access.  I hope I can get the problem fixed over the weekend.   Until then, I will probably be posting and commenting much less than usual.

Back to Trinity United

The Associated Press reports that "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that he was 'deeply disappointed' by a supporter's sermon at his church that mocked Hillary Rodham Clinton."

The Rev. Michael Pfleger, a Chicago activist, also apologized for last Sunday's sermon at Obama's church, in which he said Clinton's eyes welled with tears before the New Hampshire primary because she felt "entitled" to the Democratic nomination and because "there's a black man stealing my show."

In video circulating on the Internet, Pfleger said the former first lady expected to win the nomination before Obama's sudden popularity.

"She just always thought that, 'This is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white.' ... And then, out of nowhere, came 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama." And she said, 'Oh damn, where did you come from? I'm white. I'm entitled. There's a black man stealing my show,'" Pfleger said at Trinity United Church of Christ.

He then went on to parody Clinton, sobbing and wiping his face with a handkerchief.

"She wasn't the only one crying," he said. "There was a whole lot of white people crying." . . .

Obama said he was "deeply disappointed" by Pfleger's comments.

"As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that that unites us," he said in a statement. "That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."

Pfleger, the white pastor of predominantly black Saint Sabina Roman Catholic Church on the city's Southwest side, said he regretted his choice of words.

"These words are inconsistent with Senator Obama's life and message and I am deeply sorry if they offended Senator Clinton or anyone else who saw them," Pfleger said.

Clinton's campaign denounced Pfleger's comments.

"Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counterproductive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics," the campaign said in a statement. "We are disappointed that Senator Obama didn't specifically reject Father's Pfleger's despicable comments about Senator Clinton, and assume he will do so."

The video is of Pfleger's remarks is here.  The Obama statement is here.  The Clinton statement is here.

It would be better for all concerned if Trinity United developed and enforced a policy that barred all those who speak from the pulpit (and those who speak at other church events or write for church publications) from discussing the candidates.

Breaking News: Texas Supreme Court Upholds Court of Appeals Decision in FLDS Matter

"The Texas Supreme Court has said the removal of children from the [Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (FLDS)] YFZ Ranch was not warranted, siding with the Texas Court of Appeals."  Here's more from The Deseret News: 

The court considered whether to uphold or strike down an appellate court ruling that ordered the return of some of the children in state protective custody, saying the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services acted improperly in removing hundreds of children from the FLDS property near Eldorado.

The high court upheld the appellate court ruling.

The Texas Supreme Court's per curiam opinion in this matter is here (pdf). Here's a snippet from that opinion:

Having carefully examined the testimony at the adversary hearing and the other evidence before us, we are not inclined to disturb the court of appeals' decision.  On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted.  The [Texas] Department [of Family and Protective Services] argues without explanation that the court of appeals' decision leaves the Department unable to protect the children's safety, but the Family Code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care.  The court may make and modify temporary orders "for the safety and welfare of the child," including an order "restraining a party from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court.'"  The court may also order the removal of an alleged perpetrator from the child's home and may issue orders to assist the Department in its investigation.  The Code prohibits interference with an investigation, and a person who relocates a residence or conceals a child with the intent to interfere with an investigation commits an offense.

While the district court must vacate the current temporary custody orders as directed by the court of appeals, it need not do so without granting other appropriate relief to protect the children, as the mothers involved in this proceeding concede in response to the Department's motion for emergency relief.  The court of appeals' decision does not conclude the [suits affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR)] proceedings.

Although the SAPCRs involve important, fundamental issues concerning parental rights and the State's interest in protecting children, it is premature for us to address those issues.  (citations omitted)

An opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Justice O'Neill and joined by Justices Johnson and Willett is here (pdf).  Here's a snippet from that opinion:

As to this endangered population [pubescent girls at the YFZ ranch], I do not agree with the Court that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the Department to retain temporary conservatorship until such time as a permanency plan designed to ensure each girl's physical health and safety could be approved.  On this record, however, I agree that there was no evidence of imminent "danger to the physical health or safety" of boys and pre-pubescent girls to justify their removal from the YFZ Ranch, and to this extent I join the Court's opinion. (citations omitted)

The briefs filed with the Texas Supreme Court may be found here (see upper right-hand side of the page for the links).  The Salt Lake Tribune also has a story on this decision.

Texas Appeals FLDS Ruling

"Texas child welfare authorities have filed an appeal with the Texas Supreme Court challenging yesterday's appeals court decision that ordered the return of children seized from the Fundamentalist LDS Church's YFZ Ranch."  Here's more from The Deseret News: 

In the first paragraph of its appeal, attorneys for [the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services] wrote: "This case is about adult men commanding sex from underage children; about adult women knowingly condoning and allowing sexual abuse of underage children; about the need for the department to take action under difficult, time-sensitive and unprecedented circumstances to protect children on an emergency basis ... "

It also questions the appeals court's order to return the children "without giving the court the opportunity to determine which parents are entitled to possession of which children."

The department has complained that children switched names and both children and mothers have refused to answer questions about identities of family relationships, making it difficult to determine which child belongs to which parents.

The Texas department asks the Supreme Court to stay the appeals court order and keep the children where they are in foster facilities until the high court considers their arguments. It argues the more than 450 children will "suffer irreparable harm" if the appellate court order is followed and says the children "will be at risk of sexual and emotional abuse" if returned to their parents.

The state's request for a stay of the appellate court ruling is here.  Its brief arguing that the appellate court abused its discretion is here.  The Deseret News says that the attorneys representing 38 FLDS mothers are already drafting a response to the state's filings.  Meanwhile, the Salt Lake Tribune reports that "[t]hree couples whose children were seized during a raid at a West Texas polygamist sect's compound were granted temporary custody of their children today pending an appeal of a state court's ruling that Texas officials failed to prove the children were in danger . . . ."

McCain Rejects Parsley's Endorsement, Too

John McCain rejects the endorsement of Rod Parsley, too.

McCain rejected the months-old endorsement of Texas preacher John Hagee after an audio recording surfaced in which the preacher said God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land. McCain called the comment "crazy and unacceptable."

He later repudiated the support of Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who has sharply criticized Islam and called the religion inherently violent. . . .

[I]n an interview with The Associated Press, McCain said he rejected Parsley's support . . . .

"I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America, and I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn't endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement," McCain told the AP. . . .

Parsley did not return a message for comment left after business hours at World Harvest Church in suburban Columbus. . . .

Parsley has described Islam as an "anti-Christ religion" and the Muslim prophet Muhammad as "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil," according to ABC News.

ABC News televised a report on McCain and Parsley earlier today.

Back After Memorial Day

I've posted a few things today, but I don't have time to comment on them.  If I post anything tomorrow or Monday, it will be more of the same.  I'll be back in gear after Memorial Day.

McCain Rejects Hagee Endorsement

John McCain rejects John Hagee's endorsement:

The Huffington Post . . . published a recording [yesterday] of Hagee saying that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God’s will by hastening the desire of Jews to return to Israel in accordance with biblical prophecy.

“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well,” McCain said in a statement to CNN Thursday.

IRS Clears UCC

The IRS has concluded that the United Church of Christ did not violate the electioneering provisions that apply to tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations when it invited Senator Barack Obama, a member of a UCC church, to speak about faith in public life at the UCC national convention. The IRS letter is here.  My previous post on this matter is here.

Breaking News: Texas Appellate Court Says Insufficient Grounds for Removing FLDS Children

"A state appellate court has ruled that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children living at a polygamist sect's ranch."  Here's more from the story: 

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were "legally and factually insufficient" under Texas law.
    Child welfare officials removed the children on the grounds that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to be grown-up predators.
    The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children from their homes without court proceedings.
    The ruling came as judges were signing off on individual custody plans in San Angelo.
    Shari Pulliam, a spokeswoman for CPS, said the agency had just learned of the ruling and was trying to assess its impact on the children's cases.
    The state has said it will appeal.

 The appeals court ruling in In re Sara Steed is here (pdf).

UPDATE: Howard Friedman notes that the same court today issued a similar order in In re Louisa Bradshaw. et. al., a companion case.

Truth in Advertising

The St. Pete Times editorial board takes issue with the descriptions of two initiatives that will appear on the Florida ballot this fall:

Two of the constitutional amendments on this fall's lengthy presidential ballot are described to voters the following way:

No. 7: "Religious freedom."

No. 9: "Requiring 65 percent of school funding for classroom instruction; state's duty for children's education."

Here's a pop quiz: How many of you just guessed from the amendments' official titles that they are intended to invalidate a 2006 Florida Supreme Court and separate appellate court ruling against school vouchers?

The "religious freedom" label ("No. 7" above) for one of the proposed ballot items is problematic for other reasons as well.  

The editorial also reports two other pieces of information that are news to me.  First, it says that the Florida Education Association (FEA) "is going to take the ballot issue to court."  I assume that means they will challenge the inclusion on the ballot of the proposed change to the education provision of the Florida constitution.  The article does not discuss the nature of the planned FEA challenge.  The second piece of information relates to the jurisdiction of the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, the body that approved these proposals for placement on the ballot:

[Proposing changes to the state constitution to allow school vouchers] was never supposed to be the [Taxation and Budget Reform Commission's]  job anyway. The commission was created in 1988 after a bruising political battle the previous year over tax reform. The decision to impose, and then to revoke, a sales tax on services left the Legislature's head spinning and led it to propose a commission that would analyze the tax structure. A separate body, the Constitution Revision Commission, is charged with examining other issues.

This is the first I have heard about the Florida Constitution Revision Commission, but it certainly sounds like the entity to which these proposals should have been directed. 

Some Observations and a Question Regarding the IRS-Drake Matter

A few random observations and a question regarding the IRS-Wiley Drake matter appear below the fold. 

IRS Clears Wiley Drake's Church; Drake Appears to Vow to Endorse Candidate from Pulpit in Fall

The IRS sent a letter to Wiley Drake's church last week saying that "it ha[d] concluded that Buena Park First Southern Baptist Church did not engage in prohibited campaign intervention in violation of the requirements of [Internal Revenue Code] section 501(c)(3)."   The IRS letter (pdf) to the church notes that it received a press release issued on church letterhead in which Drake endorsed Mike Huckabee for president.  The IRS also received information that Drake made the following statement on his Internet radio show: "Yes, I endorsed [Huckabee] personally and yes we use the First Southern Baptist Church; yes, we broadcast the 'Wiley Drake Show' from the First Southern Baptist Church; everything we do is under the auspices of the Church."   The complaint against Drake's church was filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Here's the part of the letter in which the IRS offers its conclusion that the church did not violate the relevant tax-exempt requirements in this case:

Whether or not [a tax-exempt 501(c)(3)] organization has violated [the prohibition on electioneering] in a given instance depends upon all the facts and circumstances.  We conducted an inquiry of Buena Park First Southern Baptist Church.  The information gathered during the inquiry indicates that the press release dated August 11, 2007 was a personal endorsement by the church's Pastor, Wiley Drake.  The press release was sent from Rev. Drake's personal email account and sent to personal acquaintances and was not sent to any of the church's congregants.  The endorsement was not authorized or approved by the Buena Park First Southern Baptist Church and no church resources were utilized in preparing or sending the email.  Rev. Drake listed his position as pastor of Buena Park First Southern Baptist Church for identification purposes.  Additionally, the Wiley Drake Show is a separate entity from the Buena Park First Southern Baptist Church.  The church does not own, financially support, sponsor or have any legal rights to the Wiley Drake Show.  The Wiley Drake Show is broadcast by Rev.  Drake using his personal cell phone to call into the Crusade Radio (another separate entity).  Rev. Drake broadcasts from where ever he happens to be which may include the church on his break, at home, while driving, at a pro life rally or even in other states.  Rev. Drake's endorsement on the Wiley Drake Show was done while hosting his private religious show and in his personal capacity.

Based on these facts, the IRS has concluded that Buena Park First Southern Baptist Church did not engage in prohibited political campaign intervention in violation of the requirements of [Internal Revenue Code] section 501(c)(3).

But Drake reportedly told the IRS that he endorsed Huckabee from the pulpit, and he apparently told the media that he plans to endorse a candidate from the pulpit as part of the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative" on September 28, 2008.  Here's the relevant snippet from the story:

Comic Relief

* Mark Roberts tells a story about some candidate commentary recently offered by a parishioner in the midst of a worship service.   This one should not trigger any complaints to the IRS.

* Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog advertises his services.  (Lawyers in particular will enjoy this one.)

Round-up

Apologies for this "kitchen sink" round-up (see below), but it is one of those days.   I may add an item or two to the list later today if time permits. 

Texas Gives FLDS Parents Goals and Tasks to Regain Custody of Children

"In advance of court hearings that begin Monday, [Texas] Child Protective Services has drafted 10 goals and 14 tasks that [Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints (FLDS)] parents will have to work toward to regain custody of their children."  Here's more from The Dallas Morning News:

CPS is proposing to give parents until next April to "provide a home free of persons who have or will abuse" children and "demonstrate the ability to protect the child[ren] from sexual abuse." The children will remain in state custody until a judge is satisfied that the parents have complied.

On Wednesday, CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins stressed that the guidelines – known as service plans – are silent about plural marriage and religious beliefs of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

"This is not about polygamy and it is not about religion," Mr. Crimmins said. "It is about child sexual abuse and our commitment to protect children."

The Deseret News has obtained copies of some of these "service plans."  (See top right-hand corner for pdf.)  Meanwhile, Salt Lake Tribune reports that "[t]hree FLDS fathers are demanding a judge in San Antonio return their children, saying Texas authorities acted in a 'blunderbuss' fashion to remove them from a polygamous sect's ranch. "

The Rollout of "We Get It!"

From one of the daybooks:

A coalition of pastors, evangelical leaders, national and state organizations, and policy makers hold a news conference on the "We Get It!" campaign, and to show "that they are united behind Biblical perspectives on the environment and the poor, and don't believe all the hype about global warming."

LOCATION: National Press Club, 14th and F Streets NW, Washington, D.C. -- May 15, 2008

PARTICIPANTS: Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; E. Calvin Beisner, founder and national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance and Environmental Stewardship; James Tonkowich, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy; James Dobson of Focus on the Family; singer Crystal Lewis; radio host Janet Parshall; theologian Wayne Grudem; singer Pat Boone; Joel Belz of God's World Publications; historian David Barton; climatologist David Legates; and Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty

The press conference took place at 10am.  The website for this effort is here.  The symbols of  the following organizations appear on the frontpage of the website: the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Family Research Council, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Wallbuilders, Cornwall Alliance, and the Acton Institute.  A press release says that the campaign is seeking a million signatures for their declaration.

En Banc Rehearing Denied in Buono v. Kempthorne

Yesterday the Ninth Circuit slightly amended its decision in Buono v. Kempthorne but denied rehearing en banc in the case.  This is a case that involves a Latin cross that sits on a rock outcropping (known as Sunrise Rock) in the Mojave National Preserve.  This is a picture of the cross.  The Preserve is a national park in Southern California, about 90 percent of which is federally owned. 

The lawsuit has a complicated history that I won't attempt to summarize.  Howard Friedman has the details, if you'd like to see them.  Here's just a bit of the background.

A California district court found that the display of the cross on government land violated the Establishment Clause and ordered the government to remove the cross from its property.  The decision was appealed.  While that appeal was pending, the U.S. Congress enacted a statute directing the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the land where the cross sits to a private organization in exchange for a piece of privately owned land that was located in another part of the Preserve.  The Ninth Circuit then upheld the district court's decision and later held that the land exchange did not alter the fact that the government was endorsing religion.  Here's a snippet from the opinion addressing the land exchange:

We previously held that the presence of the cross in the Preserve violates the Establishment Clause.  We also concluded that a reasonable observer aware of the history of the cross would know of the government's attempts to preserve it and the denial of access to other religious symbols.  Even a less informed reasonable observer would perceive governmental endorsement of the message, given that "[n]ational parklands and preserves embody the notion of government ownership," that the Sunrise Rock area is used as a public campground, and finally, because of "the ratio of publicly-owned to privately-owned land in the Preserve."  Nothing in the present posture of the case alters these earlier conclusions.  Under the statutory dictates and terms that presently stand, carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve -- like a donut hole with the cross atop it -- will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement.  Nor does the proposed land exchange . . . end the improper government action.  Such a transfer cannot be validly executed without running afoul of the injunction.  (citations omitted)

The government then sought review of this decision by the full Ninth Circuit.  Yesterday, the full Ninth Circuit declined that request.  Five judges of the Ninth Circuit, however, dissented from the denial.  Judge O'Scannlain wrote the dissenting opinion.   Here is the first paragraph of that dissenting opinion:

The opinion in this case announced the rule that Congress cannot cure a government agency's Establishment Clause violation by ordering the sale of the land upon which a religious symbol previously was situated.  Because such a novel rule contravenes governing Supreme Court precedent, creates a split with the Seventh Circuit on multiple issues, and invites courts to encroach upon private citizens' rights under both the speech and religion clauses of the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent from our order rejecting rehearing en banc.

Will the government now ask the Supreme Court to hear this case?  And, if it does, will the Court agree to hear it?  I'll keep watching and let you know.  (Thanks to Howard Bashman for notification of the Ninth Circuit's decision.)

IRS Offers Phone Forum Regarding Electioneering Rules

From an IRS Exempt Organizations Update:

The IRS invites tax professionals and representatives of tax-exempt organizations to participate in a Phone Forum on Rules for Tax-Exempt Organizations During An Election Year.  The Forum is scheduled for June 9, 2008, and will be repeated June 10.  It will discuss the distinctions between political activity, lobbying and general advocacy, and which activities are permissible by 501(c)(3) charities, 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, 501(c)(5) labor and agricultural/horticultural organizations, 501(c)(6) business leagues and trade associations, and 527 political organizations.  Registrants will have the opportunity to submit questions, in advance, to be answered during the sessions.

Both forums are being offered at no charge to participants, although space is limited and will be reserved on a first-come, first-served basis. Organizations with multiple representatives interested in participating are encouraged to register as a group, rather than as individuals.

You can sign up for the phone forum here.

SG Clement Leaving DoJ

The BLT reports that "Solicitor General Paul Clement announced today that he's resigning effective June 2."  The report notes that "[t]he Justice Department did not say where Clement is headed."  Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation is among the cases Clement successfully argued before the Supreme Court.

More on the Hagee Letter and Lunch

Laurie Goodstein gets some more details regarding the Rev. John Hagee's recent lunch with some Catholic leaders and how the letter came about.

“Republican activists have been working with [Hagee] over the last several weeks, giving him books and articles and getting him up to speed and away from the black legends about the Catholic Church," [Bill Donohue said.]  "I have to assume he’s acting sincerely, and now understands” that he has been recycling conspiracy theories.

At a news conference on Tuesday afternoon in North Bend, Wash., outside Seattle, Mr. McCain praised Mr. Hagee’s letter. “The fact that he has made an apology I think is very helpful,” Mr. McCain said. “Whenever someone apologizes for something they did wrong, then I think that that’s a laudable thing.”

Asked if he or his campaign were involved in the apology, Mr. McCain replied, “I certainly wasn’t.”  Mr. Hagee and his wife held a meeting on Friday to mend fences with about 12 Catholic political conservatives over lunch at a restaurant in Washington, said several attendees.

Deal W. Hudson, a member of Catholics for McCain and the director of the Web site InsideCatholic.com, said he had helped broker the meeting.

Mr. Hudson said that at the lunch Mr. Hagee explained that in his eschatology of the end times the Catholic Church could not possibly be the “whore” mentioned in Revelation and that he had been misunderstood. Mr. Hudson said the lunch ended on a positive note.

Not exactly your average lunchtime chit-chat, no?  Anyway, the report yesterday said that Hagee met with 22 Catholic leaders.  This report says that he met with about 12 Catholic political conservatives.  I'd be interested in knowing who attended the lunch.   And I'd be especially interested in hearing reactions to Hagee's letter from a wider range of Catholics. 

P.S.  After I wrote the last line in the post, it hit me.  Why should other Catholics respond to a letter that was addressed only to Bill Donohue?  I certainly would understand if other Catholics are waiting for Hagee to reach out to them.   Indeed, why did Hagee address the letter to Dononue only rather than to Catholic leaders of all theological and political stripes?  Yes, Donohue was the one who raised the hue and cry about Hagee's comments, but if Hagee truly believes he has made mistakes that affect all Catholics, then why didn't he make some attempt to address all Catholics?   And, if he did lunch only with Catholic political conservatives, why did he limit the group in this way, or allow it to be so limited?  It seems to me that, if this move is to be understood as more spiritual than partisan, Hagee needs to reach out to a wider cross-section of Catholics for meaningful dialogue, and he needs to do so quickly. 

Deflecting Criticisms Made by "An Evangelical Manifesto"

I noticed that Tony Perkins weighed in last week on "An Evangelical Manifesto":

Family Research Council president Perkins is co-author of the book Personal Faith, Public Policy. He says signers of the Manifesto may want good government and a godly environment, but they do not want to take the steps necessary to achieve those goals.

"Unfortunately, this takes on kind of a perspective of Christians who live in an ivory tower -- that they never are touched with the realities that we live in a world in which we have to come outside the walls of the church and influence society. It's kind of like [saying] 'I want to rid the world of evil; I just don't want to get involved in the issues,'" Perkins explains.

Drafters of the Manifesto, according to Perkins, made little effort to create Christian unity. "We each have our role to play in the kingdom, and I feel we should take the direction of [the Apostle] Paul," he suggests. "We shouldn't beat up on our own body and give ourselves a black eye. We ought to realize that we have different roles to play. And I encourage the theologians to continue to come up with ideas and speak to those issues, but they should be respectful to the other members of the body of Christ," Perkins contends.

Maybe Perkins needs to re-read the document.  It says, for example:

We affirm that to be Evangelical and to carry the name of Christ is to seek to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the kingdom of God, to bring these gifts into public life as a service to all, and to work with all who share these ideals and care for the common good.  Citizens of the City of God, we are resident aliens in the Earthly City.  Called by Jesus to be "in" the world but "not of" the world, we are fully engaged in public affairs, but never equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, class tribe, or national identity. . . .

Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. . . . (emphasis added)

It says Christians should be engaged in public issues, but not in ways that are partisan, untruthful, arrogant, tribal, or nationalistic.   In other words, the issue isn't whether evangelicals should be involved in politics, but rather how they should be involved.  (Unfortunately, this confusion has been compounded by some in the media.  Many journalists have seemed to think that the document's criticism of a politicized faith is a call for evangelical disengagement from policy and politics.  Not so.)  It will be a shame if misinterpretations of the document allow people to skirt conversations about the errors the document describes.  Make no mistake, that is exactly the effect of these misinterpretations.

It also will be a shame if Perkins is not challenged for his suggestion that showing "respect" to other Christians apparently means not criticizing some of their actions.   Perkins cites some of the writings of Paul in an attempt to make his point.  In addition to speaking about the different parts and purposes of the Christian body, Paul said Christians should speak the truth in love.  I think these writings of Paul fit together -- we are a more faithful and authentic Christian community when, in a spirit of love, we are able to identify errors and call one another to repentance and reform according to Biblical principles.  To frown on that kind of thing or to seek to shut it down is terribly dangerous, as any believer in original sin should be quick to see.  Rather than deflect the criticisms the document makes, evangelicals ought to deal with them.

Senate Finance Committee Issues New Fact Sheet on Grassley Investigation

The Des Moines Register reports on a website sponsored by Kenneth Copeland Ministries to respond to the Grassley investigation.  The report also notes that the Senate Finance Committee has issued a "new fact sheet" on the investigation.

A new fact sheet from the Finance Committee about the investigation points out that churches do not have to annually file IRS documents asking for tax exemption.

However, they are subject to the same compliance and enforcement tax rules as other tax-exempt groups, except the IRS has a harder time enforcing the rules because of the lack of annual reports.

Unfortunately, the Des Moines Register did not post this fact sheet, and it does not appear on the Finance Committee's website yet.  I'll keep looking for it.

Caseworkers Allege Unnecessary Trauma and Harsh Treatment of FLDS Women and Children by State

The Salt Lake Tribune reports on some disturbing allegations about the Texas Child Protective Services' treatment of Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (FLDS) mothers and children in the weeks immediately following the April raid of the FLDS compound.

    Mental health professionals who helped care for FLDS women and children in the weeks after an April raid on the YFZ Ranch describe conditions and treatment they perceived as harsh and unnecessary.
    "Never in all my life, and I am one of the older ladies, have I been so ashamed of being a Texan and seeing what and how our government agencies treat people," wrote one employee of Hill Country Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Center in an unsigned statement.
    Texas contracts with Hill Country to provide mental health services during disasters. Staff members met with the center's board of trustees last week, leaving them "spellbound." The board has gathered nine written statements critical of Child Protective Services.
    Chairman John Kight said he wants state legislators and the governor to hear the employees' stories. "You have damaged these children for their lives," he said. "This is an agency that looks like it's gone out of control." A Texas CPS spokesman acknowledged the allegations were "very serious" and said they are being investigated. But he noted the women and children were held at a historic fort and a convention center in San Angelo in an unusual emergency situation.

The Salt Lake Tribune provides links to the statements made by the caseworkers.  The San Antonio Express-News also has a story on the allegations that includes the reflections of Kevin Dinnin, the president of Baptist Children and Family Services (BCFS)  "who served as incident commander at the shelter under a contract between his agency and the state."  Dinnin "said he couldn't confirm many of the allegations made by the MHMR workers."  The work of BCFS is discussed in more detail here.

Look below the fold for some of the details from the caseworkers' statements and the responses the state has offered thus far to those allegations.  These details appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune story. 

Hagee Expresses "Deep Regret" Regarding Catholic Commentary

"John Hagee, the controversial Evangelical pastor who endorsed John McCain, will issue a letter of apology to Catholics today for inflammatory remarks he has made, including accusing the Roman Catholic Church of supporting Adolf Hitler and calling it “The Great Whore.” (See a copy of the letter PDF.)"  Here's more from Washington Wire:

“Out of a desire to advance greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful,” Hagee wrote, according to an advanced copy of the letter reviewed by Washington Wire. “After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of anti-Catholicism.”

In the letter, addressed to Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League and one of Hagee’s biggest critics, Hagee pledges “a greater level of compassion and respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Hagee met with 22 Catholic leaders in Washington on Friday to apologize for his comments, according to a source familiar with the meeting. Despite the McCain’s condemnation of Hagee’s anti-Catholic remarks, the campaign had no role in that meeting or Tuesday’s apology, according to the source who said it was something Hagee did because he felt it was necessary.

Donohue is expected to release a letter in response today, accepting Hagee’s apology.

This sounds like a step in the right direction, although I would certainly like to hear from Catholics other than Bill Donohue.

As the piece notes, this issue is relevant to John McCain's candidacy because McCain sought Hagee's endorsement and has continued to say that he is glad to have it, even though he has conceded that it "probably" was a mistake to ask for the endorsement.*  (If that does not make much sense to you, you are certainly not alone.) 

Because candidates seek endorsements for political reasons, it is legitimate to ask McCain about policy issues Hagee has addressed.  The next round of questions for McCain should explore areas of agreement and disagreement regarding Hagee's views on the Middle East.

*  Here is the relevant snippet from an interview with McCain:

“So was it a mistake to solicit and accept his endorsement?” asked host George Stephanopoulos.

“Oh, probably, sure. But I admire and respect Dr. Hagee’s leadership of the — of his church,” McCain said, later adding: “I’m glad to have his endorsement. I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything.”   

Liberty Legal Files Amicus Brief in Texas FLDS Case

Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) filed an amicus brief with the Texas Third Court of Appeals in the case involving the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (FLDS) families.  The brief was filed in support of no party.  Here's an excerpt from the organization's press release:

In its amicus brief, LLI warns the Court of Appeals to apply a standard of strict scrutiny when determining whether to take custody of a child away from his/her parent, unless the state presents evid