This might seem like a good idea, but ...

Florida drivers can order more than 100 specialty license plates celebrating everything from manatees to the Miami Heat, but one now under consideration would be the first in the nation to explicitly promote a specific religion.

The Florida Legislature is considering a specialty plate with a design that includes a Christian cross, a stained-glass window and the words "I Believe."

Rep. Edward Bullard, the plate's sponsor, said people who "believe in their college or university" or "believe in their football team" already have license plates they can buy. The new design is a chance for others to put a tag on their cars with "something they believe in," he said.

If the plate is approved, Florida would become the first state to have a license plate featuring a religious symbol that's not part of a college logo. Approval would almost certainly face a court challenge.

This story from the AP is what I like to call religious-controversy in a can. There is an exact formula to reporting these kneejerkers out. Introduce the "major news" (these are CNN standards), followed by a supportive quote about how Christians just want equal rights and then the contrarion view from Americans United, the ACLU or Michael Newdow. My vote's for contestant No. 2:

The problem with the state manufacturing the plate is that it "sends a message that Florida is essentially a Christian state" and, second, gives the "appearance that the state is endorsing a particular religious preference," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

Personally, I think the license plate is completely camp but have no constitutional qualms with it ... if the Florida DMV offers other religious variants. As my colleague pointed out with this satirical plate, I don't think Christians would be too thrilled if Satanists got their own design.

This article was cross-posted, with art, at The God Blog.

Share this:

Posted by Brad Greenberg at April 25, 2008 | Comments (3)

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) today tackled one case on the death penalty and is on to the next.

The biggest news from SCOTUS was the 7 – 2 ruling that Kentucky’s method of lethal injection was a constitutional form of capital punishment and not cruel and unusual.

“The case before the court came from Kentucky, where two death row inmates wanted the court to order a switch to a single drug, a barbiturate, that causes no pain and can be given in a large enough dose to cause death,” NPR reports.

In executions by lethal injection, a team of doctors administers a barbituate to numb, a paralytic, and then sodium chloride, which causes cardiac arrest, through an IV. One of the main objections to lethal injection is that any of the drugs is ineffectively administered, the execution would be painful, undignified, or drawn-out.

That risk, however, isn’t enough to make the method illegal, said Chief Justice John Roberts.

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) guidelines say use of the method to put down animals is unacceptable.

Our earlier report on the case discussed whether there was a significant shift toward disapproval of the death penalty in America.

A Pew Forum poll taken last August found that public support for capital punishment has dropped to 62 percent from a high of 80 percent in 1994. White evangelicals are still the death penalty's strongest supporters, with 74 percent approval, but that is down from 82 percent in 1996.

“There's been a pause in capital punishment since last September: a good opportunity to reflect on what life would be like without it and to take the public temperature on the death penalty in general.” Slate says.

While that question may still trouble many a judge and many a Christian, yesterday’s ruling has set the death penalty back in motion in many of the states.

* * *

In another significant case, the Supreme Court began hearings on whether child rape (i.e., the worst thing people can think of that isn't murder) merits the death penalty. Capital punishment for a crime that didn’t result in the victim’s death is uncertain ground.

“Nobody in this country has actually been executed for anything other than murder since 1964, although five states, including Louisiana, have laws permitting capital punishment for the rape of young children,” Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick explains in her analysis of the “inscrutable social consensus the death penalty for rapists.”

For the high court, it's a monumental challenge: distilling all of these trends and counter-trends into some broad, workable constitutional rule, a rule that somehow reflects the emerging "national consensus" that we may like the idea of capital punishment far more than the reality of it.

Share this:

Posted by Susan Wunderink at April 16, 2008 | Comments (0)

The answer, apparently, is no.

Everybody has been a bit overeager about Zimbabwe’s future — but there truly are some hopeful signs as Zimbabweans wait for the results of last Saturday’s elections. The opposition party claims its candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, beat Robert Mugabe. They've also won a majority in parliament. And no one is contradicting them yet.

Rumor has it Mugabe may concede that he has not won. Some are suggesting his party’s not declaring victory may lead to an actual handing over of power—and that Zimbabwe, in which church-state intrigue is practically an art form, might fare better with the democratic process than Kenya did this winter. “The mere possibility of a transfer of power is a stunning development in Zimbabwe,” Greg Winter says in a New York Times video on the election.

The Zimbabwean pre-reported Mugabe’s declaration of victory, which now seems very unlikely.

IWPR could not get the exact percentage by which Mugabe will be said to have won but the sources said there would not be a run-off, as ZANU-PF will claim Mugabe has clinched more than 50 per cent of the total number of voters cast.

Sources within the ZEC centre - newly christened the National Collation Centre - say Mugabe clearly lost the election to his opposition rival Morgan Tsvangirai, polling only 20 per cent of the vote. He is also said to trail Simba Makoni who garnered 28 per cent.

But commentators say it would be something of a miracle if Mugabe and his party had secured the victory, given more than 85 per cent unemployment, serious food shortages and a collapsed health delivery system.

Not to mention the 100,000% inflation rate.

However, Mugabe hasn’t declared defeat, either. Although polling stations post results on their doors, the government has not released official results, “heightening fears that it is trying to massage the vote in the face of a crushing defeat,” The Guardian reports. Churches are going public with concerns about rigging.

A runoff vote may be the next step.

NPR aired what was practically a post-mortem of Mugabe, detailing his shyness and resentment of Mandela. Mugabe’s life is one of the saddest examples of heroism degraded.

Christianity Today’s past coverage of Zimbabwe includes articles on Mugabe tampering with churches and accusing Pius Ncube.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at April 2, 2008 | Comments (0)

Many evangelicals seem taken with Barack Obama. Tired of the Religious Right and seeking a new tone in Washington, they see in this untested, enigmatic senator a chance for real change. And indeed he is congenial and a breath of fresh air when compared with the grasping Clinton dynasty. Many Bible-believers seem ready to look the other way with Obama, despite his extremely liberal voting record (including unfettered backing of abortion), because he appears to be a genuine person they can work with.

I wonder how his latest, religiously based comments might change this. The other day Obama reiterated his support for civil unions for homosexuals. No surprise there. Some Christians (but not me) do indeed allow for the conferring of some legal rights, short of marital status, on gays as a simple matter of fairness. But I suspect his rationale raised some hackles.

If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.

Since when did Romans 1 become obscure? I thought pitting the words of Jesus against those of Paul was a tactic of Red Letter Christians, not something a serious candidate for the Oval Office would engage in.

But be that as it may, it's a good thing that Obama is not running for theologian in chief. There is no refererence to gay civil unions in the Sermon on the Mount (unless you stretch the Golden Rule beyond all recognition). Perhaps Obama mixed up his Bible references, like Howard Dean calling Job his favorite New Testament book?

When Jesus spoke of marriage, of course, he assumed it is a heterosexual institution. There may be a legal case to be made for marriage-like civil unions. But, please, let's not drag Jesus into it.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at March 4, 2008 | Comments (41)

The White House released a 175-page report Monday highlighting the accomplishments of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiative.

The report received little attention in the mainstream media, but the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy reported that the reactions varied from support to dismissal.

Outspoken critic of the office, former deputy director David Kuo told the Roundtable, "If they had fulfilled the President's promises, there wouldn't be any need for a glossy PR document that only proves the Initiative's great failures."

The report spotlights the office's training of more than 100,000 religious and grassroots organizations, and it has encouraged faith-based efforts in 35 states and more than 100 cities.

Supporters have lauded the program by saying that it helped level the playing field for religious organizations to compete for grants. However, lower funds made it more difficult for anyone to compete.

"While faith-based organizations were getting a bigger piece of the pie, the pie was shrinking," David Wright, project director for the Roundtable said in the article.

The office's Director Jay Hein told the Roundtable that the Initiative should not be judged by a tally of spending.

"This is not an Initiative about money," Hein said. "This is an Initiative about problem-solving. Problems don't get solved by spending more money."

Previous CT coverage includes a recent interview with former director John Dilulio.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at February 28, 2008 | Comments (3)

Last spring, Karl Rove was outed by atheist superstar Christopher Hitchens as a fellow nonbeliever.

"He doesn't shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, "I'm not fortunate enough to be a person of faith."

But last night Rove told me he is in fact a religious person, though he didn't specify how his Christian roots manifest themselves in his life.

Rove was in Los Angeles to speak at the Gibson Ampitheatre, one of a number of distinguished voices in this year's Public Lecture Series by American Jewish University. His invitation had caused a bit of consternation in the Jewish community, but he quickly won over many of his skeptics, which I wrote about in an article that will be online Thursday.

"I spent part of my childhood in Utah," Rove said at a VIP dinner before the lecture. "I went to a high school that is 95 percent Mormon, and only in Utah could a Presbyterian and a Jew both be gentiles."

Regardless of his own beliefs, Rove, who left his post as chief adviser to President Bush in August, was instrumental in helping Bush monopolize the support of evangelical voters and making religious rhetoric a more essential part of presidential campaigns, something we are seeing plenty of this year.

Religion has long been relevant on the campaign trail.

"Roosevelt used to say to his speech writer, Rosenman, Don't forget the God stuff at the end. That's a bit colloquial," Rove said, "but the point is Americans have always valued leaders of faith."

In fact, as early as 1800, in the race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, religious piety and divine reverence played an important role in politics.

As Jefferson and John Adams, a publicly devout Christian, slugged it out on the campaign trail, the Gazette of the United States ran this:

THE GRAND QUESTION STATED

At the present solemn and momentous epoch, the only question to be asked by every American, laying his hand on his heart, is: “Shall I continue in allegiance to

GOD—AND A RELIGIOUS
PRESIDENT;

Or impiously declare for

JEFFERSON—AND NO GOD!!!”

Jefferson was vehemently attacked for being a godless, slave-owning (-impregnating) sinner. But the underlying issue was what kind of liberties would this country afford its few voting members and everyone else who lived here. Jefferson favored greater freedoms while Adams sought to strengthen the office of the president. (A proto-Bush?)

Still, many people couldn't get over the fact that Jefferson didn't believe in God. And though he eventually won through a complicated process in the Electoral College, some members who didn't want to give their vote to an atheist said they would rather "go without a Constitution and take the risk of civil war."

Now, though, Godtalk dominates -- whether it is about what kind of Christian John McCain is, why evangelicals can't stand Hillary Clinton or whether Barack Obama is a "covert Muslim." The question, and it's one Rove didn't answer, is why did religious rhetoric has become so central to running for president. So-called "moral-values issues" were just as important to voters in elections that brought Bill Clinton to the White House as those that elected and re-elected George Bush. Something else is certainly at play.

This article was cross-posted at The God Blog.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at February 26, 2008 | Comments (20)

Sometimes Americans United for Separation of Church and State is misguided in its zeal. But, in this case, the one lacking wisdom was Pastor Wiley S. Drake, who last week used First Baptist Church of Buena Park letterhead and an affiliated radio program to endorse Mike Huckabee for president. That's a violation of tax laws for nonprofits, and Americans United filed a complaint. Drake's response was a bit vengeful.

In an e-mail Thursday, Drake urged action against Americans United and the American Civil Liberties Union.

As he had in August, Drake quoted Psalm 109, which speaks of wicked and deceitful people and asks God to let such a person's days be few and let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.

"In light of the recent attack from the enemies of God, I ask the children of God to go into action with imprecatory prayer," he wrote.

Imprecatory prayers have been defined as praying for someone's misfortune or as appeals to God for justice.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, called Drake's appeal to his supporters "reckless and repugnant."

"Introducing this kind of religious extremism into American life is reprehensible," he said.

This article was cross-posted at The God Blog.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at February 16, 2008 | Comments (11)

Religion coverage in The Atlantic is typically well done. The magazine's coverage of the neutering of religion from The Golden Compass was interesting for the way it treated both Hollywood and the anti-religious themes of the book on which the movie was based. Though the magazine retains the secular, above the fray, attitude toward faith of its New England founding, it also put Philip Jenkin's article on the New Christendom on the cover in October, 2002, when his book describing the phenomenal growth of non-Western Christianity debuted.

So, the magazine's March cover story (not yet online) on the literal battle between Christianity and Islam in Nigeria is equally well done, despite some mistakes.

Eliza Griswold—daughter of the former presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church—writes from the town of Yelwa, where an attack that killed Christians in church in 2004 brought on a more gruesome response against Muslims killing hundreds. Yelwa is in Nigeria's Middle Belt, which, Griswold writes,

marks the fault line between Christianity and Islam not only in Nigeria, but across the entire continent. A satellite image from Google Earth shows the Middle Belt as a gray-green strip between the equator and the 10th parallel, dividing the fawn-colored dry land from the vibrant sub-Saharan jungle canopy. It also separates most of the continents 67 million Muslims to the north from 417 million Christians to the south.

Because of the 20th century explosion of Christianity in Africa, by the year 2050, Griswold writes, the demographic and geographic center of Christianity will be in northern Nigeria, where the country's Muslims live. This fact makes any tensions in the country religious ones. With 140 million people, oil revenues that never seem to help the people (half of whom live on less than a dollar a day) thanks to government corruption, and a changing regional climate that has wiped out many traditional livelihoods, the country has plenty of tensions.

“Every crisis is automatically interpreted as a religious crisis,” an Anglican archbishop says. “But we all know that, scratch the surface and it's got nothing to do with religion. It's power.”

Power, in this democracy (despite massive corruption) is a numbers game. Christians and Muslims compete for numbers—converts. And to do that, they not only use intimidation (Griswold quotes Archbishop Peter Akinola saying that Muslims do not have a monopoly on violence), Christians and Muslims appeal to want what Nigerians need most—prosperity.

Pentecostalism has brought along American prosperity theology. (Griswold doesn't seem able to separate Pentecostalism from prosperity theology.) And, in the competition for souls, Nigeria's Muslims have come up with an Islamic approach to making people wealthy.

Griswold suggests that, while violence between Christians and Muslims is still a threat, this sort of competition—non-violent pursuit of winning hearts and minds—is growing.

Hopefully she's right. The stories of murder, rape, and intimidation (all justified by either side's scripture) are horrifying. Yet, Griswold doesn't offer much to hang that hope on other than the story of an imam and a pastor who gave up leading militias to work together for peace. It's inspiring, but she gives little evidence of their effectiveness. And Griswold, despite her father's Christian leadership, doesn't seem to fully understand the Christianity she's reporting on, much less Islam. For example, she says Pentecostals “share an experience of the Holy Spirit, or the numinous, that offers the gift of salvation and success in everyday life.” (italics are mine. At least she didn't spell it like Rob Bell.) And Muslims have yet to show that they can treat minorities as equals, instead of "protected" classes or worse.

Still, the article, and it's companions by Alan Wolfe (on how religiosity really is decreasing with modernization) and Walter Russell Mead (on American evangelical political moderation) are worth reading.

Posted by Rob Moll at February 10, 2008 | Comments (2)

Here's the text of James Dobson's endorsement of Mike Huckabee as sent out last night to the e-mail subscribers of CitizenLink:

Dr. James Dobson issues the following statement tonight, speaking as a private citizen.

I am endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee for President of the United States today. My decision comes in the wake of my statement on Super Tuesday that I could not vote for Sen. John McCain, even if he goes on to win the Republican nomination. His record on the institution of the family and other conservative issues makes his candidacy a matter of conscience and concern for me.

That left two pro-family candidates whom I could support, but I was reluctant to choose between them. However, the decision by Gov. Mitt Romney to put his campaign "on hold" changes the political landscape. The remaining candidate for whom I could vote is Gov. Huckabee. His unwavering positions on the social issues, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life, resonate deeply with me and with many others. That is why I will support Gov. Huckabee through the remaining primaries, and will vote for him in the general election if he should get the nomination. Obviously, the governor faces an uphill struggle, given the delegates already committed to Sen. McCain. Nevertheless, I believe he is our best remaining choice for President of the United States.

(NOTE: Dr. Dobson made these statements as a private citizen. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a reflection of the opinions of Focus on the Family or Focus on the Family Action.)

Posted by David Neff at February 8, 2008 | Comments (29)

In the vast canon of analysis of evangelical voters, John Green’s interview with Pew Forum is speculative but helpful. There are the things we already know (e.g. Giuliani has an “issues problem” for evangelicals), but also some thinking past Super Tuesday — and before George W.

Green sees three real contenders for the majority of the evangelical vote: Huckabee, Romney, and McCain.

But are any Democrats likely to snag many evangelicals? Obama’s comfort with speaking about his faith seems to give some evangelicals the warm fuzzies, Green says, and Democrats may get a greater proportion of young evangelicals this election.

“A lot of the anecdotal evidence from the campaign trail suggests that these are folks that may like to see a different relationship between evangelicals and the Republican Party,” Green said, explaining that McCain’s rocky relationship with Religious Right leaders Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell might not blight his campaign.

To truly get a majority of evangelicals, Green says, a candidate needs three characteristics: personal appeal, electability, and issue positions that are “minimally comfortable.” Presumably, it’s Democratic issue positions that continue to push evangelicals to the Republican candidates.

Asked about how Huckabee’s evangelical support would be dispersed if he withdrew, Green responds:

The fact that Huckabee has come this far with relatively little organization and a real lack of funds is because of the enthusiasm of some evangelicals at the grassroots level who have been campaigning for him on their own initiative. That kind of enthusiasm is difficult to shift from one candidate to another.

It’s at least plausible that if Huckabee’s followers stay involved in the process, they may find John McCain more congenial than some of the other GOP candidates.

Does this mean that most evangelicals will vote Republican next November? Or will they remain divided and unpredictable in a field where every candidate seems to have two but not three of the characteristics they’re looking for?

Posted by Susan Wunderink at January 29, 2008 | Comments (13)

Time will tell whether Democratic efforts will actually impact evangelical voter habits, but one Pulitzer-prize winning cartoonist seems a bit skeptical.

David Horsey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer believes that at least those in Colorado will stick to the Republicans. Horsey attended New Life Church, formerly led by Ted Haggard. After a lengthy description of a megachurch worship service, he describes his talk with New Life's associate pastor Rob Brendle.

The pastor thinks the country needs "a morally principled diplomat in the White House" like Mitt Romney, not a religious leader like Mike Huckabee. Nothing would be worse for Christian conservatives than a candidate who scared the rest of America with too much focus on his faith, he said.

The cartoonist then wanted to know, "What about the Democrats?" since the Democrats have been making an emphasis on religion in their campaigns. Horsey writes that the pastor laughed and said he'd seen it before. He was in a meeting with John Kerry in 2004 where the former candidate pulled a New Testament. The pastor said nobody bought it then, and it won't work this year, either.

"If Hillary has suddenly started reading the Scriptures, then I'm glad she's reading the Scriptures," Brendle said, but evangelicals are sticking with the Republicans.

However, Clinton has long been in the Methodist tradition, and as President Bush's former speech writer Michael Gerson wrote back in the fall, she is neither secular nor awkward about her faith. Either way, I don't think anybody believes evangelicals will be overwhelmingly wooed to vote for a Democrat, but many are pleased that the Democrats are using the words faith and politics in the same sentence.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at January 23, 2008 | Comments (9)

Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson dropped out of the presidential race Tuesday, the New York Times writes.

Mr. Thompson, 65, rode in to the campaign powered by the high hopes of conservative Republicans who were disappointed with the field of candidates and hoped that Mr. Thompson — a television actor and former counsel to the Watergate committee — could rally conservatives behind him. But Mr. Thompson instead brought a phlegmatic style to the campaign trail, and his candidacy never took off.

Even though Thompson appealed to some social conservatives and received an endorsement from the National Right to Life, he never drew significant numbers. He entered the race late in the game, told voters he didn't attend church and said he would not talk about religion on the campaign.

He placed third in South Carolina, apparently taking votes away from Mike Huckabee. Unless Huckabee decides to campaign more heavily in Florida, Thompson's exit from the race will likely help Mitt Romney in Florida.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at January 22, 2008 | Comments (2)

Most of the media coverage of evangelical voter behavior revolves around the Republican race, but it looks like Sen. Barack Obama is still interested in grabbing the "evangelical vote." During last night's CNN debate, he spoke about how the Democrats should go after evangelicals.

"I think there have been times -- there have been times where our Democratic Party did not reach out as aggressively as we could to evangelicals, for example, because the assumption was, well, they don't agree with us on choice, or they don't agree with us on gay rights, and so we just shouldn't show up.

And when you don't show up, if you're not going to church, then you're not talking to church folk. And that means that people have a very right-wing perspective in terms of what faith means and of defining our faith.

And as somebody who believes deeply in the precepts of Jesus Christ, particularly treating the least of these in a way that he would, that it is important for us to not concede that ground. Because I think we can go after those folks and get them."

This comment comes shortly after his campaign sent a mailer through South Carolina to debunk e-mail rumors that he is a Muslim. The mailer shows Obama with his head bowed in prayer and says that he will be guided by prayer when he's in office.

It's hard to tell if these attempts and previous ones are reaching evangelicals. As previously noted, the pollsters haven't asked Democrats the same self-identification questions as the Republicans.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at January 22, 2008 | Comments (21)

What is a "cosmopolitan evangelical," and how does he or she differ from an everyday evangelical, if there is such a thing? Several sociologists have commented on a perceived shift in American evangelicalism's image, goals, and rhetoric, most notably Michael D. Lindsay, author of Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite. He thinks that if you want to see what this new breed of evangelical looks like, you only have to look as far as Mike Huckabee, who indisputably had the vote of conservative Christians to thank for his Iowa victory two weeks ago.

Huckabee, though quite comfortable with speaking publicly about his personal relationship with Christ, his conservative views on religious hot-button issues like gay marriage and abortion, and even God's providential role in his Iowa win, nonetheless differs from many conservative evangelicals before him, especially those in the Religious Right.

"I'm a conservative, but I'm not mad at anybody," Huckabee often says, and when once asked whether the Christian life was the best way of life, he answered, "Well it is for me..." but that he didn't want to come off as "judgmental, caustic or pushy." As David Brooks of The New York Times recently noted, "Huckabee is the first ironic evangelical on the national stage. He's funny, campy (see his Chuck Norris fixation) and he's not at war with modern culture." In other words, you won't hear Huckabee talking about his push to "take back America" anytime soon.

As last Saturday's South Carolina primary ended with Huckabee in second place behind John McCain by only a 3-percent margin, and Super Tuesday comes in two weeks, some pundits say Huckabee's success will rely largely on his ability to appeal to members of both the old and new guards of American evangelicalism, all the while appealing to non-evangelical American voters as well. As Lindsay writes on the blog The Imminent Frame,

Mike Huckabee must straddle the divide between the populists [old-guard evangelicals] and the cosmopolitans, convincing both that he is one of them. It’s a difficult balancing act, but Huckabee is singularly poised to unite both camps. Like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, he is able to exist on the margins of different groups and yet seem like an insider. To win, a candidate must appear as comfortable before factory workers as he is before titans of industry. Huckabee’s cosmopolitan faith helps him become all things to all people.

Jay Tolson, writing for U.S. News and World Report, echoes Lindsay's observation on the "Faith Matters" blog:

Whether Huckabee will learn to connect with a larger part of the electorate—or even see the need to do so—should become apparent in the coming primaries, particularly in Florida, a state with a strong core of evangelical voters but also a very diverse collection of other voters broadly representative of the American mix. . . . And how he comes through that trial may tell us as much about the new evangelicals as it does about Mike Huckabee.

Fortunately, the new evangelicals don't have to rely solely on a presidential win by Mike Huckabee to determine the strength of their voice in today's political arena.

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at January 21, 2008 | Comments (11)

David A. Skeel, professor of corporate law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, will soon publish an article in the Emory Law Journal called "The Unbearable Lightness of Christian Legal Scholarship.” In it, he chronicles the scandal of the Christian legal mind:

[T]he scope of Christian legal scholarship in the American legal literature is shockingly narrow for such a nationally influential movement. Why is there almost no trace of the intellectual underpinnings of the recent movement? ... Although evangelicals re-engaged American political life in the 1970s, the skepticism of religious perspectives, and the absence of a critical mass of Christian legal scholarship, lingered. There is now a substantial interest in Christian legal scholarship, but surprisingly little scholarship to turn to.

In that article, which Skeel first wrote in 2006, he acknowledges some counter-evidence, but concludes, "It is still much too early to tell if this new scholarly activity will have a sustained impact on legal scholarship generally, or on internal debate within Christian circles. But it might. In ten years, or possibly even five, this article's laments may come to seem quaint. I pray this is so."

As it turns out, the article may come to seem quaint even before it's published. Skeel has a new paper out claiming

that a real renaissance [of Christian legal scholarship] may finally be underway. Several promising articles have appeared in the law reviews in the past year, and more seem to be on their way. ... There are hints that a new normative Christian legal scholarship may be emerging. The most important illustration is the vibrant literature on international human rights. In domestic law, several scholars have recently asked the question of when and how the law should be used to police morality. ...

It's not surprising that Skeel thinks that Christian legal defense funds "are not a promising seedbed for Christian legal scholarship." Even those groups would be likely to agree that "they are designed to defend Christian positions, rather than to debate or wrestle with the appropriateness of the particular position. This is not a recipe for the kind of intellectual give-and-take that is likely to inspire innovative Christian legal scholarship."

It might be surprising, to some readers at least, that Skeel sees Regent Law School as a sign of hope. He puts the school, which was widely disparaged last year during the Justice Department firings debate, alongside Pepperdine as a "promising development" because of its "willingness to nurture and reward religiously informed scholarship" and its potential to "seriously [engage] the best scholars in their fields." It may be surprising, but only if you believe the caricatures of the school.

Skeel's most provocative assertion is his prediction "that many of the most exciting developments in Christian legal scholarship in the next generation of work will come from outside the domain of traditional philosophical analysis." He likes Alasdair MacIntyre, Alvin Plantinga, and Nick Wolterstorff a lot, and thinks philosophical work is extremely important in Christian legal scholarship. But "underexplored issues and perspectives offer opportunities for exciting new contributions," he says. Likewise, he says,

in the hands of us legal scholars, moral philosophy often becomes a debate about abstract propositions, and never quite gets to the street level business of trying to make sense of how the law actually functions and the lessons that can be learned from this. Rather than abstract propositions, the focus of the coming generation of Christian legal scholars will, I think, more often be on the orientation of the law: does it reflect the God who welcomes back the prodigal son, and who became flesh and dwelt among us?

Thankfully, even in his brief article, Skeel keeps his eyes on that God. He writes, "It is important not to overstate the potential effect of Christian legal scholarship. Law, Christians believe, is not what saves us; only God’s grace can do that." But Skeel grasps how understating scholarship in light of God's transforming work has already damaged the academy, the church, and society. One hopes that the Christian legal scholarship boom is even more vibrant than Skeel sees.

Posted by Ted Olsen at January 21, 2008 | Comments (3)

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal ran a full page ad that was an open letter from Pastor Kenneth D. Taylor of Calvary Assembly of God in Algoma, Wisconsin, to the IRS regarding its enforcement of the ban on electioneering activities by tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations as that ban applies to churches. The letter was sponsored by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Here's how the letter begins:

I am the pastor of a small church in northeastern Wisconsin that is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. We're writing today to call your bluff.

The IRS has said for years -- based on what we believe is a mistaken interpretation of the tax code -- that preachers can't support particular political figures or political positions in their sermons.

I'm not going to comment on the theatrics, but I will comment on some of the legal issues the letter discusses. It is true enough that the IRS has said that leaders of any tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization (including, but certainly not limited to, churches) cannot endorse or oppose candidates for elective public office at official organizational events and in official organizational publications. The reason is that the IRS attributes these activities to the organization, rather than the individual, and thus views them as violations of the ban on electioneering that applies to tax-exempt 501(c)(3) entities. But the IRS has not said that preachers cannot support particular political positions in their sermons. Here's some of what the IRS has said on this issue:

Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate. A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candidate’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography. All the facts and circumstances need to be considered to determine if the advocacy is political campaign intervention.

Some sensitive issues can arise here, and I have had some criticisms for the IRS in terms of the ways it has handled certain matters in this area. But the flat statement that "[t]he IRS has said for years ... that preachers can't support particular ... political positions in their sermons" in inaccurate.

The letter from Pastor Taylor goes on to say this:

Last election I delivered a sermon based on Matthew 5: 13-16, which tells us that we are the salt of the Earth and the light of the world. ... Unlike many sermons at my church, we did not broadcast this on the radio or television. It was simply a sermon to my own congregation. I did however keep a videotape copy.

I challenge you -- if you still think it's the law -- to investigate what I preached that day...

The Becket Fund has posted some of the video of the sermon here. The problem with the video is that you cannot hear the whole sermon -- "censored" black-out frames pop up at various points throughout the message. This, of course, is an attempt by the Becket Fund to make a point. Again, I'm not going to comment on the theatrics. But I will say that this tactic does not make it easy to have a productive debate around these issues. Further, this kind of thing may have the effect of making pastors believe that the rules prohibit more than they actually do. It's completely fair game to criticize the rules, start a debate about them, and sue over them. But we should be as clear as we possibly can be about what the rules say and don't say, what is up for debate and what is not, so that people have the most reliable information possible and so that the debate focuses on the right issues. (By the way, if you'd like more guidance on these issues, you may find some here and here. I also should note that the letter makes a disparaging reference to Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU). AU's response to the letter is here.)

The Becket Fund apparently believes that at least some of the application of these rules to tax-exempt churches is unconstitutional. I don't have time to address all the relevant issues now, but let me make one note. When the IRS revoked a church's tax-exempt status in 1995 for engaging in prohibited political activities, a church raised similar arguments. But in 2000 a federal appellate court affirmed a lower court's ruling in favor of the IRS in this case, saying that the revocation did not violate the church's free exercise or free speech rights. (Here's a more detailed description of the Branch Ministries v. Rossotti case.) In that case, the court said:

The Church asserts, first, that a revocation [of its tax-exempt status] would threaten its existence. ... The Church maintains that a loss of its tax-exempt status will not only make its members reluctant to contribute the funds essential to its survival, but may obligate the Church itself to pay taxes.

The Church appears to assume that the withdrawal of a conditional privilege for failure to meet the condition is in itself an unconstitutional burden on its free exercise right. This is true, however, only if the receipt of the privilege (in this case the tax exemption) is conditioned "upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or ... denie[d] ... because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adher- ent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs." Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 493 U.S. at 391-92 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)....

The sole effect of the loss of the tax exemption will be to decrease the amount of money available to the Church for its religious practices. The Supreme Court has declared, however, that such a burden "is not constitutionally significant." Id. at 391; see also Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 700 (1989) (the "contention that an incrementally larger tax burden interferes with [ ] religious activities ... knows no limitation")...

Nor does the Church succeed in its claim that the IRS has violated its First Amendment free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination. The restrictions imposed by section 501(c)(3) are viewpoint neutral; they prohibit intervention in favor of all candidates for public office by all tax- exempt organizations, regardless of candidate, party, or view- point. Cf. Regan, 461 U.S. at 550-51 (upholding denial of tax deduction for lobbying activities, in spite of allowance of such deduction for veteran's groups).

It seems to me that this judgment is likely to stand. Of course, any organization is always free to forego the tax benefits associated with the 501(c)(3) status and thus be unaffected by the restrictions -- including the ban on electioneering -- that come along with the benefits of that tax-exempt status.

This post originally appeared at Melissa Rogers's religion and public affairs blog. Rogers is visiting professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University Divinity School and founder and director of Wake Forest’s Center for Religion and Public Affairs. She previously served as executive director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and as general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty.

Posted by Ted Olsen at January 17, 2008 | Comments (6)

A recent Time profile called Mars Hill Bible Church pastor Rob Bell "largely apolitical." Is he? The current issue of Relevant asks the question as his state heads to the polls. He answers:

We refer to ourselves [at Mars Hill] as aggressively nonpartisan, so we don’t engage in partisan politics in terms of “Here’s whom you should vote for; here’s whom you should support.” We do acknowledge that the Gospel has deeply political edges to it, but that should not surprise anyone. Jesus was killed because of how He confronted a particular socioeconomic religious system. He’s a first-century Galilean revolutionary who proclaimed a Kingdom other than the kingdom of Herod, so the Gospel does have political edges.

The interest is in giving voice to people who have no voice and using all of our abundance and wealth and resources on behalf of those who have a shortage. Some of our pastors had a meeting with the mayor of [Grand Rapids], which was simply for the purpose of asking who the most forgotten and the most hurting in our city are. They mayor had several very specific answers, and so we’ve actually reorganized a whole area of our church, putting the majority of our efforts around trying to take care of the worst problems in our city. I don’t know if you would say that’s political or not, even though it involved meeting with the mayor, but if Jesus comes to town and things don’t get better, then we have to ask some hard questions.

Posted by Ted Olsen at January 15, 2008 | Comments (12)

The Times-Picayune had a lengthy profile last week of Louisiana's new Gov. Bobby Jindal that focused on the India native's conversion to Catholicism and the role that has played in his political ascent.

When Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal converted to Catholicism during high school and college, he took a momentous step away from his inherited faith of Hinduism, the prevalent religion of his parents' generation and Indian homeland.

But among Jindal's relatives and among Hindus in India generally, his decision to adopt the Christian way is strongly supported.

Jindal's personal path to Christianity, which had politically significant ramifications for Louisiana, was aided by an open-minded attitude among his relatives about theology. Also, he visited India infrequently as a child, giving him little chance to acquire the deeply ingrained appreciation for Hindu culture that comes from exposure to daily life in that country.

His relatives' perspective reflects a tolerant side of a religion that for thousands of years has survived philosophical transformations, rebellious counter-religions and numerous sects, only to claim them all in time as part of the infinitely flexible cosmos of Hindu faith.

"If you find and see that you get more peace of mind, more solace, in that religion, then why not change religion?" said Jindal's uncle Subhash Gupta, a practicing Hindu. "In India, many people change to the Christian religion. And I can understand that some people maybe find Christian religion more satisfying to their needs."

(skip)

Although the relatives' opinions might seem magnanimous, their views are typically Hindu. India's large-circulation national newspapers viewed Jindal's election as front-page news, and for the most part his conversion to Catholicism was not commented upon negatively. Indian criticism of Jindal instead has centered on his infrequent visits and seeming lack of interest in his parents' home country.

The Indian national figure Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu so famous his image appears on most Indian currency, espoused religious tolerance because he believed there were many paths to God, so long as an individual was sincere in the pursuit of the divine way.

When asked about Jindal, Pandit Deoki Nandan Shastri, a Hindu holy man in Varanasi, made a similar point.

"Hindu is not a religion," he said. "Hinduism is a way of life."

"You pray to Christ, I pray to Rama, he prays to Mohammad," he said. "We are going the same way. God is one. His name is called a thousand names."

Sadly, such a liberal perspective is not universal in India, where Hindu fundamentalists poignantly remind the world that "religious extremist" is not just a code word for Islamic terrorist. Remember the Gujarat anti-Muslim pogrom five years ago that left 2,000 people dead, including a woman who's fetus was proudly ripped from her womb by this guy.

The fervency of Hindu nationalism is no secret; it helped gave birth to Pakistan and later Bangladesh. And India has had quite the history of violence against Christians, which sprang up again last month.

On Christmas Eve, violence broke out against Christians in the Kandhamal district of the eastern Indian state of Orissa, which has become well known for poor governance and class tensions. Hindu fundamentalist groups led by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP, the World Hindu Council) have attacked Christians and their institutions at will in rural areas. Over 90 churches and Christian institutions have been burned and vandalized, over 700 Christian homes destroyed, and the number of pastors and Christians killed is yet to be known, according to a report by my colleagues in the All India Christian Council. A pastor in Chennai told me that 11 pastors have been killed and thousands of Dalit (formerly known as untouchable) Christians displaced. Compass Direct reports that the death count is at 9. Many people are missing, and others have vanished in the nearby forests.

Human Rights Watch and others have decried the present carnage in Orissa and have recognized that freedom of religious choice — especially in a democracy like India's — must be respected. The Prime Minister promised immediate action to restore peace in the state. But the affected areas are still reporting sporadic violence over two weeks since the attacks against Dalit Christians began.

Despite reports that Christians retaliated in some places, so far Dalit Freedom Network investigations and statements by the Orissa government indicate that Maoist rebels — called Naxalites — were behind the revenge attacks that left dozens of Hindu families homeless. Most Naxalites are armed Dalits, and their involvement gives evidence of the root problem: ancient caste divisions.

The author of this article was Joseph D'Souza, whom I interviewed a few months ago for an article about the plight of the Dalits -- who dwell beneath the bottom of India's cast system -- that will appear in the February issue of this magazine.

One of the biggest forms of discrimination meted out by the government is that Dalits who convert to Christianity or Islam lose their welfare eligibility. The same is not true if they converted to Buddhism or Sikhism. This often causes a dual identity.

"They will have their Hindu or pre-Christian indentity, sometimes keeping their Hindu name, because there is affirmative action and if they want to have the benefits of that, they cannot use their Christian name," Robert Eric Frykenberg, professor emeritus of history and South Asian studies at the University of Wisconsin, told me.

This article was cross-posted at The God Blog.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at January 14, 2008 | Comments (8)

White House Told to Make Guest Log Public

Visits of nine of conservative Christian organization leaders to the Bush White House under scrutiny.

Susan Wunderink | December 19, 2007

As the smoke clears from the Vice Presidential ceremonial office, Dick Cheney is getting more (indirect) attention because of a ruling that says Secret Service records of White House visits from nine conservative Christian leaders should be released.

While the issue in the ruling was really about whether the Secret Service’s visitor records are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (and the court ruled that the requested records are), Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)’s objective is to look into “the influence that conservative Christian leaders have, or attempt to have, on the President [of the United States].”

"The White House doesn't want to talk about how much influence these leaders have, and we want to talk about how much they do have," CREW executive director Melanie Sloan said.

CREW wants to see records of visits by nine leaders of particularly activist (lobbyist) organizations:

• James Dobson of Focus on the Family. CREW was one of the organizations that instigated a 2006-2007 IRS audit of the organization for electioneering as a nonprofit.
• Gary L. Bauer, former president of Family Research Council who ran for President in 2000. He is currently president of American Values and on the board of Campaign for Working Families.
• Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
• Traditional Values Coalition executive director Andrea Lafferty and founder Louis Sheldon, Lafferty’s father.
• Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority, and Council for National Policy, currently Free Congress Foundation.
• Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council
• Donald Wildmon, founder and chairman of the American Family Association
• The late Jerry Falwell, co-founder of Moral Majority

Reuters reported that

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth rejected as "misguided" the Secret Service's arguments that disclosing the records would reveal confidential policy deliberations.
Their disclosure would then be open to challenge only on a case-by-case basis, for reasons such as state secrecy or attorney-client privilege.

Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the agency was reviewing the ruling but had not decided whether to appeal.

But for the particular records of the nine people’s visits to the White House, the ruling may not amount to evidence for CREW at all. Sean Sirrine, who blogs at Objective-Justice, writes, “Why is everyone so excited?”

The court is holding that these records can be obtained through the FOIA, but that if the records have already been given to the White House or destroyed there is nothing the court can do about it under this action exept [sic] order the Archivist of the United States to take enforcement action to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from unlawfully destroying agency records in the future.

Yes, the Secret Service might hae [sic] to release the records they have on the "nine conservative religious figures" mentioned in case, but if they no longer have any of those records, too bad.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at December 19, 2007 | Comments (5)

The Evangelical Whatsup?

From crackup to powerhouse.

Rob Moll | December 17, 2007

Just weeks ago, much was made of the demise of the one of America's largest voting blocs. The, "extraordinary evangelical love affair with Bush ended in heartbreak over the Iraq war and what they see as his meager domestic accomplishments," wrote The New York Times David D. Kirkpatrick. Evangelicals would no longer cast deciding votes in presidential elections--for at least six weeks.

Then came the surprising rise of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is neck and neck with former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Today, The Wall Street Journal credits Huckabee's rise to evangelicals.

The candidate's quick rise is a vivid demonstration of the power social conservatives continue to wield in Republican politics. It also illustrates the bloc's evolution. Grass-roots churchgoers no longer necessarily follow their national leadership.

"The leaders may have committed to someone [else], but their followers are flooding" to Mr. Huckabee, says Mike Campbell, his state campaign chairman in South Carolina.

Mr. Campbell is likely referring to Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani. Campbell also seems to have in mind CT's January editorial, which says, "There isn't an evangelical vote. We are not some pious voting bloc up for grabs."

Many evangelicals have been paying attention to the race and making up their own minds. The Journal reports:

In Des Moines, Iowa, Pastor Rex Deckard of Calvary Apostolic Church noticed a change around mid-November. At a meeting with about 25 ministers, he reminded the group that Jan. 3 was caucus day. "Remember to vote for Huckabee!" someone shouted out, and the room broke into applause. "I thought, 'Wow, there seems to be something building,' " Mr. Deckard says.

Mr. Deckard gave Mr. McCain a serious look but initially decided to support social conservative Sen. Sam Brownback. When Mr. Brownback dropped out of the race, Mr. Deckard moved to the Huckabee camp, as is clear to his congregation: His briefcase and car now sport Huckabee stickers. Looking around, he realized others were coming to the same place.

And this shift in loyalties is having a ripple effects throughout the Republican primary campaign, The New York Times reports. Mitt Romney, who has long led Iowa, stands to lose ground from Huckabee's rise, which would benefit a lagging Giuliani campaign, according to the Times analysis.

Of course, with its deft reporting on the evangelical crackup, maybe we should take such analysis with a grain of salt.

Posted by Rob Moll at December 17, 2007 | Comments (13)

Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn Rebuff Senate Investigation

Ministries refuse to hand over the information sought by the Senate Finance Committee.

Rob Moll | December 6, 2007

The AP is reporting that Benny Hinn is following on the heels of Creflo Dollar in telling the Senate Finance Committee to take a hike. Reporters Eric Gorski and Rachel Zoll write:

Benny Hinn of World Healing Center Church Inc. and Benny Hinn Ministries of Grapevine, Texas, said in a statement to the AP on Thursday that he will not respond to the inquiry until next year.

A lawyer for preacher Creflo Dollar of World Changers Church International in suburban Atlanta had said Wednesday that the investigation should be referred to the IRS or the Senate panel should get a subpoena for the documents.

Posted by Rob Moll at December 6, 2007 | Comments (68)

Appeals Court Says State Funding of InnerChange Unconstitutional

But ruling allows the ministry to continue operating without returning $1.5 million to the state.

Susan Wunderink | December 4, 2007

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Iowa's InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) yesterday, saying that they could no longer receive funds from the state because the religious basis and religious content of the program violate the Constitution's establishment clause.

“For contract years 2000 to 2004, religious indoctrination can reasonably be attributed to Iowa’s funding.” The three-judge panel, headed by former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor, affirmed the Iowa district court’s June 2006 ruling in part and reversed it in part.

InnerChange is an affiliate of Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship. It’s a residential program for inmates and operates in Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Texas. Only the Iowa program is directly affected by yesterday's ruling.

Neither the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (the plaintiffs) nor Prison Fellowship considers the ruling a loss — just read their press release headlines. IFI’s says, “8th Circuit Overturns Much of Ruling Against IFI,” and Americans United's subtitle reads, “Americans United Praises Court Ruling That Upholds Separation Of Church And State.”

Why are they both happy? Americans United lawyer Alex J. Luchenitser, said that the decision was "A major setback for the White House’s ‘Faith-Based Initiative.’ It reaffirms that the government must ensure that public funds are not used for religious instruction, and that the government must not aid programs that discriminate based on religion.”

Prison Fellowship is "grateful to the Eighth Circuit for refusing to handcuff people of faith who are helping corrections officials turn inmates' lives around," said Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley. They are specifically grateful because Monday’s ruling overturned the district court’s requirement that InnerChange repay the state $1.5 million for the years (1999 – June 2007) when it operated with state funding. IFI has continued to operate in Iowa without state funds since July.

The court ruling has more details on how exactly IFI functioned in the Iowa prison.

Christianity Today’s earlier coverage includes:

Rx for Recidivism | Prison Fellowship president Mark Earley talks about challenges the ministry faces. (November 21, 2006)
Bad Judgment | Ruling imperils faith-based programs around the country. (Charles Colson with Anne Morse, August 1, 2006)
Imprisoned Ministry | The future of Prison Fellowship's rehabilitation program, and other faith-based social services, are in the hands of an appeals court. (July 14, 2006)
Study Lauds Prisoner Program | Prison Fellowship releases InnerChange research at a White House roundtable. (June 1, 2003)
Suing Success | Prison Fellowship says its Inner Change program is clearly constitutional (March 1, 2003)

Posted by Susan Wunderink at December 4, 2007 | Comments (1)

Anyone Want to Talk About Health Care?

It’s time for Christian leaders to tackle the issue.

Madison Trammel | November 27, 2007

In an editorial published last Sunday, The New York Times explored what it called “the worst long-term fiscal crisis facing the nation”—rising health care costs. The piece provided a helpful survey of causes and possible solutions, but no silver bullet. As the editorial concluded, “A wide range of contributing factors needs to be tackled simultaneously, with no guarantee they will have a substantial impact any time soon.”

The most arresting part of the piece was its summary of the United States’ health care dilemma, laid out in the opening paragraphs:

The relentless, decades-long rise in the cost of health care has left many Americans struggling to pay their medical bills. Workers complain that they cannot afford high premiums for health insurance. Patients forgo recommended care rather than pay the out-of-pocket costs. Employers are cutting back or eliminating health benefits, forcing millions more people into the ranks of the uninsured. And state and federal governments strain to meet the expanding costs of public programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

Health care costs are far higher in the United States than in any other advanced nation, whether measured in total dollars spent, as a percentage of the economy, or on a per capita basis. And health costs here have been rising significantly faster than the overall economy or personal incomes for more than 40 years, a trend that cannot continue forever.

Indeed, rising health care costs have become a burden not just for the working poor, but for many middle-class Americans. It’s an issue that’s already on the minds of voters—in a New York Times-CBS News poll, Iowa Democrats likely to attend the January 3 caucuses called it their top priority—and it’s going to gain more public attention as the presidential campaigns continue. Democratic candidates will make sure of that.

“I don’t think you can run for president today without having a universal health care plan that covers everybody,” Hillary Clinton said recently, “because we want to go into a general election with that issue against the Republicans.”

That Democrats plan to make health care reform a major part of their platform in 2008—and that Republicans will be forced to respond—is unsurprising, perhaps. But what is surprising is how little evangelical Christian leaders have said about the issue.

In March, the president of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Richard Land, supported a call to re-authorize and expand the federally funded State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) so that every child in America could have health coverage—a proposal that seemed relatively uncontroversial, at least until President Bush opposed SCHIP’s expansion on the contention that it would move middle-class children off of private coverage and onto government coverage.

The social-action ministry Sojourners has also called for health care reform, but its reach among evangelicals is limited. Why aren’t more Christian leaders speaking up?

In the last several years, the National Association of Evangelicals has denounced torture and mistreatment of India’s Dalits. It has also cautiously supported creation care and released a comprehensive public policy statement entitled, “For the Health of the Nation.” The statement lists such areas of concern as freedom of religion and conscience, protection for families and children, protection of all human life, compassion and justice for the poor, global human rights, the pursuit of peace and restraint of violence, and biblically based creation care. Ironically, for a document called “For the Health of the Nation,” it makes only passing mention of health care. Yet the average American is more immediately affected by rising health care costs than by, say, whether or not their community recycles.

No doubt evangelicals are as split on health care reform as they are on many other issues. But if we want to present a fully orbed vision for public policy, then we need to start engaging more deeply with the issue of affordable, adequate medical care—and soon. A community grounded in God’s Word and dedicated to proclaiming the One who came to save the sick, the poor, and the needy ought to have something to contribute to the rising discussion.

Posted by Madison Trammel at November 27, 2007 | Comments (12)

No Sale on Stem Cells

New Jersey voters reject $450 million ballot measure.

Stan Guthrie | November 7, 2007

New Jersey voters yesterday turned down a $450 million, 10-year plan to fund embryonic stem-cell research. Proponents, including Democratic governor John Corzine, argued that the measure would help lead to possible medical cures for a host of maladies. Opponents, including New Jersey Right to Life, said Public Question # 2 would finance "the creation, experimentation and then destruction of cloned human beings through the entire period of normal gestation." NJRL also criticized supporters for their "deceptive failure to disclose that the bonds will be paid through higher local property taxes if sales tax revenues are insufficient."

The outcome marks the first time since 1990 that New Jersey voters have rejected a statewide ballot initiative. The state has already committed $270 million in taxpayer money to pay for stem cell research facilities. New Jersey has the fourth highest debt of any state and the highest property taxes. Other states, however, are likely to pick up the financial slack for such research.

Several states are competing in the research. California previously approved spending $3 billion on stem cell research, Connecticut has a $100 million program, Illinois spent $10 million and Maryland awarded $15 million in grants.

It bears repeating: Embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of nascent human life. Adult stem cells have no such ethical issues. And just on a pragmatic basis, the choice should be clear by now. According to the website stemcellresearch.org, medical treatments derived from adult stem cells outnumber those derived from embryos 73-0.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at November 7, 2007 | Comments (3)

Senate Committee Investigating Six Major Ministries

Sen. Grassley probes "possible misuse of donations" to Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, and others.

Ted Olsen | November 6, 2007

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, is investigating several major church-based ministries known for their leaders' lavish lifestyles and prosperity teachings.

"Recent articles and news reports regarding possible misuse of donations made to religious organizations have caused some concern for the Finance Committee," Grassley wrote to the ministries in letters asking for detailed financial records.

None of the ministries targeted -- those led by Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Eddie Long, Joyce Meyer, and Randy and Paula White -- are required to file the financial disclosure Form 990 with the IRS because they are are designated as churches.

The rest of this article is now posted on CT's main site.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 6, 2007 | Comments (28)

Bureau of Prisons Re-shelves Religion Books

Now prisoners can find out Why Bad Things Happen to Good People

Sarah Pulliam | September 28, 2007

The federal Bureau of Prisons will return religious materials that were removed from prison chapel libraries to prevent religious extremism, according to the Associated Press.

The purged books that were removed included Christian discipleship materials (see CT’s first story).

The material removed since June will be returned to prison chapel libraries unless it is found to be radicalizing or inciting violence. By June 2008, "what comes off the shelves will be a very, very small number, because the vast majority of material will be on the 'that's OK list,'" bureau spokeswoman Judi Simon Garrett told the AP.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Tex., still expresses concern:

"There's probably a limited universe of materials that incite violence, and I understand that perhaps those need to be banned," said Hensarling. "Instead, what the Bureau of Prisons appears to be doing is really censoring religious texts, deciding what is acceptable."

The New York Times’ story says that previously, the bureau was not reconsidering the library policy, but it reversed its decision after receiving widespread criticism from lawmakers and religious groups.

But critics of the bureau’s program said it appeared that the bureau had bowed to widespread outrage. “Certainly putting the books back on the shelves is a major victory, and it shows the outcry from all over the country was heard,” said Moses Silverman, a lawyer for three prisoners who are suing the bureau over the program.

Prison Fellowship President Mark Early told the AP:

"It took years for chaplains, local churches and other religious organizations to build up the holdings of many prison chapel libraries. Prisoners need access to more material to promote rehabilitation, not less. We want to monitor the process."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at September 28, 2007 | Comments (2)

Bauer gives peek inside the Arlington Group

"Many of us are intrigued and excited by Thompson, but we have great concerns about his advocacy of federalism"

Ted Olsen | September 7, 2007

National Review Online's Jim Geraghty scored a nice scoop following up on The Boston Globe's March reporting on The Arlington Group. The Globe had reported that the Arlington Group, a meeting of top-level conservative Christian advocacy organization leaders, is interviewing candidates in hopes that its members can "coalesce around one candidate that prominent members such as James Dobson ... could endorse individually."

"We’ve been meeting with candidates for a year, every one of the major candidates except Giuliani," Gary Bauer told Geraghty. "Many of us are intrigued and excited by Thompson, but we have great concerns about his advocacy of federalism in dealing with the issue of protecting the sanctity of marriage, and that is certainly an issue we want to discuss with him further.” (Geraghty had a follow-up with Bauer after the Arlington Group's meeting Thursday.)

Another member of the Arlington Group, unnamed, confirmed Bauer's summary, and says the group hasn't "coalesced" yet. “There has been a great deal of excitement about the possibility of a Thompson campaign; many of us are very happy about how clearly he criticized and called for the overturn of Roe v. Wade," the source said. "But there is concern that the federalist constitutional amendment that he leans toward on marriage just wouldn't work."

Bad news for Mike Huckabee:

Asked about the rumor that members of the group might be flirting with Huckabee, this individual responded, while never mentioning the Arkansas Governor directly, “it’s not just that the candidate will be philosophically in tune; we have a realistic understanding that in a cycle where everything is bunched up in the front like this, you have got to be able to bring in major resources, enough to compete in 20 states at once. This makes a number of candidates not as viable to us as they might otherwise be.”

Remember: You won't hear the "Arlington Group" endorsing anyone. What you'll hear is Arlington Group members singing from the same songsheet. That's the whole idea of the group: to unify the efforts of religious conservative political groups.

Update: The Associated Press also has reporting on the Arlington Group's meeting.

Posted by Ted Olsen at September 7, 2007 | Comments (7)

President Huckabee?

Trends may favor the Arkansas governor.

Stan Guthrie | August 24, 2007

In an opinion piece this week in National Review Online, S.T. Karnick suggests that two trends may help long-shot Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee actually win the presidency. Huckabee placed second in the recent Iowa straw poll despite barely registering a national blip in the race against better-known and better-financed candidates such as Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

The first trend, Karnick states, is that governors usually win the presidency, while senators (most of the other candidates) usually do not:

The reasons governors beat national politicians are probably fairly simple. They have accomplishments they can cite, have served as CEO of a large government organization (as the U.S. presidency is), and, most importantly, they don’t have a voting record on important and controversial national issues.

Senators, by contrast, don’t have the individual political-administrative accomplishments to which to point, have records dotted with controversial and polarizing votes, and typically have made a lot of enemies on the national level.

This does not bode well for the Democratic triumvirate, each of whom serve or served in the Senate. But of course several of Huckabee's Republican opponents have executive experience. Romney ran Massachusetts as governor, Giuliani ran Gotham as mayor. But Karnick says the hugely important evangelical vote is unlikely to coalesce around either of these two. Giuliani has character problems, while many Bible-believing Christians distrust Romney's Mormon faith (and perhaps his recent reversal on abortion?).

That's where Karnick's second reason comes in. Huckabee is a former Baptist minister, able to connect with evangelicals in a way the other candidates cannot:

A former Baptist minister who served two terms as governor of Arkansas, a state long controlled by Democrats, where he nonetheless enjoyed high approval ratings, Huckabee is hardly more obscure than Bill Clinton was in 1991 (unless you think Clinton’s tenure as leader of the National Governor’s Association made him world-famous). His appeal to evangelicals is a given.

So can Mike Huchabee become a viable presidential candidate and perhaps even steal the Republican nomination? It's an interesting argument. Stranger things have happened, I suppose. No one gave Clinton any hope against Bush I, after all.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at August 24, 2007 | Comments (30)

Death and Texas - Part 2

Reuters turns a prolife word on its head.

David Neff | August 13, 2007

The Reuters story referenced in my last post contained a wild misuse of a common word. Here's the citation:

While the prolific death chamber in the city of Huntsville, where 19 inmates have already been executed by lethal injection in 2007, makes Texas stand out, the state is also starting to follow national trends toward fewer death sentences.

"Prolific death chamber"? "Prolfiic" comes from a Latin word meaning "fruitful," which in turn is based on the Latin word for "offspring." The American Heritage Dictionary offers two definitions for the word:

1. Producing offspring or fruit in great abundance; fertile.
2. Producing abundant works or results: a prolific artist.

The Reuters writer has stood a pro-life word on its head, exchanging the idea of fruitfulness and fertility for sheer efficiency. Christian media critics have often criticized Reuters for uninformed handling of the religion factor in their reporting. But whatever they know or don't know about religion, Reuters editors should know their dictionaries.

Posted by David Neff at August 13, 2007 | Comments (3)

Death and Texas - Part 1

Reuters blames Bible-belt religion for Texas' record number of executions.

|

On Sunday, the Washington Post published a Reuters story about the number of executions in the state of Texas--now pushing a remarkable 400 since the Supreme Court lifted its ban on capital punishment in 1976. Texas has carried out 398 executions and it has 5 more planned for August. The closest runner up to the Texas numbers is Virginia with 96 executions--only one quarter of the Lone Star State's record.

What was puzzling about the story was the way writer Ed Stoddard tried to link the numbers to religion. Here's how he led off the story:

Texas will almost certainly hit the grim total of 400 executions this month, far ahead of any other state, testament to the influence of the state's conservative evangelical Christians and its cultural mix of Old South and Wild West.

The Washington Post repeated the emphasis by headlining the story, "Religion, Culture Behind Texas Execution Tally."

Whoa there, Podner!

What does religion have to do with it? All Stoddard could come up with was this:

Like his predecessor, Governor Perry is a devout Christian, highlighting one key factor in Texas' enthusiasm for the death penalty that many outsiders find puzzling -- the support it gets from conservative evangelical churches.

This is in line with their emphasis on individuals taking responsibility for their own salvation, and they also find justification in scripture.

"A lot of evangelical Protestants not only believe that capital punishment is permissible but that it is demanded by God. And they see sanction for that in the Old Testament especially," said Matthew Wilson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

That's it. Unless you also count the fact the Governor Rick Perry is "a devout Christian." Yup, that explains a lot.

Let's take a look at the factors cited by Stoddard:

First, a belief in individuals taking responsibility for their own salvation. Well, of course we evangelical Protestants don't teach that individuals "take responsibility for their own salvation." We teach that the grace of God comes to individuals in their pervasively sinful state and enables them to respond to his love by faith. But, yes, we do emphasize that individuals can have a personal, saving relationship with Jesus (as opposed to salvation necessarily being mediated through clerics and church ritual).

But neither Stoddard's version of evangelical belief nor the correct one has much to do with capital punishment. If anything, belief in the individual dimension of salvation drives evangelicals to engage in more extensive and more intense prison ministry than other Christians.

Second, evangelicals find justification for capital punishment in Scripture, particularly in the Old Testament. Well, no and yes.

No, evangelicals who support capital punishment do not use the Old Testament as their primary source of justification. If you ask almost any evangelical in the pew if they think that Sabbath-breaking or homosexuality should be a capital crime, they would shudder in horror at the thought.

Yes, evangelicals do find support in Scripture--but as part of God's plan for the secular order. See Romans 13:1-7, where the Apostle Paul portrays "the sword" and taxes as legitimate functions of the state. But to consider this a legitimate function of the state is not to approve of the way any given state carries out its responsibility for retribution.

When studies show disproportionate application of the death penalty by race or economic status, Christians of any and every stripe should be challenging the system. And when DNA-testing and other death-row efforts repeatedly reveal the miscarriage of justice, Christians should be working to make sure justice is truly served.

Posted by David Neff at August 13, 2007 | Comments (14)

Colson on the Candidates

He's not happy.

Ted Olsen | August 7, 2007

"It is the most disappointing field of candidates, looking on both sides of the aisle, that I've seen in my lifetime. I don't remember an election where less people have got me excited from either side."

More here.

Posted by Ted Olsen at August 7, 2007 | Comments (5)

'Letting Barabas go scot-free'

Zimbabwe's despot

Ted Olsen | July 24, 2007

Zimbabwe's state paper runs an op-ed today saying that the country's independent media aren