Melissa Rogers

Pfleger to Return to Pulpit on June 16

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

The South Side parish of St. Sabina exploded with shouts of joy and a standing ovation Sunday morning at the news firebrand Catholic pastor Rev. Michael Pfleger would be returning June 16.

Cardinal Francis George temporarily removed the outspoken priest from his parish last week following comments Pfleger made about then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Pfleger had said Clinton believed she was entitled to the Democratic nomination because she is white. Pfleger is white, while most of his parishioners are African-American.

At a three-hour Sunday mass filled with songs and dancing, pastoral associate Kimberly Lymore read a letter from Pfleger in which the priest wrote, "This has been a very painful time for me personally and for our church family."

"Let this time be a teaching moment for us to hear the Lord, to grow closer to him and become even stronger to build a kingdom on Earth as it is in heaven," Pfleger wrote.

Lymore said parish leaders were told by Cardinal George that Pfleger will continue as pastor of the church he has led for 30 years with "no restrictions" -- other than not being able to mention publicly the names of presidential candidates or campaign for them. On hearing this, several parishioners called out "That's all right."

A previous post on this matter is here.

"You can about stand anything if you've got your mother with you."

That's a statement by a member of the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (FLDS) community about the fact that, in the 1953 state raid on a polygamous community in Short Creek, Arizona, mothers and children were not separated, but in the 2008 Texas raid on the FLDS community in El Dorado, most children were separated from their mothers. The quote appeared in a Salt Lake Tribune's story about the trauma associated with the family separations that occurred in the Texas FLDS matter.  Here's the relevant snippet:

Dan Barlow was 21 when Arizona authorities intent on wiping out polygamy descended on Short Creek, as the FLDS community on the state border with Utah was then called. He had children taken into Arizona custody then - and today has children and grandchildren who were taken into custody in the Texas raid.
    A crucial difference is that mothers and siblings remained together in 1953, he said.
    "My little 4-year-old granddaughter there [in Texas] said, 'Mama, they put me in jail,' " he said. "I don't think our children felt that [in 1953] because they had their mothers. You can about stand anything if you've got your mother with you." . . . .

Testifying during a mid-April FLDS custody hearing, child psychologist Bruce Perry had warned that children ages 5 and under were most likely to be traumatized by being taken into state custody. He said efforts should be made to keep them with their mothers.
    Texas Child Protective Services followed that advice only for children under 12 months, and despite an early promise to strive to keep family groups together, separated dozens of siblings.

The state must protect children from sexual abuse and other forms of abuse.  But, as a Washington Post editorial says, in this case Texas clearly "overstepped the bounds of Texas law, which authorizes the state to take children away from parents only if the 'urgent need for protection required the immediate removal of the child.' "  

The Salt Lake Tribune story reminds me of some of the statements made by mental health workers who assisted Texas when the FLDS children were intially taken into state custody.  There was one statement in particular that I remember vividly that was reported at the time.  The story noted: "Mothers who initially were allowed to stay with their children were later required to leave if their child was older than 12 months. Describing that day, one employee wrote, 'the floor was literally slick with tears in places.' "  In addition to the statements that were reported in the paper at the time, these workers said things like:

A "Technology Sabbath"

Here's a great idea for the religious and the nonreligious: a "Technology Sabbath."   Michael Glaser explains:

Lately, I’ve been experimenting with taking one day each week away from work completely. You might think this would be an easy task as there’s a “weekend” each week that allegedly offers up two full days of rest. And yet, as I work at home, the shiny big screen of the iMac beckons at all hours, and I am often in front of its white glow the first thing every morning and the last thing at night.

So, being that I am Jewish — though not very religious — I decided to shut down the computer each Friday night at sunset until Saturday at sunset, the traditional time of the Jewish Sabbath. I make exceptions when I need to get directions or check for a personal email. I still use my cell phone but try to limit it to personal calls only. While this day of technological rest can be a difficult routine, it has allowed me to stretch my time, spend more hours outside and be with people more in face-to-face settings.

And I’m not alone. The concept of a “Technology Sabbath” is becoming more widespread, both in religious circles and among bloggers and media people who are overwhelmed with the always-on nature of the broadband Internet and smartphones. And that overwhelming feeling is exacerbated by instant messaging, social networking and services such as Twitter, that allow us to do more informal communications electronically rather than in person.

I try to do this on my Sabbath, Sunday.  So feel free to send me a nasty e-mail if you see me blog on Sundays.  (Thanks to the DMN Religion Blog for the link.)

Grassley's Response to Copeland's Argument

My quick-and-dirty reaction to Senator Grassley's response to the arguments of Copeland Ministries is below the fold. 

Bottom lines:  I'm grateful that Senator Grassley is finally engaging in a public way on some of the specific church-state issues involved in this debate.  I think he makes some good points, and I believe him to have good motives.  But some of his answers leave important questions unaddressed and others remain unconvincing.  I also continue to have doubts about some of the other ways in which Senator Grassley is pursuing his goals.  Finally, this Q and A is as clear a signal as any we have had that Senator Grassley is considering making a serious push to change certain aspects of tax law as they relate to churches and other houses of worship.  Thus, while the investigation itself only specifically targets six ministries, many more ministries have a stake in the process Senator Grassley is directing.

The Ties That Bind, and Sometimes Break

On the heels of Barack Obama's decision to leave his church, the St. Pete Times has a story about others who have left congregations, the reasons for those decisions, and the struggle and pain often associated with them.  Here's a snippet:

Peg and Bob Green of St. Petersburg are empathetic [with the Obamas], even though they're Republicans.

"We're not Obama supporters, but in this instance, I feel for him and his family,'' said Peg Green, who left First Presbyterian Church in St. Petersburg three years ago for St. Thomas Episcopal Church.

"I know it's a decision that's not as easy as some may think.''

Others agree. Leaving a congregation or changing religious affiliation can be anguishing, say some who have done so. . . .

Rabbi Stephen Moch of Tarpon Springs' Congregation B'nai Emmunah has seen a number of departures during his three decades as a leader of Reform Jewish congregations. Unhappy members struggle with conflicting forces, he said.

One is loyalty to a congregation. The other is the disenchantment that eventually causes them to leave, be it unhappiness with the spiritual or lay leadership, Moch said. . . .

[Peg] Green says it's particularly heart-wrenching to leave one's church if, like the Obamas, children are involved. . . .

Others, like Ann Haendel of St. Pete Beach, still struggle. A longtime member of Temple Beth-El, a Reform Jewish congregation in St. Petersburg, she has become involved in activities at nearby Congregation B'nai Israel, a Conservative synagogue.

Now she thinks she's ready to make the break: "I am finding it very difficult, because I feel this connection still to Temple Beth-El."

After all the debate about Obama, Rev. Wright, and Trinity United, this is the first mainstream media article that I have seen that thoughtfully considers what it means for a person to belong to or break ties with a congregation.  Thanks to the St. Pete Times for taking this issue seriously and shedding some much needed light on the subject.

The YouTubification of Sermons

Tom Beaudoin reflects on what I am calling the YouTubification of sermons:

In being instantly broadcastable on the Internet, two things happen: First, [sermons] are made into public arguments: they are abstracted into the stuff of debate and analysis by people who did not share the formation or social situation of those for whom it was intended: the rhetoric of a particular setting gets forced to answer to wildly different presumptions and politics.

Second, they become immediately attached to the spitstream of online commentary on video and blog sites, much of which is now the domain for reactive, impulsive "commentary" with the half-life of a news cycle. If almost none of it is worth reading later on, if few people feel lasting gratitude or consolation from this way of making sense of the world, we get a clue as to what has been happening to these sermons--they are made into fast food and chewed in the mouths of those who have only a remotest sense for what they are eating.

We are back to a 1980s question, about "public theology," but in a new way: are sermons "public arguments"? No--and yes. No, in the sense that they are, especially in these two now-infamous cases [Pfleger and Wright], performances that are highly "contextual". Much of contemporary theology indeed is coming to the understanding that all theology, written or spoken, is a "performance" or rhetoric that is most comprehensible within the culture from which it comes. Very little commentary on these sermons has talked about the cultures of the black church in America.

But on the other hand, yes: sermons are now public arguments insofar as any sermon, or its most provocative fragments, can be uploaded onto the Internet and made the object of a bewilderingly broad spectrum of speculation. There is something of democracy in this, in that the ideas from these sermons in the public domain can become occasions for individual and communal clarification, however meager, about the "common good." But there is also something of despotism, in which a certain knowingness, or a simple lack of education, about religion becomes further legitimized publicly--whether on cable TV or the Internet.

Like Beaudoin, I think some good could come from the general notion of having wider access to sermons, but I find myself having deep concerns about the specific trends he describes.  In any case, I thought you would enjoy reading and mulling over Beaudoin's beautifully written and perceptive reflections. 

Dorf Rebuts Scalia

Michael Dorf comments on the latest remarks by Justice Scalia on religion and the Constitution:

Speaking over the past weekend at the annual dinner of an Orthodox Jewish group, Agudath Israel of America, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claimed that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment should not be construed to forbid government from favoring “religion over nonreligion.” Justice Scalia has made this point before, both on and off the bench, and he may be correct when he says, as he did before Agudath Israel, that such a prohibition “does not . . . represent the American tradition,” but only if one excludes from that tradition the last forty years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The proposition that government may not favor religion over nonreligion does, however, represent the current doctrine of the Supreme Court, albeit with a few exceptions. And of course, Justice Scalia acknowledges as much. He offers his view as a challenge to the modern case law—not a characterization of it.

The full audio of Scalia's remarks is here, and a report on his remarks is here.  Professor Dorf also reminds us that Scalia not only reads the Constitution to say that the government may favor religion over nonreligion but also that the government may favor monotheistic religions over all other faiths.  As Justice Scalia memorably said in his dissenting opinion in the McCreary County v. ACLU case, "With respect to [governmental] acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists."  As Dorf argues, this is an unfounded and extremely dangerous reading of the First Amendment:

To read into the Establishment Clause a distinction between monotheism and all other belief systems is to play with fire. Some people regard Mormons as polytheists; others consider the use of icons in the Eastern Orthodox Church a form of idol worship inconsistent with monotheism; and still others regard Catholics as polytheists because of the notion of the Trinity and the role of the saints and the Virgin Mary in Catholic prayer. Justice Scalia may be prepared to regard each of these faiths as monotheistic, but the very exercise of examining religious doctrine to see whether it is “monotheistic enough” should be repugnant to the First Amendment.

At the very least, we should demand strong evidence in the Constitution’s text before accepting the notion that the Establishment Clause only forbids government favoritism of any particular religious sect, but permits government favoritism of monotheism in general. In fact, the text strongly suggests nearly the exact opposite.

The Establishment Clause itself forbids any “law respecting an establishment of religion,” but does not say exactly what counts as an establishment, or as a law respecting one. Still, there is no basis in the text for distinguishing between monotheistic and other religions. The prohibition—whatever its precise scope—applies to “religion” in general. . . .

Thus, there is literally nothing in the Constitution’s text to support a distinction between monotheistic and other faiths, while there is strong textual support for the principle that government may not favor religion over nonreligion. That ought to be more than enough to commend the principle to Justice Scalia, who is a self-described textualist.

Well said.  Professor Fred Gedicks and Roger Hendrix also have written perceptively about this subject.  (Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link to the Dorf essay.) 

Lisante apologizes for putting candidate endorsement in prayer

Monsignor James Lisante apologizes for putting a candidate endorsement in a prayer, but he says that was his only mistake:

Lisante said he had been endorsing McCain, adding his only mistake was the moment he chose to do it. "In hindsight I would have separated out the invocation, the prayer, from my commentary," said Lisante, pastor of St. Thomas the Apostle Church.

But he added he saw nothing wrong with offering an endorsement of McCain during another part of the fundraiser or at other events - as long as he did not do so from the church pulpit.

"I do not as a priest forfeit my right as a citizen to a point of view, even when it comes to standing by a particular candidate," he said. "Yes, I am a supporter of John McCain and I believe in him very much as a man of character and strength for our country."

Some church experts and fellow priests said Lisante went over the line with his endorsement. They said church tradition and practice prohibits priests from endorsing candidates or parties, although the church can be and is active in pursuing causes that align with Gospel values.

"He went over the top," said the Rev. Bill Brisotti, himself a well-known, left-leaning social activist and pastor of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal Church in Wyandanch. "It was improper for him to do that."

Brisotti said the Diocese of Rockville Centre issues a communication every year reminding priests of the prohibition against publicly backing candidates or parties, and noted parishes are not even permitted to host meet-the-candidates nights.

The Rev. Thomas Reese, former editor of the Jesuit weekly America, said Lisante was within his constitutional rights to endorse a candidate, but that the church clearly frowns on it.

U.S. bishops have been "pretty strong in saying their clergy should stay away from partisan politics," Reese said. "It's OK to talk about issues. But to get into endorsing candidates crosses the line in terms of church practice."

Reese said the church takes that position partly because having a priest endorse a candidate could cause divisions in his parish if many parishioners supported someone else. Bishop William Murphy didn't comment.

What I'm gleaning is that, despite the blanket statement Cardinal George made on this topic ('"while a priest must speak to political issues that are also moral, he may not endorse candidates nor engage in partisan campaigning"), there appears to be a fair amount of discretion here for the various higher-ups in the Catholic Church who oversee priests.  This apparently permits different standards to be applied regarding priests' personal engagement in campaign activities, one standard for Father Pfleger and another for Monsignor Lisante.

Poll Results on Florida Ballot Questions

A Quinnipiac Poll that was released yesterday reveals that "Florida voters support so strongly a requirement that 65 percent of education funds be used in the classroom that it could carry along a less popular proposal that would allow school vouchers. . . ."  The St. Pete Times reports on these poll results here.  Here's more from the Quinnipiac press release:

Florida voters oppose 56 - 38 percent a constitutional amendment to make it easier for the state to provide public funds for vouchers for religious and private schools, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Republicans split 48 - 46 percent, as Democrats oppose it 62 - 31 percent and independent voters oppose it 66 - 30 percent.

But voters support 63 - 25 percent another constitutional amendment that allows school vouchers and requires that schools spend at least 65 percent of their budgets in the classroom. Republicans, Democrats and independent voters all support the measure by 60 percent or more. . . .

Looking at the amendment linking vouchers to the 65 percent classroom spending requirement, 33 percent favor spending more than 65 percent in the classroom, while 50 percent say 65 percent is "about right."

"The pro-voucher folks who linked their proposal with the 65 percent requirement may have made a smart political move. Opponents of that amendment are going to have difficulty convincing voters because of the 65 percent requirement," said Brown.

For a variety of reasons, it's tough to talk about this polling and the associated ballot initiatives in a clear and concise way.  Further, I am no expert on Florida constitutional law; if any readers are, please weigh in.  Nonetheless, let me attempt to offer a few initial observations on this polling.  As the release says, voucher proponents appear to have inflated support for their proposal to amend the state's constitutional provision on public education to allow for voucher programs by coupling that proposal with the 65% requirement.  With regard to the participation of religious schools in any voucher program, however, I believe that both ballot initiatives would have to be approved in order for that to happen, and these particular polling results do not bode well for that other ballot initiative (it says Florida voters oppose it, 56-38 percent).  At the same time, it is important to note that, while the relevant poll questions ask about "school vouchers," those words apparently won't be on the Florida ballot.  Unless voters understand that they are voting on measures that would affect school vouchers, the numbers of those who support these measures could be higher.   One other note on this poll.  This release and the poll questions do not appear to capture the breadth of one of the ballot initiatives, the one that Florida voters apparently oppose,  56 - 38 percent.  That proposal would change the state constitution by striking a restriction regarding government funds and religious institutions and replacing it with a provision that says that individuals and groups cannot be barred from receiving government funds "because of religion."  I'm not sure whether voters would like the proposal better or worse if they knew that, but there it is.

Cardinal George Asks Father Pfleger To Temporarily Step Down

"Cardinal Francis George asked [Father Michael Pfleger] on Tuesday to temporarily step down from his post to 'reflect on his recent statements' regarding Sen. Hillary Clinton and her bid for the White House."  (For background on this matter, click here.)  Here's more from the AP story: 

George asked Pfleger to take leave from pastoral duties at St. Sabina Church in order to "reflect on his recent statements and actions in the light of the church's regulations for all Catholic priests," according to a statement Tuesday from the Archdiocese of Chicago.

Officials have said the Catholic Church does not endorse political candidates.

The leave was effective Tuesday and was scheduled to last about two weeks, said Archdiocese spokeswoman Susan Burritt.

"This the Cardinal's way of hopefully relieving some of the pressure, to step away and reflect a little bit. That is the intent here," she said. "This has been a difficult week in light of everything that's happened."

Pfleger, who has apologized for the comments and promised George he would no longer mention any presidential candidates by name, did not believe "this to be the right step at this time," according to the statement.

"While respecting his disagreement, I have nevertheless asked him to use this opportunity to reflect ..." George said in the statement. "I hope that this period will also be a time away from the public spotlight and for rest and attention to family concerns."

A message seeking comment was left Tuesday for Pfleger. A news conference was planned at St. Sabina for Tuesday evening, but church officials said they were uncertain if Pfleger would attend. . . .

Pfleger, a 59-year-old white priest at a largely black parish, has gained a reputation for impassioned sermons and activism.

The full statement from Cardinal George appears below the fold.  A Chicago CBS station reports that "the move comes after several days of deliberation and consultation by the Cardinal, who first learned about Pfleger's racially charged comments about senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity Unity Church of Christ last Thursday night."  It also adds these details: 

The Cardinal immediately contacted Pfleger who agreed not to refer to the presidential candidates by name, but as CBS 2 reported at the time, there remained the possibility of some further disciplinary action against Pfleger.

The Cardinal reportedly spoke to Pfleger again Tuesday morning. . . .

The order requires Fr. Pflger to at least temporarily leave the rectory he's called home for the past 24 years. . . .

Tuesday evening outside St. Sabina, parishioners were already handing out leaflets, calling an emergency meeting to make a powerful statement in support of their longtime priest. . . .

This past Sunday, Pfleger told St. Sabina's congregation that he's received more than 3,000 threatening e-mails – some calling for his death. The messages caused the church to beef up security for Sunday's services.

So does Cardinal George's stance on this issue reflect or set any kind of nationwide precedent for the Church?  As you know, this question has been on my mind.  In a story published today, Cathleen Falsani sheds some light on this issue.  The story is based largely on Falsani's exclusive interview with Pfleger.  Here's a part of the story in which Pfleger recounts some of his discussion with George:

New Version of Typepad Giving Me Headaches

I didn't ask for it and don't want it, but Typepad has gone and forced a new version of their blogging software on us.  I'm having trouble with various parts of this new software, including problems with links and problems with posts automatically publishing before I am finished writing them.  With a little help from some friends, I have figured out a few things today.  Let's hope it will be relatively smooth sailing from here on out.  My apologies for any inconvenience.  

"Using Communion as a weapon" against a Catholic voter

E.J. Dionne writes today about the denial of communion to Doug Kmiec, a Catholic, "a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department."  Kmiec was denied Communion for his endorsment of Barack Obama for president.  Here's a snippet from E.J.'s piece:

The Kmiec incident poses the question in an extreme form: He is not a public official but a voter expressing a preference. Moreover, Kmiec -- a law professor at Pepperdine University and once dean of  Catholic University's law school -- is a long-standing critic of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. . . .

In an interview over the weekend, Kmiec argued that 35 years after Roe, opponents of abortion need to contemplate whether "a legal prohibition" of abortion "is the only way to promote a culture of life."

"To think you have done a generous thing for your neighbor or that you have built up a culture of life just because you voted for a candidate who says in his brochure that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade is far too thin an understanding of the Catholic faith," he said. Kmiec, a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, added that Catholics should heed "the broad social teaching of the church," including its views on war.

Kmiec shared with me the name of the priest who denied him Communion and a letter of apology from the organizers of the event, but he requested that I not name the priest to protect the cleric from public attack.

The priest's actions are almost certainly out of line with the policy of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In their statement "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," issued last November, the bishops said: "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position."

The "if" phrase in that carefully negotiated sentence suggests that Catholics can support pro-choice candidates, provided the purpose of their vote is not to promote abortion. . . .

But because Kmiec is a private citizen and has such a long history of embracing Catholic teaching on abortion, denying him Communion for political reasons may spark an even greater outcry inside the church.

Kmiec says he is grateful because the episode reminded him of the importance of the Eucharist in his spiritual life, and because he hopes it will alert others to the dangers of "using Communion as a weapon."

Kmiec's account of these events is here.  dotcommonweal is having an interesting discussion of E.J.'s column. 

In other Catholic news, Vox Nova also asks why Monsignor Lisante's partisan attack (Silante called it a prayer) has apparently been ignored thus far by the Catholic hierarchy, while Father Pfleger's partisan attack drew a rebuke from Cardinal George.  I thought it was a good question, but I'm not Catholic.  Having a Catholic ask the question gives me more confidence that it has merit.

FLDS Statement on Marriage and Related Updates

* Howard Friedman has the goods on yesterday's court order (pdf) that reunites the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (FLDS) children with their parents, while subjecting the families to certain conditions. 

* Today's Salt Lake Tribune carries a story that describes a statement that was issued yesterday by the FLDS regarding its marriage practices.  Here's a snippet from that story:

For nearly 10 years, the FLDS withstood government pressure and refused to make any public concession on its marriage practices. That changed Monday when the polygamous sect released a four-paragraph statement vowing to abide by marriage age laws in all states. Spokesman Willie Jessop read the declaration, saying it had been issued by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. . . .

Here is the statement:
    * The church's policies regarding marriage have been widely misrepresented and misunderstood. Indeed, much of the misinformation circulating on this subject seems designed intentionally to fuel the flames of prejudice against the church.
    * The church's practices in this regard continue a long tradition of marriage in this country that would have been found to have been unremarkable in 19th century America. In the FLDS church all marriages are consensual. The church insists on appropriate consent, including that of the woman and the man in all circumstances.
    * Nevertheless the church is clarifying its policy toward marriage. Therefore, in the future, the church commits that it will not preside over the marriage of any woman under the age of legal consent in the jurisdiction in which the marriage takes place. The church will counsel families that they neither request nor consent to any underage marriages. This policy will apply church-wide.
    * The church believes in purity, cleanliness, and innocence. Our children and families are the cornerstones of our lives and our religion. We hope that this modest clarification in policy will alleviate recent concerns and allow the church and its families to reside in peace among our neighbors.

*  For others stories on the FLDS matter from today's Salt Lake Tribune, click here.

*  The New York Times also has a story on the return of the children and the road ahead. A similar AP story is here.

*  The USA Today editorial board registers its objections to the process Texas used in this matter. It also runs an "opposing view" piece by Albert Hawkins, executive commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. There are snippets from both opinion pieces below the fold.

Grassley v. Copeland (Updated)

John Copeland, son of Kenneth Copeland and chief executive of Texas-based Kenneth Copeland Ministries, one of the ministries currently being investigated by Senator Grassley,  has given an interview to a Texas TV station, and Senator Grassley has provided the TV station with a series of questions and answers that respond to Copeland's remarks.  The full text of Grassley's Q and A appears below the fold, and the AP coverage of this is here.  More on this later.

UPDATE (6/6): For my response to this Q and A, click here.

What Have We Learned So Far About Religion and Politics?

What we have learned so far in this presidential campaign about the interaction of religion and politics? And what should we do with that knowledge?  The following comments are a few thoughts on these topics.  I offer them to provoke thought and conversation, certainly not to say that I have everything figured out.

 

We have learned that the media and others will no longer ignore the views of religious leaders who are pursued by the campaign or brought into the campaign in other ways.  That’s basically fair.  We essentially treat secular endorsers that way, and religious endorsers should not be treated differently, for the most part.  That kind of scrutiny can go off the rails in a variety of ways, but the basic principle is sound.

 

For this reason, campaigns have learned that they cannot just chase after certain religious leaders for their endorsements without vetting them.  They must study and know religious communities and personalities, just like they must study and know nonreligious communities and personalities.  If they fail to do so, that failure may very well come back to bite them.   On the flip side, religious leaders should count the potential cost before endorsing.

 

We have learned that a candidate’s house of worship can become a political target and a media magnet.  That is a serious problem, but that’s not to say that I don’t understand some of the reasons why we are where we are. 

Moving forward, it seems to me that it would be better for all sides to take steps to remove the pastor and the church from campaign scrutiny: the candidate would do this by refraining from seeking the endorsement of his or her pastor (or otherwise bringing the pastor into the campaign); the pastor would do it by refraining from playing a role in the campaign; and the media and others would do it by stepping back from combing over a pastor’s sermons, calling church shut-ins and the like. If we could get that kind of gentleperson’s agreement on all sides, we would move toward a more healthy relationship between religion and politics.  (I know this is complicated by the fact that sermons are now widely available and there are always some who would comb over each statement in any case, trying to score political points. But if others agree to these basic parameters, it may be more difficult for these folks to get much traction for their efforts.)

 

If we get this kind of gentleperson's agreement, it should provide some insulation for the church and the pastor from the campaign.  That insulation is required if we are to have prophetic preaching, preaching that speaks truth to power, for example.  That insulation is required if the church is to be the church, not some horrible You-Tubification or sorry spectacle on CNN.  That insulation is required if we are to ensure that a candidate who is so inclined will have a community of faith where he or she can go to be challenged and renewed.  We should all want that for our presidents who are so inclined and for our religious communities that, at their best, can serve as independent check on government.

 

(Of course, even under the scenario I describe, there still may be some cases where legitimate questions arise for the candidate about a pastor’s or church's public views.  In other words, there still may be times when it is appropriate to ask the candidate what impact, if any, the statement of his or her pastor or the stance of his or her church would have on the candidate's governance.  In that case, the candidate can be asked about those views, but then the focus can and should stay on the candidate, rather than the church or the pastor.  In other words, one of the mistakes I think we’ve made here is to create or tolerate some general presumption that the views of the pastor are the views of the candidate-congregant and to focus on the pastor’s views even after the candidate has said he or she disagrees with the pastor’s views.)

We have learned that many in the media and others do not understand the nature of the decision to join a church.   The decision to join a church should not be taken as a sign that a person sees eye-to-eye with a pastor on all things.  It's a much more complex decision that has to do not only with the pastor at the time but also with the church's programs and services, one's sense of spiritual calling, and the feelings and beliefs of one's family members.  Further, one may disagree with a number of things one's pastor says, and still view him or her as an excellent pastor in terms of how he or she causes one to think, cares for the congregation, and ministers to it it in other ways.  In short, joining a church is not like joining the NRA or Planned Parenthood, and we ought not regard these decisions as such. 

We have learned that some people feel free to tell others what they should do or should have done regarding church membership.  That's a problem.  As I've said, this decision is complex, and it is terribly presumptuous for anyone else to assume that they know what it is like to stand in another's shoes in this context or to attempt to instruct them about what they should do about this kind of decision.  We don't know, and we shouldn't say.  Church membership decisions are between a person and God, and they ought to stay that way.  In short, I'd like to get to the place where it is considered extremely inappropriate for a person to say what he or she would have done regarding the church membership of someone else or to attempt to instruct another person on this subject. 

We have learned that some clergy of various political stripes have succumbed to the temptation of engaging in hardball partisan politics and personal attacks, even from the pulpit.  That has not been pretty.  But there is always the possibility for redemption for all of us, whether our sins are quite public or private. Thanks be to God.

We have learned that much of what is said in a religious forum does not translate well to a political forum.  There are some dangers when the media and others pick some juicy soundbites from sermons and then suggest that they would apply in a particular way in the political realm.  That may not be the case.  To the extent religious leaders also aspire to engage in policy and politics, it is perfectly appropriate to ask about statements that have political implications, but we should not simply assume that statements made in a religious context have a particular policy or political meaning.   

Senate Takes Up Climate Change Legislation Today

The Senate takes up climate change legislation today:

Most senators acknowledge that climate change poses a major environmental threat, but getting agreement on how to deal with it is another matter.

The Senate on Monday will take up legislation that calls for cutting carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases by about 70 percent from power plants, refineries, factories and transportation by mid-century.

But the bill's chances of passing the Senate are viewed as slim as its supporters are not expected to muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a certain filibuster threat. Prospects in the House are even less certain.

But both Democrats and Republicans appeared eager to debate global warming and both sides are preparing a string of amendments for later this week — some to make the legislation stronger, others to weaken it.

An interesting coalition of business, labor, and religious leaders, sports enthusiasts, and environmental groups holds a news conference today to call for action to address global warming.  The participants in that press conference are listed below the fold.

Obama Ends Membership in Trinity United (Updated)

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

Lynn Sweet of The Chicago Sun Times adds these details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aftermath of FLDS Rulings

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

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

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

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

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

The piece also adds this interesting detail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressive Baptist Convention Invites All Presidential Candidates to August Convention

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

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

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

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

What's Good for the Goose?

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Blair Faith Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

The website for the new foundation is here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separation of Solidering and Proselytizing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Washington Post reports these additional details:

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

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

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

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

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

Technical Difficulties

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

Back to Trinity United

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinton's campaign denounced Pfleger's comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The high court upheld the appellate court ruling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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