Melissa Rogers

Catholic Bishops Respond to Financial Crisis

In a letter to government leaders dated September 26, Bishop William Murphy, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, urged  consideration of the moral aspects of the current financial crisis.  Among other things, Bishop Murphy condemns "[t]he scandalous search for excessive economic rewards even to the point of dangerous speculation that exacerbates the pain and losses of the more vulnerable are egregious examples of an economic ethic that places economic gain above all other values."

Here are two of the five bullets from the letter:

• Advantages and Limitations of the Market: Pope John Paul II pointed out that the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs.  But there are many human needs which find no place on the market. It is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied.  Both public and private institutions have failed in responding to fundamental human needs. A new sense of responsibility on the part of all should include a renewal of instruments of monitoring and correction within economic institutions and the financial industry as well as effective public regulation and protection to the extent this may be clearly necessary.

• Solidarity and the Common Good: The principle of solidarity reminds us that we are in this together and warns us that concern for narrow interests alone can make things worse.  The principle of solidarity commits us to the pursuit of the common good, not the search for partisan gain or economic advantage. Protection of the vulnerable workers, business owners, homeowners, renters, and stockholders must be included in the commitment to protect economic institutions. As Church leaders we ask that you give proper priority to the poor and the most vulnerable. 

I'm grateful for these words and witness from Bishop Murphy.  The full letter appears below the fold.  (Thanks to David Gibson.)

Palin on Global Warming, Evolution, Abortion, and More (Updated)

In an interview with Katie Couric, Govenor Sarah Palin discusses her thoughts on global warming, abortion, contraception, and evolution as well as her current church membership (none) and a conference for gay people that the Wasilla Bible Church promoted, among other topics.   Regarding that conference,  it appears that Palin is responding to a question or comment that is not in the transcript.  That makes some of Palin's comments difficult to understand.   Anyway, a long snippet from the interview is below the fold.

UPDATE (10/1): The video for this segment is here.

ANOTHER UPDATE (10/1):  ABP says that Governor Palin was trying to explain that, contrary to some reports, Wasilla Bible Church promoted but did not sponsor the relevant conference.  Here's the relevant nugget:

In the Couric interview, Palin accused the media of misrepresenting her church's promotion of a Focus on the Family conference designed to help individuals overcome unwanted same-sex attraction through counseling and prayer. When the news of the conference broke a couple of weeks before the interview, some bloggers and other media outlets claimed that Wasilla Bible Church had "sponsored" the conference. In reality, it simply promoted the conference -- held in nearby Anchorage -- in the church bulletin.

Assuming this is true, I have corrected the original post accordingly.

More odd moments from the ADF Initiative

Here's a nugget out of a post below on the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative":

The Rev. Richard Bacon closed the sermon at Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed of Mesquite, Texas, with the words, "We must vote against the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama. Amen."

To me, this sounds like fingernails scraping down a chalkboard.  (And I would say the same thing if John McCain's name was substituted for Barack Obama's in this sermon.)  It sounds like a team slogan, not scriptural truth, being announced from the pulpit, with an "amen" tacked on as a sort of religified exclamation point.  It's a sad truth that sometimes those who complain the loudest about threats to religion from the outside do great damage to faith from the inside.

Then there was this odd comment from Rev. Gus Booth after he told congregants at Warroad (Minn.) Community Church that they not only should vote for John McCain in November, they also should campaign for him.  After the service concluded, Booth reportedly had the following comments about his sermon: “It wasn’t Earth-shattering.  But it didn’t suck.”  Lovely.

Regrets, they may have a few

From Wisconsin Radio Network:

Pastor Luke Emrich of New Life Church in West Bend told his congregation Sunday that he was voting for John McCain for the pro-life reasons. He claims the segment about McCain lasted "two or three minutes at most." He claims he advised his parishioners to pray on their voting decision and choose a candidate for themselves.

A group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State says Emrich crossed the line. AU's Executive Director Barry Lynn says although preachers have 1st amendment rights a "pulpit endorsement" leads to an assumption by the congregation that the pastor is using the church to back a certain candidate.

Pastor Emrich says his church also encompasses one-on-one and small groups in which current issues, beyond the election, are discussed.

Is it just me, or does it sound like Pastor Emrich may have some regrets?

And what about the tension between Pastor Emrich's encouragement from the pulpit (I stress the context, because it is key) for church members to"choose life" by voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin and his statement that "[n]o matter what the outcome is on (Election Day), we're going to shake hands, aren't we?"  Doesn't he realize that his declaration in this context makes it much more difficult for Christian Americans of different political stripes to shake hands after the election and move on to pursue our common goals together?

Quote of the Day

An anonymous comment on another blog:

I went to Pentecostal churches for most of the 28 yrs I’ve been a Christian, though I’m in a non-denom church now. I miss the excitement in the worship. Why do people scream & jump around at meaningless sports events, then call us weird when we get excited about eternal life with God?

RENW Survey on Young Evangelicals and the Election

A new survey by Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly (RENW) by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner finds that "young white evangelical Christians are less supportive of John McCain for president than their older counterparts. Although McCain maintains a solid winning margin among white evangelical Christians on the ballot, white evangelicals ages 18-29 are less supportive of his candidacy and express less favorable impressions of McCain than older white evangelical Christians."  Here are some other key findings from the report (from the RENW press release):

• John McCain is solidly winning white evangelical Christians on the ballot. White evangelical Christians support John McCain 71 percent to 23 percent over Barack Obama, and two-thirds (66 percent) have favorable impressions of McCain.
• Young evangelical Christians are less likely to support McCain’s candidacy. McCain still wins young evangelicals overall, but the margin closes to 62-30 McCain among white evangelicals under age 30 compared to 73-22 McCain among those over the age of 30.
• Young white evangelical Christians also are less likely to give McCain a positive favorability rating than white evangelicals over age 30. Young white evangelical women are less positive about Sarah Palin. White evangelical women under age 30 give Sarah Palin surprisingly low favorability ratings. This dissent contrasts sharply with white evangelical women over age 30 who are among her most ardent supporters.
• Young evangelical Christians display generational differences on some key social issues. A majority of younger white evangelicals support some form of legal recognition for civil unions or marriage for same-sex couples. Older evangelicals remain strongly opposed. At the same time, young evangelicals are as solidly pro-life on abortion as older evangelicals.

 For the full survey and data analysis, click here.

Micah's Challenge to a Future President

Micah Challenge USA is a coalition of evangelical denominations and institutions dedicated to fighting global poverty.  The steering committee for the coalition is here.  Micah Challenge USA has launched Micah's Challenge to the Future President, "an open letter calling on McCain and Obama to support a foreign policy that renews America's commitment to the pledge to dramatically reduce poverty, disease and inequality by 2015."  Here's a snippet from the letter:

We commit ourselves, as followers of Jesus, to work together for the holistic transformation of our communities, to pursue justice, be passionate about kindness and to walk humbly with God. We call on Christians everywhere to be agents of hope for and with the poor, and to work with others to hold our church and public leaders accountable in securing a more just and merciful world.

In this spirit we call on you, as the possible president of the United States, to renew our country’s promise to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in your administration’s foreign policy, and lead the world to halve extreme poverty by 2015. . . .

 We believe that there is no trade-off between promoting global justice and promoting global security.  A foreign policy that truly promotes prosperity and security in the US must be rooted in policies which help ensure that all God’s children, wherever they may live, have the opportunity to live in prosperity and peace.  This is Micah’s Challenge to us as Christians, and this is the challenge that we offer to you. 

If you would like to sign the letter, click here.  

One More Round-up on ADF Initiative

I think this will be my last round-up of news and commentary on the ADF's Pulpit Initiative.

1. Op-ed by Cal Thomas

[The reason people attend worship services] is not, or should not be, in order to pledge allegiance to a party, candidate or earthly agenda. One can spend inordinate amounts of time on that subject simply by watching cable TV, or listening to talk radio, or reading the newspapers. No matter how hard they try to protect the gospel from corruption, ministers who focus on politics and politicians as a means of redemption must minimize their ultimate calling and message. The road to redemption does not run through Washington, D.C. Politicians can't redeem themselves from the temptations of Washington. What makes anyone think they can redeem the rest of us? . . . .

The law [that prohibits tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates for elective public office] has done churches a favor, however inadvertent, by protecting most of them from the downside of electioneering . . . .

Issues and Elections

The Forward says that "[i]ntense interest in the presidential election, combined with the desire among many rabbis to speak out when pews are packed for the High Holy Days, has left many Jewish clergy grappling with what they can say from the pulpit as they navigate the legal thicket of church-state regulations." Here's more from the story:

“Everyone knows the basic [IRS] rules [that apply to tax-exempt 501(c)(3) entities],” said Rabbi David Saperstein, director and counsel of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. “You can talk about issues, but you can’t endorse candidates and parties, but there are all these gray areas in between that people are struggling with.”

Saperstein’s center organized a recent conference call with an Internal Revenue Service representative and a group of Jewish communal leaders, about 150 in all. “The questions didn’t stop. They were unremitting for an hour,” he said. . . .

The issues and positions that a rabbi addresses — from tax policy, energy, the Iraq war and racism to health care — no doubt will be interpreted by some as an endorsement. “It gets close even if we’re not endorsing a candidate,” said Rabbi Steven Foster of Congregation Emanuel in Denver.

First, let me commend David Saperstein and the RAC for doing this kind of call.  It's a terrific idea to share one's expertise and get an IRS representative on the line to field questions.   That kind of call will likely help avoid untold number of headaches for clergy and congregations.  Leaders with similar expertise from other religious communities should follow suit. 

Second, here's my take on the matter of  issue discussions at houses of worship during an election season: when speaking at a congregation event or in a congregation publication, a congregational leader should speak out on the issues exactly as he or she feels called to do.  But, in that context, the leader should not connect that issue discussion in any way with the candidates or voting or the election more generally.   For a Q & A on related topics, click here.

ADF releases names of participating churches

An Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) press release says that 31 churches participated in its "Pulpit Initiative" yesterday, "with two more scheduled to participate in the near future."  The list of the participating churches is here.  Although the ADF has promised to release excerpts from the relevant sermons, it apparently has not done so yet.  From a quick count, it looks like 13 of the participating churches are Baptist, 1 is Presbyterian, and the rest appear to be nondenominational.

Americans United Files Complaints with IRS Regarding Six Churches

"Americans United for Separation of Church and State today filed complaints with the Internal Revenue Service about six churches whose pastors endorsed candidates from the pulpit during a mass defiance of federal tax law last Sunday."  Here's more from the AU press release:

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) . . . urged pastors to defy federal tax law by endorsing or opposing candidates during a so-called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” Sept. 28. Under the IRS Code, churches and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups may not intervene in elections. . . .

The six churches reported to the IRS by Americans United today are:

Bethlehem Baptist Church, Bethlehem, Ga.: According to press accounts, Pastor Jody Hice “urged his congregation to vote for Sen. John McCain and to not vote for Sen. Barack Obama.”

Fairview Baptist Church, Fairview, Okla.: The Associated Press reported that Pastor Paul Blair “says he told his congregation that as a Christian and as an American citizen, he would be voting for John McCain.”

Warroad Community Church, Warroad, Minn.: Pastor Gus Booth told his congregation, “We need to vote for the most righteous of candidates. And it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure that out. The most righteous is John McCain.”

Calvary Chapel, Philadelphia, Pa.: The Rev. Francis Pultro told the congregation, “As Christians it’s clear we should vote for John McCain. He is the only candidate I believe a Christian can vote for.”

First Southern Baptist Church, Buena Park, Calif.: The Rev. Wiley Drake said, “I am angry because the government and the IRS and some Christians have taken away the rights of pastors. I have a right to endorse anybody I doggone well please. And if they don’t like that, too bad….According to my Bible and in my opinion, there is no way in the world a Christian can vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Obama is not standing up for anything that is tradition in America.”

New Life Church, West Bend, Wisc.: Speaking from the pulpit, Pastor Luke Emrich said, “I’m telling you straight up I would choose life. I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

I cannot find a copy of the AU complaints right now.  I'll post them when I find them.

Being Jewish, Being American

A story in today's Sun Sentinel dicusses Jewish Americans efforts to balance work and religious observance during the Jewish holidays this year.  The piece quotes Jonathan Sarna, professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University, as saying, "Nothing so points up the tension between 'being Jewish' and 'being American' as this annual [calendar] clash." Here's how the story begins:

Oy! If you're an observant Jew, there are seven religious holidays in the next month that you will have to take off from work or school.

Two days of Rosh Hashana, which begins today at sundown, one day for Yom Kippur, two days for Sukkot, one day for Shemini Atzeret and one day for Simhat Torah.

That's a lot of lost work time. When the holidays fall on Saturday or Sunday, or even Friday or Monday, observant Jews can make a long weekend out of the annual religious festivals, a time of prayer, forgiveness, repentance and rejoicing.

But this year, all the holidays are on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Many say they had to do some soul-searching to figure out how to ask their bosses or teachers for days off, or whether to ask at all.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post does a spot on a relatively new synagogue in Washington, D.C., that takes a "decidedly nontraditional approach to celebrating the Jewish faith," including the Jewish holidays.

ADF Initiative Round-Up (Updated)

Here's a list of some recent stories regarding the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative" that took place yesterday.  There's a snippet from each story under each listing.  AP coverage from yesterday is here.  For a list that correlates the pastors who participated in this effort (the ones whose names are public) with coverage of their respective sermons, click here.

1.  Washington Post 

The Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. [of Living Stones Church in Crown Point, Indiana] told worshipers that the Democratic presidential nominee's positions on abortion and gay partnerships exist "in direct opposition to God's truth as He has revealed it in the Scriptures." Johnson showed slides contrasting the candidates' views but stopped short of endorsing Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain. . . .

Asked why he felt the need to discuss the candidates by name and to be explicit in rejecting Obama and his pro-choice views, Johnson said he must connect the dots because he is not sure that all members of his congregation can do so on their own. . . .

"Senator Obama is a committed Christian and a man of deep faith," said Joshua DuBois, Obama's national religious affairs director. "And the notion that there is only one way to address issues like abortion, or that people of faith cannot support full civil rights for all Americans, is absurd."

Continue reading "ADF Initiative Round-Up (Updated)" »

Here's the AP story on the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative."  I recommend reading the whole thing, but here are a few pieces of news from the piece. 

*  ADF claims that hundreds of churches volunteered to participate in this project but only 22 were chosen for "strategic criteria related to litigation" that ADF won't discuss. 

*  ADF says it will release a list of participants and excerpts from the sermons early this week.

*  The AP story gives us a couple of new names of pastors who participated in the project: Pastor Jody Hice of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Georgia (a Southern Baptist congregation); and Pastor Paul Blair of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Oklahoma.  
I will add these names to my list.

*  All three pastors who delivered sermons today as part of this project and were quoted in this AP story said that they would be voting for John McCain. 

I would imagine that I will have some things to say about these matters later, but I simply wanted to flag this story right now.

UPDATE:  There is another AP story that focuses on one pastor's sermon, the sermon Pastor Luke Emrich preached at New Life Church in West Bend, Indiana Wisconsin.  There's an excerpt from that story below the fold.  Again, for now I'm simply passing these things along without comment.

I'm interested in reading the sermons that pastors preached today as part of the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative."  I figured that some of the pastors might post these sermons on church websites  or on associated blogs, so I've been looking there.  I have not found any yet, but it is still relatively early in the day. 

Based on press accounts, here's my developing list of the pastors who have publicly said they would participate in this initiative today (see below the fold).  The first link after each name connects to the press account in which the pastor announced his participation in this effort.  If I can find them, I will add links to sermons by these pastors.  I'll also add more names to this list as those names become public.

In case you are interested, I'm also continuing to add to the list of news reports and commentaries on this initiative.  That list is here.

That's what a pastor from Duluth, Minnesota, Pastor Bob Aspling, said about the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative."   The ADF invited him to participate in its initiative, but Pastor Aspling refused.  Here's a snippet from the piece:

A Duluth pastor who said he was contacted by the Alliance Defense Fund and asked to share information with area pastors about Pulpit Freedom Sunday refused to do it.

“I don’t see the wisdom in it,” said Pastor Bob Aspling of Crown Christian Family Church. “I think it’s kind of foolish.”

The Alliance Defense Fund is urging clergy across the nation to preach from their pulpits Sunday “about the moral qualifications of candidates seeking political office,” according to a Grand Forks Herald story.

. . . . [The] Rev. Gus Booth, a Warroad, Minn., pastor . . . has gained national media attention because of his plans on Sunday to endorse Sen. John McCain for president from his pulpit as part of his challenge to federal rules against churches engaging in political campaigns, according to the Herald.

Aspling said he was not aware of any Duluth area pastors who intended to take part in Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

Pastor Jeff Burton at Lakeview Covenant Church in Duluth said he hadn’t heard of the event and didn’t plan to take part in it. Calls to several other Duluth area pastors weren’t immediately returned Friday.

I hope other reporters follow this reporter's example for stories over the weekend.   Which pastors in their communities were contacted by the ADF but refused the ADF's overture?  Why did they reject the invitation?   In addition to looking for pastors who accepted the ADF's overture, reporters also should look for those who rebuffed it.  

Look below the fold for a few other notes on recent reports or commentaries regarding the ADF initiative.  I've bolded the first line of each paragraph that introduces a new report/commentary in case you want to skip through them. 

NOTE ADDED ON 9/28: I have added some updates to this list (see below), and I may add some more later today.  The updates are simply links to recent stories or commentaries.

The American Jewish Congress will hold a news conference in Washington, D.C. on October 2, 2008, to launch the "Coalition to Defend Free Speech" for the purpose of "opposing the campaign to criminalize speech defamatory of religion."  Here's a bit more about this upcoming event from its sponsors:

There is an organized international campaign well under way to limit one of our most cherished rights: freedom of expression.

Resolutions seeking restrictions on speech have already passed the UN Human Rights Council and The Third Committee of the UN General Assembly.  They express “deep concern” about statements that are critical of “religions, Islam and Muslims in particular”; they call for “resolute action”; they demand that nations “take all possible measures” to end the “defamation of religions.” In a world in which writers, journalists and others are already sometimes at risk of prosecution -- and too often physical violence -- for offending the religious sensibilities of others, this effort to stifle and punish free expression is intolerable.

Such a broad attack on free speech must be countered by a broad coalition.  That’s why we have joined together to form the Coalition to Defend Free Speech.

"The ever more shrill and dangerous efforts, at the UN and elsewhere, to criminalize much commentary about religions strike at the heart of core principles of freedom of expression,” said Coalition Honorary Chair Floyd Abrams, the nation’s preeminent free speech and free press expert.

“Whether those efforts are directed at Danish cartoonists, novelists such as Salmon Rushdie, or movie-makers around the world, they imperil the rights of us all and must be resisted.”

The Coalition already includes AJCongress, Freedom House, The International Quranic Center, American Values, the Becket Fund, The Rutherford Institute, and Dr. Morton Halperin.

There's more on the event here.

One particularly good moment from last night's debate:

MCCAIN:  . . . . [W]e've got to -- to make sure that we have people who are trained interrogators so that we don't ever torture a prisoner ever again.

LEHRER: Two minutes, Senator Obama.

OBAMA: . . . . I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security -- because of those things, we, I think, are going to have a lot of work to do in the next administration to restore that sense that America is that shining beacon on a hill.

The transcript of the debate is here.

Compare these recent statements from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF)  on the "Pulpit Initiative":

ADF is not trying to get politics into the pulpit.  Churches can decide for themselves that they either do or don’t want their pastors to speak about electoral candidates.  (ADF press release dated September 25, 2008)

The point is not whether pastors actually will speak on the issues of candidates and elections (and no one is forcing or telling them to speak about candidates or elections), but whether the government has the right to tell them they cannot under threat of losing their tax-exempt status . . . (Essay by ADF lawyer Erik Stanley in this week's LA Times)

with this ADF Q & A on the "Pulpit Initiative" that appeared on its website in May 2008:

What kind of commitment is required [for a church] to participate [in the "Pulpit Initiative"]?

Each client church will assist the ADF in preparing a specific challenge to the Johnson Amendment that involves a pastor preaching from the pulpit where the sermon conflicts with the IRS speech restriction.   Each pastor will prepare the sermon with the assistance and direction of the ADF to ensure maximum effectiveness in challenging the IRS.

(The "IRS speech restriction" referred to here is the requirement that 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations refrain from supporting or opposing candidates for elective public office as part of their official organizational activities; in this case, that would be a sermon delivered during a worship service at a church or other house of worship.)  This answer no longer appears in the ADF Q & A.  The question is the same, but there's a new ADF answer for the question.  That answer appears below the fold.

Why did the ADF change its tune on this matter?  Could it be that the ADF realized that it does  not sound very good to say that lawyers are going to "direct" sermons?  After all, isn't it sort of clergy malpractice, if you will, for a minister to let a lawyer "direct" a sermon?  Could it be that the ADF realized that it is difficult to argue that ministers are simply exercising their freedom to preach, while also saying that lawyers need to direct sermons to ensure that they cross the relevant legal line?  Could it be that the ADF began to understand that its earlier answer strongly suggested that the resulting sermons would not be messages that just naturally occurred in the process of good ministry but rather messages that had been cooked up by a team of lawyers with a case to make?

Perhaps an ethical complaint also had something to do with the ADF's change in tune.  After the ADF released its initial documents regarding the project in the spring of 2008,  three former IRS officials filed a complaint with the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the fall of 2008, accusing Alliance Defense Fund lawyers of violating ethics rules by soliciting and encouraging clients to violate the 501(c)(3) rules.  Among other things, the complaint said (the quotes below are from the complaint; the nonquoted text is my own):

[The IRS ethical rules] say that lawyers practicing before it "may be sanctioned for actions, including 'incompetent and disreputable conduct,'" and that the rules define such conduct to include "[w]illfully assisting, counseling, encouraging a client or prospective client in violating, or suggesting to a client or prospective client to violate, any Federal tax law. . . ." 

Could it be that the ADF is trying to walk back its earlier comments and make it look as if the preachers are essentially striking out on their own, while the ADF simply stands ready to assist them if they decide on their own to cross the legal line?   Apropos of this possibility, Rob Boston noted earlier this week that the ADF has added a disclaimer to its most recent publications on the topic.   The disclaimer says: "Any tax advice in this communication was not written and is not intended to be used for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter addressed herein." 

I certainly have no expertise in the IRS ethical rules for lawyers that practice before it.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that there's a good argument that the ADF has crossed the relevant ethical line, no matter what kind of disclaimer it has recently added to its materials.  (It is the reality of the ADF's actions that are crucial, not the tune it is singing right now.)  Thus, I was not surprised to see that the tax experts Laurie Goodstein consulted for her story in today's New York Times said that "it is more likely that the Alliance Defense Fund and its lawyers will face legal sanctions than the ministers, who may simply receive warnings to avoid politicking in the future." 

As you will recall, there have not only been complaints that the ADF has violated the relevant ethical rules.  There also have been complaints that the ADF itself has (or will, on September 28) violate the electioneering prohibitions that apply to it as a 501(c)(3) organization.  I have not assessed those complaints yet.  But I can say this.  Because the ADF is the mastermind of this project and the only actor in this drama that clearly has expertise in the law, it certainly makes sense for the IRS (and later, the courts) to turn its gaze first to the ADF when the Service evaluates whether there have been any violations of the applicable legal rules in this matter.

A report on the Clinton Global Initiative conference notes that former president Bill Clinton asked Bono "whether the current financial crisis would affect the ability to meet global goals to improve life for the world's poorest people _ a cause that is very important to the U2 musician. "  Here's some of what Bono had to say:

I am not qualified to comment on the interventions that have been put forth. I can assume these people know what they're doing. But is is extraordinary to me that you can find 700 billion dollars to save Wall Street and the entire G-8 can't find 25 billion dollars to save 25 thousand children who die every day of preventable treatable diseases and hunger. That is mad. Bankruptcy  is a serious business. And we all know people who have lost their jobs this week,  I do anyway. But this is moral bankruptcy.

This country we sit is in a great country, and it's a great country because it's not just a country. It's an idea and that idea is supposed to be contagious and it is bound up in the inalienable rights of men and women and children, equal in the eyes of God.

Video of Bono's remarks is here.

So someone has posted a video clip of an October 2005 sermon in which a preacher at Wasilla Assembly of God, Rev. Thomas Muthee, expounds on the notion that God needs to "invade" various areas of society, including the spiritual, economic, political, media, education, and governmental sectors.  In the course of his sermon, Muthee references Sarah Palin's public service and her candidacy for higher office (Sarah Palin was elected to serve as governor of Alaska in November 2006).  Muthee then calls Palin to the front of the sanctuary and prays over and with her, along with others from the congregation.  Palin referenced this event in her now famous remarks at the Wasilla Assembly of God in early 2008.

The video clip has obviously been edited; the person who posted it seems to have taken a longer sermon and condensed it.  In other words, I want to note that some of the context is missing.  A transcript of at least a portion of the sermon is here.   I've listened to the clip and the transcript sounds accurate to the audio and video that is included in the clip.  (I've pasted in some portions of that transcript below the fold.)  Here are some of my initial thoughts based on the portion of the sermon that is posted and transcribed; I may need to revise and extend my remarks (so to speak) if the full version of the sermon surfaces or if it turns out that parts of the transcription are inaccurate.

As I've said before, I do not believe that it is fair to assume that any candidate agrees with all of the sermons they hear or all that their clergy say.  I also do not think it is useful, fitting, or right to gawk at or ridicule the prayers or other acts of worship that are offered in this context or any other.  It seems to me, however, that Palin's involvement in this sermon, the discussion of her governmental responsibilities and candidacy in it, and the sermon's discussion of other issues that intersect with governance make it a legitimate area for questioning.  Among other things, someone needs to ask Governor Palin:

* Do you believe, as Rev. Muthee seemed to suggest, that public schools are currently teaching children "how to worship Buddha [and] how to worship Mohammed," and that public school curricula teach "witchcraft and sorcery"?

* Do you agree with Rev. Muthee's suggestion that the Ten Commandments have been "kicked out"  of our public schools?  If so, what should judges and other governmental officials do about that?

* Do you agree with Rev. Muthee's sentiment that God needs to "tak[e] over our education system"?  If so, what do you mean by that?

I understand and accept the fact that Rev. Muthee does not speak for Governor Palin.  With respect to these and other subjects, however, Governor Palin needs to speak for herself.

According to OMB Watch's Advocacy blog, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has agreed to review a complaint by three former top IRS officials that the Alliance Defense Fund's (ADF) lawyers have violated IRS ethics rules by promoting what the ADF is calling "Pulpit Freedom Sunday."  OMB Watch gets this information from a BNA report:

BNA reported ($$) that a letter from Michael Chessman, director of the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility, acknowledges receiving the complaint from Marcus Owens, an attorney with Caplin & Drysdale, and a former IRS director. In the letter, the IRS has agreed to "review this information carefully and give it all due consideration."

I don't have access to BNA, so that's all I have.  To see the relevant complaint, click here.

Nick Carey of Reuters has a fresh angle on the housing crisis: the intersection of a commitment by some homeowners to tithe and home foreclosure.  Here's how his piece begins:

While millions may lose their homes during the worst housing slump since the Great Depression, some devout Christians among them will do so in part because they will not give up tithing — a voluntary contribution to their churches amounting to 10% of their gross income.

"I've had home owners who face foreclosure sitting in front of me saying, 'I'll do anything, anything to keep my home," said Ozell Brooklin, director of Acorn Housing in Atlanta, a nonprofit which offers foreclosure counseling.

"But after we've gone through their monthly expenses and the only thing left to cut is their tithe, they say 'I guess this home is not for me' and they walk away," he said.

Read the whole thing.

The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy runs a package of essays addressing this question.  The authors of the essays are Holly Hollman, General Counsel of Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty; Marc Stern, Assistant Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress; and Stanley Carlson-Thies, Director of Faith-Based Policy Studies, Center for Public Justice (CPJ).  The Roundtable says that this is the first of "what is planned as the first of several online 'panel discussions' on topics related to the Faith-Based and Community Initiative."

* Senator Joe Biden tells the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC):“My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head.” 

* Katie Couric's interview with Governor Sarah Palin will run tonight on CBS.  Couric says "you won't hear 'gotcha' questions about personal issues. You will hear a broad range of policy questions on topics both foreign and domestic." 

* James Davison Hunter says that, with the Palin pick, the culture war is back on the frontburner, along with the economy and the war.  But, he ways, "[t]he lines of the culture war are changing," to incorporate changes in views about gender, for example.   (Thanks to Sarah Pulliam.)

* Al Franken has not lost his sense of humor as he campaigns to serve as a U.S. Senator from Minnesota.  Franken told the NJDC: "I don't think Minnesota is ready for a gentile in this seat.”

* Sarah Pulliam flags some reporting on the California ballot initiative that would overturn the ruling of the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage in the state.   The report says that,  thus far, the main group promoting the initiative has raised $17.8 million, while opponents of the initiative have raised $12.4 million. 

* Sarah Pulliam also notes that South Dakota "is preparing for another abortion battle when voters will be asked on the ballot to outlaw almost all abortions."

* Greg Sargeant reports that a group that calls itself the "Freedom's Defense Fund" has an ad up in Michigan attacking Obama that focuses on Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

* Katie Couric asks the presidential candidates whether it is ever appropriate to lie to the American people.  The candidates' answers are here.

* "U.S. civil rights campaigner and Barack Obama supporter Al Sharpton is registering blacks to vote in six battleground states that could help swing the November 4 presidential election."  The story is here.

* Dan Gilgoff interviews Doug Kmiec about his new book,  Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Questions about Barack Obama.  Among other things, Kmiec says that the face-to-face meeting he and others had with Obama in June prompted him to write the book.  He also says that the legal issues connected to the abortion debate have become "like an iron curtain that falls in front of the social gospel," including efforts to address prenatal care, increase funding for maternity leave, and revise the adoption process. 

UPDATE:

* Via Bruce Prescott, here's the lede of a story by Eric Gorski: "A U.S. Muslim advocacy group Tuesday asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether a nonprofit group that distributed a controversial DVD about Islam in newspapers nationwide is a 'front' for an Israel-based group with a stealth goal of helping Republican presidential candidate John McCain."  The letter from the Council for American-Islamic Relations to the FEC is here.  The Clarion Fund, the group that distributed the DVD, has denied trying to promote any presidential campaign.

"After 18 months spent examining the deteriorating relations between the United States and the Muslim world during the Bush administration, a diverse group of American leaders will release a report in Washington on Wednesday calling for an overhaul of American strategy to reverse the spread of terrorism and extremism."  Here's more from Laurie Goodstein's report:

The report recommends more diplomatic engagement, even with Iran and other adversaries, and a major investment in economic development in Muslim countries to create jobs for alienated youth. It calls on the next president to use his Inaugural Address to signal a shift in approach, to immediately renounce the use of torture, and to appoint a special envoy within the first three months to jump-start negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The report, “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World,” was produced by 34 leaders drawn from religious, business, military, foreign policy, academic, foundation and nonprofit circles. The group included Democrats like Madeleine K. Albright, who was secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, and two former Republican congressmen, Vin Weber and Steve Bartlett.

It also included Thomas Dine, a former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. One-third of the group were Muslim Americans. The members were selected by the sponsoring organizations, Search for Common Ground and the Consensus Building Institute, which both promote nonviolent conflict resolution. . . .

The group’s four basic recommendations are to rely on diplomacy as the “primary tool,” promote better governance in authoritarian Muslim countries that are American allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, help create jobs and economic development in Muslim countries, and foster exchange programs to educate people in the Muslim world about the United States, and vice versa.

The report is here, and the accompanying website is here.  The list of the members of the group is here.  The website says that the report "presents the first senior, bipartisan and interfaith U.S. leadership consensus on a comprehensive approach to improving U.S.-Muslim relations."

Today's notable reading on religion and politics comes from the Rev. Gabriel Salguero, a pastor associated with the Latino Leadership Circle and director of the Hispanic Leadership Program at Princeton Theological Seminary. Rev. Salguero is the son of Pentecostal ministers and was originally ordained in the Pentecostal church, although he says he now serves the Church of the Nazarene. 

Salguero begins his essay by addressing a cartoon drawn by Tom Oliphant and published on washingtonpost.com  regarding Governor Palin and speaking in tongues, a cartoon that has drawn serious and widespread criticism.  Rev. Salguero says he respects "the freedom of the press, and Oliphant's constitutional right to speak, write, draw his mind," but he believes that Oliphant's cartoon "reveals a myopic view of Pentecostalism that needs to be addressed in our society." 

Here's more from Salguero's essay:

Contrary to popular opinion, even though a great majority of Pentecostals are social conservatives, Pentecostals are not a monolith. Pentecostals are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. . . . Pentecostals have engaged in ecumenical conversations and conversations for peace and justice (Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship). In short, Pentecostals should not be dismissed as aloof, uninformed, and naive. . . .

To imply or even hint that good Christians who speak in tongues are naive or not able to lead is truly a leap to judgment. . . . Certainly, very few would dare argue that the personal prayer practices of other religious groups makes them ill-equipped to lead.

U.S. Pentecostalim(s), since the days of the Azusa Street Revival, has worked with the marginalized, poor, as well as the professional and educated. Despite limitations, failures, and schisms Pentecostals have contributed in positive ways to the U.S. mosaic. Early on Pentecostals were caricatured as "holly-rollers," and "religious fanatics." Some of these stereotypes are still used against Pentecostals. And yes, admittedly, there are still some abuses and extremes as in every denomination and enclave. Still, to resurrect some of these stereotypes in a political cartoon is to miss much of what is happening in Pentecostalism(s) in the United States. I recommend Harvey Cox's ( a Harvard Professor) books on Pentecostalism for a fuller elaboration.

I am a Pastor who does not support a religious litmus test for candidates running for public office. I am an Independent voter who does not at this time endorse candidates publicly. I believe that McCain and Obama, as well as, Biden and Palin should be asked about their policies, political philosophy, leadership qualities, and decision-making processes. . . .

Whether a candidate speaks in tongues or not is not indicative of how he/she will govern nor is it relevant to his/her role as a national leader. I am not going to vote for candidates simply because they belong to my denomination, nor will I disqualify them from my vote because they belong to another tradition. . . .

I'd love to see the county move beyond litmus test and caricatures and get these candidates to talk about present crisis and substantive issues. Is it not time that we honor the U.S. public with a more substantive national conversation?

 Well said.

Contrary to popular opinion, even though a great majority of Pentecostals are social conservatives, Pentecostals are not a monolith. Pentecostals are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. . . . Pentecostals have engaged in ecumenical conversations and conversations for peace and justice (Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship). In short, Pentecostals should not be dismissed as aloof, uninformed, and naive. . . .

To imply or even hint that good Christians who speak in tongues are naive or not able to lead is truly a leap to judgment. . . . Certainly, very few would dare argue that the personal prayer practices of other religious groups makes them ill-equipped to lead.

U.S. Pentecostalim(s), since the days of the Azusa Street Revival, has worked with the marginalized, poor, as well as the professional and educated. Despite limitations, failures, and schisms Pentecostals have contributed in positive ways to the U.S. mosaic. Early on Pentecostals were caricatured as "holly-rollers," and "religious fanatics." Some of these stereotypes are still used against Pentecostals. And yes, admittedly, there are still some abuses and extremes as in every denomination and enclave. Still, to resurrect some of these stereotypes in a political cartoon is to miss much of what is happening in Pentecostalism(s) in the United States. I recommend Harvey Cox's ( a Harvard Professor) books on Pentecostalism for a fuller elaboration.

I am a Pastor who does not support a religious litmus test for candidates running for public office. I am an Independent voter who does not at this time endorse candidates publicly. I believe that McCain and Obama, as well as, Biden and Palin should be asked about their policies, political philosophy, leadership qualities, and decision-making processes. . . .

Whether a candidate speaks in tongues or not is not indicative of how he/she will govern nor is it relevant to his/her role as a national leader. I am not going to vote for candidates simply because they belong to my denomination, nor will I disqualify them from my vote because they belong to another tradition. . . .

I'd love to see the county move beyond litmus test and caricatures and get these candidates to talk about present crisis and substantive issues. Is it not time that we honor the U.S. public with a more substantive national conversation?

 Well said.

*  Senator Joe Biden will give the keynote address this afternoon at the National Jewish Democratic Council.

* McCain and Palin will meet with the ONE campaign this week in New York City.  The ONE campaign also reports that it is "in discussions with the Obama campaign about a possible meeting between Bono and Senator Obama early next month."

* A Lynchburg, Virginia paper reports on  a visit Shaun Casey, Obama's evangelical outreach coordinator, recently made to the area.

* "University of Massachusetts officials yesterday quashed efforts by an Amherst campus chaplain to offer two college credits to any student willing to campaign in New Hampshire this fall for Democrat Barack Obama."  The story is here.

*  Ross Douthat compares Mike Huckabee's candidacy with Sarah Palin's.

* Eric Fingerhut collects the press about the bickering in the wake of the decision to disinvite all elected officials, including Governor Palin, from yesterday's rally to protest Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad’s visit to the United Nations.  Fingerhut also points to the remarks that Palin would have given at this event.

*  The Washington Post looks at Governor Palin's views and record on climate change.

UPDATES:

* You already know about "Rabbis for Obama."  Apparently "Rabbis for McCain" (or something like that) is coming soon.

*  Rabbi Eric Yoffe, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, reportedly "held a conference call with hundreds of Reform rabbis last week, setting boundaries for openly supporting one of the candidates."  The Haaretz.com piece (see link above) also discusses the debate within the Jewish community about organizations like "Rabbis for Obama" or "Rabbis for McCain."  (Thanks to Eric Fingerhut for pointing me toward this item and the one above.)

From a story in today's New York Times regarding Barack Obama's debating record and style:

On another occasion, [Obama's opponent for a seat in the Senate, Alan Keyes,] asserted that Jesus would not vote for Mr. Obama because of his support for abortion rights. Mr. Obama replied that if he had a chance to consult with Jesus, he would not ask him about a Senate race.

“I’d want to know if I was going up or down,” he said. “There’s all sorts of questions that I’d be interested in.”

The full exchange between Keyes and Obama on this issue in a 2004 debate appears below the fold.  Interestingly, Obama referenced this exchange in his June 2006 address at a conference sponsored by Sojourners.  Obama pointed to it as an instance where he would answer Keyes' charges somewhat differently today.    The relevant comments by Obama in this 2006 address also appear below the fold.

Bob Abernethy interviews Rebecca Blank about the "ethical issues underlying the financial meltdown."  Blank is an economist and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.  She and Bill McGurn wrote a book entitled Is the Market Moral?  An executive summary of the book is here, and a review of the book is here.

The Catholic News Service blog flags interviews that two different Catholic publications did with the presidential candidates.

Via Whispers in the Loggia, here's an excellent letter from the Catholic Archbishop of Miami, John C. Favalora, regarding the Alliance Defense Fund's (ADF) "Pulpit Initiative."  A snippet:

Needless to say, none of our Catholic churches or priests will be participating in this initiative. For one thing, we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt. That is why we accept that status and agree to abide by IRS rules that ban religious organizations from becoming involved in partisan politics.

For another, “scriptural truth” is not that easy to attain. Which is more “true” in terms of scripture: The Old Testament passage that says “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” or Jesus’ admonition to “turn the other cheek”?

The problem is that people often quote selectively from Scripture in order to back their own opinions. The other problem is that rarely, if ever, does an individual candidate or political party embody the gamut of “scriptural truth.” . . . .

That is not to say that [Catholics] are not involved in politics. Catholics do not give up their right to vote or take political sides when they are baptized.

But the role of the church is not to be like the “party boss” who goes around telling people how to vote. Our responsibility is to remind people to vote wisely; to reveal to them the wisdom of Scripture, the wisdom of the church’s moral tradition, so that they can base their votes on solid moral ground. . . .

When church leaders speak on issues such as immigration, poverty, health care, abortion, war or embryonic stem cell research, we are not telling people how to vote. We are reminding them of the moral teachings that should inform their lives, and as a result, their votes.

We will not speak on behalf of individual candidates or parties. But we will speak in support of legislation that we consider to be morally sound and beneficial to the whole community — regardless of which party or candidate proposes it — and we will speak against legislation that we consider harmful to individuals and society as a whole. . . .

Your duty as Catholics is to listen to those teachings before making rational, informed, conscientious decisions regarding whom or what to vote for.

The full text of the letter appears below the fold.  Be sure to read the whole thing.

One of the reasons the ADF project is a bad idea is because it is unnecessary.  As Archsbishop Favalora indicates, there is a quid pro quo here: organizations (including congregations) get special tax benefits in exchange for abiding by certain restrictions on their political activities.   Those organizations (including houses of worship) are entirely free to endorse candidates under current law, so long as they are also willing to forego those tax benefits.  

Another reason the ADF initiative is a bad idea is because it promotes bad theology, at least bad theology in the Christian tradition as I understand it.  As the Archbishop says, the church is not a "party boss" and it should not act like one.  Rather, the church is a body of believers that follows Jesus Christ and His teachings, teachings that transcend and stand in judgment of all party politics and candidates.  Of course, the law certainly does and should allow churches to do many things that other Christians consider to be exercises of bad theology, for example.  (See paragraph above.)  But Christians nonetheless have a duty to speak out against the things they consider to be erroneous understandings and applications of Christian teachings. 

There is much more to say about this matter, but I won't do so in this post.  In this post, I simply want to thank Archbishop Favalora for examining these issues from a theological perspective, and for doing so in a public way.  I also want to encourage other members of the clergy to do likewise.

McCain and Obama submit their written answers to questions about science and policy.  The questions included this one:

Many government scientists report political interference in their job.  Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?

Click on the link to see the candidates' side-by-side answers to this and other questions.

Here are a few links to some who are blogging from the Religion Newswriters Association (RNA) conference, which is ongoing in Washington, D.C.:

* David Gibson and Sarah Pulliam report on the meeting Obama staff had with members of the RNA yesterday.

* David Gibson reports on "John Green's fifth national mid-summer survey of voters, taken every four years" and gives us a preview of some of the results from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) of 2008.  (Click here for the Pew Forum's graphic regarding current trends in candidate preferences of major religious groups; this information is drawn from the latest survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.  Regarding the ARIS study, see also Mark Silk.)

* Gary Stern has a series of posts from the conference.

* Geoffrey Brooke and the RNA have created a website for coverage of the conference.  Among other things, Brooke has posted a number of video clips of the proceedings.

* There is some video of the conference posted on YouTube.

*  Via Sam Hodges, Michael Paulson writes about the panel on blogging.

It looks like the RNA might eventually post audio of all the sessions.  If they do so, I'll let you know.

If you are tired of posts about Governor Sarah Palin, skip this one.  It is a continuation of my attempts to dissect what is fair and foul in terms of questioning Palin about her religious beliefs, identity, and affiliations.  (I recognize that it might be fair to label this "dissection ad nauseam" at this point, but I can't help myself.)  This post focuses on a couple of additional things that I think fall into the "foul" category.

In an attempt to set the record straight and dismiss controversy, Terry Eastland reports on Governor Palin's church membership over the years.*   As I've said before, I think reporters do a good thing when they try to give readers some sense of Governor Palin's religious background and affiliations.  But I think reporters and others go over the line when they suggest that her church decisions indicate that she is trying to hide something. 

First of all, the decision to join or leave a congregation is often a complex one, so we should not presume to know what those decisions mean.   Second, I believe that our tradition of respect for the right of free exercise of religion compels us basically to create a zone of non-interference with the ministry and mission of churches.  In this same vein, I think that tradition creates a heavy presumption against dissecting a candidate's church membership decisions.  Third, the general irrelevance of a candidate's church membership decision to governance (as distinguished from a candidate's religious beliefs that might affect his or her public service)  further supports the conclusion that a refusal to interrogate these decisions is almost always warranted.  I think it is certainly warranted here.

Meanwhile, Cary McMullen argues that it is unfair to play the "guilt by association" game with Governor Palin and some religious groups that promote militaristic talk and images.  I have not looked at the pieces McMullen cites, but his argument seems persuasive to me.  As I understand it, no one has suggested that Governor Palin herself has any connection to these groups.  And as McMullen says, those of us who have taken pains to reject attempts to smear Senator Barack Obama have a duty to speak out against unfounded charges that could do great damage to Governor Palin's reputation.

So, while I think there are some legitimate questions about how Governor Palin's religious beliefs might influence her governance, I think that questions in these areas do not fall into that category.

*The relevant snippet of Terry Eastland's report is below the fold.  I disagree with some of what Terry says in this piece, but I think he does us a service on this subject.  And, by the way, Terry acknowledges that "reporters are justifiably curious about how Palin's religious beliefs might influence her approach to public service."  That's to his credit.

Did you read this piece by Michael Gerson in last week's Washington Post?  The title of the essay is Faith-based Condescension, and it focuses on the candidacy of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and certain reactions to her candidacy from some on the left.   One of my questions about the piece is why Gerson completely failed to draw a distinction between sneering at faith and seeking information about how faith would influence governance. 

Gerson has a point when he says that some have made the mistake of sneering at Governor Palin's faith.  To cite the best-known example, some have latched onto the Pentecostal practice of speaking in tongues and mocked and ridiculed that practice.   Now, let me be clear.  I would defend the right of people to mock my faith or someone else's.  But in conversations about policy and politics, we need to be mindful of our traditions of religious freedom.  Generally speaking, those traditions suggest that no one is a better or lesser American due simply to his or her purely theological beliefs or personal religious practices.  Further, given the lack of a connection between the practice of speaking in tongues and governance, I don't think this focus in political reporting and commentary is legitimate.  (By the way, I should note that Palin calls herself a nondenominational, Bible-believing Christian, not a Pentecostal.   We also have no idea whether she ever has or does speak in tongues, and I hope it stays that way.)

It is also true that some liberals and conservatives  (Gerson does not mention the latter, but they exist) need to cultivate the talent of talking with people like Pentecostals in the political sphere without rolling their eyes (or worse).   Again, people are and should be free to write books and knock on doors in an attempt to get others to reject atheism or religion.  But, in the realm of policy and politics, let's not suggest that skepticism, much less derision, is in order regarding some people's participation in that realm simply because of their religious identity.  The same goes for Christians or others who would try to marginalize certain Americans in public life simply because of those Americans' lack of a religious identity.

So Gerson has some valid points.  But he completely fails to recognize that there are also some who are asking legitimate questions about how Palin's religious identity and beliefs might influence her public service.  As Gerson indicates in the piece, he believes religion can and should influence public policy.  For example, he says:

If religious beliefs about the dignity of human life were illegitimate as a basis for public policy, there would have been no abolition or civil rights movements. The idea of a divine image found in every human person is one of the main foundations for the American tradition of liberty, tolerance and pluralism. Religious duty motivates millions to love and serve their neighbors -- and thus to respect their neighbor's rights of conscience.

But, in this piece, Gerson does not even so much as give a nod to the fact that, when religion does influence public policy, it is a fair game to ask sincere questions about those intersections.  He should have said so and recognized that that was the point of some of these questions about Palin.  One cannot in good conscience argue both that religion is a legitimate influence in public policy debate and that that religious influence is off-limits for public scrutiny. 

Don Byrd notes that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will deliver opening remarks regarding the release of the State Department’s 2008 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom today at 2:30 p.m (ET). 

As the State Department explains, "[t]he International Religious Freedom report is submitted to Congress annually by the Department of State in compliance with Section 102(b) of the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998. This report supplements the most recent Human Rights Reports by providing additional detailed information with respect to matters involving international religious freedom. It includes individual country chapters on the status of religious freedom worldwide." 

The report should be posted here later today.  State Department reports from previous years may be found here.

UPDATE: The report is here.  An executive summary of the report appears below the fold.

Suzanne Sataline reports that,"[f]or the first time in recent memory, leaders of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops have invited the two presidential candidates to meet with them before the election."  Here's more from the story (via FiPL):

Neither Republican John McCain nor Democrat Barack Obama have replied to the invitations offered last month, said Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the conference.

A spokeswoman for the McCain campaign said the senator wants to accept, but does not yet know if such a meeting will fit into his schedule. A spokesman for the Obama campaign could not be reached for comment.

Five bishops who lead policy committees -- delving into matters including abortion, education, migration, international affairs and communications -- want to discuss the candidates' views on social issues, said Bishop William Murphy of the Rockville Centre diocese in New York state. He is chairman of the bishops' domestic policy committee. The meetings, if they occur, will be private and off the record, he said.

I heard a bit of grumbling from some of my Catholic friends when Rick Warren hosted his recent candidate forum.  They did not begrudge Warren the opportunity, but they wondered if only Warren and evangelicals were going to be allowed to do this sort of thing.  Perhaps this invitation, in addition to being a sincere attempt to explore the issues with the next president, also is intended to serve notice that it is not just evangelicals who can play on this field. 

We'll see what happens.  In any case, I hope the bishops will rethink the "private and off the record" aspect of the invitation.  My sense is that it is better to have these conversations in public.

There's a story in today's Wall Street Journal regarding Democrats' outreach to religious communities.  There's bad outreach by the political parties to religious communities, and there's good outreach by political parties to religious communities.  Bad outreach often entails attempts to command, control or co-opt religion and/or signals to one group that some other group of Americans are second-class citizens because of their particular faith identity or lack thereof.  The following quote from the WSJ story represents one good kind of such outreach: showing up.

"The mistake some candidates have made in the past is they have just assumed that they would not be able to get the support of certain elements of the faith community and, therefore, didn't engage in a conversation," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "But what we're finding is when we do reach out, across the faith community, people appreciate the effort."

It's a good thing when political parties refuse to write off certain sectors of the religious community.  It's a good thing when they show up in somewhat unfamiliar religious surroundings to listen as well as talk.  Likewise, as Howard Dean said once, "it is a sign of respect to ask people for their vote even when you know they may not vote for you."  

I am no political strategist, so I cannot say whether this kind of outreach wins votes, but it seems to me that it does foster a climate of respect and diminish polarization while creating new possibilities for policy partnerships on issues of shared concern.  So, for those reasons, I support it, whether it is Democrats and Republicans who do it.

Senator Barack Obama makes his contribution today to the Jewels of Elul publication, "a collection of 29 short essays that correspond with the 29 days of the Hebrew month of Elul, which leads up to the Jewish High Holy Days."   Senator John McCain's contribution to the booklet is forthcoming.  Obama's brief essay appears below the fold.

UPDATE:  In related news, the JTA covers Obama's phone call yesterday with a large group of rabbis.  Here's a snippet from the JTA report:

Speaking to 900 rabbis on a pre-Rosh Hashanah call Wednesday morning, Obama said he opposes “vouchers” for private schools, but would continue to support funding, as is currently provided in the No Child Left Behind law, for after-school, tutoring, mentoring and summer programs at private and religious schools, according to a press release from the Orthodox Union and other rabbis who participated in the call.

Participants said Obama talked about a number of issues and took four questions from leaders of the four major denominations during the more than 40 minutes he spent on the call. The economy, education, energy, Israel and Iran were among the topics he discussed, reiterating the “unacceptability” of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

"The major charities that respond to disasters would be unable to address fully the need for food, shelter and other services after a catastrophic event like Hurricane Katrina or a major earthquake, a report by the Government Accountability Office says."  Here's more from The New York Times:

“In a worst-case, large-scale disaster, the projected need for mass care services would far exceed the capabilities of these voluntary organizations without government or other assistance,” said the G.A.O., which does research and analysis for Congress.

The report is being released on the heels of news that the American Red Cross, the only relief organization with a legally mandated responsibility to help the government provide care in an emergency, is seeking $150 million in federal aid to cover the costs of assisting the victims of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.

That is the largest amount the organization has ever sought from the government, and it underscores the report’s findings that the Red Cross and three other large charities — the Salvation Army, the Southern Baptist Convention and Catholic Charities — would lack the financial and other resources needed to address a Katrina-like event.

The full GAO report is here.

The Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs will host a symposium commemorating the tenth anniversary of the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Act on October 10, 2008. "Panelists will address U.S. IRF policy and democracy promotion, civil society, religion-based terrorism, law (domestic and international) and public diplomacy. The symposium will lead to a published brief on U.S. IRF policy that will be given to the new president and his administration."  Look below the fold for the symposium agenda.  (Thanks to John Carter for bringing this event to my attention.)

The LA Times reports that the Poway Unified School District "has decided to continue its legal fight against a high school math teacher who wants to restore banners saying 'God Bless America' and 'One Nation Under God' to his classroom, the board's attorney, Jack M. Sleeth Jr., said Tuesday."  Here's more from the LA Times:

The board of the Poway Unified School District, in closed session Monday night, decided to continue opposing the lawsuit filed by Bradley Johnson. Johnson filed suit after he was ordered by a school principal to take down the banners.

A federal judge two weeks ago rejected the school district's request to dismiss the lawsuit. Lawyers for Johnson had hoped the district would seek to settle the lawsuit without trial.

My earlier post on this case is here.  The federal district court's decision is here.

1.  Republican Jewish Coalition sponsored poll testing negative messages about Obama  (The Politico)

Republican group is taking responsibility for a poll that has roiled the Jewish community by asking sharply negative questions about Senator Barack Obama.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, which is launching a campaign against Obama on behalf of Senator John McCain, sponsored the poll to "understand why Barack Obama continues to have a problem among Jewish voters," the group's executive director, Matt Brooks, told Politico.

The poll asked voters their response to negative statements about Obama, including reported praise for him from a leader of the Palestinian terror group Hamas and a friendship early in his career with a pro-Palestinian university professor. Some Jewish Democrats who received the poll – including a New Republic writer who lives in Michigan – were outraged by the poll, describing it in interviews as "ugly" and disturbing. A group that supports Obama, the Jewish Council for Education and Research even staged a protest outside the Manhattan call center from which the calls originated Tuesday.

"If the RJC is responsible for these calls, which are designed to frighten Jews and sow mistrust, they have forfeited their place at the Jewish table," said the co-executive director of the group, Mik Moore. "It is incumbent upon the McCain campaign to speak out forcefully against this and ongoing efforts by his supporters to scare Jews into supporting his candidacy."

2.  "Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholics" (New York Times)

Progressive Catholics complain that by wading into the history of church opposition to abortion — Mr. Biden brought up St. Thomas Aquinas, Ms. Pelosi discussed St. Augustine — Democratic officials are starting a distracting debate with the church hierarchy.

“Getting into Augustine and Aquinas — it is just not helpful,” said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, a progressive Catholic group running television commercials that emphasize the church’s social justice teachings. “It would be wise for them to focus on how policies they are going to implement as leaders are going to move forward the church teachings they say they believe in.”

Two good stories in today's news from Anne Farris of the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy.  One is a report on the discussion of religious communities and community service that took place at last week's ServiceNation summit.  The other is a report on a group of policy experts' efforts to develop an agenda for disaster relief under a new administration.

Riverside Church in New York City has called the Rev. Dr. Brad R. Braxton, a Baptist minister and former Rhodes scholar, as its  sixth senior pastor.  Via Sam Hodges, here's a snippet from The New York Times story:

Dr. Braxton was the unanimous choice of a parish selection committee that considered more than 200 candidates. He has called himself a “progressive evangelical.” . . . .

In letters to the selection committee, and in petitions circulated in the weeks before Sunday’s vote, Riverside members raised concerns about Dr. Braxton’s experience and about his commitment to the progressivism that has defined the church from its founding in 1930. . . .

After an hourlong hearing during which members made emotional pitches for and against Dr. Braxton — speaking at microphones set up near the altar in orderly, alternating statements of support and opposition — he was affirmed by a vote of 455 to 66, with 33 abstentions.

Dr. Braxton was immediately summoned from an upstairs meeting room where he had waited with his family. . . . .

In a sermon delivered before the vote, Dr. Braxton clearly evoked old-time Bible preaching, raising up his arms to provide the full visual impact of his blue silk vestment with a bright yellow center, employing a powerful voice and occasionally moving with a joyful, barely contained excitement.

His sermon was about Exodus and the Ten Commandments, and the merciful deity at the core of that story. In passages that caused many in the audience to nod, apparently recognizing references to the discord within the church, he said the fundamental insights of Exodus concerned “how we treat one another and how we handle disputes among us.”

There's more information about Braxton here.  The website of Riverside Church is here.  It appears that you can watch Braxton's September 14th sermon at the website.  Congratulations to Braxton and Riverside.

The Florida Supreme Court has released its opinions in the case involving certain ballot initiatives that sought to amend the religious freedom and public education provisions of the Florida Constitution.  On September 3 (the day the court held oral argument in the case), the court announced that it had decided to strike these initiatives from the November ballot. 

Now we have the court's opinions explaining its reasoning.  The decision was unanimous.  Justice Wells wrote the opinion for the court.   The opinion notes that Chief Justice Quince and Justices Anstead, Pariente, Lewis, and Bell as well as Senior Justice Cantero concurred. Justice Lewis wrote a concurring opinion, in which Justices Anstead and Pariente joined.  As noted earlier, the court has said that no motion for rehearing will be allowed in the case.  I have not had a chance to read the opinions yet.

Who should say what is orthodox in religion?  Certainly not the government.  And not the media, according to Peter Steinfels.  Steinfels says that,"[i]nstead of simply describing Joe Churchman as an orthodox believer, journalism would do well to follow its established forms and describe Joe Churchman as a man who calls himself an orthodox believer."  He explains:

When it comes to nomenclature, writing about religion is of course a minefield. Terms like “conservative” and “liberal,” “traditionalist” and “progressive” are almost unavoidable shorthand, though they suffer from their origins in political categories and almost inevitably oversimplify and dichotomize religious realities that are multifaceted.

But “orthodox” is a special case, because it suggests a sharp boundary between those who properly belong and those who are properly excluded, the way that “patriotic” can suggest a boundary between loyal citizens and something verging on traitors. Religious leaders have a hard enough time wrestling with such matters. Journalists should not get in their way.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

One of the most interesting points David Gushee makes in this opinion piece on the cultural ramifications of Governor Sarah Palin's bid for the vice presidency is the fact that some theologically conservative Christians who have endorsed Palin have insisted in the past that women must submit to their husbands' leadership in the home and have expressed grave concerns about women who work full-time outside the home. 

For example, Gushee says: "The [Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW)], which includes many of the Christian right's notable figures among its supporters, has for 20 years expressed concern about 'widespread ambivalence regarding the values of motherhood (and) vocational homemaking' and about the 'increasing promotion given to feminist egalitarianism.' "  The CBMW also has said that a woman should "grow in willing, joyful submission to (her husband's) leadership."

Thus, Gushee notes, it "seems only fair to ask these evangelical leaders to think a bit about the implications of their support for Palin."  Here are two of the questions Gushee asks them to consider:

• Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president?

• Do you believe that women carry primary responsibility for the care of children in the home? If so, does this affect your support for Palin? If not, are you willing to change your position and instead argue for flexibility in the distribution of child care responsibilities according to the needs of the family?

Good questions.  These questions remind me of a thoughtful piece Cathleen Kaveny wrote a few weeks ago.  She wondered whether we might view the Palin nomination as an opportunity for liberals and conservatives to find common ground around the following points:

Sarah Pulliam reports on the product some men from Tennessee were peddling at the "Values Voter Summit" --  "yellow boxes of waffle mix that portray a caricature of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama with a Muslim-like headdress and says 'Point box toward Mecca for tastier waffles.' " Pulliam notes that "[t]he cover of the box portrays a caricature of Obama's face next to waffles, which three protesters from American Atheists found offensive."  Click on the link to see Sarah Pulliam's pictures of this product, and read the rest of her post to get the full understanding of it. 

According to AP, the "Values Voter Summit" cut off sales of the product on Saturday in the wake of the complaints.  Pulliam says that the booth opened for business on Friday, and she quotes the men who were selling the product as saying that it was "selling like hotcakes" before event organizers shut their booth down.

In response to Sarah Pulliam's reporting, one person commented: "If atheists are the only people who objected to that item being sold[,] then Christians everywhere have a lot of soul searching to do."  Indeed.  Now, to be fair, the event organizers objected to this product once complaints were raised (you can see their statement at Sarah's post).   But who raised the complaints?  Apparently, not the many Christians who participated in this event, and certainly not the many people who reportedly bought the product.   No, it was the atheists.  The next time we Christians are tempted to get on our high horses about morals and values, we ought to reflect on this episode.

AP Reports on ADF "Pulpit Initiative" (Updated)

Here's the AP story on the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative."  I recommend reading the whole thing, but here are a few pieces of news from the piece. 

*  ADF claims that hundreds of churches volunteered to participate in this project but only 22 were chosen for "strategic criteria related to litigation" that ADF won't discuss. 

*  ADF says it will release a list of participants and excerpts from the sermons early this week.

*  The AP story gives us a couple of new names of pastors who participated in the project: Pastor Jody Hice of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Georgia (a Southern Baptist congregation); and Pastor Paul Blair of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Oklahoma.  
I will add these names to my list.

*  All three pastors who delivered sermons today as part of this project and were quoted in this AP story said that they would be voting for John McCain. 

I would imagine that I will have some things to say about these matters later, but I simply wanted to flag this story right now.

UPDATE:  There is another AP story that focuses on one pastor's sermon, the sermon Pastor Luke Emrich preached at New Life Church in West Bend, Indiana Wisconsin.  There's an excerpt from that story below the fold.  Again, for now I'm simply passing these things along without comment.

Seeking sermons preached as part of ADF "Pulpit Initiative"

I'm interested in reading the sermons that pastors preached today as part of the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative."  I figured that some of the pastors might post these sermons on church websites  or on associated blogs, so I've been looking there.  I have not found any yet, but it is still relatively early in the day. 

Based on press accounts, here's my developing list of the pastors who have publicly said they would participate in this initiative today (see below the fold).  The first link after each name connects to the press account in which the pastor announced his participation in this effort.  If I can find them, I will add links to sermons by these pastors.  I'll also add more names to this list as those names become public.

In case you are interested, I'm also continuing to add to the list of news reports and commentaries on this initiative.  That list is here.

“I think it’s kind of foolish.” (Updated)

That's what a pastor from Duluth, Minnesota, Pastor Bob Aspling, said about the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative."   The ADF invited him to participate in its initiative, but Pastor Aspling refused.  Here's a snippet from the piece:

A Duluth pastor who said he was contacted by the Alliance Defense Fund and asked to share information with area pastors about Pulpit Freedom Sunday refused to do it.

“I don’t see the wisdom in it,” said Pastor Bob Aspling of Crown Christian Family Church. “I think it’s kind of foolish.”

The Alliance Defense Fund is urging clergy across the nation to preach from their pulpits Sunday “about the moral qualifications of candidates seeking political office,” according to a Grand Forks Herald story.

. . . . [The] Rev. Gus Booth, a Warroad, Minn., pastor . . . has gained national media attention because of his plans on Sunday to endorse Sen. John McCain for president from his pulpit as part of his challenge to federal rules against churches engaging in political campaigns, according to the Herald.

Aspling said he was not aware of any Duluth area pastors who intended to take part in Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

Pastor Jeff Burton at Lakeview Covenant Church in Duluth said he hadn’t heard of the event and didn’t plan to take part in it. Calls to several other Duluth area pastors weren’t immediately returned Friday.

I hope other reporters follow this reporter's example for stories over the weekend.   Which pastors in their communities were contacted by the ADF but refused the ADF's overture?  Why did they reject the invitation?   In addition to looking for pastors who accepted the ADF's overture, reporters also should look for those who rebuffed it.  

Look below the fold for a few other notes on recent reports or commentaries regarding the ADF initiative.  I've bolded the first line of each paragraph that introduces a new report/commentary in case you want to skip through them. 

NOTE ADDED ON 9/28: I have added some updates to this list (see below), and I may add some more later today.  The updates are simply links to recent stories or commentaries.

Launch of the "Coalition to Defend Free Speech"

The American Jewish Congress will hold a news conference in Washington, D.C. on October 2, 2008, to launch the "Coalition to Defend Free Speech" for the purpose of "opposing the campaign to criminalize speech defamatory of religion."  Here's a bit more about this upcoming event from its sponsors:

There is an organized international campaign well under way to limit one of our most cherished rights: freedom of expression.

Resolutions seeking restrictions on speech have already passed the UN Human Rights Council and The Third Committee of the UN General Assembly.  They express “deep concern” about statements that are critical of “religions, Islam and Muslims in particular”; they call for “resolute action”; they demand that nations “take all possible measures” to end the “defamation of religions.” In a world in which writers, journalists and others are already sometimes at risk of prosecution -- and too often physical violence -- for offending the religious sensibilities of others, this effort to stifle and punish free expression is intolerable.

Such a broad attack on free speech must be countered by a broad coalition.  That’s why we have joined together to form the Coalition to Defend Free Speech.

"The ever more shrill and dangerous efforts, at the UN and elsewhere, to criminalize much commentary about religions strike at the heart of core principles of freedom of expression,” said Coalition Honorary Chair Floyd Abrams, the nation’s preeminent free speech and free press expert.

“Whether those efforts are directed at Danish cartoonists, novelists such as Salmon Rushdie, or movie-makers around the world, they imperil the rights of us all and must be resisted.”

The Coalition already includes AJCongress, Freedom House, The International Quranic Center, American Values, the Becket Fund, The Rutherford Institute, and Dr. Morton Halperin.

There's more on the event here.

The Candidates on Torture

One particularly good moment from last night's debate:

MCCAIN:  . . . . [W]e've got to -- to make sure that we have people who are trained interrogators so that we don't ever torture a prisoner ever again.

LEHRER: Two minutes, Senator Obama.

OBAMA: . . . . I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security -- because of those things, we, I think, are going to have a lot of work to do in the next administration to restore that sense that America is that shining beacon on a hill.

The transcript of the debate is here.

The ADF Changes Its Tune

Compare these recent statements from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF)  on the "Pulpit Initiative":

ADF is not trying to get politics into the pulpit.  Churches can decide for themselves that they either do or don’t want their pastors to speak about electoral candidates.  (ADF press release dated September 25, 2008)

The point is not whether pastors actually will speak on the issues of candidates and elections (and no one is forcing or telling them to speak about candidates or elections), but whether the government has the right to tell them they cannot under threat of losing their tax-exempt status . . . (Essay by ADF lawyer Erik Stanley in this week's LA Times)

with this ADF Q & A on the "Pulpit Initiative" that appeared on its website in May 2008:

What kind of commitment is required [for a church] to participate [in the "Pulpit Initiative"]?

Each client church will assist the ADF in preparing a specific challenge to the Johnson Amendment that involves a pastor preaching from the pulpit where the sermon conflicts with the IRS speech restriction.   Each pastor will prepare the sermon with the assistance and direction of the ADF to ensure maximum effectiveness in challenging the IRS.

(The "IRS speech restriction" referred to here is the requirement that 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations refrain from supporting or opposing candidates for elective public office as part of their official organizational activities; in this case, that would be a sermon delivered during a worship service at a church or other house of worship.)  This answer no longer appears in the ADF Q & A.  The question is the same, but there's a new ADF answer for the question.  That answer appears below the fold.

Why did the ADF change its tune on this matter?  Could it be that the ADF realized that it does  not sound very good to say that lawyers are going to "direct" sermons?  After all, isn't it sort of clergy malpractice, if you will, for a minister to let a lawyer "direct" a sermon?  Could it be that the ADF realized that it is difficult to argue that ministers are simply exercising their freedom to preach, while also saying that lawyers need to direct sermons to ensure that they cross the relevant legal line?  Could it be that the ADF began to understand that its earlier answer strongly suggested that the resulting sermons would not be messages that just naturally occurred in the process of good ministry but rather messages that had been cooked up by a team of lawyers with a case to make?

Perhaps an ethical complaint also had something to do with the ADF's change in tune.  After the ADF released its initial documents regarding the project in the spring of 2008,  three former IRS officials filed a complaint with the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the fall of 2008, accusing Alliance Defense Fund lawyers of violating ethics rules by soliciting and encouraging clients to violate the 501(c)(3) rules.  Among other things, the complaint said (the quotes below are from the complaint; the nonquoted text is my own):

[The IRS ethical rules] say that lawyers practicing before it "may be sanctioned for actions, including 'incompetent and disreputable conduct,'" and that the rules define such conduct to include "[w]illfully assisting, counseling, encouraging a client or prospective client in violating, or suggesting to a client or prospective client to violate, any Federal tax law. . . ." 

Could it be that the ADF is trying to walk back its earlier comments and make it look as if the preachers are essentially striking out on their own, while the ADF simply stands ready to assist them if they decide on their own to cross the legal line?   Apropos of this possibility, Rob Boston noted earlier this week that the ADF has added a disclaimer to its most recent publications on the topic.   The disclaimer says: "Any tax advice in this communication was not written and is not intended to be used for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter addressed herein." 

I certainly have no expertise in the IRS ethical rules for lawyers that practice before it.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that there's a good argument that the ADF has crossed the relevant ethical line, no matter what kind of disclaimer it has recently added to its materials.  (It is the reality of the ADF's actions that are crucial, not the tune it is singing right now.)  Thus, I was not surprised to see that the tax experts Laurie Goodstein consulted for her story in today's New York Times said that "it is more likely that the Alliance Defense Fund and its lawyers will face legal sanctions than the ministers, who may simply receive warnings to avoid politicking in the future." 

As you will recall, there have not only been complaints that the ADF has violated the relevant ethical rules.  There also have been complaints that the ADF itself has (or will, on September 28) violate the electioneering prohibitions that apply to it as a 501(c)(3) organization.  I have not assessed those complaints yet.  But I can say this.  Because the ADF is the mastermind of this project and the only actor in this drama that clearly has expertise in the law, it certainly makes sense for the IRS (and later, the courts) to turn its gaze first to the ADF when the Service evaluates whether there have been any violations of the applicable legal rules in this matter.

Bono on Moral Bankruptcy

A report on the Clinton Global Initiative conference notes that former president Bill Clinton asked Bono "whether the current financial crisis would affect the ability to meet global goals to improve life for the world's poorest people _ a cause that is very important to the U2 musician. "  Here's some of what Bono had to say:

I am not qualified to comment on the interventions that have been put forth. I can assume these people know what they're doing. But is is extraordinary to me that you can find 700 billion dollars to save Wall Street and the entire G-8 can't find 25 billion dollars to save 25 thousand children who die every day of preventable treatable diseases and hunger. That is mad. Bankruptcy  is a serious business. And we all know people who have lost their jobs this week,  I do anyway. But this is moral bankruptcy.

This country we sit is in a great country, and it's a great country because it's not just a country. It's an idea and that idea is supposed to be contagious and it is bound up in the inalienable rights of men and women and children, equal in the eyes of God.

Video of Bono's remarks is here.

More Questions for Governor Palin

So someone has posted a video clip of an October 2005 sermon in which a preacher at Wasilla Assembly of God, Rev. Thomas Muthee, expounds on the notion that God needs to "invade" various areas of society, including the spiritual, economic, political, media, education, and governmental sectors.  In the course of his sermon, Muthee references Sarah Palin's public service and her candidacy for higher office (Sarah Palin was elected to serve as governor of Alaska in November 2006).  Muthee then calls Palin to the front of the sanctuary and prays over and with her, along with others from the congregation.  Palin referenced this event in her now famous remarks at the Wasilla Assembly of God in early 2008.

The video clip has obviously been edited; the person who posted it seems to have taken a longer sermon and condensed it.  In other words, I want to note that some of the context is missing.  A transcript of at least a portion of the sermon is here.   I've listened to the clip and the transcript sounds accurate to the audio and video that is included in the clip.  (I've pasted in some portions of that transcript below the fold.)  Here are some of my initial thoughts based on the portion of the sermon that is posted and transcribed; I may need to revise and extend my remarks (so to speak) if the full version of the sermon surfaces or if it turns out that parts of the transcription are inaccurate.

As I've said before, I do not believe that it is fair to assume that any candidate agrees with all of the sermons they hear or all that their clergy say.  I also do not think it is useful, fitting, or right to gawk at or ridicule the prayers or other acts of worship that are offered in this context or any other.  It seems to me, however, that Palin's involvement in this sermon, the discussion of her governmental responsibilities and candidacy in it, and the sermon's discussion of other issues that intersect with governance make it a legitimate area for questioning.  Among other things, someone needs to ask Governor Palin:

* Do you believe, as Rev. Muthee seemed to suggest, that public schools are currently teaching children "how to worship Buddha [and] how to worship Mohammed," and that public school curricula teach "witchcraft and sorcery"?

* Do you agree with Rev. Muthee's suggestion that the Ten Commandments have been "kicked out"  of our public schools?  If so, what should judges and other governmental officials do about that?

* Do you agree with Rev. Muthee's sentiment that God needs to "tak[e] over our education system"?  If so, what do you mean by that?

I understand and accept the fact that Rev. Muthee does not speak for Governor Palin.  With respect to these and other subjects, however, Governor Palin needs to speak for herself.

BNA: IRS Agrees to Review Ethics Complaint Regarding ADF

According to OMB Watch's Advocacy blog, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has agreed to review a complaint by three former top IRS officials that the Alliance Defense Fund's (ADF) lawyers have violated IRS ethics rules by promoting what the ADF is calling "Pulpit Freedom Sunday."  OMB Watch gets this information from a BNA report:

BNA reported ($$) that a letter from Michael Chessman, director of the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility, acknowledges receiving the complaint from Marcus Owens, an attorney with Caplin & Drysdale, and a former IRS director. In the letter, the IRS has agreed to "review this information carefully and give it all due consideration."

I don't have access to BNA, so that's all I have.  To see the relevant complaint, click here.

Tithing and Foreclosure

Nick Carey of Reuters has a fresh angle on the housing crisis: the intersection of a commitment by some homeowners to tithe and home foreclosure.  Here's how his piece begins:

While millions may lose their homes during the worst housing slump since the Great Depression, some devout Christians among them will do so in part because they will not give up tithing — a voluntary contribution to their churches amounting to 10% of their gross income.

"I've had home owners who face foreclosure sitting in front of me saying, 'I'll do anything, anything to keep my home," said Ozell Brooklin, director of Acorn Housing in Atlanta, a nonprofit which offers foreclosure counseling.

"But after we've gone through their monthly expenses and the only thing left to cut is their tithe, they say 'I guess this home is not for me' and they walk away," he said.

Read the whole thing.

"Should faith-based organizations that receive public funding have the right to base employment decisions on religion?"

The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy runs a package of essays addressing this question.  The authors of the essays are Holly Hollman, General Counsel of Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty; Marc Stern, Assistant Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress; and Stanley Carlson-Thies, Director of Faith-Based Policy Studies, Center for Public Justice (CPJ).  The Roundtable says that this is the first of "what is planned as the first of several online 'panel discussions' on topics related to the Faith-Based and Community Initiative."

Campaign Round-up (Updated)

* Senator Joe Biden tells the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC):“My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head.” 

* Katie Couric's interview with Governor Sarah Palin will run tonight on CBS.  Couric says "you won't hear 'gotcha' questions about personal issues. You will hear a broad range of policy questions on topics both foreign and domestic." 

* James Davison Hunter says that, with the Palin pick, the culture war is back on the frontburner, along with the economy and the war.  But, he ways, "[t]he lines of the culture war are changing," to incorporate changes in views about gender, for example.   (Thanks to Sarah Pulliam.)

* Al Franken has not lost his sense of humor as he campaigns to serve as a U.S. Senator from Minnesota.  Franken told the NJDC: "I don't think Minnesota is ready for a gentile in this seat.”

* Sarah Pulliam flags some reporting on the California ballot initiative that would overturn the ruling of the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage in the state.   The report says that,  thus far, the main group promoting the initiative has raised $17.8 million, while opponents of the initiative have raised $12.4 million. 

* Sarah Pulliam also notes that South Dakota "is preparing for another abortion battle when voters will be asked on the ballot to outlaw almost all abortions."

* Greg Sargeant reports that a group that calls itself the "Freedom's Defense Fund" has an ad up in Michigan attacking Obama that focuses on Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

* Katie Couric asks the presidential candidates whether it is ever appropriate to lie to the American people.  The candidates' answers are here.

* "U.S. civil rights campaigner and Barack Obama supporter Al Sharpton is registering blacks to vote in six battleground states that could help swing the November 4 presidential election."  The story is here.

* Dan Gilgoff interviews Doug Kmiec about his new book,  Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Questions about Barack Obama.  Among other things, Kmiec says that the face-to-face meeting he and others had with Obama in June prompted him to write the book.  He also says that the legal issues connected to the abortion debate have become "like an iron curtain that falls in front of the social gospel," including efforts to address prenatal care, increase funding for maternity leave, and revise the adoption process. 

UPDATE:

* Via Bruce Prescott, here's the lede of a story by Eric Gorski: "A U.S. Muslim advocacy group Tuesday asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether a nonprofit group that distributed a controversial DVD about Islam in newspapers nationwide is a 'front' for an Israel-based group with a stealth goal of helping Republican presidential candidate John McCain."  The letter from the Council for American-Islamic Relations to the FEC is here.  The Clarion Fund, the group that distributed the DVD, has denied trying to promote any presidential campaign.

"Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World"

"After 18 months spent examining the deteriorating relations between the United States and the Muslim world during the Bush administration, a diverse group of American leaders will release a report in Washington on Wednesday calling for an overhaul of American strategy to reverse the spread of terrorism and extremism."  Here's more from Laurie Goodstein's report:

The report recommends more diplomatic engagement, even with Iran and other adversaries, and a major investment in economic development in Muslim countries to create jobs for alienated youth. It calls on the next president to use his Inaugural Address to signal a shift in approach, to immediately renounce the use of torture, and to appoint a special envoy within the first three months to jump-start negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The report, “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World,” was produced by 34 leaders drawn from religious, business, military, foreign policy, academic, foundation and nonprofit circles. The group included Democrats like Madeleine K. Albright, who was secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, and two former Republican congressmen, Vin Weber and Steve Bartlett.

It also included Thomas Dine, a former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. One-third of the group were Muslim Americans. The members were selected by the sponsoring organizations, Search for Common Ground and the Consensus Building Institute, which both promote nonviolent conflict resolution. . . .

The group’s four basic recommendations are to rely on diplomacy as the “primary tool,” promote better governance in authoritarian Muslim countries that are American allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, help create jobs and economic development in Muslim countries, and foster exchange programs to educate people in the Muslim world about the United States, and vice versa.

The report is here, and the accompanying website is here.  The list of the members of the group is here.  The website says that the report "presents the first senior, bipartisan and interfaith U.S. leadership consensus on a comprehensive approach to improving U.S.-Muslim relations."

A Call to Move Beyond Caricatures and Religious Litmus Tests

Today's notable reading on religion and politics comes from the Rev. Gabriel Salguero, a pastor associated with the Latino Leadership Circle and director of the Hispanic Leadership Program at Princeton Theological Seminary. Rev. Salguero is the son of Pentecostal ministers and was originally ordained in the Pentecostal church, although he says he now serves the Church of the Nazarene. 

Salguero begins his essay by addressing a cartoon drawn by Tom Oliphant and published on washingtonpost.com  regarding Governor Palin and speaking in tongues, a cartoon that has drawn serious and widespread criticism.  Rev. Salguero says he respects "the freedom of the press, and Oliphant's constitutional right to speak, write, draw his mind," but he believes that Oliphant's cartoon "reveals a myopic view of Pentecostalism that needs to be addressed in our society." 

Here's more from Salguero's essay:

Contrary to popular opinion, even though a great majority of Pentecostals are social conservatives, Pentecostals are not a monolith. Pentecostals are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. . . . Pentecostals have engaged in ecumenical conversations and conversations for peace and justice (Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship). In short, Pentecostals should not be dismissed as aloof, uninformed, and naive. . . .

To imply or even hint that good Christians who speak in tongues are naive or not able to lead is truly a leap to judgment. . . . Certainly, very few would dare argue that the personal prayer practices of other religious groups makes them ill-equipped to lead.

U.S. Pentecostalim(s), since the days of the Azusa Street Revival, has worked with the marginalized, poor, as well as the professional and educated. Despite limitations, failures, and schisms Pentecostals have contributed in positive ways to the U.S. mosaic. Early on Pentecostals were caricatured as "holly-rollers," and "religious fanatics." Some of these stereotypes are still used against Pentecostals. And yes, admittedly, there are still some abuses and extremes as in every denomination and enclave. Still, to resurrect some of these stereotypes in a political cartoon is to miss much of what is happening in Pentecostalism(s) in the United States. I recommend Harvey Cox's ( a Harvard Professor) books on Pentecostalism for a fuller elaboration.

I am a Pastor who does not support a religious litmus test for candidates running for public office. I am an Independent voter who does not at this time endorse candidates publicly. I believe that McCain and Obama, as well as, Biden and Palin should be asked about their policies, political philosophy, leadership qualities, and decision-making processes. . . .

Whether a candidate speaks in tongues or not is not indicative of how he/she will govern nor is it relevant to his/her role as a national leader. I am not going to vote for candidates simply because they belong to my denomination, nor will I disqualify them from my vote because they belong to another tradition. . . .

I'd love to see the county move beyond litmus test and caricatures and get these candidates to talk about present crisis and substantive issues. Is it not time that we honor the U.S. public with a more substantive national conversation?

 Well said.

Contrary to popular opinion, even though a great majority of Pentecostals are social conservatives, Pentecostals are not a monolith. Pentecostals are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. . . . Pentecostals have engaged in ecumenical conversations and conversations for peace and justice (Pentecostal Charismatic Peace Fellowship). In short, Pentecostals should not be dismissed as aloof, uninformed, and naive. . . .

To imply or even hint that good Christians who speak in tongues are naive or not able to lead is truly a leap to judgment. . . . Certainly, very few would dare argue that the personal prayer practices of other religious groups makes them ill-equipped to lead.

U.S. Pentecostalim(s), since the days of the Azusa Street Revival, has worked with the marginalized, poor, as well as the professional and educated. Despite limitations, failures, and schisms Pentecostals have contributed in positive ways to the U.S. mosaic. Early on Pentecostals were caricatured as "holly-rollers," and "religious fanatics." Some of these stereotypes are still used against Pentecostals. And yes, admittedly, there are still some abuses and extremes as in every denomination and enclave. Still, to resurrect some of these stereotypes in a political cartoon is to miss much of what is happening in Pentecostalism(s) in the United States. I recommend Harvey Cox's ( a Harvard Professor) books on Pentecostalism for a fuller elaboration.

I am a Pastor who does not support a religious litmus test for candidates running for public office. I am an Independent voter who does not at this time endorse candidates publicly. I believe that McCain and Obama, as well as, Biden and Palin should be asked about their policies, political philosophy, leadership qualities, and decision-making processes. . . .

Whether a candidate speaks in tongues or not is not indicative of how he/she will govern nor is it relevant to his/her role as a national leader. I am not going to vote for candidates simply because they belong to my denomination, nor will I disqualify them from my vote because they belong to another tradition. . . .

I'd love to see the county move beyond litmus test and caricatures and get these candidates to talk about present crisis and substantive issues. Is it not time that we honor the U.S. public with a more substantive national conversation?

 Well said.

Campaign Round-up (Updated)

*  Senator Joe Biden will give the keynote address this afternoon at the National Jewish Democratic Council.

* McCain and Palin will meet with the ONE campaign this week in New York City.  The ONE campaign also reports that it is "in discussions with the Obama campaign about a possible meeting between Bono and Senator Obama early next month."

* A Lynchburg, Virginia paper reports on  a visit Shaun Casey, Obama's evangelical outreach coordinator, recently made to the area.

* "University of Massachusetts officials yesterday quashed efforts by an Amherst campus chaplain to offer two college credits to any student willing to campaign in New Hampshire this fall for Democrat Barack Obama."  The story is here.

*  Ross Douthat compares Mike Huckabee's candidacy with Sarah Palin's.

* Eric Fingerhut collects the press about the bickering in the wake of the decision to disinvite all elected officials, including Governor Palin, from yesterday's rally to protest Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad’s visit to the United Nations.  Fingerhut also points to the remarks that Palin would have given at this event.

*  The Washington Post looks at Governor Palin's views and record on climate change.

UPDATES:

* You already know about "Rabbis for Obama."  Apparently "Rabbis for McCain" (or something like that) is coming soon.

*  Rabbi Eric Yoffe, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, reportedly "held a conference call with hundreds of Reform rabbis last week, setting boundaries for openly supporting one of the candidates."  The Haaretz.com piece (see link above) also discusses the debate within the Jewish community about organizations like "Rabbis for Obama" or "Rabbis for McCain."  (Thanks to Eric Fingerhut for pointing me toward this item and the one above.)

Obama, Keyes, and Jesus

From a story in today's New York Times regarding Barack Obama's debating record and style:

On another occasion, [Obama's opponent for a seat in the Senate, Alan Keyes,] asserted that Jesus would not vote for Mr. Obama because of his support for abortion rights. Mr. Obama replied that if he had a chance to consult with Jesus, he would not ask him about a Senate race.

“I’d want to know if I was going up or down,” he said. “There’s all sorts of questions that I’d be interested in.”

The full exchange between Keyes and Obama on this issue in a 2004 debate appears below the fold.  Interestingly, Obama referenced this exchange in his June 2006 address at a conference sponsored by Sojourners.  Obama pointed to it as an instance where he would answer Keyes' charges somewhat differently today.    The relevant comments by Obama in this 2006 address also appear below the fold.

"Wall Street Ethics"

Bob Abernethy interviews Rebecca Blank about the "ethical issues underlying the financial meltdown."  Blank is an economist and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.  She and Bill McGurn wrote a book entitled Is the Market Moral?  An executive summary of the book is here, and a review of the book is here.

Catholic Publications Interview Presidential Candidates

The Catholic News Service blog flags interviews that two different Catholic publications did with the presidential candidates.

Thank you, Archbishop Favalora

Via Whispers in the Loggia, here's an excellent letter from the Catholic Archbishop of Miami, John C. Favalora, regarding the Alliance Defense Fund's (ADF) "Pulpit Initiative."  A snippet:

Needless to say, none of our Catholic churches or priests will be participating in this initiative. For one thing, we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt. That is why we accept that status and agree to abide by IRS rules that ban religious organizations from becoming involved in partisan politics.

For another, “scriptural truth” is not that easy to attain. Which is more “true” in terms of scripture: The Old Testament passage that says “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” or Jesus’ admonition to “turn the other cheek”?

The problem is that people often quote selectively from Scripture in order to back their own opinions. The other problem is that rarely, if ever, does an individual candidate or political party embody the gamut of “scriptural truth.” . . . .

That is not to say that [Catholics] are not involved in politics. Catholics do not give up their right to vote or take political sides when they are baptized.

But the role of the church is not to be like the “party boss” who goes around telling people how to vote. Our responsibility is to remind people to vote wisely; to reveal to them the wisdom of Scripture, the wisdom of the church’s moral tradition, so that they can base their votes on solid moral ground. . . .

When church leaders speak on issues such as immigration, poverty, health care, abortion, war or embryonic stem cell research, we are not telling people how to vote. We are reminding them of the moral teachings that should inform their lives, and as a result, their votes.

We will not speak on behalf of individual candidates or parties. But we will speak in support of legislation that we consider to be morally sound and beneficial to the whole community — regardless of which party or candidate proposes it — and we will speak against legislation that we consider harmful to individuals and society as a whole. . . .

Your duty as Catholics is to listen to those teachings before making rational, informed, conscientious decisions regarding whom or what to vote for.

The full text of the letter appears below the fold.  Be sure to read the whole thing.

One of the reasons the ADF project is a bad idea is because it is unnecessary.  As Archsbishop Favalora indicates, there is a quid pro quo here: organizations (including congregations) get special tax benefits in exchange for abiding by certain restrictions on their political activities.   Those organizations (including houses of worship) are entirely free to endorse candidates under current law, so long as they are also willing to forego those tax benefits.  

Another reason the ADF initiative is a bad idea is because it promotes bad theology, at least bad theology in the Christian tradition as I understand it.  As the Archbishop says, the church is not a "party boss" and it should not act like one.  Rather, the church is a body of believers that follows Jesus Christ and His teachings, teachings that transcend and stand in judgment of all party politics and candidates.  Of course, the law certainly does and should allow churches to do many things that other Christians consider to be exercises of bad theology, for example.  (See paragraph above.)  But Christians nonetheless have a duty to speak out against the things they consider to be erroneous understandings and applications of Christian teachings. 

There is much more to say about this matter, but I won't do so in this post.  In this post, I simply want to thank Archbishop Favalora for examining these issues from a theological perspective, and for doing so in a public way.  I also want to encourage other members of the clergy to do likewise.

Sciencedebate 2008

McCain and Obama submit their written answers to questions about science and policy.  The questions included this one:

Many government scientists report political interference in their job.  Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?

Click on the link to see the candidates' side-by-side answers to this and other questions.

Blogging from the RNA Conference

Here are a few links to some who are blogging from the Religion Newswriters Association (RNA) conference, which is ongoing in Washington, D.C.:

* David Gibson and Sarah Pulliam report on the meeting Obama staff had with members of the RNA yesterday.

* David Gibson reports on "John Green's fifth national mid-summer survey of voters, taken every four years" and gives us a preview of some of the results from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) of 2008.  (Click here for the Pew Forum's graphic regarding current trends in candidate preferences of major religious groups; this information is drawn from the latest survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.  Regarding the ARIS study, see also Mark Silk.)

* Gary Stern has a series of posts from the conference.

* Geoffrey Brooke and the RNA have created a website for coverage of the conference.  Among other things, Brooke has posted a number of video clips of the proceedings.

* There is some video of the conference posted on YouTube.

*  Via Sam Hodges, Michael Paulson writes about the panel on blogging.

It looks like the RNA might eventually post audio of all the sessions.  If they do so, I'll let you know.

More Fair and Foul (Ad Nauseam?) on Palin's Religion and Public Service

If you are tired of posts about Governor Sarah Palin, skip this one.  It is a continuation of my attempts to dissect what is fair and foul in terms of questioning Palin about her religious beliefs, identity, and affiliations.  (I recognize that it might be fair to label this "dissection ad nauseam" at this point, but I can't help myself.)  This post focuses on a couple of additional things that I think fall into the "foul" category.

In an attempt to set the record straight and dismiss controversy, Terry Eastland reports on Governor Palin's church membership over the years.*   As I've said before, I think reporters do a good thing when they try to give readers some sense of Governor Palin's religious background and affiliations.  But I think reporters and others go over the line when they suggest that her church decisions indicate that she is trying to hide something. 

First of all, the decision to join or leave a congregation is often a complex one, so we should not presume to know what those decisions mean.   Second, I believe that our tradition of respect for the right of free exercise of religion compels us basically to create a zone of non-interference with the ministry and mission of churches.  In this same vein, I think that tradition creates a heavy presumption against dissecting a candidate's church membership decisions.  Third, the general irrelevance of a candidate's church membership decision to governance (as distinguished from a candidate's religious beliefs that might affect his or her public service)  further supports the conclusion that a refusal to interrogate these decisions is almost always warranted.  I think it is certainly warranted here.

Meanwhile, Cary McMullen argues that it is unfair to play the "guilt by association" game with Governor Palin and some religious groups that promote militaristic talk and images.  I have not looked at the pieces McMullen cites, but his argument seems persuasive to me.  As I understand it, no one has suggested that Governor Palin herself has any connection to these groups.  And as McMullen says, those of us who have taken pains to reject attempts to smear Senator Barack Obama have a duty to speak out against unfounded charges that could do great damage to Governor Palin's reputation.

So, while I think there are some legitimate questions about how Governor Palin's religious beliefs might influence her governance, I think that questions in these areas do not fall into that category.

*The relevant snippet of Terry Eastland's report is below the fold.  I disagree with some of what Terry says in this piece, but I think he does us a service on this subject.  And, by the way, Terry acknowledges that "reporters are justifiably curious about how Palin's religious beliefs might influence her approach to public service."  That's to his credit.

Sneering at Faith v. Seeking Information About Faith's Influence on Governance

Did you read this piece by Michael Gerson in last week's Washington Post?  The title of the essay is Faith-based Condescension, and it focuses on the candidacy of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and certain reactions to her candidacy from some on the left.   One of my questions about the piece is why Gerson completely failed to draw a distinction between sneering at faith and seeking information about how faith would influence governance. 

Gerson has a point when he says that some have made the mistake of sneering at Governor Palin's faith.  To cite the best-known example, some have latched onto the Pentecostal practice of speaking in tongues and mocked and ridiculed that practice.   Now, let me be clear.  I would defend the right of people to mock my faith or someone else's.  But in conversations about policy and politics, we need to be mindful of our traditions of religious freedom.  Generally speaking, those traditions suggest that no one is a better or lesser American due simply to his or her purely theological beliefs or personal religious practices.  Further, given the lack of a connection between the practice of speaking in tongues and governance, I don't think this focus in political reporting and commentary is legitimate.  (By the way, I should note that Palin calls herself a nondenominational, Bible-believing Christian, not a Pentecostal.   We also have no idea whether she ever has or does speak in tongues, and I hope it stays that way.)

It is also true that some liberals and conservatives  (Gerson does not mention the latter, but they exist) need to cultivate the talent of talking with people like Pentecostals in the political sphere without rolling their eyes (or worse).   Again, people are and should be free to write books and knock on doors in an attempt to get others to reject atheism or religion.  But, in the realm of policy and politics, let's not suggest that skepticism, much less derision, is in order regarding some people's participation in that realm simply because of their religious identity.  The same goes for Christians or others who would try to marginalize certain Americans in public life simply because of those Americans' lack of a religious identity.

So Gerson has some valid points.  But he completely fails to recognize that there are also some who are asking legitimate questions about how Palin's religious identity and beliefs might influence her public service.  As Gerson indicates in the piece, he believes religion can and should influence public policy.  For example, he says:

If religious beliefs about the dignity of human life were illegitimate as a basis for public policy, there would have been no abolition or civil rights movements. The idea of a divine image found in every human person is one of the main foundations for the American tradition of liberty, tolerance and pluralism. Religious duty motivates millions to love and serve their neighbors -- and thus to respect their neighbor's rights of conscience.

But, in this piece, Gerson does not even so much as give a nod to the fact that, when religion does influence public policy, it is a fair game to ask sincere questions about those intersections.  He should have said so and recognized that that was the point of some of these questions about Palin.  One cannot in good conscience argue both that religion is a legitimate influence in public policy debate and that that religious influence is off-limits for public scrutiny. 

2008 Report on International Religious Freedom to be released today (Updated)

Don Byrd notes that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will deliver opening remarks regarding the release of the State Department’s 2008 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom today at 2:30 p.m (ET). 

As the State Department explains, "[t]he International Religious Freedom report is submitted to Congress annually by the Department of State in compliance with Section 102(b) of the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998. This report supplements the most recent Human Rights Reports by providing additional detailed information with respect to matters involving international religious freedom. It includes individual country chapters on the status of religious freedom worldwide." 

The report should be posted here later today.  State Department reports from previous years may be found here.

UPDATE: The report is here.  An executive summary of the report appears below the fold.

Catholic Bishops Roll Out Red Carpet for Candidates

Suzanne Sataline reports that,"[f]or the first time in recent memory, leaders of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops have invited the two presidential candidates to meet with them before the election."  Here's more from the story (via FiPL):

Neither Republican John McCain nor Democrat Barack Obama have replied to the invitations offered last month, said Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the conference.

A spokeswoman for the McCain campaign said the senator wants to accept, but does not yet know if such a meeting will fit into his schedule. A spokesman for the Obama campaign could not be reached for comment.

Five bishops who lead policy committees -- delving into matters including abortion, education, migration, international affairs and communications -- want to discuss the candidates' views on social issues, said Bishop William Murphy of the Rockville Centre diocese in New York state. He is chairman of the bishops' domestic policy committee. The meetings, if they occur, will be private and off the record, he said.

I heard a bit of grumbling from some of my Catholic friends when Rick Warren hosted his recent candidate forum.  They did not begrudge Warren the opportunity, but they wondered if only Warren and evangelicals were going to be allowed to do this sort of thing.  Perhaps this invitation, in addition to being a sincere attempt to explore the issues with the next president, also is intended to serve notice that it is not just evangelicals who can play on this field. 

We'll see what happens.  In any case, I hope the bishops will rethink the "private and off the record" aspect of the invitation.  My sense is that it is better to have these conversations in public.

Showing Up

There's a story in today's Wall Street Journal regarding Democrats' outreach to religious communities.  There's bad outreach by the political parties to religious communities, and there's good outreach by political parties to religious communities.  Bad outreach often entails attempts to command, control or co-opt religion and/or signals to one group that some other group of Americans are second-class citizens because of their particular faith identity or lack thereof.  The following quote from the WSJ story represents one good kind of such outreach: showing up.

"The mistake some candidates have made in the past is they have just assumed that they would not be able to get the support of certain elements of the faith community and, therefore, didn't engage in a conversation," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "But what we're finding is when we do reach out, across the faith community, people appreciate the effort."

It's a good thing when political parties refuse to write off certain sectors of the religious community.  It's a good thing when they show up in somewhat unfamiliar religious surroundings to listen as well as talk.  Likewise, as Howard Dean said once, "it is a sign of respect to ask people for their vote even when you know they may not vote for you."  

I am no political strategist, so I cannot say whether this kind of outreach wins votes, but it seems to me that it does foster a climate of respect and diminish polarization while creating new possibilities for policy partnerships on issues of shared concern.  So, for those reasons, I support it, whether it is Democrats and Republicans who do it.

Obama Essay for Jewels of Elul (Updated)

Senator Barack Obama makes his contribution today to the Jewels of Elul publication, "a collection of 29 short essays that correspond with the 29 days of the Hebrew month of Elul, which leads up to the Jewish High Holy Days."   Senator John McCain's contribution to the booklet is forthcoming.  Obama's brief essay appears below the fold.

UPDATE:  In related news, the JTA covers Obama's phone call yesterday with a large group of rabbis.  Here's a snippet from the JTA report:

Speaking to 900 rabbis on a pre-Rosh Hashanah call Wednesday morning, Obama said he opposes “vouchers” for private schools, but would continue to support funding, as is currently provided in the No Child Left Behind law, for after-school, tutoring, mentoring and summer programs at private and religious schools, according to a press release from the Orthodox Union and other rabbis who participated in the call.

Participants said Obama talked about a number of issues and took four questions from leaders of the four major denominations during the more than 40 minutes he spent on the call. The economy, education, energy, Israel and Iran were among the topics he discussed, reiterating the “unacceptability” of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

GAO Report on NGOs, Government, and Disaster Relief

"The major charities that respond to disasters would be unable to address fully the need for food, shelter and other services after a catastrophic event like Hurricane Katrina or a major earthquake, a report by the Government Accountability Office says."  Here's more from The New York Times:

“In a worst-case, large-scale disaster, the projected need for mass care services would far exceed the capabilities of these voluntary organizations without government or other assistance,” said the G.A.O., which does research and analysis for Congress.

The report is being released on the heels of news that the American Red Cross, the only relief organization with a legally mandated responsibility to help the government provide care in an emergency, is seeking $150 million in federal aid to cover the costs of assisting the victims of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.

That is the largest amount the organization has ever sought from the government, and it underscores the report’s findings that the Red Cross and three other large charities — the Salvation Army, the Southern Baptist Convention and Catholic Charities — would lack the financial and other resources needed to address a Katrina-like event.

The full GAO report is here.

"The Future of U.S. International Religious Freedom Policy"

The Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs will host a symposium commemorating the tenth anniversary of the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Act on October 10, 2008. "Panelists will address U.S. IRF policy and democracy promotion, civil society, religion-based terrorism, law (domestic and international) and public diplomacy. The symposium will lead to a published brief on U.S. IRF policy that will be given to the new president and his administration."  Look below the fold for the symposium agenda.  (Thanks to John Carter for bringing this event to my attention.)

Poway School District to Continue Fight in Classroom Banner Case

The LA Times reports that the Poway Unified School District "has decided to continue its legal fight against a high school math teacher who wants to restore banners saying 'God Bless America' and 'One Nation Under God' to his classroom, the board's attorney, Jack M. Sleeth Jr., said Tuesday."  Here's more from the LA Times:

The board of the Poway Unified School District, in closed session Monday night, decided to continue opposing the lawsuit filed by Bradley Johnson. Johnson filed suit after he was ordered by a school principal to take down the banners.

A federal judge two weeks ago rejected the school district's request to dismiss the lawsuit. Lawyers for Johnson had hoped the district would seek to settle the lawsuit without trial.

My earlier post on this case is here.  The federal district court's decision is here.

Campaign Round-up (Updated)

1.  Republican Jewish Coalition sponsored poll testing negative messages about Obama  (The Politico)

Republican group is taking responsibility for a poll that has roiled the Jewish community by asking sharply negative questions about Senator Barack Obama.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, which is launching a campaign against Obama on behalf of Senator John McCain, sponsored the poll to "understand why Barack Obama continues to have a problem among Jewish voters," the group's executive director, Matt Brooks, told Politico.

The poll asked voters their response to negative statements about Obama, including reported praise for him from a leader of the Palestinian terror group Hamas and a friendship early in his career with a pro-Palestinian university professor. Some Jewish Democrats who received the poll – including a New Republic writer who lives in Michigan – were outraged by the poll, describing it in interviews as "ugly" and disturbing. A group that supports Obama, the Jewish Council for Education and Research even staged a protest outside the Manhattan call center from which the calls originated Tuesday.

"If the RJC is responsible for these calls, which are designed to frighten Jews and sow mistrust, they have forfeited their place at the Jewish table," said the co-executive director of the group, Mik Moore. "It is incumbent upon the McCain campaign to speak out forcefully against this and ongoing efforts by his supporters to scare Jews into supporting his candidacy."

2.  "Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholics" (New York Times)

Progressive Catholics complain that by wading into the history of church opposition to abortion — Mr. Biden brought up St. Thomas Aquinas, Ms. Pelosi discussed St. Augustine — Democratic officials are starting a distracting debate with the church hierarchy.

“Getting into Augustine and Aquinas — it is just not helpful,” said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, a progressive Catholic group running television commercials that emphasize the church’s social justice teachings. “It would be wise for them to focus on how policies they are going to implement as leaders are going to move forward the church teachings they say they believe in.”

Report on ServiceNation Discussion of Religious Organizations and Community Service

Two good stories in today's news from Anne Farris of the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy.  One is a report on the discussion of religious communities and community service that took place at last week's ServiceNation summit.  The other is a report on a group of policy experts' efforts to develop an agenda for disaster relief under a new administration.

Riverside Church Calls Braxton

Riverside Church in New York City has called the Rev. Dr. Brad R. Braxton, a Baptist minister and former Rhodes scholar, as its  sixth senior pastor.  Via Sam Hodges, here's a snippet from The New York Times story:

Dr. Braxton was the unanimous choice of a parish selection committee that considered more than 200 candidates. He has called himself a “progressive evangelical.” . . . .

In letters to the selection committee, and in petitions circulated in the weeks before Sunday’s vote, Riverside members raised concerns about Dr. Braxton’s experience and about his commitment to the progressivism that has defined the church from its founding in 1930. . . .

After an hourlong hearing during which members made emotional pitches for and against Dr. Braxton — speaking at microphones set up near the altar in orderly, alternating statements of support and opposition — he was affirmed by a vote of 455 to 66, with 33 abstentions.

Dr. Braxton was immediately summoned from an upstairs meeting room where he had waited with his family. . . . .

In a sermon delivered before the vote, Dr. Braxton clearly evoked old-time Bible preaching, raising up his arms to provide the full visual impact of his blue silk vestment with a bright yellow center, employing a powerful voice and occasionally moving with a joyful, barely contained excitement.

His sermon was about Exodus and the Ten Commandments, and the merciful deity at the core of that story. In passages that caused many in the audience to nod, apparently recognizing references to the discord within the church, he said the fundamental insights of Exodus concerned “how we treat one another and how we handle disputes among us.”

There's more information about Braxton here.  The website of Riverside Church is here.  It appears that you can watch Braxton's September 14th sermon at the website.  Congratulations to Braxton and Riverside.

Florida Supreme Court Releases Opinions in Ballot Initiatives Case

The Florida Supreme Court has released its opinions in the case involving certain ballot initiatives that sought to amend the religious freedom and public education provisions of the Florida Constitution.  On September 3 (the day the court held oral argument in the case), the court announced that it had decided to strike these initiatives from the November ballot. 

Now we have the court's opinions explaining its reasoning.  The decision was unanimous.  Justice Wells wrote the opinion for the court.   The opinion notes that Chief Justice Quince and Justices Anstead, Pariente, Lewis, and Bell as well as Senior Justice Cantero concurred. Justice Lewis wrote a concurring opinion, in which Justices Anstead and Pariente joined.  As noted earlier, the court has said that no motion for rehearing will be allowed in the case.  I have not had a chance to read the opinions yet.

Who should say what is orthodox in religion?

Who should say what is orthodox in religion?  Certainly not the government.  And not the media, according to Peter Steinfels.  Steinfels says that,"[i]nstead of simply describing Joe Churchman as an orthodox believer, journalism would do well to follow its established forms and describe Joe Churchman as a man who calls himself an orthodox believer."  He explains:

When it comes to nomenclature, writing about religion is of course a minefield. Terms like “conservative” and “liberal,” “traditionalist” and “progressive” are almost unavoidable shorthand, though they suffer from their origins in political categories and almost inevitably oversimplify and dichotomize religious realities that are multifaceted.

But “orthodox” is a special case, because it suggests a sharp boundary between those who properly belong and those who are properly excluded, the way that “patriotic” can suggest a boundary between loyal citizens and something verging on traitors. Religious leaders have a hard enough time wrestling with such matters. Journalists should not get in their way.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Pulling Principles out of Politics

One of the most interesting points David Gushee makes in this opinion piece on the cultural ramifications of Governor Sarah Palin's bid for the vice presidency is the fact that some theologically conservative Christians who have endorsed Palin have insisted in the past that women must submit to their husbands' leadership in the home and have expressed grave concerns about women who work full-time outside the home. 

For example, Gushee says: "The [Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW)], which includes many of the Christian right's notable figures among its supporters, has for 20 years expressed concern about 'widespread ambivalence regarding the values of motherhood (and) vocational homemaking' and about the 'increasing promotion given to feminist egalitarianism.' "  The CBMW also has said that a woman should "grow in willing, joyful submission to (her husband's) leadership."

Thus, Gushee notes, it "seems only fair to ask these evangelical leaders to think a bit about the implications of their support for Palin."  Here are two of the questions Gushee asks them to consider:

• Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president?

• Do you believe that women carry primary responsibility for the care of children in the home? If so, does this affect your support for Palin? If not, are you willing to change your position and instead argue for flexibility in the distribution of child care responsibilities according to the needs of the family?

Good questions.  These questions remind me of a thoughtful piece Cathleen Kaveny wrote a few weeks ago.  She wondered whether we might view the Palin nomination as an opportunity for liberals and conservatives to find common ground around the following points:

And an atheist shall lead them. . . . .

Sarah Pulliam reports on the product some men from Tennessee were peddling at the "Values Voter Summit" --  "yellow boxes of waffle mix that portray a caricature of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama with a Muslim-like headdress and says 'Point box toward Mecca for tastier waffles.' " Pulliam notes that "[t]he cover of the box portrays a caricature of Obama's face next to waffles, which three protesters from American Atheists found offensive."  Click on the link to see Sarah Pulliam's pictures of this product, and read the rest of her post to get the full understanding of it. 

According to AP, the "Values Voter Summit" cut off sales of the product on Saturday in the wake of the complaints.  Pulliam says that the booth opened for business on Friday, and she quotes the men who were selling the product as saying that it was "selling like hotcakes" before event organizers shut their booth down.

In response to Sarah Pulliam's reporting, one person commented: "If atheists are the only people who objected to that item being sold[,] then Christians everywhere have a lot of soul searching to do."  Indeed.  Now, to be fair, the event organizers objected to this product once complaints were raised (you can see their statement at Sarah's post).   But who raised the complaints?  Apparently, not the many Christians who participated in this event, and certainly not the many people who reportedly bought the product.   No, it was the atheists.  The next time we Christians are tempted to get on our high horses about morals and values, we ought to reflect on this episode.