Melissa Rogers

Back in November

I apologize for being AWOL and for the fact that it will take some more time before I can get back to blogging.  I shall return, but it will be in November. 

Video of Candidates' Remarks at Alfred E. Smith Dinner

Sarah Pulliam has posted video of the presidential candidates' remarks at the Alfred E. Smith dinner, an annual charity event of the Catholic archdiocese of New York.  Amy Sullivan reports on this year's dinner and describes some of its history.

Cafardi, Kaveny, and Kmiec v. Weigel

Newsweek published an essay about a week or so ago by George Weigel challenging his fellow Catholics who oppose abortion and support Barack Obama's candidacy for president.  Today, the professors Weigel named in that piece -- Nicholas Cafardi, Cathleen Kaveny, and Douglas Kmiec -- provide their rebuttal to Weigel's argument. 

"Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?"

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell asked and answered that question yesterday on Meet the Press.  Here's some of what he said:

[I]t is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian.  He's always been a Christian.  But the really right answer is, what if he is?  Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America.  Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?  Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine.  It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave.  And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone.  And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death.  He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith.  And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey.  He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life.  Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way.

The photo referred to by General Powell is here.  Without taking any position on the political endorsement Powell made yesterday, let me commend him for taking it upon himself to speak out on this important issue and for doing so in such a moving way.

Back Next Week

I have to take a blogging break this week.  I'll be back next week.

"[A] decade's worth of ever easier credit [has] acted like a drug in Prosperity's bloodstream"

That's David Van Biema's characterization of some of the scholarship of Jonathan Walton, an academic who studies adherents of the "prosperity gospel" within Pentecostal Christianity.  Here's how Van Biema's piece begins:

Has the so-called Prosperity gospel turned its followers into some of the most willing participants — and hence, victims — of the current financial crisis? That's what a scholar of the fast-growing brand of Pentecostal Christianity believes. While researching a book on black televangelism, says Jonathan Walton, a religion professor at the University of California at Riverside, he realized that Prosperity's central promise — that God will "make a way" for poor people to enjoy the better things in life — had developed an additional, dangerous expression during the subprime-lending boom. Walton says that this encouraged congregants who got dicey mortgages to believe "God caused the bank to ignore my credit score and blessed me with my first house." The results, he says, "were disastrous, because they pretty much turned parishioners into prey for greedy brokers."

Read the whole thing.  (Thanks to the DMN Religion Blog.)

Just say no to using a candidate's pastor (or former pastor) in political attack ads

According to The Washington Post,  John McCain's campaign will begin to run some  ads next week that will call into question some of Barack Obama's alleged "personal associations."   The article says that "[t]he Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. appears to be off limits after McCain condemned the North Carolina Republican Party in April for an ad that linked Obama to his former pastor, saying, 'Unfortunately, all I can do is, in as visible a way as possible, disassociate myself from that kind of campaigning.' " 

I  am not going to comment on the rest of the McCain campaign's strategy, but I want to urge McCain to hold this line regarding Rev. Wright.  Of course, Obama has renounced some of Wright's views and broken with him, so one could argue against such ads for that reason.  But I think these commercials would be objectionable for broader reasons as well.  They would send the message, I think, that it is perfectly fine for a campaign to make an attack ad featuring the words and images of a member of the clergy simply because he or she serves (or formerly served) as the candidate's pastor. 

If there is a legitimate question about what that pastor has said, then ask the candidate about it.  And, if the candidate's answer relates to how he or she would govern, then make an attack ad out of that.  But the mere fact that a person serves as a candidate's pastor does not in any way make that pastor a spokesperson for the candidate, and the pastor should not be treated as such.  (I would say the same thing, by the way, if the Obama campaign ran ads featuring statements made by Governor Sarah Palin's former pastors or the pastors serving the churches Palin and McCain currently attend.) 

In sum, even if all others guilt by association tactics are deemed to be politically kosher, I believe campaigns should not view a person who simply serves (or served) as a candidate's pastor as fair game for use in attack ads.   Why?  It has to do with religion's distinctiveness, the nature of a congregation and a pastor's relationship to members of that congregation, and the spirit of religious freedom (not its letter).  I've tried to begin to unpack some of that in earlier posts.  I'll try to do so more in the future.

Cizik on Identity Politics and More

Here's an interesting NPR chat with Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals.  Topics of discussion included identity politics and the parties' respective stands on a range of issues that are important to evangelicals.  Among other things, Cizik says: "The Democrats have as many issues appealing to evangelicals as the Republicans." 

The NPR host also asks Richard about the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative."  Cizik calls it a "bad idea."  He stresses that the IRS rules permit pastors to endorse candidates in their personal capacities and adds, "we don't want churches to become partisan political grounds."  (Click here if you would like more information about the relevant IRS rules.)   If you have a few minutes, it's well worth listening to the whole interview.

The VP Debate

The transcript is here, and the video is here.  Look below the fold for a few excerpts from the transcript on taxes and health care, the causes of climate change, and same-sex marriage and civil rights.

Another New ADF Talking Point

From a Wall Street Journal story on the Alliance Defense Fund's (ADF) "Pulpit Initiative":

"Pastors who were very sincere men of God were very afraid and didn't know where the line was," recalled Erik Stanley, the [ADF's] senior legal counsel. The group's provocation of the IRS is designed as much to relieve the anxiety of those ministers, Mr. Stanley says, as to force an eventual resolution of the constitutional issue involved.

I know I sound like a broken record, but I do not see how one can square these comments with these earlier comments from an ADF Q & A on this initiative:

What kind of commitment is required to participate?

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.

According to the language of this ADF Q & A, the sole point of this project was to work with churches to ensure that they crossed the relevant legal line so that the ADF could test the constitutionality of that line.   One cannot deliberately cross a line unless one knows where it is, and the ADF did not seem at all confused about that.  The ADF initiative was not about confusion about the rule, it was about trying to create clear and intentional violations of it.  The ADF can say what it wants to now about the project's goals, but some of us have not forgotten what it said when it launched this project.

Report on School Board Hearing for Ohio Science Teacher

AP reports on the hearing regarding the actions of an Ohio public school science teacher.  Here's a snippet:

Mount Vernon schools Superintendent Steve Short testified at a termination hearing Thursday for John Freshwater, an eighth-grade teacher accused of violating the school board’s policy on teaching religion in class.

The school board voted unanimously in June to fire Freshwater, alleging that he refused to remove a Bible from his desk, preached Christian beliefs in class, taught creationism and used the electrostatic device to burn the image of a cross on a student’s arm.

In opening remarks, Freshwater’s attorney Kelly Hamilton denied many of the accusations, including that Freshwater conducted healing sessions. . . .

Following the day’s testimony, a supporter of Freshwater said the teacher had placed the generator on his son’s skin 14 years ago. . . .

Hearing referee Lee Shepherd said he would submit a written report of his findings to the board after the hearing was complete and that the board would determine whether Freshwater should be fired.

Also Thursday, Hamilton argued that the name of the student whose family has sued the district over the burning of his arm should be made public.

After a 90-minute recess, Jessica Philemond, an attorney representing the family, said the boy, 14-year-old Zach Dennis, and his family had decided to reveal his name to move the hearing forward.

She said signs around town say “If the Bible goes, the student goes” and lawyers for the school district said naming the boy could put the family in danger.

We all want to know the facts of the case, and Mr. Freshwater and his supporters, as well as the public school and the Dennis family, should certainly have their say.  But if Mr. Freshwater and his supporters are truly Christians, they not only will treat the entire Dennis family with kindness and love, they will call on the community to do likewise.  They not only will refrain from bullying or taunting Zach Dennis themselves, they will insist that this 14-year-old be kept safe and sound.  Finally, the fact that Mr. Freshwater has demanded that this family go public creates even more of a duty for him to urge his supporters to act in these ways.

"Tempted by Politics"

That's the title of an essay by Mark Galli of Christianity Today on the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative."  Here's how it begins:

Every pastor in America is just dying to tell their congregations how to vote. It happens every election season, but particularly during the presidential quadrennial. This yearning to lobby one's flock doesn't surprise me — it tempted me when I was a pastor.

What did surprise me was a report that said 31 pastors in 22 states this past Sunday endorsed a candidate from their pulpits. The nationwide event was orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, (ADF), which thinks churches should be able to take partisan stands without losing their tax exemption. The legal group hopes the sermons will prompt IRS reaction. In turn, the ADF will take the IRS to court and argue for a ruling that will abolish restrictions on church political speech.

Frankly, I hope they lose. I'm no legal scholar, and I have no idea whether current IRS policies deny churches' constitutionally guaranteed free speech. Who knows, they may just win. But good Lord, deliver us if they do.

The title and tenor of the piece reminds me of a wonderful quote by  Stephen Carter that speaks to a broader (but related) set of temptations.  Carter said:

[T]he religious, like everybody else, are tempted by politics. Seduced by its efficiency. By its potential. By the good it can do. And, it must be added, by the sheer delight of being, or believing oneself to be... at the center of things. Who wants to be a voice crying in the wilderness when we can be witnesses testifying before Congress? Who wants to be a prophet without honor in his own land when White House breakfasts are available? Who wants to store up treasures in heaven when there are elections to be won here on earth?

It's humorous, sure.  But, boy, does it pack a punch. 

Palin Pick Sparks Debate Among Southern Baptists About Women

Bob Smietana reports on the debate that Governor Sarah Palin's nomination has sparked within Southern Baptist circles.  There's an excerpt from the piece below the fold.  An earlier post on this subject is here.

Ohio School Board Begins Hearing on Science Teacher

The Columbus Dispatch reports that an Ohio school board begins a hearing today regarding various allegations against eighth-grade public school science teacher John Freshwater, including a charge that he burned a cross into a student's arm.  Here's a snippet from the piece:

In December, a student reported waking up in pain the night after Freshwater used a high-voltage lab tool to burn a cross into his left arm. Photos taken by the boy's parents show red, raised dots, a mark that they said lasted for three to four weeks.

The manufacturer of the device, which is used to test gases in experiments, said it should never touch human skin. Now, the boy's parents are suing Freshwater and the school board.

Freshwater first told investigators he put X's -- not crosses -- on students. But he has since denied burning or branding any children.

He has filed a countersuit against the boy's family, claiming defamation and infliction of emotional distress. He also says the school board's allegations that he taught creationism and intelligent design and sought to discredit evolution are not true.

Freshwater is to have a chance to contest the allegations at a hearing on the school board's intention to fire him. Officials expect the hearing to run today through Friday and to resume on Oct. 28.

There are also allegations that Freshwater advocated for his religious beliefs in class and "slammed scientific theories."   Dick Hoppe, a visiting biology professor at Kenyon College near Mount Vernon, put it this way: "It looks to me like he was running what amounts to a private Christian school embedded in the public school." 

The article notes that "Freshwater and his defenders have called it a biased investigation."  They have mounted a dogged and wide-ranging campaign in favor of Freshwater, complete with a website that sells T-shirts showing "a picture of Freshwater standing in a crowd speaking [with] a quote attributed to God: I support Mr. Freshwater."  The website is here.

The Mount Vernon News provides additional details about the hearing.  Here are some of them:

Palin on Teaching Creationism in Public Schools

In a segment that ran yesterday on CBS News, Katie Couric asked Governor Sarah Palin:  "Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?"  Here's Palin's answer to that question:

Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle. And, as you know, I say that also as the daughter of a school teacher, a science teacher, who has really instilled in me a respect for science. It should be taught in our schools. And I won’t deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth. But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught it science class.

When I heard that exchange, I wondered why Couric did not follow-up by asking Palin whether she believes that public schools also should be free to teach creationism or intelligent design in science classrooms.  As it turns out, Couric did ask a version of this question.  CBS has now released the segment that contains that Q and A.  Here it is.

COURIC: Should creationism be allowed to be taught anywhere in public schools?

Gov. PALIN: Don’t have a problem at all with kids debating all sides of theories, all sides of ideas that they ever–kids do it today, whether it’s on paper in a curriculum or not. Curriculums also are best left to the local school districts, instead of big brother, federal government, telling a district what they can and can’t teach.

As previously noted, in 2006, a debate  moderator asked Palin: "[S]hould public schools teach alternatives to evolution (such as creationism and intelligent design)[?]"  Palin responded: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."  Subsequently, Palin modified her position somewhat saying, "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class," she said. "It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

I don't have time to comment on these things right now, but I wanted to pass them along.

Couric Asks Biden and Palin About Abortion and Church-State Separation (Updated)

AP reports that, tonight and tomorrow night, Katie Couric's CBS Evening News will run a "vice presidential questions" segment in which Sarah Palin and Joe Biden will answer questions about abortion and the separation between church and state.  Here' more from the story:

Palin and Biden were asked to explain why Roe vs. Wade was a good or bad Supreme Court decision. They were asked to describe a Supreme Court decision that they disagreed with.

They'll also be asked about Thomas Jefferson's writings on the separation between church and state.

Here's a description of the format for "vice presidential questions":  "Each candidate is asked the same question, then given time to answer it. The segments run seven or eight minutes, considered an eternity in a 30-minute evening newscast, and aren't chopped into soundbites."

UPDATE:  The video of the vice presidential nominees' discussion of Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court decisions is here.  The video of the discussion of the vice presidential nominees' discussion of Thomas Jefferson's wall of separation is here.  The transcript of both segments is here and below the fold.  In case you haven't seen these interviews yet, here's the news from them, as reported by Katharine Seelye of the NYT:

Gov. Sarah Palin drew a blank when asked by Katie Couric to name any decisions by the United States Supreme Court that she disagreed with, beyond Roe v. Wade.

“Hmmm,” she said after a brief silence. “Well, let’s see. There’s, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that’s never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …”