Spiritual Politics

Whither the evangelicals this election year? Across the country, journalists are eagerly scrutinizing the scarce tea leaves for signs that they are turning away from their Republican allegiance. Yesterday, for example, the Seattle Times' published Haley Edwards' did a story on just such a turning away on the part of young evangelicals. Also this CNN piece by Tom Foreman. But thus far, there's precious little data such as would convince an empirical social scientist that there's something happening out there. Take Sunday's Rasmussen poll, for example. Having turned its main attention away from the Democratic primary and to an expected Obama-McCain race, it solicited the views of evangelicals, and found that they favored McCain by 69 percent to 28 percent. That's a few percentage points worse than Republican congressional candidates did among white evangelicals in 2006, but there's no indication that Rasmussen limited its sample to white evangelicals. Through in Hispanics, and what you've got is no movement whatsoever.

Posted by Mark Silk at 05:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As the primary season winds down, we would do well to consider one of the slices of the religious demographic pie that has thus far received little attention: those who, when asked for their religious preferences, say "none." These Nones have, in recent years, trended Democratic (just as the most religious have trended Republican). In the 2006, they voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates.

As between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the Nones have preferred Obama, and in most places by a considerable margin. Overall, they constitute about 15 percent of the electorate, but they are spread unevenly around the country. In proportional terms, they are far more plentiful out West than they are back East or down South. Obama's notable success in the Western states has, I believe, something to do with his appeal to the Nones.

The least churched of all the states of the union is Oregon, where Nones make up about one-third of the adult population. Only a third of Oregonians actually belong to a religious body. (One third claim a religious identity but do not belong.) Because being a None is the norm in Oregon, Nones there tend to be a bit older, a bit more conservative than Nones elsewhere. Still, I'd guess that they will make up a good half of all Democratic primary voters in the Beaver State next week. And I'd also guess that two-thirds of them at least will vote for Obama. That Oregon will push him over the top in pledged delegates (not counting Florida and Michigan) seems very, very likely.

Posted by Mark Silk at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Kirbyjon Caldwell, friend of Bush, backer of Obama, contextualizer of Wright: a most exquisitely politic man. Check out Dan Gilgoff's interview with him on Beliefnet. Caldwell runs the biggest church in all United Methodism. Wright did the same in the United Church of Christ. There's been a lot of recent chatter about the mysteriousness of "the black church" to white folks. But what does it mean that many of the biggest names in the historically white realm that is Mainline Protestantism belong to African Americans?

Posted by Mark Silk at 05:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

firedoglake tu-quoques Anglican Church of Nigeria's Michael Gerson. Are we all our pastors' keepers?

Posted by Mark Silk at 07:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ana Marie Cox is live blogging the latest Pew Forum religion briefing in Key West. There's a lot from Bill Galston on Obama's Catholic problem, relying on PA exit polls. I remain something of a skeptic. Yes, in PA white Catholics voted significantly more for Clinton than white Protestants did, but in a lot of states they didn't; and in some states it was the other way around (as has been noted a number of times in this blog). Let's see what happens tomorrow. My guess is that we're going to be seeing not much of a difference between white Catholics and white Protestants in Indiana, and a bigger vote for Obama among white Catholics than white Protestants in North Carolina. (For the record, close to 14 percent of Hoosiers and 4 percent of Tarheels are Catholic.)

Posted by Mark Silk at 02:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Three quarters of Americans don't know what Hillary Clinton's religion is, according to the latest New York Times/CBS poll. Sixty percent don't know what Barack Obama's religion is. For John McCain, the number is 82 percent. To paraphrase Dwight Eisenhower, candidates for president of the United States must have a religion but most Americans don't care what it is. Or don't care enough to find out.

Posted by Mark Silk at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Frank Rich joins the Wright-Hagee double-standard chorus. Clarence Page reflects on Wright-Obama.

Posted by Mark Silk at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

See here for the latest outrageous comments of Pastor Hagee. Such as that your daughter can get an abortion in public school. Sure, Hagee--and the late Jerry Falwell and the not late Pat Robertson et al.--are not the long-term pastors of John McCain or of any other notable Republican presidential hopeful of the past generation. And yes, they receive a round of condemnation when a particularly outrageous statement is made by one or another them--such as the notorious post-9/11 comments of Robertson and Falwell on the 700 Club:

Falwell: What we saw on Tuesday, terrible as it is, could be minuscule if in fact God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
Robertson: That's my feeling.

Hagee is a new figure on the scene, and so has received a certain amount of negative attention. But John McCain has been permitted to dissociate himself from certain Hagee views--about Catholicism, about Hurricane Katrina--without being belabored for failing to dissociate himself from the pastor himself. Is it crazier or nastier to consider the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon or to charge America with acts of terrorism? To say that New Orleans got its just deserts or to charge a federal government that let a group of poor black men die of syphilis as an experiment with infecting African Americans with AIDS? To say that America got what it deserved or that the chickens were coming home to roost? Far be it from me at this point to mount a full-throated defense of Jeremiah Wright. But is it utterly out of bounds to suggest that there might be a bit of a double standard lurking hereabouts?

Update: E.J. has the same thought.

Posted by Mark Silk at 03:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Other than weighing in on immigration--which, sorry Tanc, has dropped out of public discourse--Pope Benedict stayed steadfastly above the political fray during his visit. Yes, there was the inclusion of references to "life" in his list of things that citizens should support. But nothing about what kinds of candidates Catholics should vote for, or about the appropriateness of Catholic politicians who support abortion rights receiving Communion. In his Yankee Stadium homily, he noted that the United States was a country where Catholics had found not only religious freedom but also the freedom to "participate fully in civic life." He said that "praying fervently for the coming of the Kingdom" meant, among other things, "rejecting a false dichotomy between faith and political life." This election season, that's about like standing up for motherhood, for apple pie.

Posted by Mark Silk at 05:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On Wednesday, responding to a question from Bishop Vann Johnson, Pope Benedict said:

Perhaps America's brand of secularism poses a particular problem: it allows for professing belief in God, and respects the public role of religion and the Churches, but at the same time it can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator. Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things "out there" are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life. The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living "as if God did not exist."

On Sunday, responding to a question from Cambell Brown, Barack Obama said:

What I believe is that all of us come to the public square with our own values and our ideals and our ethics, what we believe. And people of religious faith have the same right to come to that public square with values and ideals that are rooted in their faith. And they have the right to describe them in religious terms, which has been part of our history. As I said in some of my writings, imagine Dr. King, you know, going up before, in front of the Lincoln Memorial and having to scrub all his religious references, or Abraham Lincoln in the Second Inaugural not being able to refer to God. What religious language can often do is allow us to get outside of ourselves and mobilize around a common good. On the other hand, what those of us of religious faith have to do when we're in the public square is to translate our language into a universal language that can appeal to everybody. And both Lincoln and King did this and every great leader did it, because we are not just a Christian nation. We are a Jewish nation; we are a Buddhist nation; we are a Muslim nation; Hindu nation; and we are a nation of atheists and nonbelievers.

To what extent is American civil religion, as articulated by Sen. Obama, a threat to religious belief, as conceived by Pope Benedict? (30 points)

Posted by Mark Silk at 01:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Yes, this presidential campaign has been has been shot through with more religion than any campaign in history. Yes, we've been treated to Democratic as well as Republican aspirants cross-questioned on their faith. But yes, most Americans can't match Clinton, and Obama, and McCain to a particular brand. According to a survey conducted for the AP and Yahoo this month by Knowledge Networks, the proportion of Americans correctly identifying each as Protestant is, respectively, 33 percent, 27 percent, and 26 percent. The percentages of those who say they don't know, are 51-44-61. Fifteen percent think Obama is a Muslim. Eight percent think he is "some other religion." Eight percent think Clinton is a Catholic and three percent think she has no religion.

I wish one of the options had been: "Don't care." Doesn't the fact that most Americans haven't, at this late date, troubled to find out the religion of the candidates they're going to vote for suggest as much?

Posted by Mark Silk at 07:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The exchange between Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and the Faith and Public Life folks over last Sunday's Compassion Forum is worth looking at for anyone interested in the ongoing saga of evangelicals in politics. Perkins' characterization of the of the event's board as "radical," his apparently false claim that the FRC was not invited to participate (according to the other side, he was), points to some real anxiety in the Religious Right's old guard at the effort to broaden the "values" agenda and soften its partisan, culture-wars edge. In fact, Perkins made no bones about the stakes: "Unfortunately, with the help of some of our friends, the Religious Left is trying to realign, and thereby dilute, the values voter message...As Democrats vie for the Christian vote, we must remember that it is not the church that should be affected by their message. Rather, their message should be affected by a faithful church."

How much should the old guard worry that their troops have been softened up? So far, the evidence is mostly impressionistic. But when the likes of Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum and the president of the Southern Baptist Convention sign on to something like the Compassion Forum, you don't need a weatherman to tell you that the atmosphere has changed.

Posted by Mark Silk at 05:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

See Brody for squabbling between the Dobson wing of engaged evangelicalism and the Compassion Forum wing. See Beth Fouhy's AP story on Obama's efforts to reassure Jewish leaders on Wright and his support for Israel.

Posted by Mark Silk at 03:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Clinton
Obama

Posted by Mark Silk at 08:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When popes come to America, so comes the inevitable criticism, pre- and post-visit, heaped upon the media for not understanding what the pope is really doing here. This is all rather wearying, especially since much of it is no more than partisan spinning by Catholic commentators eager to pretend that the pontiff is really on their side. At the moment, not surprisingly, the whipping boy is media interest in what the pope might have to say of relevance to the current election cycle (check out Mattingly here).

Well, okay. Journalists owe the public at least some indication of what the pope considers his main business to be, if such a thing can be discerned. But, in the end, why is it more important to focus, say, on Benedict's desire to let Americans in on his conviction that there is such a thing as absolute truth than, say, on a stray but pointed remark on the obligations of Catholic voters? In my humble opinion, the pope should no more get to determine what is newsworthy about Himself than any other object of journalistic attention.

Posted by Mark Silk at 08:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Pre-order now! Or don't. You'll be hearing about this here again.

Posted by Mark Silk at 08:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Buried in the release of Quinnipiac's latest Pennsylvania poll is an item showing that white Catholics prefer Clinton over Obama by 65 percent to 29 percent. So far as I can see, that's the largest margin within any subgroup listed in the poll, which overall showed Clinton up by 6 points, 50 percent to 44 percent. Not much Casey effect among his co-religionists, evidently.

Posted by Mark Silk at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In Israel today, Pastor John Hagee responded to Rabbi Eric Yoffie's critique, accusing the head of Reform Judaism of a "troubling lack of respect of the truth." Hagee denied being anti-Catholic and insisted he could back a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict (if Israel wants it). He had just returned from a Solidarity rally leading 1,000 Christians through the streets of Jerusalem shouting Hosannah! OK, that's not what they were shouting. Anyway, in a Q and A he defined Christian Zionism as " the belief that every Jewish person has the right of return to Israel and the right to live in peace and security within recognized borders."

Posted by Mark Silk at 02:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tough crowd in Philly.

Posted by Mark Silk at 02:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A week from today, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but not, apparently, John McCain, will be participating in something called the Compassion Forum at Messiah College, near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. This forum has been whomped up as an opportunity, nine days before the Pennsylvania primary, for the presidential candidates to show that they care about the great humanitarian issues of all time and our time--poverty and Darfur, human rights and torture and, yes, abortion's on the list too. The thing is being coordinated (I guess that means organized) by Faith in Public Life and (here's the point) is being supported by a range of religious leaders across the ideological perspective.

OK, it's a bit left of center, in the evangelical mode: the Wallises and Siders are prominent. But the president of the Southern Baptist Convention has lent his name to the thing. There are Catholics and Jews and African American Protestants and Muslims. Conspicuous by their absence, however, are representatives of the Protestant mainline. There's one identified Episcopal clergy person, yes. But no one representing the National Council of Churches or any of the big mainline denominational bodies. Once upon a time, and not all that long ago, any interfaith operation with the word "compassion" in it would have had mainline Protestants at the center, organizing and coordinating and sponsoring. Didn't anyone think to invite them? Did they decline to participate? Was backing by some conservatives contingent on their not participating? Maybe this is simply another commentary on the decline of the mainline. But I'd like to know the back story.

Posted by Mark Silk at 07:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Among the side issues stirred up by fracas over Pastor John Hagee's endorsement of John McCain was whether the Jewish community should or would insert itself into the the discussion. On the one hand, Hagee's alleged anti-Catholicism (OK, this blog has argued that there's it's bona fide) might induce Jews to their traditional denunciation of all forms of religious bigotry. On the other, there's the fact that Hagee has been a huge supporter of (and fund raiser for) Israel. Led by ADL president Abe Foxman's assertion that Hagee's endorsement was "not a Jewish issue," the community's initial reaction was essentially to sit on its hands. But now, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, has put the fat back in the fire by denouncing the Jewish alliance with Christian Zionists like Hagee--Hagee in particular--as bad for Israel. He urges Jews to stay away from Hagee's patented "Nights to Honor Israel."

Meanwhile, the conservative Catholic pundit Deal Hudson, author of a new book on "the growing power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States," reports in his blog on his visit to Hagee. Hudson notes Hageean perplexy: "Deal, how can people think I am anti-Catholic when my wife is an ex-Catholic, and a third of my congregation are former Catholics?" As we've noted in this space, it's precisely his church's effective mission to Latino Catholics that has driven his anti-Catholic message. Hudson doesn't seem to recognize that, however. He mostly want to make nice.

Posted by Mark Silk at 06:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Lest you think abortion has disappeared as an issue this campaign season, Hillary Clinton's visit to Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pa., has drawn a protest from the local Catholic bishop, Donald W. Trautman, who criticized the college for not "reflecting the pro-life stance of the Catholic Church." In line with the widespread position of the church hierarchy that pro-choice politicians not be invited to speak at Catholic educational institutions, Trautman said he would as a result not attend the Mercyhurst's graduation ceremonies this year. (The colleget, founded by the Sisters of Mercy in 1926, proclaims its "Catholic identity" in is its mission statement.)

Meanwhile, in his Washington Post column today, Michael Gerson assails Barack Obama for "abortion extremism" for criticizing last year's Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of bans on "partial-birth abortion" as well as opposing legislation to protect the lives of fetuses that survive abortion procedures. No doubt, abortion will remain a bright line between the Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns this year. The question is: How much will it matter to the voters?

Posted by Mark Silk at 06:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

For those of us (and if we aren't legion neither are we a tiny few) who have shouldered the burden of tracking religion in the current campaign, the, ah, Godsend that was the Obama/Wright affair has just about run itself into the blogground, leaving in its wake a discernible absence of news. This may be remedied by the visit of Pope Benedict, who (according to Peter Steinfels) will provide at least a little grist for our mills.

In the meantime, a couple of uncommented-upon Wright matters are left to be tidied up in this space. First, I'd say there was a bit less than met the eye in Obama's comment on "The View" last Friday that he'd have left Trinity United had Wright not retired and acknowledged making comments that "deeply offended people." There's no question that Obama had long known that his tie to Wright could hurt his candidacy, and my guess is that he figured the retirement would make it easier to weather the storm (as it probably has). Were Wright still in the pulpit, he very likely would have been compelled to speak up on the subject, instead of keeping mum. And though it would not have come easily to him, an acknowledgment that he had "offended people" might well have been forthcoming.

Then there's the letter of Wright's to Jodi Kantor of the New York Times of a year ago, complaining that Kantor had misrepresented her intentions in an interview she did with him. Kantor had represented herself as working on a story about Obama's spiritual development but, according to the letter, the story that appeared focused solely on the fact, revealed by Wright, that Obama had decided that Wright not be present when he announced his candidacy. Wright thought this was dirty pool. In fact, as Times political editor Richard Stevenson has pointed out in a letter to the Time magazine political blog The Page, the paper did get around to publishing an extended article on Obama's spiritual development. But Wright's revelation was news, and so the first order or business had been to run out a quick story on the Wright non-appearance.

Wright's distress is understandable, but anyone who has spent time in the journalistic trenches would immediately see that his cause for complaint was minimal at best. If you talk to a reporter on the record, then whatever you say is fair game. I would have done the non-appearance story in a heartbeat.

Posted by Mark Silk at 06:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Jacques Berlinerblau, the Washington Post's house church-state separation absolutist, sticks his tongue in his cheek to advocate a constitutional amendment that begins, "The right of presidential aspirants to discuss religion, invoke sacred texts, or mention God on the campaign trail is hereby repealed." The amendment also proposes that, "Whenever a religious figure endorses any candidate for the presidency that candidate must reject aforesaid endorsement." Oh, and Congress would be empowered to exile the faith-based endorser to France. The idea behind this modest proposal is, of course, that the country is best off with no religious talk by candidates, no such endorsements by religious figures. I 'm less than persuaded by the argument.

Berlinerblau thinks the endorsements threaten the country's "interreligious tranquility" and do the candidates no practical good, while the obligation to engage in a certain amount of God talk deprives the country of a lot of good candidates (i.e. those who can't do it). I'm no fan of clerical endorsements, but there's little evidence that the Wrights, Hagees, and Parsleys have in any way threatened relations among the nation's religious groups. Such controversy as has attached to their controversial remarks almost inevitably results in reaffirmations of religious comity elsewhere in the system. That's how the system works. Whether candidates are hurt or helped more by clerical endorsements is an empirical question that cannot be resolved merely by looking at the most controversial. For a generation, Republican presidential aspirants have sought the approbation of conservative evangelical pastors. Does Berlinerblau know something they don't?

Talking religion does come more easily to some candidates than others--remember Howard Dean and John Kerry during the 2004 election cycle? But John McCain has managed to capture his party's nomination without indulging in it to any appreciable degree. If there are would-be American presidents out there who have been afraid to throw their hats into the ring pending the arrival of Berlinerblau's secularist millennium, I'd like to know who they are.

Posted by Mark Silk at 07:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Much of the commentary on the Jeremiah Wright controversy and Barack Obama's response to it has, naturally enough, focused on the possible consequences for Obama's presidential campaign. But my guess is that it will also have an effect on American electoral politics as a whole. Coming in the wake of the much smaller flap over John Hagee, L'affaire Obama/Wright assures that endorsements of or associations with politicians by religious figures will draw close and immediate media scrutiny from here on out.

First up has been Columbus, Ohio megachurch pastor Rod Parsley, for his claim that the government, allied with Planned Parenthood, has pursued a policy of "black genocide." Parsley has been up to his ears in Ohio politics for some time, and in this election cycle has been backing John McCain enthusiastically.

Two decades ago, revelations that Reagan Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsburg smoked marijuana not only scuttled Ginsburg's nomination but put pot smoking onto the list of approved questions for presidential nominees. They will now be expected to answer for the views of their clerical supporters, with the result that they will start vetting these people carefully before they let them up on the dais. I'd call this a net plus for the country.

Posted by Mark Silk at 06:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Huck's fundamental decency, his pastor's experience, and his understanding of race in the South--on display.
P.S. Plus, perhaps, his knowledge of what videos of his own old sermons, had anyone ever been able to lay hands on them, might have done to his campaign.

Posted by Mark Silk at 04:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From his sabbatical in Tel Aviv, my colleague Ron Kiener has sent this account of the Israeli view of the presidential election:

Israelis are slowly coming to terms with the fact that their favorite living American political figure, former President Bill Clinton, will not be returning to the White House anytime soon. One cannot underestimate the visceral warmth and goodwill that most Israelis hold towards Bill Clinton – the American President who hosted on the White House lawn the signing of the Oslo accords; the American President who flew to Israel on a moment’s notice to utter the words “Shalom, chaver” (“Goodbye, friend”) at Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral; the American President who tried, through a mastery of mind-numbing details, to bring peace to Israelis and the Palestinians; and when it all fell apart, the American President who didn’t hesitate to blame the diplomatic fiasco squarely on the bumbling, duplicitous, narrow-minded leadership of Yasser Arafat.

Continue reading "Letter from Israel" »

Posted by Mark Silk at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ambinder has a sensible post on the issue of pastoral endorsements, to the effect that with bedfellows like Hagee and Parsley, John McCain has to be careful about going after Wright; or what's sauce for Obama's goose is sauce for McCain's gander. Brody, meanwhile, quotes some anonymous "key Democratic strategist" (for any particular campaign?) suggesting that l'affaire Wright is going to kill Obama "in the heartland." We'll see. I think it will make the hill Obama has to climb with Jewish voters steeper, but will prove to be not much more than a pothole with the rest of the electorate. Time, uh, will tell.

Posted by Mark Silk at 02:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In yesterday's Washington Post, E. J. Dionne postulates the end of the era of the Religious Right: R.R. RIP, 1980-2008. I'm inclined to agree, with a bit of caution, inasmuch as liberal journalists have been announcing the Religious Right's demise ever since the early 1980s. Less persuasive is Dionne's grand periodization of the political past into secular and religious eras. He wants to see 1930-1980 as a secular time, preoccupied with issues other than religio-cultural ones. And he suggests that we're entering one of those now.

Such a schema requires scanting some important pieces of history, and how religion played into them. The religious dimension of the early Cold War, with its heavy emphasis on the need to confront Communism spiritually, cannot be underestimated. Nor can the importance of religion in the great moral crusade of that "secular" era--the Civil Rights movement. The JFK moment of cool secularism in governance was short-lived.

As for the present moment, we would do well not to ignore the ongonig impact of political Islam on American consciousness (cf. John McCain). No less important, the religious resources that the Democratic Party seems interested in summoning in this election season may not contribute to culture warring, but they hardly betoken a secular turn. For those interested in a rather more nuanced periodization of religion and national politics over the past half century, I will immodestly call your attention to One Nation, Divisible: How Regional Religious Differences Shape American Politics, by Andrew Walsh and me, due out from Rowman and Littlefield in a few months.

Posted by Mark Silk at 05:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Mega-church leader and televangelist Rod Parsley recently gave his insight into the appropriate role churches should play in our political process. Like Obama's congregation, Parsley has been accused of violating IRS guidelines (in 2006) about campaigning from the pulpit. Parsley was recently interviewed by PBS's Religion and Ethics program about the situation. The pastor defended his actions saying that he always operated within the law, but also said that he had a "biblical mandate" to "engage in the battle of mindsets". He continued to say that he is proud to be involved in extending evangelical's platform to also include poverty, race, gender and "justice issues".
Hat tip to http://sandivillarreal.com/.

Posted by Reid Vineis at 04:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Interfaith Alliance has come up with a Top Ten List of religious blunders from this season's campaign. President of the Alliance, Rev. Dr. C Welton Gaddy, said "I have witnessed more abuses of religion in this primary season than in any election in recent memory." Check out the video, here. It is an enjoyable refresher of the season.

Posted by Reid Vineis at 01:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Plain Dealer looks at how the upcoming primary is playing in Cleveland's black community with Mark Naymik's article on the challenges faced by congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Clinton supporter, and Margaret Bernstein's on Obama's church support. The latter focuses on Olivet Institutional Baptist Church and its pastor, Otis Moss, Jr. (Moss's son, III, has just taken over pastoral duties at Obama's church in Chicago.) Anyone who imagines that the African American vote is going to come up anything but big for Obama in Cleveland needs to imagine again.

Both stories ought to give Americans United for Separation of Church and State conniptions, to say nothing of the IRS. But there's a kind of default setting in American society that allows no-holds-barred politics in black churches. Politically mobilized white churches, liberal as well as conservative, don't get the same waiver. I wish it bothered me more.

Posted by Mark Silk at 07:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hillary Clinton does substantially better than Barack Obama with white Democratic voters who say they attend worship weekly or more, according to a new Gallup analysis. The differential among those voters is 57 percent to 29 percent, whereas among the occasional attenders and those who seldom or never darken the door of a place of worship, the percentages are 48-43 and 47-43. The significance of this finding is limited by the fact that frequent worshipers make up only 25 percent of the Democratic vote. The survey differentiates its sample by gender and age, yielding the notable result that the only group that provides a majority for Obama are seldom or never-worshiping men. It's clear that the disproportionate tendency of old people to go to church accounts for a considerable part of Clinton's success among the frequent attenders.

What's missing, however, is a breakdown by denomination. My guess is that most of what's going on here is the prevalence of Catholics among the frequent attenders. The exit polls certainly point in this direction. Older white Catholics are Clinton voters. Not much news there. Frequent attending white Protestants would be the interesting group to get a read on.

Posted by Mark Silk at 03:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

David Brody has posted an email being circulated by progressive faith leaders (whatever exactly that means). I challenge you to read to the end without nodding off.

Dear friends, fellow clergy and people of faith:

We are people of faith from all traditions and backgrounds, all genders and races and all regions across our great nation. We are Americans who look to God and the holy texts for our moral compass in our private decisions and civic duties. We are concerned about the direction the current Presidential race is taking, and we feel we must bring attention, as clergy and faith leaders, to our concern. How will we, as Americans, come together in this moment to overcome past and current divisions and move forward as one in the best interest of our nation?

That is why we call on all Americans to bring their highest and best selves to this moment in time – to focus on content and character, depth of ideas, and a tangible vision for our future. In this, we must demand that our political leaders, participants in the political process, and the news media bring us together instead of pushing us back toward divisions that have plagued our past. We cannot afford it, and we must not accept it.

Delegates to our national conventions should be bound by principle, beliefs and a shared commitment to the common good that we are all in this together. They are charged with using their judgment individually and collectively to determine who will be our next Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Posted by Mark Silk at 04:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"I want to thank the faith leaders who are here, who gave me a little circle of prayer before I came out here." Prayers answered for him.

Posted by Mark Silk at 09:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Rocketboom, a video blog, has an interesting video of some Teneesee evangelicals weighing in on the race. Note how passionately the subjects react to the efferevescent rumors of Obama's faith.

Posted by Reid Vineis at 03:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As we head toward the March showdown of the Primary Elimination Tournament, perhaps we should consider the religious roles assumed by each of the Final Four. On the Republican side of the bracket, there's underdog Mike Huckabee, struggling to evangelize the GOP with a new gospel of progressive conservatism--public works and help for the poor and music and art in the schools alongside no abortion and tough border controls. The overdog is John McCain, preaching the grim message of a 100-year war against radical Islam. Over on the more evenly matched Democratic side, meanwhile, is Barack Obama of the beatific vision, who conveys to the star-struck an ability to walk on water. He's matched against Hillary Clinton, the solution-monger, staking her claim on 35 years worth of knowing the subject matter inside out. So there you have it: the Evangelist, the Fire-and-Brimstone Preacher, the Messiah, and the Sunday School Teacher. Take your pick.

Posted by Mark Silk at 07:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Jim Dwyer in the New York Times last week noted:

Catholics, who make up about a quarter of the registered voters in the country, have backed the winner of the national popular vote for at least the last nine presidential elections, going back to 1972....No other large group has switched sides so often, or been so consistently aligned with the winners.

Although it appears that the Democratic primary is past the point that Catholic swing voters will make a crucial difference in the nomination struggle, the potential for a photo-finish in the November general election means that whether Catholic voters break to McCain or Clinton/Obama may well be crucial. And the answer is not obvious at all: Will Catholics vote Republican in keeping with pro-life leanings? Or vote Democrat in keeping with their leadership's anti-war statements and support for direct poverty-reduction strategies? Though Latinos make up a large and growing sector of American Catholics, they are not united -- and vote less often than non-Latinos. Will they mobilize to punish McCain for recent Republican anti-immigrant venom, despite his own more moderate stance? And if Obama is the Democratic candidate, will Latino Catholics in the end support a candidate labelled African American, despite periodic tensions between those sectors at the grassroots? Lastly, will many Catholic bishops weigh in, explicitly or implicitly, on the candidates -- and if so, will American Catholics listen?

Given the disastrous handling of presidential power in the last 8 years, we may all be forgiven a little surprise that this could be a close election. But that looks increasingly likely. If so, keep your eye on this vital swing constituency: American Catholics may hold the key to the next four years.

Posted by Richard Wood at 12:32 AM | Permalink |