Melissa Rogers

Sarah Palin on Religion, Religion's Role in Public Life, and Some Church-State Issues (Updated)

I'll probably update this post as the day goes on, but here are a few items regarding Alaska governor and presumed Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's religious affiliation, her views on religion's role in public life, and her positions on a few church-state matters.

*  On religion and politics (Anchorage Daily News , August 2006):

Palin's parents say they are not political and don't know how she decided to turn her ambition and work ethic toward politics. Her Christian faith, they say, came from her mother, who took her children to area Bible churches as they were growing up (Sarah is the third of four siblings). They say her faith has been steady since high school, when she led the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and grew stronger as she sought out believers in her college years.

Palin doesn't brandish her religion on the campaign trail, but that doesn't prevent others from doing so. After she was first elected mayor, her predecessor, John Stein, objected that a Valley cable TV program had hailed her as Wasilla's first "Christian mayor." In a column for the local newspaper, he named eight previous mayors and added that he, too, was a Christian . . . .

Plus, Jeffrey Weiss asks: "Is Palin the first Pentecostal to make it on a major national political ticket?"  He's not sure yet whether she claims that affiliation herself.  Meanwhile, Doug Wead says she affiliates with the Assemblies of God.  

UPDATE:  In an interview Palin did with Time magazine on August 14, 2008, Palin identified herself simply as a "Bible-believing Christian" who attends a "nondenominational Bible church." She says she was baptized in the Catholic church as an infant, but that her family began attending nondenominational churches thereafter.  Here's the relevant snippet from the interview transcript:

[TIME:] Where do you see yourself going? Staying on in Alaska. Washington?

[Palin:] You know, I don't know. I knew early on that the smartest thing for me to do was to work hard, do the best that I can, make wise decisions based on good information in front of me. And then put my life, get myself on a path that could be dedicated to God and ask Him what I should next. That will be the position I will be in as long as I'm on earth — that is, seeking the right path that God would have laid out for me.

[TIME:] What's your religion?

[Palin:] Christian.

[TIME:] Any particular...?

[Palin:] No. Bible-believing Christian.

[TIME:] What church do you attend?

[Palin:] A non-denominational Bible church. I was baptized Catholic as a newborn and then my family started going to non-denominational churches throughout our life.

*  On abortion, same-sex marriage, and teaching "alternatives to evolution (such as creationism and intelligent design)" in public schools (Associated Baptist Press, August 29, 2008, and Anchorage Daily News , October 25, 2006):

While social issues are rarely election-deciders in libertarian-leaning Alaska, Palin has expressed strong opposition to gay rights. Besides supporting [a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex-marriage], she also said, during her 2006 campaign, that she disapproved a recent Alaska Supreme Court ruling that the state had to provide spousal benefits to same-sex partners of government employees.

While Palin later signed legislation that enforced the decision, she said she would support a ballot initiative that would effectively overturn the court ruling by banning gay spouses from state benefits. . . .

Palin has also expressed support for the teaching of alternatives to evolution in public schools. According to the Anchorage Daily News, in response to a question on teaching evolution versus religious theories during a 2006 gubernatorial debate, Palin said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

The Supreme Court has ruled against the teaching of creationism in public schools, and other federal courts have extended that to a ban on teaching "intelligent design," a newer theory that states life is so complex that it necessitates the existence of an intelligent creative force of some sort.

Palin later, according to the newspaper, modified her position on public schools' teaching such theories. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class," she said. "It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

UPDATE: Note that the August 2006 article from the Anchorage Daily News that covered this gubernatorial debate says that the exact question the moderator asked of Palin on this subject was: "[S]hould public schools teach alternatives to evolution (such as creationism and intelligent design)[?]"

*  More on abortion, and same-sex marriage (Anchorage Daily News (August 6, 2006)):

In 2002, when she was running for lieutenant governor, Palin sent an e-mail to the anti-abortion Alaska Right to Life Board saying she was as "pro-life as any candidate can be" and has "adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion."

Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life.

"I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life," she said. . . .

Palin said she's not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay, but that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment [banning same-sex marriage].

Elected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples.

"I believe that honoring the family structure is that important," Palin said.

She said she doesn't know if people choose to be gay.

*  On Alaska faith-based initiatives (Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, June 25, 2007):

 In Alaska, Gov. Sarah Palin ( R ) easily adopted the Alaska Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives set up by the former Republican governor. And, with help from the legislature, Palin has advanced its role and authority. . . .

Alaska governor Palin recently issued a 2007 annual report that states that the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives will continue to hold community presentations on the work of religious and secular nonprofits, hold funding forums around the state, provide weekly funding information, and provide free resources on guidelines for government and nonprofit partnerships.

"The new governor has been very supportive of the office and what we are doing in our communities," said Stephanie Wheeler, executive director of the Alaska faith-based office.

But the initiative has not been without controversy in Alaska, especially as it continues to grow. . . .

[I]n May, the Alaska legislature approved a state match of $210,000 to help grass-roots, faith-based and community organizations provide social services in rural and small communities. The Alaska FBCI office was recently awarded a $500,000 federal grant through the Compassion Capital Fund as part of the President's Faith-Based and Community Initiative.

The legislature's action stirred considerable debate and a local television news station conducted an online poll asking if government should fund faith-based organizations. Seventy-seven percent of the respondents said no.

That prompted Wheeler to write an opinion column in the Anchorage newspaper defending her office's role as building the capacity of faith-based organizations to help with social service delivery.

"Both the governor and the legislature support the initiative," she said. "But it's been challenging to encourage the legislature to take the big picture of what this office does. We don't proselytize but we look at the value of faith-based organizations partnering with government to meet the needs of Alaska," she said.

The 2007 report of the Alaska Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives is here.

*  On social service block grants and Alaska faith-based office (Anchorage Daily News, March 12, 2007):

Gov. Sarah Palin has proposed to eliminate nearly $1.5 million in social service block grants for Anchorage, Fairbanks and Mat-Su, and instead give a similar amount to the state Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to distribute around the state.

Palin's budget calls for wiping out the human services block grants that have gone to the three largest urban areas for about 25 years, according to Beverly Wooley, health and human services director for Anchorage.

The city and boroughs pass the money along to nonprofit organizations such as Bean's Cafe, Covenant House and the Brother Francis Shelter. The local needs are determined by the local governments.

Instead of continuing that system, Palin wants to put $1.4 million in the state faith-based office.

"We would be able to take the grants statewide instead of just the three areas," said Sherry Hill, spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Social Services, which supervises the faith-based office.

And the state would decide who gets the money, Hill said.

The plan is meeting some opposition in the Legislature.

Rep. Mike Hawker, R-Anchorage, who chairs the House Finance Committee health subcommittee, said it is inappropriate to move the money to a state office, usurping the authority of local governments to determine where it is most needed. . . .

Wooley, the muni human services director, said taking the money and putting it out statewide "stands to cripple the existing services being provided." . . . .

Susannah Morgan, director of Food Bank of Alaska, said the idea of offering such grants statewide makes sense, but only if there were a lot more funding available. "At four to five times the same rate, it makes sense to me. But as it is, it would be taking the same amount of butter and spreading it over a lot more bread."

UPDATES:

*  On private education and homeschooling (from Palin's 2007 State of the State address)(via Jeffrey Weiss):

And so a centerpiece of my administration IS our commitment to a “world class education” system. Let’s take education and move beyond No Child Left Behind to ensure that “no ALASKAN is left behind.”

We’ll work with our Congressional delegation to ADAPT federal mandates to fit Alaska. . . . . Flexibility is needed, for rural schools, especially.

To meet our challenges, I’ve asked our departments to bring together the private sector, the Department of Labor, postsecondary institutions, and our wonderful alternative education choices, including home schools, to ensure that students have the skills to meet Alaska’s workforce needs. And, I will continue to ask families and individuals to take more responsibility.

*  On religious leaders endorsing political candidates (from coverage  in Anchorage Daily News of October 2006 Alaska gubernatorial debate)(via Jeffrey Weiss):

[The debate moderator asked:] Is it OK for religious leaders to endorse candidates . . . .[?]

[The moderator] asked how they would feel if they walked into a church and heard a minister or pastor endorse a candidate for governor.

(Note, the following are excerpts, not the candidates’ full responses.) . . . .

PALIN: “A pastor, a priest, a rabbi, certainly they have the freedom to say whatever they want to say. And you know, thank the lord that we do have that freedom of speech.
“Faith is very important to so many of us here in America, and I would never support any government effort to stifle our freedom of religion or freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

“You know, I would just caution maybe a pastor to be very careful if they’re in front of a congregation and they decide to endorse one candidate over another. You know, there may be some frustration with that candidacy endorsement being made manifest by a few, fewer dollars in the offering plate, so I would just offer that bit of caution. (laughing.)
"But, no, I’ll tell you, freedom of speech is so precious and it’s worth defending and of course freedom of religion and freedom of expression will be things that I will fight for.”

Back After Labor Day

I'm on a blogging break.  I'll be back after Labor Day.

"Science and religion just ask different questions.”

That's a quote from David Campbell, a science teacher who teaches evolution (among other scientific concepts) to high school students at a Florida public school.  Amy Harmon, the reporter from the New York Times who wrote the story (and perhaps some of her colleagues at the paper), had a brilliant idea -- sit in on Campbell's classes and write about his teaching methods and the reactions from his students.  The story is a must-read.   Here's one of my favorite snippets from the piece:

[Teacher David Campbell] bounced a pink rubber Spalding ball on the classroom’s hard linoleum floor.

“Gravity,” he said. “I can do this until the end of the semester, and I can only assume that it will work the same way each time.”

He looked around the room. “Bryce, what is it called when natural laws are suspended — what do you call it when water changes into wine?” [Note: The article notes that Bryce Haas is a football player who attended the 6 a.m. prayer meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in the school gymnasium and who is skeptical, to say the least, of evolution.]

“Miracle?” Bryce supplied.

Mr. Campbell nodded. The ball hit the floor again.

“Science explores nature by testing and gathering data,” he said. “It can’t tell you what’s right and wrong. It doesn’t address ethics. But it is not anti-religion. Science and religion just ask different questions.”

He grabbed the ball and held it still.

“Can anybody think of a question science can’t answer?”

“Is there a God?” shot back a boy near the window.

“Good,” said Mr. Campbell, an Anglican who attends church most Sundays. “Can’t test it. Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it. It’s not a question for science.”

Bryce raised his hand.

“But there is scientific proof that there is a God,” he said. “Over in Turkey there’s a piece of wood from Noah’s ark that came out of a glacier.”

Mr. Campbell chose his words carefully.

“If I could prove, tomorrow, that that chunk of wood is not from the ark, is not even 500 years old and not even from the right kind of tree — would that damage your religious faith at all?”

Bryce thought for a moment.

“No,” he said.

The room was unusually quiet.

“Faith is not based on science,” Mr. Campbell said. “And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ‘believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks.”

“But I do,” he added, “expect you to understand it.”

While Campbell's method for navigating these sensitive matters isn't perfect, it seems to me that it is pretty darn good.  So here's my question:   To what extent are teachers like this invited to share their teaching methods with other science teachers in public secondary schools, at teacher conventions or through continuing education or the like?  If creative and savvy teachers like this aren't given a big platform to share their methods, they should be.

Links to some who are blogging from DNC (Updated)

If you are looking for links to bloggers who write about religion and public affairs and are blogging from the Democratic convention, here's a list of some of them:

Sarah Pulliam of Christianity Today

Faith in Public Life

Paul Raushenbuch at Progressive Revival

Steve Waldman of  Beliefnet (Thanks to Ted Olsen for the tip.)

Some of them are liveblogging; some of them aren't.  Some are doing a mix of the two.  If I come across others who are blogging from the convention, I'll add them to the list. 

Biden on Religion's Role in Public Life and Church-State Issues

In light of the big news of the day, I thought I'd post some excerpts from various statements and stories that reflect Senator Biden's views regarding religion's role in public life and church-state issues.  Here are a few noteworthy excerpts:

From "The Fourth R: Conflicts Over Religion in American Public Schools" by Joan DelFattore (Yale University Press 2004):

[At a 1995 Senate hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment that would have re-introduced school-sponsored prayer, among other forms of state-endorsed and state-subsidized religion, Senator Orrin Hatch argued that] [t]he government should foster spirituality . . . as an antidote to moral decay.  Biden replied, "The coin of religious freedom, we must never forget, has two sides."   . . . .  America is one of the most religious nations on Earth, he maintained, precisely because the government has stayed out of religion.  In his view, the issue before the Senate was not whether religion was good but whether all Americans, including religious minorities, would benefit from increased government involvement with it.

From The Christian Science Monitor (August 2007):

"The animating principle of my faith, as taught to me by church and home, was that the cardinal sin was abuse of power," he said in an interview with the Monitor. "It was not only required as a good Catholic to abhor and avoid abuse of power, but to do something to end that abuse."

By the way, that statement helps shed some more light on an answer Biden gave at a Democratic presidential debate in September 2007 when he was asked what his favorite Bible verse was.  (I thought this was a poor question for a presidential debate, by the way).  Biden's answer to this question was: "Christ's warning of the Pharisees."

From the Associated Press (June 2006):

Calling the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks a greater shock to the American psyche than Pearl Harbor, U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden said Saturday that Democrats must demonstrate they can provide for national security to win back the presidency. . . .

"The next Democrat, whether it's me or Sen. Clinton or John Kerry, whomever -- the Democratic nominee -- they'd better be able to ante up right in front of the American people two things: security and faith," he said. . . .

Biden also criticized Democrats for their sometimes patronizing approach to religion, saying believers of different faiths don't expect everyone to join them.

"They just want to know we respect them," he said. "If we can't negotiate the faith issue, forget it, we won't win."

From an October 2007 interview with The Chicago Tribune:*

[Senator Joe Biden:] How was it that in '92 and in '96, Bill Clinton could get a majority of the Catholic vote, and 40 some percent of the Christian vote and 78 percent of the Jewish vote, and how was it that that Al Gore and John Kerry couldn't do that?

Because I think Democrats have it wrong. They think in order to get that vote, you have to demonstrate you're born again, or you have to quote the bible or you're a religious person. I don't believe that. I think the reason why Bill Clinton won that vote even though they knew he wasn't a paragon of virtue--and Al Gore was--was because when Bill Clinton sat in that fundamentalist pew, that Catholic cathedral, that Jewish synagogue, the guy sitting next to him believed Bill Clinton respected him, and respected his views.

The Democratic Party has become elitist. At fundraisers with wealthy guys, they are uncomfortable when I say that. I say let me ask you a rhetorical question: Do you think it's possible for someone to go to a fundamentalist church tomorrow, make an altar call, profess he's born again, and have a high IQ? They all smile. The truth is we have communicated--the elite in our party have communicated--that we really don't respect that.

Now theres a reason for that. They are so angry about the polarization of religion by the Christian right that they've said any talk of religion is bad. Well, I think it's about respect and I don't think that we should shy away from counterpunching. Saying hey, wait a minute, you want to talk about values? I'm your guy. Let's talk about values.

I really believe with every fiber of my being the vast majority of Americans agree with us-- about how to treat children, about the elderly, about the whole issue about dealing with the environment. We act like these people in the red states oppose us? They don't!

From the Associated Press (August 2007):

Biden, a practicing Catholic, acknowledged that he rarely has talked about religion in his 34-year Senate career, but suggested that would change if he wins the Democratic presidential nomination.

Let me also add a quick summary of Senator Biden's record on some major church-state legislation that ultimately became law and some other church-state issues.  Biden supported the Equal Access Act of 1984, the  Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and  the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.  As the first excerpt listed above indicates, Biden opposed the Istook amendment, a proposed amendment to the Constitution that was designed to reintroduce school-sponsored prayer and to allow other forms of government-endorsed and government-subsidized religion.  The Istook amendment was defeated in 1998. 

Biden criticized a court decision that held that the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God"  violated the First Amendment.  He has spoken against teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in public school science classrooms, and he supported Clinton administration efforts to help public school officials, parents, and students to better understand religion's place in public schools under the First Amendment. *

There are some excerpts below the fold that provide a few more details about these and other matters.    

* Added material.

Religion and Politics Round-up

I hope to have the chance to comment on some of these items later.  Right now, I only have time to flag them.

* The latest Pew Research Center poll on religion and politics.  One interesting finding:  "Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view."

*A nice piece from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency looks at the debate within the Jewish community about various religious emphases in politics and at the upcoming party conventions. 

*  The launch of a new PAC:  "The Catholic Democrats PAC is an FEC-registered political action committee dedicated to supporting Democratic politicians and elected officials of all creeds who support the values outlined in the US Bishops' document, Faithful Citizenship.  . . . Our mission is to work within the Democratic Party to bring about a more just ordering of society."

*  Faith in Public Life announces one other event that will occur at the DNC convention.  It, along with Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Beliefnet, is cosponsoring an event entitled The Shifting Faith Vote: What It Means for this Election.   FiPL describes it as a panel discussion that will "assess how the changing values debate among religious voters will impact the general electorate, the campaigns and the media, and explore how those who support this expanded debate are getting the message out broadly between now and the election. Amy Sullivan will moderate, and Ron [Stief], Alexia Kelley, Zack Exley, Paul Raushenbush and Michael Beckwith will share their experience and expertise on the topic."

*  Martin Marty writes a column entitled "Using God Politically."   Among other things, Marty says: "[F]aith" as it affects policy is one (admittedly tricky) thing; faith as faith cannot be enlarged upon in the public forum without coming close to exploiting religion and making God part of campaign slogans."  As with all of Marty's stuff, it's worth reading the whole thing.  (Via Bruce Prescott.)

IRS Investigating Minneapolis Church

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the IRS "is conducting an unusual investigation into whether compensation and loan deals between the Living Word Christian Center of Brooklyn Center (LWCC) and its pastor violated laws for tax-exempt organizations."  This church, which is located in Minneapolis, is pastored by Mac Hammond, who ran into some amount of controversy in 2006 when he said from the pulpit that he was going to vote for then-Congressional candidate Michelle Bachman and invited her to address the congregation.  That prompted one group, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW), to file a complaint about the church with the IRS in October 2006, arguing that, as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, the church had run afoul of the IRS electioneering restrictions.

Soon the plot thickened, with CREW making additional allegations that went far beyond the claimed violation of these electioneering rules.  On February 8, 2007, CREW filed another complaint with the IRS regarding LWCC, alleging that it "ha[d] engaged in illegal financial transactions with LWCC’s senior pastor and founder, James 'Mac' Hammond, in which Hammond has profited from the church’s activities. Hammond and his wife are two of the seven members of the LWCC’s board of trustees, making them 'insiders' under federal tax law. Tax law prohibits insiders from benefitting from a 501(c)(3) organization."   The next day, CREW filed again with the IRS, claiming that "[n]ewly discovered information suggests that LWCC may have been paying for a stunt plane that Mr. Hammond currently owns."

At least some of these things caught the attention of the IRS.  An interesting twist is that it appears that this investigation is aimed at some of the same sorts of alleged abuse that  Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on Finance, is looking into on the legislative side.  Here's a snippet from the Minneapolis Tribune story:

Strang: Participation but not benediction at DNC events (Updated)

Sarah Pulliam reports that "Relevant Magazine founder and CEO Cameron Strang [has] decided not to give the benediction at the Democratic National Convention as previously planned," but he will participate in a panel discussion at the DNC as previously planned.  Here's a snippet from the e-mail that Strange sent to Pulliam:

"As a pro-life voter, I never intended my participation to imply unequivocal endorsement, and the DNC knew that and were fine with that.  . . . I wanted to show that this generation of values voters doesn't necessarily need to draw battle lines politically the way previous generations have, that we can work through areas of disagreement to further the common good.

"However, the reality is, through RELEVANT I reach a demographic that has strong faith, morals and passions, but disagreements politically. It wouldn't be wise for me to pick a political side, when I've consistently said both sides are right in some areas and both sides are wrong in some areas. My desire is to keep an open dialogue with both campaigns and talk about the issues that matter to my generation of Christians. If my praying at the DNC was perceived as showing favoritism and incorrectly labeling me as endorsing one candidate over the other, then I needed to have pause. And that's what was happening.

"So I brought that concern up to the DNC, and they understood. I recommended bestselling author Don Miller as a much better representative of our audience than I am, and they were glad to invite him to give the invocation in my place.  . . .

"Like I mentioned, they've invited me to participate in a "Faith in the '08 Election" panel on Thursday, which seems to be a perfect fit. . . .

The full statement is here.  Earlier this week, RNS published a list of the people who will give invocations and benedictions at the DNC.  In contrast to Strang's take on the prayers, Rabbi David Saperstein, has said that he sees them "as an opportunity for religious leaders to raise up in a non-partisan manner the moral challenges facing the country and to pray that the country's leaders have the wisdom and courage to resolve them."

UPDATE (8/22): Eric Gorski reports on this development.  As Gorski notes, Cameron is the 32-year-old son of Steve Strang, who was an enthusiastic backer of Mike Huckabee earlier in this election cycle and apparently has now endorsed John McCain.   Cameron is undecided in this election, Gorski says.   But, as the statement noted above indicates, Cameron recently changed his party affiliation from Republican to Independent.  Gorski also links to Cameron Strang's blog post on this issue.

Garland Appointed Interim President of Baylor Unviersity

As Bruce Prescott reports, David Garland, who currently serves as dean of Truett Seminary at Baylor University, has been appointed interim president of Baylor Unversity.  Bruce says: "Congratulations to Board President Howard Batson and the other Regents for this wise and prudent choice. Garland would make an outstanding choice for a permanent appointment as President of the University."  I agree.

Brief of Summum in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

The brief for the respondent in the Pleasant Grove City v. Summum case, a case the U.S. Supreme Court will consider next term, has been posted.  For more information on the case, click here.  For links to the petitioners' (Pleasant Grove City et al.) opening brief on the merits and amicus briefs supporting petitioners or filed on behalf of neither party,  click here.  The date for oral argument in this case is November 12, 2008.

11th Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Cobb County Commission Prayer Case

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports on oral argument heard yesterday by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving predominately Christian prayers that currently open Cobb County Commission meetings.    The reporter describes the panel of judges as skeptical of the argument that the  government must ensure that prayers before commission meetings are non-sectarian.  There's a long snippet from the piece below the fold.

Continue reading "11th Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Cobb County Commission Prayer Case" »

The IRS has released a new edition of its Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations.  I have not had a chance to read it yet.  If I find something worth writing about in it, I'll do another post.

The Roundtable reports that "Jay Hein, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, resigned last week, saying he will return to Indiana to care for his father who has a progressive form of cancer. He plans to leave his position on August 29, according to a White House spokeswoman who confirmed his resignation."  I've had my differences with Jay on a variety of matters.  But I appreciate the efforts he made not to demonize differences over the faith-based initiative.  I'm so sorry about this family illness.  I will keep the Hein family in my prayers.

"A lawsuit brought by the Florida Education Association and other school groups [about certain ballot initiatives] is set for a Sept. 8 oral argument date before the state's high court." Here's more from the Orlando Sentinel:

Two legal challenges filed this summer to constitutional amendments that would cut property taxes and expand school-vouchers will get a final verdict on their worthiness for the Nov. 4 ballot by the state Supreme Court this fall. . . .

 Leon County Judge John Cooper ruled this month that Amendments 7 and 9 -- which seek to undo previous court decisions invalidating a statewide voucher program -- were not an over-reach by the state tax commission that drafted them. Now the high court, which stands to have its 2006 Holmes voucher ruling overturned if Amendment 9 passes, will get a crack at them. And the court will be down a man. Justice Raoul Cantero is resigning from the seven-member bench Sept. 6, so the court will probably only have six sitting judges unless Gov. Charlie Crist appoints a replacement before the hearing. . . .

The high court could be under pressure to act quickly. Florida's secretary of state certifies the November ballot in early September and election supervisors are likely to print their ballots shortly thereafter. It could cause confusion if the court adds or subtracts ballot questions afterward.

UPDATE:  The briefing schedule is here.  (Thanks to the Tampa Bay Tribune.)

"A lawsuit brought by the Florida Education Association and other school groups [about certain ballot initiatives] is set for a Sept. 8 oral argument date before the state's high court." Here's more from the Orlando Sentinel:

Two legal challenges filed this summer to constitutional amendments that would cut property taxes and expand school-vouchers will get a final verdict on their worthiness for the Nov. 4 ballot by the state Supreme Court this fall. . . .

 Leon County Judge John Cooper ruled this month that Amendments 7 and 9 -- which seek to undo previous court decisions invalidating a statewide voucher program -- were not an over-reach by the state tax commission that drafted them. Now the high court, which stands to have its 2006 Holmes voucher ruling overturned if Amendment 9 passes, will get a crack at them. And the court will be down a man. Justice Raoul Cantero is resigning from the seven-member bench Sept. 6, so the court will probably only have six sitting judges unless Gov. Charlie Crist appoints a replacement before the hearing. . . .

The high court could be under pressure to act quickly. Florida's secretary of state certifies the November ballot in early September and election supervisors are likely to print their ballots shortly thereafter. It could cause confusion if the court adds or subtracts ballot questions afterward.

UPDATE:  The briefing schedule is here.  (Thanks to the Tampa Bay Tribune.)

No time to comment on this, but I want to flag an important story from today's  Washington Post.  Here's a snippet:

With the presidential campaign in full swing, nonprofit leaders are organizing what some call an unprecedented effort to boost the presence of philanthropy and community service in a new administration. They are calling for a White House office or an agency similar to the Small Business Administration to match nonprofit programs with government priorities, help successful community-based initiatives grow and organize a corps of service volunteers.

Nonprofit organizations are a growing economic force, with about one in 10 U.S. workers employed by such organizations and Americans giving upwards of $300 billion a year to charities. Although they are relied on to fix many of society's problems, nonprofit groups often work in isolation and have virtually no strategic coordination with government.

"We're the only industry of this size and scope that doesn't have a real voice in this process. At best, we're humored. At worst, we're ignored," said Robert Egger, founder of D.C. Central Kitchen. . . .

But these proposals have drawn skepticism from some philanthropists who pride themselves on their autonomy and are leery of government oversight.

"There are a lot of people in this sector who will get nervous about the federal government becoming too engaged in philanthropy," said Steve Gunderson, president of the Council on Foundations. "This is a delicate balance." . . . .

Both of the presumptive presidential candidates have been receptive to these proposals. . . .

Nationally, some nonprofit leaders consider the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives a model. Established by President Bush in 2001, it helps churches and religious nonprofit groups expand their services by making federal grants more accessible. Critics have raised concerns about the separation of church and state and have said the office gives ministries and politically connected groups an unfair advantage in competing for millions in federal funds.

The article also notes that "a coalition of nonprofit groups and entrepreneurs recently started America Forward, a similar campaign based on the idea that solutions to the nation's problems already exist, often conceived by small but innovative community-based groups. America Forward seeks to combine corporate pragmatism, charitable ethos and government investment to develop these solutions to address the biggest challenges."  The website of America Forward is here.

Of the "cone of silence" controversy, the Washington Post reports that "Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman, said the senator's aides did not watch [Obama being questioned by Warren] and tell the candidate which questions Obama was asked, either." 

My question here was never about Warren and company.  I never doubted that they were telling the truth and tried to be fair.  Having said that, I don't think it was a good idea for Warren to joke about a "cone of silence."   Even though it was a joke, it created the false impression that McCain had actually been sequestered in the building during the whole program when he had not.  And that then led to some questions about the integrity of the arrangement.  But that kind of thing (a throw-away joke that creates a false impression) certainly could happen to any person who is a novice at moderating a presidential debate, and I would bet that Warren would not say that again if he had it to do over. 

The thing that raised my eyebrow yesterday was the report that the McCain campaign apparently had refused to answer the question about whether aides had passed on to McCain information about the questions Warren asked Obama during the program.  I was waiting for them to respond to that precise question.  Now that they have, I take them at their word.

While on this topic, let me also note that it's  good that Warren's spokesman cleared up the matter about whether the candidates were coming in cold to the interviews or whether they had a heads-up on some of the specific questions and the general topics of certain others.  There was the impression that the candidates were coming in cold.  But, as Warren's spokesman indicated, they were not.   Transparency on these things is important, obviously, and giving this information to the public helps stamp out some of wild and false rumors, like the one that Warren gave McCain, and not Obama, the questions in advance.   Warren's spokesman explained that Warren gave advance information about some of the questions to both candidates and tried to be as careful as possible about being fair to both in that process.  Here again, I don't think there was any intent on behalf of Warren and company to create a false impression, i.e., that the candidates were coming in cold to the interviews.  The misunderstanding had to do with a lack of experience on Warren's part about how closely and carefully everything connected to such an important national event would be parsed.

UPDATE (8/22):  I did not see the Larry King Live program where Rick Warren was a guest.  I've just read the transcript from that program.   As I said above, I think Warren made an excusable mistake with his joking reference to a "cone of silence."  But I also think, especially when this matter was raised with him, he should have apologized for unintentionally creating a false impression.   He did not do so on this program.  I think that was a mistake.  The relevant portion of the transcript appears below the fold.

By the way, there are other things in this transcript that I'd like to address, but I'll have to hope that I have time to do so later.

Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice have launched a new blog, Lynn v. Sekulow.   Bookmark the blog for feisty debates on church-state issues and religion's role in public affairs.

Jake Tapper gets some comments from A. Larry Ross, a spokesman for Saddleback Church and Pastor Rick Warren, on the "cone of silence" controversy.

[Ross] says that the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has assured the organizers of Saturday night's "Civil Forum" that McCain did not "see or hear any of Senator Obama's appearance."

But as for the question the McCain campaign won't answer -- did anyone with McCain, given the questions via email or cell phone, share them with the senator -- Ross says, "I cannot speak to that."

Before the forum, Ross says, "both candidates agreed to the format of two consecutive interviews." Based on a coin toss, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, went first, and both candidates also "agreed to and understood that in order to maintain a level playing field, Sen. McCain wouldn't see or hear any of Sen. Obama's appearance."

Officials at Saddleback did everything they could to maintain what Warren jokingly called a "cone of silence." . . . .

Last week Warren spoke with both candidates -- McCain on Thursday, Obama on Friday -- and outlined the four basic categories of the questions. "He also gave them general themes," Ross says, "like, 'There will be a tax question,' 'There will be an environment question.' He did not give them specific wording except on two questions, and he did that because this forum was new ground and he didn't want them to be nervous, he wanted them to be comfortable."

Those two questions were: What is your greatest moral failure and the greatest moral failure of the United States?; and who are the three wisest people you know?

Warren also decided to press his proposal to have an emergency fund to care for orphans, and decided to give them a heads up, but he was only able to reach Obama with that question, partly because McCain arrived late, Ross says, at around 5:20 pm Pacific.

"So it was a level playing field except Obama had the extra Intel of that question," Ross says.

Ross demurred when asked if it bothers him or Pastor Warren that the McCain campaign has so far refused to say no one told the senator about the questions Obama was asked, though he did note that "the language the McCain campaign used" in its conversations with Saddleback officials was that he didn't hear or see the broadcast itself.

In related news, Rick Warren will appear on Larry King Live tonight.

Yesterday I offered a brief critique of Rick Warren's question on the faith-based initiative.  I see now that Barry Lynn also weighed in on this matter.  Lynn says, "On the hiring issue, what has kept President Bush's faith-based initiative from passing Congress has been precisely that many Senators do not think the landmark Civil Rights Act even addressed the issue of taxpayer-funded church positions or activities."  

I did some research on these issues several years ago.   The research was published in 2005  in  a book entitled Sanctioning Religion: Politics, Law, and Faith-based Social Services, edited by David Ryden and Jeffrey Polet.  Among other things, I looked at the legislative history of the 1972 amendment that broadened the religious exemption from the 1964 Civil Rights Act's prohibition on religious discrimination.  The 1972 amendment broadened  that exemption so that it applied (and now applies) to all of a religious organization's job positions, rather than  simply those jobs the government would deem to be connected with the carrying out of  "religious activities." 

My research reveals that the lead sponsors of the 1972 amendment rallied support for their cause by offering examples of religious institutions that they pointedly said did not receive government financial aid but were supported by private funds.  The legislative history of the 1972 amendment is sometimes cited in favor of the policy of allowing religious groups to discriminate on the basis of religion vis-a-vis government-funded jobs.   The problem is that the evidence here cuts against that proposition and policy.   

There's more to unpack here, but I'll have to do it at a later time.   A snippet from my research appears below the fold.

I just have a very few minutes to blog this morning, but I wanted to offer several more comments on Rick Warren's questions last night at the Saddleback Civil Forum.   At the outset, let me say that I haven't had the chance to read the full transcript yet,  so these observations are based mostly on my memory of the event.  If I find that my memory is faulty when I read the full transcript, I will revise this post accordingly.

As I said last night, I thought Warren's questions were generally much better than the ones journalists asked at previous candidate forums that were sponsored by religious groups.  But I also think there were problems with some of Warren's questions, or lack of questions.  Let me mention a few.

First and foremost, I don't remember Warren asking about torture.  I remember Barack Obama bringing it up, but I don't remember Warren raising it.  If that is indeed the case, that was a mistake.  Torture is a profound moral issue of huge national and international importance that will confront the next president.  It definitely should have been on Warren's list of questions.

Second, more attention should have been given to the government's role in overcoming poverty, beyond the role of working with nongovernmental organizations, including religious organizations, to serve those in need.  Like torture, abortion, stem-cell research, and other issues, this is an issue where our values matter.  It is also an area where there is a serious need for enlightened discussion in religious circles.  I wish that Warren had helped to advance that debate.

Third, while I give credit to Warren for asking a specific question about the faith-based initiative (earlier forums had mostly neglected this issue or asked vague questions about it), I thought Warren's question on this issue left something to be desired, to put it mildly.  Here's the question Warren asked:

80 percent of Americans believe faith based organizations do a better job at community services than the government helping addictions, you know, prisoner reentry, all the different homelessness, poverty, things like that.  The Civil Rights Act of '64 says that faith-based organizations have the right to hire people that believe like they do.  Would you insist that faith based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?

The real issue here isn't whether a religious group would have to give up its Title VII religious exemption in order to participate in the delivery of government-funded social services.   No candidate has proposed that.  Put simply, the issue is whether organizations should be able to make employment decisions on the basis of religion with regard to government-funded jobs.   Stated differently, the question is:  Should people of all faiths and none be equally eligible for government-funded jobs, if they agree with the mission of the government-funded program (e.g., serving those in need)?  Assume one answers "yes" to that last question.  That would not mean that, in order to receive government social service funds, a religious group would have to promise not to hire or fire on the basis of religion with regard, for example, to a chaplain's position that works outside the government-funded program and is subsidized with the religious group's own funds.   Again, no candidate is suggesting that.  Instead, the essential debate is about whether a group may control access to government-funded jobs based on a person's religious identity or convictions about theological matters or whether there should be equal employment opportunity in government-funded jobs for people of all faiths and none. 

Another thing on Warren's faith-based initiative question.  Because he cited polling on one aspect of his question, I think he should have citing polling on the employment question as well.  Here's a question the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center asked on this subject (disclosure: we did this survey while I served as executive director of the Pew Forum): "If religious organizations do use government funds to provide social services, do you think these organizations should be allowed to only hire people who share their religious beliefs, or should they not be allowed to do this?"  78% of those surveyed said that religious organizations should not be allowed to do this.  Further, the survey found that "[r]oughly seven-in-ten Republicans say religious organizations that use government funds should not be able to hire only those who share their religious beliefs; 65% of white evangelical Protestants agree."

My fourth and final (at least for now) critique of Warren's questions has to do with another "sin of omission," if you will.  If memory serves, Warren did not mention the issue of ensuring that our children will have a sustainable and healthy environment in which to live.  Given the huge national and international importance of that issue, and its importance to many religious people, I think it also deserved to be in the mix.  I know Warren had a limited amount of time, and I want to acknowledge that Monday-morning quarter-backing is so much easier than doing the real thing, but I wish he had at least thrown in a reference to this matter.  (UPDATE: I just quickly scanned the questions as they are reflected in the transcript.   The only mention of the environment that I found was the following reference in a question Warren asked McCain: "I believe that leadership is stewardship, not ownership, and for a few years, you are asking us to place our stewardship, our freedom, and our security and economy, and environment, everything, in your hands, so here I have about five hundred questions in this category.  The first one is on the courts: which existing Supreme Court justices would you not have nominated?"  So, assuming I did not miss something in the transcript, Warren did mention the environment, but only in passing and not in any way that would have directed attention and invited a response to this important issue.)

None of this is intended to take back my earlier praise for Warren's questions.  It is simply intended to qualify it.

Sarah Pulliam has the list of some of the faith-related activities that will take place at the Democratic National Convention and the speakers at those events.

There is one here.

I had hoped to do some more blogging this evening about the Saddleback Civil Forum, but other duties call.  I'll offer one or two more cents later.

John McCain makes the "Georgia as a Christian nation" argument again, this time at the Saddleback Civil Forum .   It's troubling for a presidential candidate to "bless" this kind of thing in any setting.   I'm sorry McCain has chosen to repeat this.

By the way, is it just me, or does it sometimes seem that McCain thinks he is speaking at a meeting of the Family Research Council rather than at an event at Saddleback?  I know he is trying to gather or shore up support from FRC-type folks, but it is jarring to hear some of these things at Saddleback.  

I would like to rewrite some of Rick Warren's questions at the Saddleback Civil Forum.  But, so far, I think he has asked questions that are much better than the questions journalists asked at earlier forums that were sponsored by religious groups. 

Generally speaking, those journalists focused on abstract theological questions and rather sensationalistic questions about the candidates' personal religious practices or sins.  Rick Warren has mostly asked sensible questions about important issues that are on the minds of Americans of all sorts.  He has sought to determine how faith would inform governance and asked about moral issues, but he has basically avoided the errors these journalists made.  And while this has gotten billed as a "faith forum" by journalists, I think Warren has generally kept faith, if you will, with his promise to make it about the common good, even as it touches on religion and recognizes religion's role in society. 

Further, I think there is something to be said for having one interviewer, particularly one of good humor and basic fair-mindedness, rather than a bunch of different people firing off questions.  And, if I may, let me say God bless Rick Warren for saying that both of these candidates care deeply about America and that we must learn to disagree without demonizing one another and practice civility.

Finally, you had to laugh at the exchange between Warren and Obama about Obama's personal failings.  In the process of answering, Obama said he finally realized that, "It's not about me."  Warren responded,  "I like that line."   Of course, that echoes the first line of Warren's book, The Purpose-Driven Life.  By the way, I just now heard John McCain also mention that line in his comments about serving causes greater than our own self-interest.  Unsurprisingly, these guys have studied up.

More later. .  . .

ABC News reports on the court ruling that upheld the University of California's decision that certain classes at a Christian secondary school would not count toward UC admission.  Here's a snippet from the lengthy story:

According to a Web site set up by the university system, UC rejected the Calvary Chapel course titled Christianity's Influence on America because it used a text that "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations."

The school's literature course, however, was rejected because the use of an anthology as the only common assigned reading was in direct conflict with UC's policy that students read at least some assigned works in their entirety as part of the classroom instruction, according to the UC Web site. . . . .

"Any university has a right to set its criteria for admission," said [Thomas Buckley, professor of Modern Christian History at the University of California, Berkeley's Jesuit School of Theology, and] an expert in church-state issues. "When I was in high school -- San Jose Jesuit School -- I don't think my religious course counted toward college credit, and I don't think it should have." . . . .

Buckley argued that high school religious courses were "difficult to evaluate" and UC had a right to reject students who do not have "the same fundamental set of preparatory work achieved."

"Not getting credit for religious courses [is] a longstanding practice in higher education and it makes sense," he said. "You want all entering students to have a level playing field and to be treated equally."

The University's website on the case is here.  It includes links to reports by various experts, a fact sheet on UC policies for high school course approval, and some of the briefs that were filed in the case.

AP reports that "a jury unanimously decided Thursday that [Victoria Osteen] did not assault a flight attendant during an alleged tirade over a stain on her first-class seat."   Here's a snippet from the piece:

In his closing argument earlier Thursday, [Osteen's lawyer] described the incident as a verbal dispute, and labeled [flight attendant's] claims that she suffered injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder a "sacrilege" and a "blasphemy."

The jury's foreman, Gilles Labbe, said he and other jurors believed what happened on the plane was only a minor dispute between a passenger and one or more of the flight attendants.

"My personal point of view (the lawsuit) was a complete waste of time because the incident didn't rise to any kind of level. I fly all the time. I've seen a lot worse than that happen on airplanes."

Well, those reported claims by Osteen's lawyer raise my eyebrow -- I'd like to hear more about that.  But I wanted to note that the jury has spoken on the relevant legal charges.  The debate in religious circles regarding the Osteens' preaching and lifestyles, however, will no doubt continue.

The OC Register has posted a FAQ on the Saddleback Civil Forum that will take place this weekend.  According to the report, the FAQ was written and circulated by Rick Warren's office.  I've pasted in the contents of the FAQ below the fold.   More on this later.

UPDATE (8/15):  One of my reasons for posting this FAQ is that it reflects the fact that a few aspects of the event have changed since I last wrote about it.  For example, while Faith in Public Life played a role in bringing this event together, the event has gone forward with Saddleback as its sole sponsor.   Now that it is the eve of the event, I'm simply going to wait to see how it goes and comment thereafter. 

Chip Lupu and Bob Tuttle provide their analysis of the Seventh Circuit's recent decision holding that the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) lacked taxpayer standing to challenge various aspects of chaplaincy programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs.  In the conclusion of their analysis, Chip and Bob say:

The dismissal of FFRF v. Nicholson, though no surprise, is powerful evidence of how far the law of taxpayer standing has changed in the one year since the Supreme Court's decision in Hein. In 2006, the United States did not bother to raise the standing issue pre-Hein, probably because the government's lawyers saw little chance of prevailing. After Hein, the law was sufficiently transformed that FFRF v. Nicholson appeared to be a relatively easy case for the government to get dismissed on standing grounds.

In the past fourteen months, several district court decisions and several appeals court decisions have dismissed taxpayer suits in the wake of Hein. To our knowledge, other than in cases involving legislative earmarks for religious organizations, no court has ruled against the government in Hein-based motions to dismiss for lack of taxpayer standing. FFRF has long been the most aggressive litigator against government supported, faith-based social services. But FFRF's lawsuit that led to the decision in Hein is now proving to be the source of a significant impediment in the effort to use litigation to keep such social services in line with the Constitution.

For more on how the Hein decision is affecting church-state litigation, check out this transcript from a June 2008 Pew Forum discussion with Chip Lupu, Bob Tuttle, Alex Luchenitser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Walter Weber of the American Center for Law and Justice.

"The University of California did not violate students' freedom of expression and religion when it rejected some classes at a Riverside-area Christian school from counting toward UC admission, a Los Angeles federal judge has ruled."  Here's more from the The LA Times report on this decision:

In a case that has attracted significant attention in religious and academic circles nationwide since it was filed in 2005, the judge upheld the university's decision to disqualify several classes offered by Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta for being too narrow or not academically rigorous enough to fulfill UC's entrance requirements.

In a final ruling issued Friday, [August 8,] U.S. District Judge S. James Otero said UC demonstrated a rational basis for rejecting Calvary Christian's English, history, government and religion courses and did not display any "animus" toward the school or its Christian doctrines.

The university's policy was constitutional despite allegations by the students and school of an anti-Christian bias, the judge said.

The court made it clear that there was a difference between government  action that seeks "to punish a disfavored viewpoint" and state action that reflects "rational concern about the academic merit of those religious viewpoints."   The decision is here.  Howard Friedman has background on the case and a link to a previous ruling in it.  The LA Times piece notes that the losers in this case said they would appeal the August 8th ruling.

John McCain on the Russia-Georgia crisis:

Georgia itself, my friends, has a long and remarkable history. It was a fourth-century convert to Christianity, one of the first nations on Earth to convert to Christianity -- if you go to Georgia, as I have several times, you'll see churches that go back to the fourth- and fifth-century -- and it's been a part of the grand sweep that comprises Western civilization.

And this is relevant to the current crisis in exactly what way?  Anyway, that's not the only reason this statement caught my eye.  First of all, a nation cannot "convert" to Christianity -- only individuals can choose to follow Jesus Christ.  Second, while some nations do establish an official religion, I find it disturbing that an American presidential candidate would seem to describe that as a good thing.   

McCain has stumbled in this area in the past.   It seems like he needs to set aside some time to reflect on these issues.  Perhaps McCain's Baptist pastor could get the ball rolling by giving him a little reading assignment from Baptist preacher John Leland.  Among many other wise things, Leland said:  "Experience, the best teacher, has informed us, that the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did."

Can you guess who made the following statement?

I don’t think faith should be a calling card in political races. For example, [former] Gov. [Mike] Huckabee ran an ad in South Carolina before the primary there that identified him as a Christian leader. And he said, my faith defines me, it’s who I am, and so on. I agree with that as a Christian. He didn’t run that ad in Michigan; he didn’t run that ad in Florida. If your faith defines you, it defines you in all 50 states or it doesn’t define you at all, in my view. That’s what I’m troubled by – that faith becomes a political football or a calling card in whose faith is better.

I really think a lot of us are going to be troubled if the day would ever occur in this country, and I suppose it could, where neither candidate of its party really professed faith. What would a lot of religious – certainly religious conservatives would be in a real quandary there. That’s why I sort of preach the importance of common values, not necessarily common faith.

Look below the fold for the name of the person who made these remarks.

"A state appeals court lifted the cloud it had cast on the homeschooling of 166,000 California children and ruled Friday that parents have a right to educate their children at home even if they lack a teaching credential."  Here's more from the San Francisco Chronicle on the decision:

In its earlier ruling, the court said California's compulsory education law requires parents to send their children ages 6 to 18 to a full-time public or private school or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home. After agreeing to reconsider the case in March, the same three-judge panel ruled Friday that parents - with or without teaching credentials - can comply with the law by declaring their home to be a private school.

Schwarzenegger, who had pledged to get the law changed if the earlier ruling prevailed, issued a statement saying the new decision "confirms the right every California child has to a quality education and the right parents have to decide what is best for their children."

Homeschooling advocates - primarily, though not exclusively, conservative critics of public education - celebrated the ruling. . . .

[Attorney Debbie Schwarzer of the HomeSchool Association of California] said [the court] "was recognizing reality."

That reality included the fact that, although the compulsory education law has been unchanged since 1929 and rulings upholding it date from 1953, state and local education officials rarely take action against the thousands of parents who opt out of the system by homeschooling their children.

The court concluded that "(1) California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education; and (2) the statutory permission to home school may constitutionally be overridden in order to protect the safety of a child was has been declared dependent."  Here's part of the court's reasoning:

We are confronted with (1) compulsory education statutes which were apparently intended to eliminate the permission previously granted to home school; and (2) later enactments which reflect the Legislature's understanding that the compulsory education statutes permit home schooling, as a species of private education.  Under these circumstances, it is our view that the proper course of action is to interpret the earlier statutes in light of the later ones, and to recognize, as controlling, the Legislature's apparent acceptance of the proposition that home schools are permissible in California when conducted as private schools.

The unanimous opinion of the California Court of Appeal is here.  Howard Bashman has links to other coverage of the decision. 

The Forward reports that Barack Obama and John McCain are contributing short essays to a booklet featuring 29 essays that correspond with the 29 days of the Hebrew month of Elul, which leads up to the Jewish High Holy Days.  The publication, "is designed to provide daily inspiration from a wide range of artists, politicians, community leaders and thinkers."    The booklet is the brainchild of Craig Taubman, "creator of the popular musical Sabbath service known as 'Friday Night Live.' "   Here's a snippet from the Forward piece:

In June, Taubman reached out to Obama to ask if he would contribute to this year’s collection, which focuses on the theme of “dreamers and their dreams.” When Obama’s camp agreed, Taubman said, several of his staff members suggested that he might want to include McCain, as well.

The resulting essays — which, like all the entries, are only a few paragraphs long — are personal takes on the respective candidates’ dream of becoming president. “What’s nice is that there’s nothing political about this,” Taubman said. “It addresses the presidency and the campaign as personal.”

Taubman declined to reveal any details of either of the candidates’ contributions. He did, however, say that one candidate directly addresses the Jewish people and the other does not. Free copies of the booklet — 100,000, funded by the Stefan Adelipour for Life Foundation — will be distributed to synagogues and Jewish organizations across America.

You may sign up to receive this publication here.

Have you heard about the lawsuit against Victoria Osteen, who co-pastors the mega-church, Lakewood Church, with her famous husband, Joel Osteen?  I haven't been paying much attention to the lawsuit, but the last paragraph in today's New York Times coverage of that matter caught my eye. 

Go read the article if you want the full story, but it seems that the lawsuit involves Victoria Osteen's demand that a flight attendant clean up some liquid on her armrest in her first-class seat and Ms. Osteen's allegedly belligerent actions when that did not occur immediately.  There are claims of assault and possible racism and counterclaims of “extortion masquerading as a lawsuit.” 

I have no idea what the truth is regarding any of these matters.  But I was struck by a detail that the New York Times reports at the end of its story, a detail I had not seen reported elsewhere.  Here are the concluding paragraphs of the NYT story: 

The courtroom was standing room only with many members of Lakewood Church in attendance.

“I’m here for moral support and prayer,” said Mary Kay Grant, who has attended services at Lakewood for five years.

While she would not comment on Ms. Osteen’s behavior because she was not on the plane, Ms. Grant said she thought “Joel had a good solution.” Witnesses testified that he got between his wife and Ms. Brown and offered to clean up the spill himself.

That's Eric Rassbach of The Becket Fund commenting on the fact that the city of Washington, D.C.,  moved to landmark a church building so that the congregation could not tear it down and build a new structure that better suits its needs.  Here's a snippet from the story:

The Third Church of Christ, Scientist, at 16th and I streets NW, was designated a historic landmark in December, which means structural changes must go through the city's Historic Preservation Review Board.

Church members say the massive concrete structure is bunker-like and unwelcoming, and they want to raze it so they can build a new one. . . .

In a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, the church says the landmark designation violates the First Amendment by limiting its ability to freely practice religion.

The church contends that the land designation also violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which "prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that substantially burden the religious exercise of churches or other religious assemblies."

The preservation board ruled that the building, constructed in 1968, is an example of modern Brutalist architecture. Brutalism is defined by large blocks of poured concrete and sharp angles. The church was designed by Araldo Cossutta, who worked with renowned architect I.M. Pei's firm.

Worshipers say it is difficult and expensive to maintain a 400-seat sanctuary that usually draws 40 to 60 people on Sunday. In addition to prohibitively high heating and cooling costs, Kirkpatrick said, it costs almost $8,000 just to change light bulbs because scaffolding has to be built.

I expect the court documents will be posted here soon.  The story also says that other local religious leaders have submitted letters to the city council on the church's behalf.  For example, my friend Lynn Bergfalk, senior pastor at Wisconsin Avenue Baptist Church, points out: "Many people don't understand that a church is not just a house of worship. We need the resources for activity and ministry work during the week."  Commenting on this matter, here's how Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher put it:

To protect some esoteric notion of academic value, the city's preservation board has now sentenced the District's taxpayers to years of expensive legal battle, for surely this landmarking will lead to a lawsuit and surely the city will eventually lose. For better or worse, the laws of this country fiercely protect the separation of church and state, and those laws make quite clear that churches, not governments, get to decide in which building people shall worship and how those congregations get to spend their money. And the Christian Scientists do not want to spend their money shoring up a crumbling example of a failed and arrogant architectural experiment.

Our laws wisely prohibit this kind of governmental intrusion in religious matters.  Let's hope the city sees the light on this one soon.

Time magazine has a package of items in anticipation of the Saddleback Civil Forum that takes place on August 16.   The longest feature is a story on Rick Warren.  There are also short essays by John McCain and Barack Obama that are entitled "The Candidates on Faith."  I don't have time to comment on these items right now, but I did want to flag them.   There are snippets from each of them below the fold.

Some evangelical Christians are warning John McCain that he should not choose Mitt Romney as his running mate at least in part because Romney is a Mormon.  Some Catholics are telling Barack Obama that he should not choose Governor Tim Kaine or Governor Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate because Kaine and Sebelius, who happen to be Catholic, disagree with them on some policy issues.   The complaining Catholics argue that this means that Kaine and Sebelius are not practicing their faith in the right way.

It's troubling when religious groups tell politicians not to name certain people to political posts simply because they believe these potential nominees don't practice the right religion or because they practice the right faith in the wrong way.  The spirit of Article VI's no-religious-test clause suggests that no one should be disqualified from a political or governmental post merely because of his or her faith or lack thereof, or the way he or she practices a faith.   While Article VI only binds the government, the spirit of that constitutional command is worthy of consideration by all who are active in politics.   The no-religious-test principle is part of a larger regime of religious freedom that has helped make our nation one of great religious diversity and incredible civic peace and strength. 

I am not one who believes we can hermetically seal off religion and politics.  They will inevitably mix.  But that does not mean that all the ways in which they mix are defensible.  This is one of those cases where I think we need to throw a flag on the play.

On July 28, 2008, the IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division issued a new memorandum to all Exemption Organization (EO) Revenue Agents regarding campaign activity on the Internet. The memo supplements the parts of IRS Revenue Ruling 2007-41 that address these issues. As that revenue ruling made clear, "[i]f a [501(c)(3)] organization posts something on its web site that favors or opposes a candidate for public office, the organization will be treated the same as if it distributed printed material, oral statements or broadcasts that favored or opposed a candidate." The revenue ruling also touched on the matter of links, saying that, "[w]hen an organization establishes a link to another web site, the organization is responsible for the consequences of establishing and maintaining that link, even if the organization does not have control over the content of the linked site."  

This latest memo offers some more of the agency's thinking on links these issues, making two basic points.  First,  it says it will distinguish between cases involving links between unrelated organizations and cases involving links between related organizations. The memo says that the EO "will focus on analyzing the content around a link in the unrelated organization cases, and not pursue, at this time, cases involving a link between the Web site of a section 501(c)(3) organization and the home page of a Web site operated by a related section 501(c)(4) organization."  The Alliance for Justice provides the following commentary on this item:

"Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, who was appointed volunteer national coordinator for Muslim American affairs by the Obama campaign on July 26, stepped down Monday after an Internet newsletter wrote about his brief stint on the fund's board, which also included a fundamentalist imam." Here's more from The Wall Street Journal:

A corporate lawyer at the firm of Schiff Hardin LLP, Mr. Asbahi tendered his resignation after he and the Obama campaign received emailed inquiries about his background from The Wall Street Journal. He did not respond to the email or a message left at his law office; the campaign released a letter in which Mr. Asbahi said he did not want to be a distraction.

In 2000, Mr. Asbahi briefly served on the board of Allied Assets Advisors Fund, a Delaware-registered trust. Its other board members at the time included Jamal Said, the imam at a fundamentalist-controlled mosque in Illinois.

"I served on that board for only a few weeks before resigning as soon as I became aware of public allegations against another member of the board," Mr. Asbahi said in his resignation letter. "Since concerns have been raised about that brief time, I am stepping down...to avoid distracting from Barack Obama's message of change." . . . .

The Justice Department named Mr. Said an unindicted co-conspirator in the racketeering trial last year of several alleged Hamas fund-raisers, which ended in a mistrial. He has also been identified as a leading member of the group in news reports going back to 1993.

The article also quotes the following statement from the Obama campaign: "Mr. Asbahi has informed the campaign that he no longer wishes to serve in his volunteer position, and we are in the process of searching for a new national Arab American and Muslim American outreach coordinator."

"A [Florida] judge ruled Monday afternoon that voters statewide should have the chance to decide two constitutional amendments that could allow more public school money to be spent on private religious institutions."  Here's more from The Miami Herald:

In the ruling, Leon County Circuit Judge John C. Cooper said the state Taxation and Budget Reform Commission didn't exceed its constitutional authority in placing the amendments on the November ballot.

Cooper also ruled that one of the proposals, Amendment 9, isn't ''misleading'' voters by combining language supporting voucher scholarships along with a 35 percent cap on administrative expenditures for schools.

The Florida Education Association's chief, Andy Ford, vowed an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court and a vigorous political campaign, saying the state can't afford to divert more public-school money to private schools through voucher programs spearheaded by former Gov. Jeb Bush. . . .

[Judge] Cooper stressed in his ruling that he was bound by previous rulings and Florida law to allow the amendments to go on the ballot because education policy is such a big part of the state's budget, which the commission is in charge of reforming.

The ruling is here (pdf).

UPDATE: More stories on the decision from the Associated Press and the Daytona News Journal.

Gershom Gorenberg walks us through the latest (and hopefully, the last) chapter in the saga involving the prayer note Barack Obama left in The Western Wall, the yeshiva student who stole the note and then returned it and apologized, and the newspapers that printed the contents of the note and those that did not.  As Gorenberg says, some had claimed that the Obama campaign had released the text of the prayer note, but it has been established that those claims are false.

Throughout this episode, one thing that has been on my mind is the comment Obama gave to a reporter  after he visited the wall but before the contents of his prayer note were made public.  A reporter asked Obama whether he wanted to share the contents of his note, and Obama flatly said "no."  (I cannot seem to find the link to this story now.  I'll add the link later if I find it.  UPDATE: Here's the report.  Thanks to Elizabeth Anne Sclater for directing me to it.) 

One of the things I think we are learning in this presidential campaign is that candidates who are religious sometimes need to refuse to talk about their personal faith.  Of course, candidates should tell us about how their faiths might impact their governance.  But that does not mean that candidates should open up their entire spiritual lives for public consumption; for if they do so, they may find that those lives become so picked apart and politicized that there is not much left for them to draw on in this area.  For a person who is genuinely religious, this would be experienced as a tragic loss.  Again, I'm not saying that candidates who are religious should never talk about their faiths on the campaign trail.  But I am encouraging them to hold some things back in order to keep them sacred.

An early report from the Orlando Sentinel on today's oral argument in the lawsuit over the Florida ballot initiatives:

Leon County Judge John C. Cooper, after two hours of arguments, seemed unimpressed with parts of the claims brought by the state and pro-school voucher groups but said he would wait to issue his order until this afternoon or Tuesday.

He seemed to reject outright one of the arguments -- that the same courts that invalidated vouchers shouldn’t be put in the position of removing the amendments from the ballot.

The statewide teachers union Florida Education Association, school superintendents and others had countered the panel was narrowly bound tweaking tax and budget processes.

They also argued the ballot title and summaries for the amendments were unclear and the “65 percent solution” was an attempt to sweeten the less popular concept of expanding public spending for private education.

The 65-percent spending concept has consistently polled at or above the 60 percent threshold for voter approval, while vouchers are less popular.

“This is the sugar coating to the unpleasant reality,” FEA lawyer Ron Meyer told the judge.

I'll update the post later today with other reports on this oral argument.

UPDATE: Here's a summary of the oral argument from a Tampa Bay Tribune blog.  There's an excerpt from the post below the fold.

The Unitarian Universalist Association has set up a website where one may offer condolences and support for the victims of the tragic shooting in the UUA church in Knoxville, Tennessee.   One of the posts gives details about a relief fund for the victims and the congregation.  (Thanks to Philocrites for this information.)

UPDATE: A Knoxville newspaper covers the services that took place yesterday at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church.  Here's a snippet from the story:

A bell tolled at 10 a.m. to start the service.

Inside the sanctuary of Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church on Sunday, about 375 people filled every available seat. The men wore open-collared shirts, for the most part, and a few women wore brightly colored hats. Many had sat in silence for more than an hour before the ringing of the bell. . . .

Ted Jones, the president of the congregation, stood before them in a white shirt. After exchanging a hearty "Good morning," he told them they should be grateful for the opportunity to worship together again.

The bell tolled a second time.

"This morning," said Brian Griffin, the church's education director, "we reclaim the sacredness of our space."

The paper's full coverage of the tragedy is here.  (Thanks to Michael Paulson for the tip.)

The New York Times is reporting that a search committee of Riverside Church in New York City has unanimously selected the Rev. Dr. Brad R. Braxton to succeed Dr. James Forbes.  Here's a snippet from the story:

Members of the church, which is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches and the United Church of Christ, provided the search committee — which interviewed 65 candidates — with guidance on how to find a new senior minister. But they knew nothing of who would be nominated when they arrived for the 10:45 a.m. service on Sunday. . . .

Cheryle Wills, the chairwoman of the search committee, told the congregation that committee members who saw Dr. Braxton in action described him as “powerful” and “a genius.”

“All of us know that this young man has a vision much larger than ours,” Ms. Wills said after the service. “We want to be on the forefront of change. And not change for the sake of change. But change for the betterment and inclusion of all people.” . . .

Should he be confirmed by the congregation next month, Dr. Braxton, a religious scholar and son of a Baptist pastor from Salem, Va., could be expected to follow the tradition of the five earlier senior ministers of the church in becoming an influential voice in city and national affairs.

Dr. Braxton was not present on Sunday. Reached by telephone, he said he was “honored” by the prospect of becoming part of the church’s “noble legacy.” He said he views his role as both nurturing the spiritual journey of his congregants and speaking to “moral goodness and justice and peace for the diverse peoples of the world and the planet on which we live.”

“Part of what religious communities do in their best moments is to seek after the truth with a sense of humility and a sense of openness for the sake of the common good,” he said. “So I certainly would hope to continue in that marvelous legacy of congregational care internally, and bold, courageous, prophetic action externally, for which the Riverside Church has been known now for so many years.”

Dr. Braxton, who studied as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, earned a Ph.D. in New Testament studies from Emory University while serving as senior minister for the Douglas Memorial Community Church in Baltimore, according to a biography released by the church. He has most recently been an associate professor at the Vanderbilt University Divinity School in Nashville.

Braxton previously taught at Wake Forest University Divinity School.  As the story says, this decision has yet to be confirmed by the congregation.  But let me offer my congratulations to him and to Riverside on his unanimous selection by the search committee.

"A judge plans to hear arguments over whether two pro-school voucher proposals should be removed from Florida's November ballot."  Here's more from The Miami Herald:

The hearing is being held Monday in Tallahassee.

The statewide teachers union and other opponents say the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission exceeded its authority by offering the constitutional amendments.

Amendment 7 would repeal a provision that prohibits the state from giving financial aid to churches and other religious organizations.

Amendment 9 would undo a Florida Supreme Court decision that struck down former Gov. Jeb Bush's voucher program for students at failing public schools.

A copy of the complaint, the motion for temporary injunction, and the memo supporting the motion for temporary injunction may be found here.  The following groups brought the lawsuit: National Education Association, Florida Education Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way Foundation, Florida Association of District School Superintendents, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Anti-Defamation League, and the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

IRS Releases New Edition of Tax Guide for Churches

The IRS has released a new edition of its Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations.  I have not had a chance to read it yet.  If I find something worth writing about in it, I'll do another post.

Hein Resigns from White House Faith-based Office

The Roundtable reports that "Jay Hein, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, resigned last week, saying he will return to Indiana to care for his father who has a progressive form of cancer. He plans to leave his position on August 29, according to a White House spokeswoman who confirmed his resignation."  I've had my differences with Jay on a variety of matters.  But I appreciate the efforts he made not to demonize differences over the faith-based initiative.  I'm so sorry about this family illness.  I will keep the Hein family in my prayers.

Oral Argument Date Set in Florida Ballot Initiatives Case (Updated)

"A lawsuit brought by the Florida Education Association and other school groups [about certain ballot initiatives] is set for a Sept. 8 oral argument date before the state's high court." Here's more from the Orlando Sentinel:

Two legal challenges filed this summer to constitutional amendments that would cut property taxes and expand school-vouchers will get a final verdict on their worthiness for the Nov. 4 ballot by the state Supreme Court this fall. . . .

 Leon County Judge John Cooper ruled this month that Amendments 7 and 9 -- which seek to undo previous court decisions invalidating a statewide voucher program -- were not an over-reach by the state tax commission that drafted them. Now the high court, which stands to have its 2006 Holmes voucher ruling overturned if Amendment 9 passes, will get a crack at them. And the court will be down a man. Justice Raoul Cantero is resigning from the seven-member bench Sept. 6, so the court will probably only have six sitting judges unless Gov. Charlie Crist appoints a replacement before the hearing. . . .

The high court could be under pressure to act quickly. Florida's secretary of state certifies the November ballot in early September and election supervisors are likely to print their ballots shortly thereafter. It could cause confusion if the court adds or subtracts ballot questions afterward.

UPDATE:  The briefing schedule is here.  (Thanks to the Tampa Bay Tribune.)

"A lawsuit brought by the Florida Education Association and other school groups [about certain ballot initiatives] is set for a Sept. 8 oral argument date before the state's high court." Here's more from the Orlando Sentinel:

Two legal challenges filed this summer to constitutional amendments that would cut property taxes and expand school-vouchers will get a final verdict on their worthiness for the Nov. 4 ballot by the state Supreme Court this fall. . . .

 Leon County Judge John Cooper ruled this month that Amendments 7 and 9 -- which seek to undo previous court decisions invalidating a statewide voucher program -- were not an over-reach by the state tax commission that drafted them. Now the high court, which stands to have its 2006 Holmes voucher ruling overturned if Amendment 9 passes, will get a crack at them. And the court will be down a man. Justice Raoul Cantero is resigning from the seven-member bench Sept. 6, so the court will probably only have six sitting judges unless Gov. Charlie Crist appoints a replacement before the hearing. . . .

The high court could be under pressure to act quickly. Florida's secretary of state certifies the November ballot in early September and election supervisors are likely to print their ballots shortly thereafter. It could cause confusion if the court adds or subtracts ballot questions afterward.

UPDATE:  The briefing schedule is here.  (Thanks to the Tampa Bay Tribune.)

Philanthropy, Community Service, and the Next Administration

No time to comment on this, but I want to flag an important story from today's  Washington Post.  Here's a snippet:

With the presidential campaign in full swing, nonprofit leaders are organizing what some call an unprecedented effort to boost the presence of philanthropy and community service in a new administration. They are calling for a White House office or an agency similar to the Small Business Administration to match nonprofit programs with government priorities, help successful community-based initiatives grow and organize a corps of service volunteers.

Nonprofit organizations are a growing economic force, with about one in 10 U.S. workers employed by such organizations and Americans giving upwards of $300 billion a year to charities. Although they are relied on to fix many of society's problems, nonprofit groups often work in isolation and have virtually no strategic coordination with government.

"We're the only industry of this size and scope that doesn't have a real voice in this process. At best, we're humored. At worst, we're ignored," said Robert Egger, founder of D.C. Central Kitchen. . . .

But these proposals have drawn skepticism from some philanthropists who pride themselves on their autonomy and are leery of government oversight.

"There are a lot of people in this sector who will get nervous about the federal government becoming too engaged in philanthropy," said Steve Gunderson, president of the Council on Foundations. "This is a delicate balance." . . . .

Both of the presumptive presidential candidates have been receptive to these proposals. . . .

Nationally, some nonprofit leaders consider the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives a model. Established by President Bush in 2001, it helps churches and religious nonprofit groups expand their services by making federal grants more accessible. Critics have raised concerns about the separation of church and state and have said the office gives ministries and politically connected groups an unfair advantage in competing for millions in federal funds.

The article also notes that "a coalition of nonprofit groups and entrepreneurs recently started America Forward, a similar campaign based on the idea that solutions to the nation's problems already exist, often conceived by small but innovative community-based groups. America Forward seeks to combine corporate pragmatism, charitable ethos and government investment to develop these solutions to address the biggest challenges."  The website of America Forward is here.

McCain Spokesman Answers "Cone of Silence" Question (Updated)

Of the "cone of silence" controversy, the Washington Post reports that "Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman, said the senator's aides did not watch [Obama being questioned by Warren] and tell the candidate which questions Obama was asked, either." 

My question here was never about Warren and company.  I never doubted that they were telling the truth and tried to be fair.  Having said that, I don't think it was a good idea for Warren to joke about a "cone of silence."   Even though it was a joke, it created the false impression that McCain had actually been sequestered in the building during the whole program when he had not.  And that then led to some questions about the integrity of the arrangement.  But that kind of thing (a throw-away joke that creates a false impression) certainly could happen to any person who is a novice at moderating a presidential debate, and I would bet that Warren would not say that again if he had it to do over. 

The thing that raised my eyebrow yesterday was the report that the McCain campaign apparently had refused to answer the question about whether aides had passed on to McCain information about the questions Warren asked Obama during the program.  I was waiting for them to respond to that precise question.  Now that they have, I take them at their word.

While on this topic, let me also note that it's  good that Warren's spokesman cleared up the matter about whether the candidates were coming in cold to the interviews or whether they had a heads-up on some of the specific questions and the general topics of certain others.  There was the impression that the candidates were coming in cold.  But, as Warren's spokesman indicated, they were not.   Transparency on these things is important, obviously, and giving this information to the public helps stamp out some of wild and false rumors, like the one that Warren gave McCain, and not Obama, the questions in advance.   Warren's spokesman explained that Warren gave advance information about some of the questions to both candidates and tried to be as careful as possible about being fair to both in that process.  Here again, I don't think there was any intent on behalf of Warren and company to create a false impression, i.e., that the candidates were coming in cold to the interviews.  The misunderstanding had to do with a lack of experience on Warren's part about how closely and carefully everything connected to such an important national event would be parsed.

UPDATE (8/22):  I did not see the Larry King Live program where Rick Warren was a guest.  I've just read the transcript from that program.   As I said above, I think Warren made an excusable mistake with his joking reference to a "cone of silence."  But I also think, especially when this matter was raised with him, he should have apologized for unintentionally creating a false impression.   He did not do so on this program.  I think that was a mistake.  The relevant portion of the transcript appears below the fold.

By the way, there are other things in this transcript that I'd like to address, but I'll have to hope that I have time to do so later.

Lynn v. Sekulow

Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice have launched a new blog, Lynn v. Sekulow.   Bookmark the blog for feisty debates on church-state issues and religion's role in public affairs.

Cone of Silence?

Jake Tapper gets some comments from A. Larry Ross, a spokesman for Saddleback Church and Pastor Rick Warren, on the "cone of silence" controversy.

[Ross] says that the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has assured the organizers of Saturday night's "Civil Forum" that McCain did not "see or hear any of Senator Obama's appearance."

But as for the question the McCain campaign won't answer -- did anyone with McCain, given the questions via email or cell phone, share them with the senator -- Ross says, "I cannot speak to that."

Before the forum, Ross says, "both candidates agreed to the format of two consecutive interviews." Based on a coin toss, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, went first, and both candidates also "agreed to and understood that in order to maintain a level playing field, Sen. McCain wouldn't see or hear any of Sen. Obama's appearance."

Officials at Saddleback did everything they could to maintain what Warren jokingly called a "cone of silence." . . . .

Last week Warren spoke with both candidates -- McCain on Thursday, Obama on Friday -- and outlined the four basic categories of the questions. "He also gave them general themes," Ross says, "like, 'There will be a tax question,' 'There will be an environment question.' He did not give them specific wording except on two questions, and he did that because this forum was new ground and he didn't want them to be nervous, he wanted them to be comfortable."

Those two questions were: What is your greatest moral failure and the greatest moral failure of the United States?; and who are the three wisest people you know?

Warren also decided to press his proposal to have an emergency fund to care for orphans, and decided to give them a heads up, but he was only able to reach Obama with that question, partly because McCain arrived late, Ross says, at around 5:20 pm Pacific.

"So it was a level playing field except Obama had the extra Intel of that question," Ross says.

Ross demurred when asked if it bothers him or Pastor Warren that the McCain campaign has so far refused to say no one told the senator about the questions Obama was asked, though he did note that "the language the McCain campaign used" in its conversations with Saddleback officials was that he didn't hear or see the broadcast itself.

In related news, Rick Warren will appear on Larry King Live tonight.

More on Religious Discrimination in Government-Funded Jobs

Yesterday I offered a brief critique of Rick Warren's question on the faith-based initiative.  I see now that Barry Lynn also weighed in on this matter.  Lynn says, "On the hiring issue, what has kept President Bush's faith-based initiative from passing Congress has been precisely that many Senators do not think the landmark Civil Rights Act even addressed the issue of taxpayer-funded church positions or activities."  

I did some research on these issues several years ago.   The research was published in 2005  in  a book entitled Sanctioning Religion: Politics, Law, and Faith-based Social Services, edited by David Ryden and Jeffrey Polet.  Among other things, I looked at the legislative history of the 1972 amendment that broadened the religious exemption from the 1964 Civil Rights Act's prohibition on religious discrimination.  The 1972 amendment broadened  that exemption so that it applied (and now applies) to all of a religious organization's job positions, rather than  simply those jobs the government would deem to be connected with the carrying out of  "religious activities." 

My research reveals that the lead sponsors of the 1972 amendment rallied support for their cause by offering examples of religious institutions that they pointedly said did not receive government financial aid but were supported by private funds.  The legislative history of the 1972 amendment is sometimes cited in favor of the policy of allowing religious groups to discriminate on the basis of religion vis-a-vis government-funded jobs.   The problem is that the evidence here cuts against that proposition and policy.   

There's more to unpack here, but I'll have to do it at a later time.   A snippet from my research appears below the fold.

A few more thoughts on Warren's questions

I just have a very few minutes to blog this morning, but I wanted to offer several more comments on Rick Warren's questions last night at the Saddleback Civil Forum.   At the outset, let me say that I haven't had the chance to read the full transcript yet,  so these observations are based mostly on my memory of the event.  If I find that my memory is faulty when I read the full transcript, I will revise this post accordingly.

As I said last night, I thought Warren's questions were generally much better than the ones journalists asked at previous candidate forums that were sponsored by religious groups.  But I also think there were problems with some of Warren's questions, or lack of questions.  Let me mention a few.

First and foremost, I don't remember Warren asking about torture.  I remember Barack Obama bringing it up, but I don't remember Warren raising it.  If that is indeed the case, that was a mistake.  Torture is a profound moral issue of huge national and international importance that will confront the next president.  It definitely should have been on Warren's list of questions.

Second, more attention should have been given to the government's role in overcoming poverty, beyond the role of working with nongovernmental organizations, including religious organizations, to serve those in need.  Like torture, abortion, stem-cell research, and other issues, this is an issue where our values matter.  It is also an area where there is a serious need for enlightened discussion in religious circles.  I wish that Warren had helped to advance that debate.

Third, while I give credit to Warren for asking a specific question about the faith-based initiative (earlier forums had mostly neglected this issue or asked vague questions about it), I thought Warren's question on this issue left something to be desired, to put it mildly.  Here's the question Warren asked:

80 percent of Americans believe faith based organizations do a better job at community services than the government helping addictions, you know, prisoner reentry, all the different homelessness, poverty, things like that.  The Civil Rights Act of '64 says that faith-based organizations have the right to hire people that believe like they do.  Would you insist that faith based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?

The real issue here isn't whether a religious group would have to give up its Title VII religious exemption in order to participate in the delivery of government-funded social services.   No candidate has proposed that.  Put simply, the issue is whether organizations should be able to make employment decisions on the basis of religion with regard to government-funded jobs.   Stated differently, the question is:  Should people of all faiths and none be equally eligible for government-funded jobs, if they agree with the mission of the government-funded program (e.g., serving those in need)?  Assume one answers "yes" to that last question.  That would not mean that, in order to receive government social service funds, a religious group would have to promise not to hire or fire on the basis of religion with regard, for example, to a chaplain's position that works outside the government-funded program and is subsidized with the religious group's own funds.   Again, no candidate is suggesting that.  Instead, the essential debate is about whether a group may control access to government-funded jobs based on a person's religious identity or convictions about theological matters or whether there should be equal employment opportunity in government-funded jobs for people of all faiths and none. 

Another thing on Warren's faith-based initiative question.  Because he cited polling on one aspect of his question, I think he should have citing polling on the employment question as well.  Here's a question the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center asked on this subject (disclosure: we did this survey while I served as executive director of the Pew Forum): "If religious organizations do use government funds to provide social services, do you think these organizations should be allowed to only hire people who share their religious beliefs, or should they not be allowed to do this?"  78% of those surveyed said that religious organizations should not be allowed to do this.  Further, the survey found that "[r]oughly seven-in-ten Republicans say religious organizations that use government funds should not be able to hire only those who share their religious beliefs; 65% of white evangelical Protestants agree."

My fourth and final (at least for now) critique of Warren's questions has to do with another "sin of omission," if you will.  If memory serves, Warren did not mention the issue of ensuring that our children will have a sustainable and healthy environment in which to live.  Given the huge national and international importance of that issue, and its importance to many religious people, I think it also deserved to be in the mix.  I know Warren had a limited amount of time, and I want to acknowledge that Monday-morning quarter-backing is so much easier than doing the real thing, but I wish he had at least thrown in a reference to this matter.  (UPDATE: I just quickly scanned the questions as they are reflected in the transcript.   The only mention of the environment that I found was the following reference in a question Warren asked McCain: "I believe that leadership is stewardship, not ownership, and for a few years, you are asking us to place our stewardship, our freedom, and our security and economy, and environment, everything, in your hands, so here I have about five hundred questions in this category.  The first one is on the courts: which existing Supreme Court justices would you not have nominated?"  So, assuming I did not miss something in the transcript, Warren did mention the environment, but only in passing and not in any way that would have directed attention and invited a response to this important issue.)

None of this is intended to take back my earlier praise for Warren's questions.  It is simply intended to qualify it.

The DNC "Faith Caucus" and More

Sarah Pulliam has the list of some of the faith-related activities that will take place at the Democratic National Convention and the speakers at those events.

Transcript of the Saddleback Civil Forum

There is one here.

To be continued

I had hoped to do some more blogging this evening about the Saddleback Civil Forum, but other duties call.  I'll offer one or two more cents later.

Ugh!

John McCain makes the "Georgia as a Christian nation" argument again, this time at the Saddleback Civil Forum .   It's troubling for a presidential candidate to "bless" this kind of thing in any setting.   I'm sorry McCain has chosen to repeat this.

By the way, is it just me, or does it sometimes seem that McCain thinks he is speaking at a meeting of the Family Research Council rather than at an event at Saddleback?  I know he is trying to gather or shore up support from FRC-type folks, but it is jarring to hear some of these things at Saddleback.  

Halftime observations

I would like to rewrite some of Rick Warren's questions at the Saddleback Civil Forum.  But, so far, I think he has asked questions that are much better than the questions journalists asked at earlier forums that were sponsored by religious groups. 

Generally speaking, those journalists focused on abstract theological questions and rather sensationalistic questions about the candidates' personal religious practices or sins.  Rick Warren has mostly asked sensible questions about important issues that are on the minds of Americans of all sorts.  He has sought to determine how faith would inform governance and asked about moral issues, but he has basically avoided the errors these journalists made.  And while this has gotten billed as a "faith forum" by journalists, I think Warren has generally kept faith, if you will, with his promise to make it about the common good, even as it touches on religion and recognizes religion's role in society. 

Further, I think there is something to be said for having one interviewer, particularly one of good humor and basic fair-mindedness, rather than a bunch of different people firing off questions.  And, if I may, let me say God bless Rick Warren for saying that both of these candidates care deeply about America and that we must learn to disagree without demonizing one another and practice civility.

Finally, you had to laugh at the exchange between Warren and Obama about Obama's personal failings.  In the process of answering, Obama said he finally realized that, "It's not about me."  Warren responded,  "I like that line."   Of course, that echoes the first line of Warren's book, The Purpose-Driven Life.  By the way, I just now heard John McCain also mention that line in his comments about serving causes greater than our own self-interest.  Unsurprisingly, these guys have studied up.

More later. .  . .

UC Website on ACSI v. Stearns

ABC News reports on the court ruling that upheld the University of California's decision that certain classes at a Christian secondary school would not count toward UC admission.  Here's a snippet from the lengthy story:

According to a Web site set up by the university system, UC rejected the Calvary Chapel course titled Christianity's Influence on America because it used a text that "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations."

The school's literature course, however, was rejected because the use of an anthology as the only common assigned reading was in direct conflict with UC's policy that students read at least some assigned works in their entirety as part of the classroom instruction, according to the UC Web site. . . . .

"Any university has a right to set its criteria for admission," said [Thomas Buckley, professor of Modern Christian History at the University of California, Berkeley's Jesuit School of Theology, and] an expert in church-state issues. "When I was in high school -- San Jose Jesuit School -- I don't think my religious course counted toward college credit, and I don't think it should have." . . . .

Buckley argued that high school religious courses were "difficult to evaluate" and UC had a right to reject students who do not have "the same fundamental set of preparatory work achieved."

"Not getting credit for religious courses [is] a longstanding practice in higher education and it makes sense," he said. "You want all entering students to have a level playing field and to be treated equally."

The University's website on the case is here.  It includes links to reports by various experts, a fact sheet on UC policies for high school course approval, and some of the briefs that were filed in the case.

Jury Clears Victoria Osteen

AP reports that "a jury unanimously decided Thursday that [Victoria Osteen] did not assault a flight attendant during an alleged tirade over a stain on her first-class seat."   Here's a snippet from the piece:

In his closing argument earlier Thursday, [Osteen's lawyer] described the incident as a verbal dispute, and labeled [flight attendant's] claims that she suffered injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder a "sacrilege" and a "blasphemy."

The jury's foreman, Gilles Labbe, said he and other jurors believed what happened on the plane was only a minor dispute between a passenger and one or more of the flight attendants.

"My personal point of view (the lawsuit) was a complete waste of time because the incident didn't rise to any kind of level. I fly all the time. I've seen a lot worse than that happen on airplanes."

Well, those reported claims by Osteen's lawyer raise my eyebrow -- I'd like to hear more about that.  But I wanted to note that the jury has spoken on the relevant legal charges.  The debate in religious circles regarding the Osteens' preaching and lifestyles, however, will no doubt continue.

Saddleback Civil Forum FAQ (Updated)

The OC Register has posted a FAQ on the Saddleback Civil Forum that will take place this weekend.  According to the report, the FAQ was written and circulated by Rick Warren's office.  I've pasted in the contents of the FAQ below the fold.   More on this later.

UPDATE (8/15):  One of my reasons for posting this FAQ is that it reflects the fact that a few aspects of the event have changed since I last wrote about it.  For example, while Faith in Public Life played a role in bringing this event together, the event has gone forward with Saddleback as its sole sponsor.   Now that it is the eve of the event, I'm simply going to wait to see how it goes and comment thereafter. 

The Hein Effect

Chip Lupu and Bob Tuttle provide their analysis of the Seventh Circuit's recent decision holding that the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) lacked taxpayer standing to challenge various aspects of chaplaincy programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs.  In the conclusion of their analysis, Chip and Bob say:

The dismissal of FFRF v. Nicholson, though no surprise, is powerful evidence of how far the law of taxpayer standing has changed in the one year since the Supreme Court's decision in Hein. In 2006, the United States did not bother to raise the standing issue pre-Hein, probably because the government's lawyers saw little chance of prevailing. After Hein, the law was sufficiently transformed that FFRF v. Nicholson appeared to be a relatively easy case for the government to get dismissed on standing grounds.

In the past fourteen months, several district court decisions and several appeals court decisions have dismissed taxpayer suits in the wake of Hein. To our knowledge, other than in cases involving legislative earmarks for religious organizations, no court has ruled against the government in Hein-based motions to dismiss for lack of taxpayer standing. FFRF has long been the most aggressive litigator against government supported, faith-based social services. But FFRF's lawsuit that led to the decision in Hein is now proving to be the source of a significant impediment in the effort to use litigation to keep such social services in line with the Constitution.

For more on how the Hein decision is affecting church-state litigation, check out this transcript from a June 2008 Pew Forum discussion with Chip Lupu, Bob Tuttle, Alex Luchenitser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Walter Weber of the American Center for Law and Justice.

Court Upholds University of California's Rejection of Some Christian School Courses

"The University of California did not violate students' freedom of expression and religion when it rejected some classes at a Riverside-area Christian school from counting toward UC admission, a Los Angeles federal judge has ruled."  Here's more from the The LA Times report on this decision:

In a case that has attracted significant attention in religious and academic circles nationwide since it was filed in 2005, the judge upheld the university's decision to disqualify several classes offered by Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta for being too narrow or not academically rigorous enough to fulfill UC's entrance requirements.

In a final ruling issued Friday, [August 8,] U.S. District Judge S. James Otero said UC demonstrated a rational basis for rejecting Calvary Christian's English, history, government and religion courses and did not display any "animus" toward the school or its Christian doctrines.

The university's policy was constitutional despite allegations by the students and school of an anti-Christian bias, the judge said.

The court made it clear that there was a difference between government  action that seeks "to punish a disfavored viewpoint" and state action that reflects "rational concern about the academic merit of those religious viewpoints."   The decision is here.  Howard Friedman has background on the case and a link to a previous ruling in it.  The LA Times piece notes that the losers in this case said they would appeal the August 8th ruling.

You say that like it's a good thing . . .

John McCain on the Russia-Georgia crisis:

Georgia itself, my friends, has a long and remarkable history. It was a fourth-century convert to Christianity, one of the first nations on Earth to convert to Christianity -- if you go to Georgia, as I have several times, you'll see churches that go back to the fourth- and fifth-century -- and it's been a part of the grand sweep that comprises Western civilization.

And this is relevant to the current crisis in exactly what way?  Anyway, that's not the only reason this statement caught my eye.  First of all, a nation cannot "convert" to Christianity -- only individuals can choose to follow Jesus Christ.  Second, while some nations do establish an official religion, I find it disturbing that an American presidential candidate would seem to describe that as a good thing.   

McCain has stumbled in this area in the past.   It seems like he needs to set aside some time to reflect on these issues.  Perhaps McCain's Baptist pastor could get the ball rolling by giving him a little reading assignment from Baptist preacher John Leland.  Among many other wise things, Leland said:  "Experience, the best teacher, has informed us, that the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did."

"Common Values, Not Necessarily Common Faith"

Can you guess who made the following statement?

I don’t think faith should be a calling card in political races. For example, [former] Gov. [Mike] Huckabee ran an ad in South Carolina before the primary there that identified him as a Christian leader. And he said, my faith defines me, it’s who I am, and so on. I agree with that as a Christian. He didn’t run that ad in Michigan; he didn’t run that ad in Florida. If your faith defines you, it defines you in all 50 states or it doesn’t define you at all, in my view. That’s what I’m troubled by – that faith becomes a political football or a calling card in whose faith is better.

I really think a lot of us are going to be troubled if the day would ever occur in this country, and I suppose it could, where neither candidate of its party really professed faith. What would a lot of religious – certainly religious conservatives would be in a real quandary there. That’s why I sort of preach the importance of common values, not necessarily common faith.

Look below the fold for the name of the person who made these remarks.

California Court of Appeal Reverses Prior Ruling on Homeschooling

"A state appeals court lifted the cloud it had cast on the homeschooling of 166,000 California children and ruled Friday that parents have a right to educate their children at home even if they lack a teaching credential."  Here's more from the San Francisco Chronicle on the decision:

In its earlier ruling, the court said California's compulsory education law requires parents to send their children ages 6 to 18 to a full-time public or private school or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home. After agreeing to reconsider the case in March, the same three-judge panel ruled Friday that parents - with or without teaching credentials - can comply with the law by declaring their home to be a private school.

Schwarzenegger, who had pledged to get the law changed if the earlier ruling prevailed, issued a statement saying the new decision "confirms the right every California child has to a quality education and the right parents have to decide what is best for their children."

Homeschooling advocates - primarily, though not exclusively, conservative critics of public education - celebrated the ruling. . . .

[Attorney Debbie Schwarzer of the HomeSchool Association of California] said [the court] "was recognizing reality."

That reality included the fact that, although the compulsory education law has been unchanged since 1929 and rulings upholding it date from 1953, state and local education officials rarely take action against the thousands of parents who opt out of the system by homeschooling their children.

The court concluded that "(1) California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education; and (2) the statutory permission to home school may constitutionally be overridden in order to protect the safety of a child was has been declared dependent."  Here's part of the court's reasoning:

We are confronted with (1) compulsory education statutes which were apparently intended to eliminate the permission previously granted to home school; and (2) later enactments which reflect the Legislature's understanding that the compulsory education statutes permit home schooling, as a species of private education.  Under these circumstances, it is our view that the proper course of action is to interpret the earlier statutes in light of the later ones, and to recognize, as controlling, the Legislature's apparent acceptance of the proposition that home schools are permissible in California when conducted as private schools.

The unanimous opinion of the California Court of Appeal is here.  Howard Bashman has links to other coverage of the decision. 

McCain and Obama Pen Essays for Jewish High Holy Day Booklet

The Forward reports that Barack Obama and John McCain are contributing short essays to a booklet featuring 29 essays that correspond with the 29 days of the Hebrew month of Elul, which leads up to the Jewish High Holy Days.  The publication, "is designed to provide daily inspiration from a wide range of artists, politicians, community leaders and thinkers."    The booklet is the brainchild of Craig Taubman, "creator of the popular musical Sabbath service known as 'Friday Night Live.' "   Here's a snippet from the Forward piece:

In June, Taubman reached out to Obama to ask if he would contribute to this year’s collection, which focuses on the theme of “dreamers and their dreams.” When Obama’s camp agreed, Taubman said, several of his staff members suggested that he might want to include McCain, as well.

The resulting essays — which, like all the entries, are only a few paragraphs long — are personal takes on the respective candidates’ dream of becoming president. “What’s nice is that there’s nothing political about this,” Taubman said. “It addresses the presidency and the campaign as personal.”

Taubman declined to reveal any details of either of the candidates’ contributions. He did, however, say that one candidate directly addresses the Jewish people and the other does not. Free copies of the booklet — 100,000, funded by the Stefan Adelipour for Life Foundation — will be distributed to synagogues and Jewish organizations across America.

You may sign up to receive this publication here.

Joel Osteen, trying to clean up a mess

Have you heard about the lawsuit against Victoria Osteen, who co-pastors the mega-church, Lakewood Church, with her famous husband, Joel Osteen?  I haven't been paying much attention to the lawsuit, but the last paragraph in today's New York Times coverage of that matter caught my eye. 

Go read the article if you want the full story, but it seems that the lawsuit involves Victoria Osteen's demand that a flight attendant clean up some liquid on her armrest in her first-class seat and Ms. Osteen's allegedly belligerent actions when that did not occur immediately.  There are claims of assault and possible racism and counterclaims of “extortion masquerading as a lawsuit.” 

I have no idea what the truth is regarding any of these matters.  But I was struck by a detail that the New York Times reports at the end of its story, a detail I had not seen reported elsewhere.  Here are the concluding paragraphs of the NYT story: 

The courtroom was standing room only with many members of Lakewood Church in attendance.

“I’m here for moral support and prayer,” said Mary Kay Grant, who has attended services at Lakewood for five years.

While she would not comment on Ms. Osteen’s behavior because she was not on the plane, Ms. Grant said she thought “Joel had a good solution.” Witnesses testified that he got between his wife and Ms. Brown and offered to clean up the spill himself.

"It's a question of whether the building is more important than the people worshiping inside."

That's Eric Rassbach of The Becket Fund commenting on the fact that the city of Washington, D.C.,  moved to landmark a church building so that the congregation could not tear it down and build a new structure that better suits its needs.  Here's a snippet from the story:

The Third Church of Christ, Scientist, at 16th and I streets NW, was designated a historic landmark in December, which means structural changes must go through the city's Historic Preservation Review Board.

Church members say the massive concrete structure is bunker-like and unwelcoming, and they want to raze it so they can build a new one. . . .

In a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, the church says the landmark designation violates the First Amendment by limiting its ability to freely practice religion.

The church contends that the land designation also violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which "prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that substantially burden the religious exercise of churches or other religious assemblies."

The preservation board ruled that the building, constructed in 1968, is an example of modern Brutalist architecture. Brutalism is defined by large blocks of poured concrete and sharp angles. The church was designed by Araldo Cossutta, who worked with renowned architect I.M. Pei's firm.

Worshipers say it is difficult and expensive to maintain a 400-seat sanctuary that usually draws 40 to 60 people on Sunday. In addition to prohibitively high heating and cooling costs, Kirkpatrick said, it costs almost $8,000 just to change light bulbs because scaffolding has to be built.

I expect the court documents will be posted here soon.  The story also says that other local religious leaders have submitted letters to the city council on the church's behalf.  For example, my friend Lynn Bergfalk, senior pastor at Wisconsin Avenue Baptist Church, points out: "Many people don't understand that a church is not just a house of worship. We need the resources for activity and ministry work during the week."  Commenting on this matter, here's how Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher put it:

To protect some esoteric notion of academic value, the city's preservation board has now sentenced the District's taxpayers to years of expensive legal battle, for surely this landmarking will lead to a lawsuit and surely the city will eventually lose. For better or worse, the laws of this country fiercely protect the separation of church and state, and those laws make quite clear that churches, not governments, get to decide in which building people shall worship and how those congregations get to spend their money. And the Christian Scientists do not want to spend their money shoring up a crumbling example of a failed and arrogant architectural experiment.

Our laws wisely prohibit this kind of governmental intrusion in religious matters.  Let's hope the city sees the light on this one soon.

Time Magazine Looks Toward Saddleback Civil Forum

Time magazine has a package of items in anticipation of the Saddleback Civil Forum that takes place on August 16.   The longest feature is a story on Rick Warren.  There are also short essays by John McCain and Barack Obama that are entitled "The Candidates on Faith."  I don't have time to comment on these items right now, but I did want to flag them.   There are snippets from each of them below the fold.

The VP Vetters

Some evangelical Christians are warning John McCain that he should not choose Mitt Romney as his running mate at least in part because Romney is a Mormon.  Some Catholics are telling Barack Obama that he should not choose Governor Tim Kaine or Governor Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate because Kaine and Sebelius, who happen to be Catholic, disagree with them on some policy issues.   The complaining Catholics argue that this means that Kaine and Sebelius are not practicing their faith in the right way.

It's troubling when religious groups tell politicians not to name certain people to political posts simply because they believe these potential nominees don't practice the right religion or because they practice the right faith in the wrong way.  The spirit of Article VI's no-religious-test clause suggests that no one should be disqualified from a political or governmental post merely because of his or her faith or lack thereof, or the way he or she practices a faith.   While Article VI only binds the government, the spirit of that constitutional command is worthy of consideration by all who are active in politics.   The no-religious-test principle is part of a larger regime of religious freedom that has helped make our nation one of great religious diversity and incredible civic peace and strength. 

I am not one who believes we can hermetically seal off religion and politics.  They will inevitably mix.  But that does not mean that all the ways in which they mix are defensible.  This is one of those cases where I think we need to throw a flag on the play.

IRS Issues Memo on Campaign Activity on the Internet

On July 28, 2008, the IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division issued a new memorandum to all Exemption Organization (EO) Revenue Agents regarding campaign activity on the Internet. The memo supplements the parts of IRS Revenue Ruling 2007-41 that address these issues. As that revenue ruling made clear, "[i]f a [501(c)(3)] organization posts something on its web site that favors or opposes a candidate for public office, the organization will be treated the same as if it distributed printed material, oral statements or broadcasts that favored or opposed a candidate." The revenue ruling also touched on the matter of links, saying that, "[w]hen an organization establishes a link to another web site, the organization is responsible for the consequences of establishing and maintaining that link, even if the organization does not have control over the content of the linked site."  

This latest memo offers some more of the agency's thinking on links these issues, making two basic points.  First,  it says it will distinguish between cases involving links between unrelated organizations and cases involving links between related organizations. The memo says that the EO "will focus on analyzing the content around a link in the unrelated organization cases, and not pursue, at this time, cases involving a link between the Web site of a section 501(c)(3) organization and the home page of a Web site operated by a related section 501(c)(4) organization."  The Alliance for Justice provides the following commentary on this item:

Obama Muslim Outreach Coordinator Steps Down

"Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, who was appointed volunteer national coordinator for Muslim American affairs by the Obama campaign on July 26, stepped down Monday after an Internet newsletter wrote about his brief stint on the fund's board, which also included a fundamentalist imam." Here's more from The Wall Street Journal:

A corporate lawyer at the firm of Schiff Hardin LLP, Mr. Asbahi tendered his resignation after he and the Obama campaign received emailed inquiries about his background from The Wall Street Journal. He did not respond to the email or a message left at his law office; the campaign released a letter in which Mr. Asbahi said he did not want to be a distraction.

In 2000, Mr. Asbahi briefly served on the board of Allied Assets Advisors Fund, a Delaware-registered trust. Its other board members at the time included Jamal Said, the imam at a fundamentalist-controlled mosque in Illinois.

"I served on that board for only a few weeks before resigning as soon as I became aware of public allegations against another member of the board," Mr. Asbahi said in his resignation letter. "Since concerns have been raised about that brief time, I am stepping down...to avoid distracting from Barack Obama's message of change." . . . .

The Justice Department named Mr. Said an unindicted co-conspirator in the racketeering trial last year of several alleged Hamas fund-raisers, which ended in a mistrial. He has also been identified as a leading member of the group in news reports going back to 1993.

The article also quotes the following statement from the Obama campaign: "Mr. Asbahi has informed the campaign that he no longer wishes to serve in his volunteer position, and we are in the process of searching for a new national Arab American and Muslim American outreach coordinator."

Judge Rejects Effort to Remove Initiatives from Florida Ballot (Updated)

"A [Florida] judge ruled Monday afternoon that voters statewide should have the chance to decide two constitutional amendments that could allow more public school money to be spent on private religious institutions."  Here's more from The Miami Herald:

In the ruling, Leon County Circuit Judge John C. Cooper said the state Taxation and Budget Reform Commission didn't exceed its constitutional authority in placing the amendments on the November ballot.

Cooper also ruled that one of the proposals, Amendment 9, isn't ''misleading'' voters by combining language supporting voucher scholarships along with a 35 percent cap on administrative expenditures for schools.

The Florida Education Association's chief, Andy Ford, vowed an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court and a vigorous political campaign, saying the state can't afford to divert more public-school money to private schools through voucher programs spearheaded by former Gov. Jeb Bush. . . .

[Judge] Cooper stressed in his ruling that he was bound by previous rulings and Florida law to allow the amendments to go on the ballot because education policy is such a big part of the state's budget, which the commission is in charge of reforming.

The ruling is here (pdf).

UPDATE: More stories on the decision from the Associated Press and the Daytona News Journal.

To keep it sacred, hold something back

Gershom Gorenberg walks us through the latest (and hopefully, the last) chapter in the saga involving the prayer note Barack Obama left in The Western Wall, the yeshiva student who stole the note and then returned it and apologized, and the newspapers that printed the contents of the note and those that did not.  As Gorenberg says, some had claimed that the Obama campaign had released the text of the prayer note, but it has been established that those claims are false.

Throughout this episode, one thing that has been on my mind is the comment Obama gave to a reporter  after he visited the wall but before the contents of his prayer note were made public.  A reporter asked Obama whether he wanted to share the contents of his note, and Obama flatly said "no."  (I cannot seem to find the link to this story now.  I'll add the link later if I find it.  UPDATE: Here's the report.  Thanks to Elizabeth Anne Sclater for directing me to it.) 

One of the things I think we are learning in this presidential campaign is that candidates who are religious sometimes need to refuse to talk about their personal faith.  Of course, candidates should tell us about how their faiths might impact their governance.  But that does not mean that candidates should open up their entire spiritual lives for public consumption; for if they do so, they may find that those lives become so picked apart and politicized that there is not much left for them to draw on in this area.  For a person who is genuinely religious, this would be experienced as a tragic loss.  Again, I'm not saying that candidates who are religious should never talk about their faiths on the campaign trail.  But I am encouraging them to hold some things back in order to keep them sacred.

Early Report on Oral Argument in Florida Ballot Initiatives Lawsuit

An early report from the Orlando Sentinel on today's oral argument in the lawsuit over the Florida ballot initiatives:

Leon County Judge John C. Cooper, after two hours of arguments, seemed unimpressed with parts of the claims brought by the state and pro-school voucher groups but said he would wait to issue his order until this afternoon or Tuesday.

He seemed to reject outright one of the arguments -- that the same courts that invalidated vouchers shouldn’t be put in the position of removing the amendments from the ballot.

The statewide teachers union Florida Education Association, school superintendents and others had countered the panel was narrowly bound tweaking tax and budget processes.

They also argued the ballot title and summaries for the amendments were unclear and the “65 percent solution” was an attempt to sweeten the less popular concept of expanding public spending for private education.

The 65-percent spending concept has consistently polled at or above the 60 percent threshold for voter approval, while vouchers are less popular.

“This is the sugar coating to the unpleasant reality,” FEA lawyer Ron Meyer told the judge.

I'll update the post later today with other reports on this oral argument.

UPDATE: Here's a summary of the oral argument from a Tampa Bay Tribune blog.  There's an excerpt from the post below the fold.

Ways to Support Victims of Tragedy at Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church (Updated)

The Unitarian Universalist Association has set up a website where one may offer condolences and support for the victims of the tragic shooting in the UUA church in Knoxville, Tennessee.   One of the posts gives details about a relief fund for the victims and the congregation.  (Thanks to Philocrites for this information.)

UPDATE: A Knoxville newspaper covers the services that took place yesterday at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church.  Here's a snippet from the story:

A bell tolled at 10 a.m. to start the service.

Inside the sanctuary of Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church on Sunday, about 375 people filled every available seat. The men wore open-collared shirts, for the most part, and a few women wore brightly colored hats. Many had sat in silence for more than an hour before the ringing of the bell. . . .

Ted Jones, the president of the congregation, stood before them in a white shirt. After exchanging a hearty "Good morning," he told them they should be grateful for the opportunity to worship together again.

The bell tolled a second time.

"This morning," said Brian Griffin, the church's education director, "we reclaim the sacredness of our space."

The paper's full coverage of the tragedy is here.  (Thanks to Michael Paulson for the tip.)

Riverside Search Committee Unanimously Selects Braxton to Succeed Forbes

The New York Times is reporting that a search committee of Riverside Church in New York City has unanimously selected the Rev. Dr. Brad R. Braxton to succeed Dr. James Forbes.  Here's a snippet from the story:

Members of the church, which is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches and the United Church of Christ, provided the search committee — which interviewed 65 candidates — with guidance on how to find a new senior minister. But they knew nothing of who would be nominated when they arrived for the 10:45 a.m. service on Sunday. . . .

Cheryle Wills, the chairwoman of the search committee, told the congregation that committee members who saw Dr. Braxton in action described him as “powerful” and “a genius.”

“All of us know that this young man has a vision much larger than ours,” Ms. Wills said after the service. “We want to be on the forefront of change. And not change for the sake of change. But change for the betterment and inclusion of all people.” . . .

Should he be confirmed by the congregation next month, Dr. Braxton, a religious scholar and son of a Baptist pastor from Salem, Va., could be expected to follow the tradition of the five earlier senior ministers of the church in becoming an influential voice in city and national affairs.

Dr. Braxton was not present on Sunday. Reached by telephone, he said he was “honored” by the prospect of becoming part of the church’s “noble legacy.” He said he views his role as both nurturing the spiritual journey of his congregants and speaking to “moral goodness and justice and peace for the diverse peoples of the world and the planet on which we live.”

“Part of what religious communities do in their best moments is to seek after the truth with a sense of humility and a sense of openness for the sake of the common good,” he said. “So I certainly would hope to continue in that marvelous legacy of congregational care internally, and bold, courageous, prophetic action externally, for which the Riverside Church has been known now for so many years.”

Dr. Braxton, who studied as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, earned a Ph.D. in New Testament studies from Emory University while serving as senior minister for the Douglas Memorial Community Church in Baltimore, according to a biography released by the church. He has most recently been an associate professor at the Vanderbilt University Divinity School in Nashville.

Braxton previously taught at Wake Forest University Divinity School.  As the story says, this decision has yet to be confirmed by the congregation.  But let me offer my congratulations to him and to Riverside on his unanimous selection by the search committee.

Florida Court to Hear Arguments on Proposed Ballot Initiatives Today

"A judge plans to hear arguments over whether two pro-school voucher proposals should be removed from Florida's November ballot."  Here's more from The Miami Herald:

The hearing is being held Monday in Tallahassee.

The statewide teachers union and other opponents say the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission exceeded its authority by offering the constitutional amendments.

Amendment 7 would repeal a provision that prohibits the state from giving financial aid to churches and other religious organizations.

Amendment 9 would undo a Florida Supreme Court decision that struck down former Gov. Jeb Bush's voucher program for students at failing public schools.

A copy of the complaint, the motion for temporary injunction, and the memo supporting the motion for temporary injunction may be found here.  The following groups brought the lawsuit: National Education Association, Florida Education Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way Foundation, Florida Association of District School Superintendents, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Anti-Defamation League, and the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.