The National Organization for Marriage is promoting Miss California as a spokeswoman to oppose same-sex marriage.

Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today show today that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.

Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. offered a scholarship to Prejean, who was visiting the conservative Christian school yesterday. Prejean told judge Perez Hilton that she opposed same-sex marriage during the April 19 pageant.

Yesterday, the New Hampshire Senate passed a bill allowing gay marriage. If the governor signs the bill, New Hampshire could become the fifth state to allow same-sex marriages.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 30, 2009 2:43PM | Comments (16)

As President Obama marked his first 100 days in office yesterday, a new Gallup poll shows that 41 percent of weekly church attenders supported Obama before the election, but the number has jumped to 57 percent.

Dan Gilgoff offers a round-up of what's happened in the last 100 days, but most of Obama's focus has been on the economy and more recently on the swine flu.

The Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land has worked with presidential administrations going back to Ronald Reagan's, but he can't remember any that has convened an advisory council composedised mostly of religious leaders, as President Obama has done. The council gives religion "an institutionally higher profile than under President Bush," says the conservative Land, who directs public policy for the nation's largest evangelical denomination. "No president that I've dealt with has had anything like it."

During his press conference last night, Obama was asked whether he hopes Congress sends him the Freedom of Choice Act soon, which Obama said was not not highest legislative priority.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.

As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above -- quote, "above my pay grade."

Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.

Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?

OBAMA: You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.

Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's -- that's where I'm going to focus.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 30, 2009 10:05AM | Comments (7)

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania caused a surprising turn of events for Washington today when he said he would switch to the Democratic party, possibly taking away enough Republican's Senate filibuster votes.

If Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next senator from Minnesota, and Specter successfully switches parties when he runs again in 2010, the Democrats will be able to advance President Obama's agenda more smoothly.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 28, 2009 11:55AM | Comments (5)

Artist Michael D'Antuono was planning to unveil "The Truth" - a portrait of President Obama wearing a crown of thorns and holding his hands in crucifix form - tomorrow in New York's Union Square to commemorate Obama's 100th day in office, but decided to cancel after receiving thousands of angry e-mails about the portrait's religious overtones.

The portrait, which shows Obama lifting a dark veil to reveal (or hide) the presidential seal, was not meant to offend Christians or make light of their beliefs, D'Antuono told Mark Hemingway of National Review Online. He explains:

The idea of the piece, or the reaction that I'd hoped for, was to highlight our nation's deep partisan divide and how our interpretation of the truth is really prejudiced by our political perspective and I think that to a large degree we are being manipulated by the media. I miss the old day when we just have the facts. Now we have pundits and spin and strategists.

I just thought that through that painting people would see different things. The right and the left would have different interpretations of it based on their political lens. But I have to admit I was very surprised that instead of that I got thousands of email[s] complaining on the religious front. And that was not my intent at all. I wanted to create a dialog politically but not religiously. I didn't mean to make fun of anybody's religion; maybe I did so naively but I didn't mean it that way. In the bible Jesus is The Truth and comparing Obama that way isn't something I meant to do at all.

Apparently, I've upset a lot of people. And I've decided that's not what I wanted to do and I'm not going to display it in the park on Wednesday ... art is meant to be somewhat provocative but the religious element went way farther than I had anticipated.

Whether D'Antuono is sincerely aiming for deep conversation or mere provocation is unclear; his own website describes the painting this way: "More than a presidential portrait, 'The Truth' is a politically, religiously and socially-charged statement on our nation's current political climate and deep partisan divide that is sure to create a dialogue."

He told Hemingway that the portrait may still appear in a gallery showing.

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at April 28, 2009 9:02AM | Comments (11)

Citing the University of Notre Dame's decision to host President Obama at its May 17 commencement ceremony, former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican Mary Ann Glendon has declined to accept the school's prestigious Laetare Medal and to speak opposite Obama at commencement. In a letter sent this morning to Notre Dame president John Jenkins, Glendon, a pro-life Harvard Law School professor, writes:

"A commencement . . . is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame's decision - in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops - to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice."

The "settled position" Glendon mentions is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' 2004 request that Catholic institutions "not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." Glendon also expresses concern that Notre Dame's decision could set off a "ripple effect" among U.S. Catholic universities.

President Jenkins released a brief response Monday: "We are, of course, disappointed that Professor Glendon has made this decision. It is our intention to award the Laetare Medal to another deserving recipient, and we will make that announcement as soon as possible."

Glendon's entire letter is below. See Francis Beckwith's response to Notre Dame's decision here, and Richard Mouw's and David Dockery's responses here.

April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame

Dear Father Jenkins,

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame's Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame's most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops' express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that "talking points" issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

? "President Obama won't be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal."

? "We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about."

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame's decision - in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops - to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops' guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame's example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,

Mary Ann Glendon

Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things, she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at April 27, 2009 11:13AM | Comments (7)

In campaign 2008, candidate Barack Obama pledged an "all hands on deck" approach to meeting human needs. His improved approach would include a wider range of faith-related groups in more extensive policy deliberations and, pointedly, a stronger and "de-politicized" faith-based initiative.

At its maximum, "all hands on deck" implies aggressive work to provide all kinds of help – direct government aid, indirect government aid, and enhanced private aid – to the full range of faith-based groups. It would involve incentives for philanthropy and charitable contributions, and ways to get all forms of appropriate aid to any effective faith-related group. It would also involve encouraging faith-related groups to apply to the full range of social service programs available, not a smaller range of politically favored ideas. And, in regard to the hot-button hiring issue, it would mean figuring out ways to help those groups which wanted to keep their rights to use religious criteria in hiring decisions: Providing direct federal aid if the Obama administration deemed it appropriate; helping find sources of indirect aid if they ruled such discrimination inappropriate (as the campaign stated it would do).

So far, the pledge is not fully redeemed. Rather, the Obama Administration seems caught in the web of misunderstandings that always seems to follow the faith-based initiative.

First, the new President's idea to create a 25-person advisory group to have input in faith-related policies is encountering inevitable conflicts. The 25 members have diverse views (and not a few large egos) – not a good recipe to get quick consensus on lingering controversies. As such, they are giving up trying to achieve a consensus on hiring rights, and instead punting that to a "case-by-case" analysis by lawyers in the White House and the Department of Justice.

The case-by-case decision process gives either a partial and somewhat surprising victory for the hiring rights side, or, more likely, a series of small, quiet, but cumulative losses. Both a majority of the advisory committee (and almost certainly nearly all the political hires at Justice and in the White House involved in the matter) appear to be on the other side, against "hiring discrimination" as that side describes it. The case-by-case approach is probably a way to build a set of precedents limiting hiring rights step-by-step, and then in a few years decide that the "case law" that they've created pretty much takes away most hiring rights. To take away some of this sting for some groups, compensatory steps such as encouraging volunteering and simplifying 501c3 designation are likely. But these moves will not be much proof of enthusiastic support for faith, but rather incentives for government distance from or dilution of faith – getting such groups to rely on private effort or reconfigure themselves in order to be eligible for tighter federal rules. While changes along these lines do follow stated policy, they are not generally constitutionally required.

There are other problems, too. First, while candidate Obama promised clarity on rules related to faith-based groups, the "case-by-case" decision is certainly not that. It will, rather, create more, not fewer, questions, particularly over the short- and mid-term, over what can be funded and which groups should apply. Second, while the administration has spent time and political capital on filling slots on the 25-person advisory committee, critical hiring decisions for the central faith office and the many satellites in federal agencies goes slowly. It is these in-agency employees that will work full-time, every day, to implement Obama's faith-based vision: momentum and institutional memory trickles away as these positions stay open. Third, there seem to be some troubling distractions for the few already hired employees in the faith-based field; they seem to be handling questions of which church the Obamas will attend and where they will show up on Easter Sunday. These personal issues are far removed from the core functions of the office.

The record so far shows that the Obama campaign got some pretty bad early advice on the faith-based controversies and has not yet overcome it. On the particular point of hiring rights, it looks like advisors to the campaign said hiring rights were not all that important to key Democratic constituencies. Now that the heat of the campaign is over, the office is finding out differently as a lot of groups--particularly many within the African-American community and the Jewish community--do have concerns with this. On other points, while it was commonly asserted that the Bush Administration was ambiguous or even disingenuous on the proselytizing, serving, and "separate by time or place" rules for inherently religious and other activities, that really was not the case, especially in the latter years. The guidelines were always fairly clear, and became clearer as the Bush Administration continued in office and improved its oversight. It is unfortunate the early 2001 rhetoric stayed alive through 2008. It forced the Obama campaign and now the new administration to poorly allocate its time and attention.

Douglas Koopman is a political science professor at Calvin College in Michigan. He is co-author of Pews, Prayers, and Participation: Religion and Civic Responsibility.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 24, 2009 11:32AM | Comments (2)

I received a surprising press release e-mail last night from Jason Gedeik, deputy press secretary of Sojourners:

I wanted to gauge your interest in the first big mobilization of the Religious Left in the Obama era - a signal of the shift in power dynamics. Sojourners is mobilizing over a thousand Christian activists and 70 religious and anti-poverty groups at a conference next week in DC to prepare a new poverty coalition for legislative battle this year. This is the Religious Left filling the hole created by the decline of the Religious Right but now we have the political power and ear of the White House - definitely a new trend and a "first" within this new political era.

What's fascinating isn't really the gathering of activists. That happens all the time. What's amazing is the repeated self-identification as "Religious Left."

For decades, Sojourners founder Jim Wallis has repeatedly argued that neither he nor Sojourners are part of the Religious Left.

"There is a Religious Left in this country, and I'm not a part of it," Wallis told me last year.

And earlier this year, he told CT's Sarah Pulliam he didn't like the terms Religious Left or Religious Right. "I would not be happy with labeling anyone just right-wing. That's simplistic and reductionist," he said. "Labels are shorthand, sloppy ways to describe someone."

He told The Seattle Times in 2004 that there should not even be a Religious Left. "People of faith should not be in any party's pockets, any candidate's pockets," he said. "The religious right was a political party, not a religious one. There should not now be a religious left."

"But isn't there the perception that you're part of the religious left?" Times reporter Janet I. Tu asked.

"The media only sees that," he said. "The media thinks everything has only two sides. People are hungry for a moral center."

The Sojourners website has several other quotes from Wallis saying things like, "The alternative to the Religious Right is not the Religious Left. It's time to transcend the old polarities of our public life."

In fact, his most popular book was subtitled, "Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It."

So is Gedeik off message by using the phrase? Or is Sojourners rebranding itself?

Update (9:30 a.m.): I just got off the phone with Gedeik, who said the use of the phrase is strategic.

"Part of that was to grab your attention and make you guys think," he said. "Regardless of how we want to be branded, the media likes to use phrases that are easily encapsulated. Progressive is the word Jim likes to use, but for the media progressive and Left or liberal are somewhat interchangeable."

Next week's meeting, he said, will include groups like Convoy of Hope and World Vision that "have ties to conservative elements" of the movement. "But we are a progressive movement. We don't have conservative political principles. We might have conservative theological principles, but we don't have conservative political principles."

Conservative ties not withstanding, "the overall significance of next week's event is that it's the first mobilization of the progressive religious movement," Gedeik said. "It's definitely not the religious right or conservative movement. This is our first formal coming out party."

Gedeik said that regardless of branding, Wallis's political stances and focus on poverty are the same as they have been. " It's not like we're changing," he said. "The movement is growing because we're under a different political era and times, but it's not like the movement has changed or that our core concerns have changed. It's just that the backdrop is we have a political administration that is on the same page as this movement."

When asked about Wallis's repeated desire over the years not to be labeled as part of the Religious Left, Gedeik sdaid, "Where is the line drawn between the left and the right and the middle? The line is blurred, especially on certain issues. Labels are labels. And the media makes more out of it than there needs to be. ... I don't think it's that much of a story. The story is our meeting next week."

Update 2 (9:50 a.m.): Gedeik says last night's message was not a press release. He says it was an informal e-mail message. (It went to 153 editors and writers at various religious publications.)

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 23, 2009 8:45AM | Comments (20)

The House Foreign Affairs Committee took a turn today when Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about abortion.

Smith asked why she had recently praised Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, according to Emily Belz at World.

Smith: Sanger was an unapologetic eugenicist and racist who said "the most merciful thing a family does for one of its infant members is to kill it." And said on another occasion, "eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."

Clinton didn't respond to the Sanger quotes at first, but later in the hearing when questioned again on the matter, she said in all humans (she used Thomas Jefferson's slave holding as an example) "there are things we admire and there are things we deplore."

Smith asked whether the administration would be promoting abortion in places like Africa, under the umbrella of "reproductive health."

Clinton: We happen to think family planning is an important part of women's health - and that reproductive health includes access to abortion?.We are now an administration that protects the rights of women including the rights to reproductive health care.

Inglis asked Clinton why she didn't condemn forced abortions on her trip to China. "They heard me say it already," she said, referring to a trip 14 years ago.

Inglis: Don't we have to speak with moral authority when we engage countries like China?
Clinton: Yes, we certainly do. It is a broad engagement that we have with large and complex countries. There is always and must be a moral dimension to our foreign policy.
Inglis: When you're in China next, I hope you'll speak to these issues.

Farah Stockman at The Boston Globe reports that Clinton was also asked about torture.

Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, repeatedly asked Clinton whether the administration would declassify documents that former Vice President Dick Cheney has said paint the CIA interrogators in a more heroic light and show the important information produced from the interrogations.

Clinton said she had no knowledge of such documents. "It won't surprise you that I don't consider him a particularly reliable source," she said, to some laughter.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 22, 2009 4:47PM | Comments

Carrie Prejean, 21, says her honest answer about whether she supports marriage by homosexuals cost her an opportunity to win Sunday's Miss USA pageant. The question came from gay judge Perez Hilton, who apparently set her up.

In an appearance Monday on MSNBC, Hilton said he was absolutely "shocked and incredibly frustrated and disappointed" with Prejean's stance.

"That's not the kind of woman I want to be Miss USA," he said. "Miss USA should represent all Americans and, with her answer, she instantly alienated millions of gays and lesbians and their friends."

Earlier, Hilton had said on his video blog he would have run onstage and ripped the tiara off Prejean's head had she won the title.

And the blogger would not have been the only member of the Miss USA family to go apoplectic had Prejean advanced in the competition. Keith Lewis, executive director of California's Miss USA operations, said in a statement released to Hilton that "religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss CA family."

Prejean Monday said she was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything.

...

Prejean said she has received 2,000 friend requests on Facebook since the weekend controversy began unfolding.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at April 21, 2009 11:50AM | Comments (51)

In recent days, American foreign policy, President Obama, and Cuba have been in the headlines.

But honestly, the mainstream media is too pre-occupied about cell phone markets, tourism, and foreign policy to be thinking much about Jesus in Cuba (which has one of the world's highest concentrations of evangelical house churches).

I guess that's our job. CT has done two cover stories about Cuba in the past 16 years or so. And, we have talked about the three phases for religious freedom since the Cuban Revolution:

1. Persecution of the church and the faithful flock. (a dark and dangerous time)
2. Discrimination against faithful Cubans. (no jobs for open Christians)
3. Tolerance of Christian faith to the extent it does not actively resist rule by fiat from Fidel and Raul. (don't color outside the lines)

Here's the big question:

Do Cuba's Christian leaders fear lifting the embargo?

Recently we have talked with a few Cuban church leaders or those Christian leaders doing ministry in Cuba. To tell the truth, many are quite concerned about a sudden lifting of the embargo.

Those concerns include:

* Look at what happened in the former Soviet states after 1989. The free-for-all had harmful (and beneficial) results.

* Consider how local Cuban churches might be thrown into competition with each other for the flood of new faith-based money and Christian resources coming onto the island.

* Realize that lifting the embargo would introduce much more consumerism. In reality, the failed socialist experiment in Cuba has stimulated Cuban longing for a relationship with Christ.

As much as I might want to have the embargo lifted tomorrow and the Castro regime wiped out, these kinds of sudden changes often have a dark side.

Am I wrong to think that way? What's your point of view?

Posted by Tim Morgan at April 21, 2009 11:42AM | Comments (5)

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was asked how his religious faith influenced his work on the court during a dinner honoring winners of a high school essay contest.

"I think that it really gives content to the oath that you took," Justice Thomas said. "You say, ?So help me God.' "

"There are some cases that will drive you to your knees," he added. "In those moments you ask for strength and wisdom to have the right answer and the courage to stand up for it. Beyond that, it would be illegitimate, I think, and a violation of my oath to incorporate my religious beliefs into the decision-making process."

(h/t Howard M. Friedman)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 21, 2009 11:28AM | Comments (8)

Some anti-abortion religious leaders are welcoming new draft guidelines from the National Institutes of Health on embryonic stem cell research as a balanced approach to the controversial procedure.

The guidelines, issued April 17, permit federally funded research on stem cells derived from embryos that are no longer needed for fertility treatments.

Most embryos that are not planned to be used in fertility treatments are discarded or kept in a type of frozen limbo. The draft guidelines presumably would not allow federal funds to be used to create embryos solely for research purposes.

"They have hit the right balance by limiting funding to particular slated-to-be-destroyed IVF cells, yet expanding significantly the number of diseases that can be addressed by increasing the number and range of stem cell lines from which we can learn," said Joel Hunter, pastor of an Orlando-area megachurch. "These guidelines respect life from beginning to end."

The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, said "the new regulations embody caution and care that respect pro-life values."

The Catholic Church opposes embryonic stem cell research, but Stephen Schneck, director of The Catholic University's Life Cycle Institute, called the draft rules "a major step toward the common ground most Americans are now demanding."

Former Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page, in a Friday statement, said the decision is not the one conservative Christians wanted most -- a total ban on stem cell research -- but is better than it could have been.

"While Dr. Page would wish for a ban on all embryonic stem cell research that results from the destruction of any human embryos (which he refers to as unborn babies), he is somewhat heartened by the fact that the White House has issued forth regulations which prohibit any stem cell research which would come from embryos created for research," the statement reads.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins continued his criticism of the funding of any research of embryonic stem cells.

"The research that President Obama supports is not sound science and will destroy human life," Perkins said Friday. "...(T)he guidelines implement a plan that will force taxpayers to foot the bill for research that involves human embryo destruction."

The draft guidelines followed a March 9 executive order by President Obama to rescind the Bush administration's 2001 limits on federally funded stem cell research. The NIH expects to issue final guidelines by July after a period of public comment.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 20, 2009 3:19PM | Comments (1)

President Obama and his wife gave $172,050 - about 6.5 percent of his gross income - to charities in 2008, ABC News' Jake Tapper and Karen Travers report. The Obamas gave $8,050 - or .3 percent of their gross income - to churches and faith-based charities, which represented nine of the 37 charities, according to his tax return.

Here's a breakdown of some of the faith-based charity donations from Dan Gilgoff:

* $500 to Apostolic Church of God
* $200 to Brookland Baptist Church
* $500 to Brown AME Church
* $1,000 to Catholic Relief Services
* $150 to Crusade of Mercy
* $100 to First Lutheran Church
* $5,000 to New Orleans Area Habitat for Humanity
* $500 to St. Leo's Residence for Veterans
* $100 to St Luke's United Methodist Church

Vice President Joe Biden reported an income of $269,256 last year -- after taxes that comes to $183,315, according to ABC News. The VP's office says: "The charitable donations claimed by the Bidens on their tax returns are not the sum of their annual contributions to charity. They donate to their church, and they contribute to their favorite causes with their time, as well as their checkbooks."

The list of Obama's donations comes after the jump.

The biggest donations were $25,000 contributions to CARE and the United Negro College Fund, but other charities included AIDS Alliance for Children Youth & Families, American Red Cross, Apostolic Church of God, Book Worm Angels, Boys and Girls Club, Bread for the City, Brookland Baptist, Brown A.M.E. Church, Catholic Relief Services, Central Illinois Food Bank, Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy, the president's alma mater Columbia University, Crusade of Mercy, Direct Relief International, First Lutheran Church, Greater Chicago Food Depository, Haiti Foundation of Hope, Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Illinois Head Start Association, Illinois Reading Council, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Martin Luther King National Memorial Project, Midtown Educational Foundation, Mujeres Latinas En Accion, National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, National Congress of Black Women, National MS Society, New Orleans Areas Habitat for Humanity, Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, Rochelle Lee/Boundless Readers, St. Leo's Residence for Veterans, St. Luke's united Methodist Church, The Christopher House, United Negro College Fund and United Way of Galveston.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 16, 2009 6:09PM | Comments (25)

That's the question Warren Throckmorton and Laurie Higgins are grappling with on their websites. Tomorrow is the Day of Silence, when students in middle schools and high schools are urged to take a vow of silence in support of gay students who experience discrimination.

Throckmorton, who is a psychology professor at Grove City College, says yay:

Without altering convictions about sexuality, I propose that evangelicals should have something more to contribute than a protest toward the elimination of hostility and aggression against gay people and other people who are viewed as different. Indeed, we should be leading the way to make schools safe and build bridges to those who often equate "Christian" with condemnation.

Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute says nay:

If parents leave their children in school on the Day of Silence as Dr. Throckmorton recommends, they become complicit in the exploitation of the classroom for partisan political purposes. Dr. Throckmorton's misguided effort does nothing to restore political neutrality to public education. In fact, his effort will help to further institutionalize GLSEN efforts to use public education to undermine orthodox Christian beliefs on the complex and emotionally charged issue of homosexuality.

Throckmorton wants Christians students to carry cards referencing the Golden Rule: "I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated. 'Do to others as you would have them do to you.'" Higgins wants a walkout.

Another group, the Alliance Defense Fund, advocates for the Day of Truth. On April 20 students are asked to wear T-shirts and pass out cards that tell gay students they can alter their sexual orientation. The cards will say:

I'm speaking the Truth to break the silence.
True tolerance means that people with differing -- even opposing -- viewpoints can freely exchange ideas and respectfully listen to each other.
It's time for an honest conversation about homosexuality.
There's freedom to change if you want to.
Let's talk.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 16, 2009 3:22PM | Comments (22)

At least 25,000 people turned out for tea party protests across the country today, according to the Atlantic, and groups like Focus on the Family Action, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and the American Family Association helped promote the demonstrations.

The tea parties were initially promoted by FreedomWorks, a conservative nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington, but Christian conservative groups quickly latched on.

CitizenLink: "The mainstream media largely have ignored the nationwide protests, even as Congress loads pork projects and stimulus bills on the backs of American taxpayers and their children."

Tony Perkins: "There is no justification for the countless billions that citizens will have to pony up this tax season to fund liberalism's reckless abuse of the federal treasury."

"The religious right's support for the Tea Parties is a partisan exercise, not a religious one. It will not help their cause," Dan at the left-leaning Faith in Public Life writes.

What do you think? Would you participate in the tea party ritual?

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 15, 2009 5:57PM | Comments (16)

Conservative Christian groups blasted a new report from the Department of Homeland Security on "rightwing extremism," calling it an example of "guilt by association" for linking anti-abortion activists with hate groups.

The 10-page "assessment" from the department stresses that the report is not based on specific threats.

"The HDS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis ... has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence," the April 7 report says, "but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues."

The report draws parallels between the "current national climate" with the 1990s, when there was evidence of "white supremacists' longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, interracial crimes, and same-sex marriage."

It cites the economic downturn and the election of the nation's first African-American president as potential "drivers" for recruitment by rightwing groups.

Janice Shaw Crouse, director of Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute, called the report alarmist.

"It is the worst sort of extremism for a government agency to stir up fear against those groups who hold biblical views on social issues," Crouse said. "It is even worse to link those views with `interracial crimes.' What unconscionable guilt by association!"

In a statement released Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the assessment is one of a series that is sent to law enforcement agencies across the country. The department also issued a Jan. 26 assessment on "leftwing extremists" that focused on potential cyber attacks.

"We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence," she said. "We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not -- nor will we ever -- monitor ideology or political beliefs."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called it "a shockingly biased new report," and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, said it unfairly characterized those with anti-abortion views.

"This is an outrageous characterization that raises serious questions about the leadership and direction of the agency charged with protecting Americans in the ongoing battle against terrorism," said Sekulow.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 15, 2009 4:51PM | Comments (18)

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson is scheduled to appear tonight on Fox's "Hannity" to debunk an article from the London's Telegraph article titled "US religious Right concedes defeat."

A CitizenLink alert says Dobson intends to "set the record straight about media reports indicating he has 'conceded defeat' in the so-called culture war."

Here's the Telegraph article Dobson plans to debunk.

"We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action," he said.

"We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles."

Here's how Citizenlink responds:

Dr. Dobson requested the opportunity to appear on the show to clarify erroneous media reports that have gained nationwide attention in recent days claiming he has given up fighting for pro-family causes like the sanctity of human life and the defense of marriage. The misinformation stems from a story in London's Telegraph newspaper, which quoted Dr. Dobson's comments to Focus on the Family staff in February announcing his resignation from the ministry's board of directors. His actual words were truncated and not put in their proper context to create the impression the paper wanted to create -- that he was "throwing in the towel" on standing for principles that have been his passion for more than three decades.

CitizenLink says the newspaper intentionally dropped words from his statement: "We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say that we have lost all those battles, but God is in control and we are not going to give up now, right?"

He plans to make clear that he has not necessarily "retired" from the public square.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 14, 2009 5:05PM | Comments (12)

Mega church pastor Rick Warren canceled an appearance on ABC's This Week after he took heat for remarks on same-sex marriage.

"For those of you tuning in this morning expecting to hear from Pastor Rick Warren, we were too. But the pastor's representatives canceled moments before the scheduled interview, saying that Mr. Warren is sick from exhaustion," George Stephanopoulos told the audience on Easter Sunday.

Amy Sullivan responded with: Is Rick Warren Scared of George Stephanopoulos?

But Dan Gilgoff reports and a spokesperson confirmed with me:

Talking to a close Warren associate yesterday, I learned that the megapastor was not only too exhausted to tape a scheduled weekend interview for ABC's This Week - because of fatigue, Warren preached just six of a dozen planned Easter services on Saturday and Sunday - he was also a little nauseous.

That's because Fox News Channel, which carried a couple of Warren's Easter services, insisted that his Saddleback Church apply a fresh coat of varnish to the pulpit lectern before broadcast. The varnish was still drying when it was time for Warren to preach his next service, and the fumes got to him.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 14, 2009 4:39PM | Comments (13)

At noon today, rather than join friends at a baby shower with cake and cookies, I listened in during the press briefing concerning new research estimates on unauthorized immigrants (aka illegal immigrants) and their families.

The report (click here) from the Pew Hispanic Center follows up on earlier research estimates and indicates there are 11.9 million illegal immigrants in the USA. (It is important to note that this is a projected estimate based on Census Data and other resources.)

Particularly fascinating to me is how the profile of the typical illegal immigrant has changed over time. It seems like, based on this research, a young dad with a young family, living in poverty without health insurance, and working in the AG sector of the US economy pretty much sums up the life and lifestyle of an illegal immigrant in 2009.

Here's the lede graphs from the Washington Post story:

The number of U.S.-citizen children born to illegal immigrants has dramatically increased over the past five years from 2.7 million in 2003 to 4 million in 2008, according to a study released today. The report by the nonpartisan, Washington-based Pew Hispanic Center also found that more than a third of such children were in poverty in 2007, compared with about 18 percent of those born to either legal immigrants or U.S.-born parents. Similarly, one in four U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants went without health insurance in 2008, compared with 14 percent of those born to legal immigrants and 8 percent born to U.S.-born parents. The findings suggest that the impact of the unprecedented spike in illegal immigration over the past three decades will continue to be felt for years to come, even as the size of the illegal immigrant population itself appears to have leveled off since 2006 at about 10.4 million adults and 1.5 million children.

(Photo: 2006, pro-immigrant protest)

During the press conference, reporters kept asking causal questions: Why has immigration leveled off? The bad economy or what? What is causing illegal immigrants to return home? What about the effects of new punitive legislation for those who hire illegal immigrants?

But the question rolling around in my head today is this:

What would Jesus do about illegal immigrants and their children?

No, I'm not looking for a bumper sticker answer or a public policy strategy or a Sunday school lesson about caring for the poor.

This issue of illegal immigrant families is not getting any easier for the church. These are families who need a lot of attention. They are poorer, less educated, and less cared for than the typical American family. They often don't have ready access to resources in an emergency.

Here's the big multiple choice question,

Would Jesus:

A. Look to Washington for a solution.
B. Call INS.
C. Invite them to a worship service.
D. Visit them.
E. Meet their needs.
F. All of the above.
G. None of the above.

President Obama said last week that he is seeking an "orderly way" for illegal immigrants to become American citizens. That's his solution. I wonder if that's even possible any more.

Posted by Tim Morgan at April 14, 2009 1:37PM | Comments (33)

Adding more fuel to the fire, President Obama's health secretary nominee Kathleen Sebelius received nearly three times as much money from an abortion doctor than she disclosed, according to the Associated Press.

Sebelius has already angered conservatives for her pro abortion stances. She told the Senate Finance Committee that she took money from from George Tiller, a late-term abortion provider, who was acquitted last month of charges that he performed 19 illegal late-term abortions in 2003.

She told the committee that she received $12,450 between 1994 and 2001 from Tiller. But Erica Werner at the AP reports that Tiller gave at least $23,000 more from 2000 to 2002 to a political action committee while Sebelius was state insurance commissioner so she could raise money for Democrats.

The Finance Committee was expected to vote this month on forwarding Sebelius' nomination to the full Senate. There was no immediate indication from committee Republicans that her omission on the Tiller contributions would upset that timing.

The anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, which is opposing Sebelius' nomination, circulated the campaign finance documents showing the discrepancy in what Sebelius told senators. The records were reviewed Monday by the AP and their accuracy was verified by the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission.

Senators raised the issue of abortion only in written questions submitted to Sebelius after her hearing. Last week, Sebelius told the Senate that she does not anticipate issuing new abortion regulations if she is approved.

"I am personally opposed to abortion, and my faith teaches me that all life is sacred," she said. "I have tried to reduce unwanted pregnancies and thus curtail the need for abortion."

(h/t Mark Hemingway)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 13, 2009 8:46PM | Comments (1)

While aides scour the nation's capital for a new spiritual home for the first family, the Obamas spent Easter Sunday at an historic Episcopal church across the street from the White House.

It took the presidential motorcade less than two minutes to drive from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to St. John's of Lafayette Square, a small, yellow Episcopal church with an impressive presidential pedigree.

Every U.S. president since James Madison has attended a worship service at St. John's, according to the church, which reserves a pew -- No. 54 -- whenever the chief executive attends. Former President George W. Bush, a Methodist, made St. John's his unofficial D.C. church home; John Quincy Adams, James Monroe and Franklin Delano Roosevelt also worshipped there, said Gary S. Smith, a historian at Grove City College in Pittsburgh.

Obama himself attended St. John's, sometimes called the "church of the presidents," for a pre-inaugural prayer service on Jan. 20; several days earlier, he visited Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, one of the city's oldest black churches.

Joshua DuBois, head of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, said the Obamas have "not made a decision yet on which church they will formally join in Washington, but they were honored to worship with the parishioners at St. John's Episcopal Church and at Nineteenth Street Baptist Church earlier this year."

Decked out in Easter attire, all four Obamas -- the president, first lady Michelle, and daughters Sasha and Malia -- received Communion and heard the Rev. Luis Leon preach about the tension between faith and doubt.

"Don't be alarmed if you don't have 100 percent faith," said Leon, St. John's rector since 1995. "Do not be alarmed if you don't understand everything. It takes time to be a believer."

It has also taken time -- nearly three months and counting – for the Obamas to find a new spiritual home. They left Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where they worshipped for nearly 20 years, last year after the broadcasting of controversial sermons by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, nearly sunk Obama's campaign.

Smith, author of "Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush," said St. John's provides safe harbor for a president with former pastor problems.

"It's a very safe choice for Easter, given its historic relationship with American presidents. ... If you've been burned, you want to be cautious."

But Smith and others say the Episcopal congregation, which is predominantly white, will probably not become the home church of the nation's first black president.

Obama writes movingly of his experience in the black church in his memoir "Dreams from My Father," and a White House aide told the newspaper Politico last week that there is "something compelling to him about the African American worship tradition. ... He has made his perspective pretty clear."

Presidential aides have scouted about a dozen churches in this city looking for a good fit. But it's a challenge to find a congregation that not only meets the first family's spiritual needs but also can accommodate a popular president and his considerable security detail, according to the White House.

Nearly any choice Obama makes will have political ramifications -- including choosing no church at all, says Smith. Religious conservatives, a constituency Obama has gone out of his way to court, are already disappointed with the president for opening funding for international family planning and embryonic stem cell research, as well as possibly rescinding the so-called conscience protections for healthcare workers.

"If you don't attend church it just adds another layer on there," said Smith.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 13, 2009 3:31PM | Comments (1)

Several writers have questioned whether Rick Warren backpedaled on his opposition to same-sex marriage. Earlier this week, I asked Warren when he told Larry King he did not campaign for Proposition 8.

The truth is, Proposition 8 was a two-year campaign in the state, and during those two years, I never said a word about it until the eight days before the election, and then I did make a video for my own people when they asked, "How should we vote on this?" It was a pastor talking to his own people. I've never said anything about it since. I don't know how you take one video newsletter to your own church and turn that into, all of a sudden I'm the poster boy for anti-gay marriage.

A spokesperson for Warren and his church sent me further clarification tonight:

Throughout his pastoral ministry spanning nearly 30 years, Dr. Warren has remained committed to the biblical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, for life -- a position held by most fellow Evangelical pastors. He has further stressed that for 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion has maintained this worldview.

When Dr. Warren told Larry King that he never campaigned for California's Proposition 8, he was referring to not participating in the official two-year organized advocacy effort specific to the ballot initiative in that state, based on his focus and leadership on other compassion issues. Because he's a pastor, not an activist, in response to inquiries from church members, he issued an email and video message to his congregation days before the election confirming where he and Saddleback Church stood on this issue.

During the King interview, Dr. Warren also referenced a letter of apology that he sent to gay leaders whom he knew personally. However, that mea culpa was not with respect to his statements or position on Proposition 8 nor the biblical worldview on marriage. Rather, he apologized for his comments in an earlier Beliefnet interview expressing his concern about expanding or redefining the definition of marriage beyond a husband-wife relationship, during which he unintentionally and regrettably gave the impression that consensual adult same sex relationships were equivalent to incest or pedophilia.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 9, 2009 10:10PM | Comments (18)

Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal writes, "In short, the "respect" Mr. Obama promised to give Islam is going only in one direction. And he knows that." Henninger says the Muslim world can show its good will by treating Christians better. Here's a telling quote of the kinds of issues that he's talking about:

In Iraq, the situation for small religious minorities has become dire. Reports emerge regularly of mortal danger there for groups that date to antiquity -- Chaldean-Assyrians, the Yazidis and Sabean Mandaeans, who revere John the Baptist. Last fall the Chaldean-Assyrian archbishop of Mosul was kidnapped and murdered. Some Iraqi Christians believe the new government won't protect them, and talk of moving into a "homeland" enclave in Nineveh. Penn State Prof. Philip Jenkins, author of "The Lost History of Christianity," calls the Iraq situation "a classic example of a church that is killed over time."

Here's a link to my interview with Jenkins on this very subject.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at April 9, 2009 4:36PM | Comments (3)

Levi Johnston and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin have been publicly fighting over who's lying and who's not.

Levi Johnston told CBS that he moved into Palin's house a few weeks before her daughter gave birth to their child.

"We're disappointed that Levi and his family, in a quest for fame, attention and fortune, are engaging in flat-out lies, gross exaggeration and even distortion of their relationship," Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton prior to his appearance Monday on the "Tyra Banks Show." "It is unfortunate that Levi finds it more appealing to exploit his previous relationship with Bristol than to contribute to the well-being of the child."

Asked if Palin was lying about him, Johnston said: "Yes."

What do you think? Does it matter?

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 9, 2009 4:19PM | Comments (6)

Beliefnet Editor Steve Waldman responds to a CT interview with Rick Warren.

Finally, he's currently getting mocked for claiming to have not endorsed Proposition 8, the California amendment banning gay marriage. To be fair, in the Larry King interview he didn't actually claim that he hadn't endorsed Prop 8. Indeed, he actually acknowledged that he had supported Prop 8. Rather, he claimed he didn't "campaign" for it. A slight but meaningful difference.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 9, 2009 4:01PM | Comments (1)

Five members of President Obama's faith-based advisory council have joined the debate over his plan to rescind recent conscience protections for healthcare workers, but could not agree whether those rules should remain intact or be overturned.

Obama's Department of Health and Human Services has set a Thursday deadline for comments to be submitted on whether regulations former President Bush enacted in December should be overturned, as Obama plans to do.

The letter, signed by eight religious leaders and scholars, said upfront that some signers would urge HHS to retain the Bush regulations, while others would urge the Department to rescind them.

But either way, the letter submitted by Nathan Diament from the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, said longstanding federal protections from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are inadequate.

"The decision to protect conscience concerns about deeply divisive healthcare procedures was made over a period of decades by the Congress, and nothing the Department did or does can rescind that decision," the letter said. "Statutes trump regulations, just as the Constitution
trumps statutes."

Signers include Diament and four other members of Obama's advisory panel for the revamped Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships: Sojourners president Jim Wallis; Florida megachurch pastor Joel Hunter; Wake Forest University scholar Melissa Rogers; and Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

The Bush administration regulations protect an individual's or institution's rights to refuse a service, such as abortion or distribution of contraceptives, if doing so violates religious or moral beliefs.

Critics, however, say Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act already protects against workplace discrimination. The religious leaders' letter said Title VII does not adequately address healthcare conscience issues.

"For providers who believe life begins at conception, whether or not Plan B technically acts as an (abortion-inducing drug) changes little about the need to accommodate the pharmacist with a conscientious objection to dispensing Plan B," the letter said. "As the law does in other contexts, we should rely on the refusing party to decide where his or her conscience concerns begin and end."

The writers hold Obama to a campaign pledge in which he said he would support legislation to strengthen Title VII.

"A strengthened Title VII, with its `undue hardship' `reasonable accommodation' balancing approach is, in our view, an excellent means of addressing healthcare conscience issues beyond the scope" of the Bush-era regulations, the letter said.

Others who joined the letter include the Rev. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist's Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; anti-abortion Catholic scholar Douglas Kmiec; and Robert Fretwell-Wilson, a law professor at Washington & Lee University.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 8, 2009 6:12PM | Comments (1)

Barack Hussein Obama is back. His full name, that is.

As he fought rumors that he is a Muslim during the campaign, supporters of Obama rarely used his full name while conservative pundits frequently used his full name.

But Obama brought back his midde name Hussein during trips to France this week, according to Jonathan Martin at Politico

On Friday, at a town hall meeting in Strasbourg, France, he made an extemporaneous comment that would have been unthinkable on a campaign where female supporters wearing headscarves were once removed from a camera shot behind the candidate.

"I think that it is important for Europe to understand that even though I'm now president and George Bush is no longer president, al-Qaida is still a threat, and that we cannot pretend somehow that because Barack Hussein Obama got elected as president, suddenly everything is going to be OK," he told the audience.

Martin also writes that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, seeming to recognize the signal that using Obama's middle name sends, calling him "the distinguished president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 8, 2009 9:33AM | Comments (14)

Vermont just became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislature. The legislature overturned the governor's veto. Vermont was the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions and the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage, following Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa.

Here's a story from Religion News Service by Kevin Eckstrom.

Nine years after becoming the first state to allow same-sex civil unions, Vermont on Tuesday became the first state to approve same-sex marriage without a court order.

At the same time, the District of Columbia took the first step toward recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, a move that some predict may ultimately lead to legalized gay marriages in the nation's capital.

The Vermont House overrode an earlier veto by Gov. Jim Douglas in a 100-49 vote, following a lopsided veto override by the state Senate. Vermont becomes the fourth state -- and the second in a week -- to allow gay marriage, joining Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa.

Gay rights groups said the Vermont decision -- particularly its lack of a court mandate -- will no doubt have ramifications in other states. California lawmakers, for example, have twice passed gay marriage bills that were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"The Vermont Legislature, just as the Iowa Supreme Court last week, understands the tremendous significance of marriage, and that domestic partnerships and civil unions simply do not provide the same dignity and protections that come with marriage," said Marc Solomon, whose group, Equality California, is challenging a voter-approved constitutional amendment that ended gay marriage last year.

Conservatives, meanwhile, criticized the Vermont vote.

"While government officials may change definitions, they cannot change nature," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. "The first human relationship was between one man and one woman, and it became the foundation of all society."

In Washington, the D.C. City Council unanimously approved a bill that would recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. The bill still needs a second approval vote from the 13-member council, approval by Mayor Adrian Fenty and congressional review before it can become law. The District already has a domestic partner registry.

"It's high time we send a clear, unequivocal message to those persons of the same sex and married in another jurisdiction that their marriage is valid in D.C.," said Councilman Jim Graham, an openly gay Democrat, according to The Washington Post.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 7, 2009 11:27AM | Comments (10)

News of Newt Gingrich's conversion to Catholicism was buried in a large New York Times profile, and Gingrich isn't eager to talk about it.

But this is what the former House speaker had to say to "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace.

"I'm not talking about this much publicly, but let me just say that I found over the course of the last decade, attending the basilica ... reading the literature, that there was a peace in my soul and a
sense of wellbeing in the Catholic Church, and I found the Mass of conversion last Sunday one of the most powerful moments of my life."

Gingrich was baptized in a Baptist church, but he converted to his wife's faith March 29. This is what The New York Times reported:

Mr. Gingrich was confirmed into the church on Sunday at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church on Capitol Hill and celebrated that night, according to The Hill, with friends at Cafe Milano, one of Washington’s most insider-y dining establishments. His guests included Cardinal McCarrick, the retired Cardinal of Washington.

On the occasion of Mr. Gingrich’s conversion, the Daily Beast listed a dozen other notable converts to Catholicism. They include Jeb Bush and Nicole Kidman. Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, converted to Catholicism in December 2007, facing too many political difficulties of trying to do so while he was prime minister.

Things are a bit different in the United States, of course. While Britain has never had a Catholic P.M., the United States has had a Catholic president. Still, being Catholic can complicate a political career: John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004 and a Catholic, was threatened by some bishops with excommunication because of his support for abortion rights.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 6, 2009 3:58PM | Comments (11)

Former Colts coach Tony Dungy will not be on the Advisory Council for the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, as previously reported. A White House source says he could only make two of the four scheduled meetings.

The announced council will certainly be diverse. The office added several more women, Charles Blake, who decried abortion in his address at the interfaith service at the Democratic National Convention, and Harry Knox from a LGBT lobbying group and political action committee. They're meeting tonight, so check back for more reports.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 6, 2009 2:21PM | Comments

The White House just announced additional members of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Each member of the Council is appointed to a one-year term as part of the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

The religious leaders and scholars who were added have an asterisk by their names, and the members that were previously added are after the jump.

*Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies
Washington, DC

*Dr. Sharon Watkins, General Minister and President, Disciples of Christ (Christian Church)
Indianapolis, IN

*Anju Bhargava, Founder, Asian Indian Women of America
New Jersey

*The Rev. Peg Chemberlin, President-Elect, National Council of Churches USA
Minneapolis, MN

*Bishop Charles Blake, Presiding Bishop, Church of God in Christ
Los Angeles, CA

*Nathan Diament, Director of Public Policy, Orthodox Jewish Union
Washington, DC

*Harry Knox, Director, Religion and Faith Program, Human Rights Campaign
Washington, DC

*Anthony Picarello, General Counsel , United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Washington, DC

*Nancy Ratzan, Board Chair, National Council of Jewish Women
Miami, FL

Diane Baillargeon, President & CEO, Seedco
New York , NY

Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development Association
Chicago, IL

Dr. Arturo Chavez, President & CEO, Mexican American Catholic College
San Antonio , TX

Fred Davie, Senior Adviser, Public/Private Ventures
New York , NY

Pastor Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, a Church Distributed
Longwood, FL

Bishop Vashti M. McKenzie, Presiding Bishop, 13th Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church
Knoxville, TN

Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church
Cleveland, OH

Dr. Frank S. Page, President emeritus, Southern Baptist Convention
Taylors, SC

Eboo S. Patel, Founder & Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Core
Chicago, IL

Melissa Rogers, Director, Wake Forest School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs
Winston-Salem , NC

Rabbi David N. Saperstein, Director & Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Washington , DC

Dr. William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA
Philadelphia , PA

Father Larry J. Snyder, President, Catholic Charities USA
Alexandria , VA

Richard Stearns, President, World Vision
Bellevue , WA

Judith N. Vredenburgh, President and Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America
Philadelphia , PA

Rev. Jim Wallis, President & Executive Director, Sojourners
Washington , DC

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 6, 2009 1:40PM | Comments (4)

The headline on President Obama's speech to the Turkish parliament is his statement that the U.S. is not at war with Islam, but for connoisseurs of religious politics, the real interest lies in this remark:

Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening the Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens.

Since its opening on the site of an ancient monastery on an island in the Sea of Marmara in 1844, the Halki Seminary was the main school of theology for the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople. Then, in 1971, the Turks closed the place, on the grounds that they didn't want religious institutions of higher learning to exist independent of the Turkish state. Oh, and the idea that this should become a center for education of world Orthodoxy didn't sit well with them either.

For years, the position of the American government has been that Halki Seminary should be reopened. Both houses of Congress passed resolutions to that effect in 1998, and the following year President Clinton actually visited the island and urged the same. It's now on the table in Turkey's negotiations to become part of the EU. So in one sense, Obama wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary. But just yesterday, he made waves in Europe by urging Turkey's admission to the EU--a position he reiterated in Ankara. ("Let me be clear: the United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union.") The Turks have real reason now to make a move.

Meanwhile, by speaking up strongly for Halki to the Turkish parliamentarians, Obama earned some cred with the Greeks in America--whose religious suzerain is the patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew. They had been annoyed that Obama met with him at his hotel rather than making a visit to the Phanar, where Bartholomew hangs his mitre. Win-win for the president as things stand, big win-win if Halki is permitted to reopen.

(Originally posted at Spiritual Politics.)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 6, 2009 1:34PM | Comments

The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided today that a law declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman is unconstitutional, making its state the first in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage.

The rest of this article was posted to CT's main site.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 3, 2009 10:27AM | Comments (22)

Ten percent of Americans still believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, the same percentage of those who believed the rumor during the campaign. As a group, evangelicals (19 percent) are the most likely to believe he's a Muslim, according to a new poll from the Pew Center for People and the Press.

Just 38 percent of white evangelicals and 46 percent of Republicans identify Obama as a Christian. During the campaign, Obama made frequent references to his Christian faith and fought smear campaigns that said he was a Muslim. But since he took office, Obama has made very few references to his faith.

In his decision to overturn former President Bush's policy on stem cell research, he said, "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering."

He spoke more about his faith at the National Prayer Breakfast, when he announced the launch of his version of the faith-based initiatives.

I didn’t become a Christian until many years later, when I moved to the South Side of Chicago after college. It happened not because of indoctrination or a sudden revelation, but because I spent month after month working with church folks who simply wanted to help neighbors who were down on their luck – no matter what they looked like, or where they came from, or who they prayed to. It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods, that I first heard God’s spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose – His purpose.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 2, 2009 10:44PM | Comments (18)

"Brace yourself," I thought, after reading almost every news story, blog post, Facebook message, and tweet today. April 1 is a day to be easily fooled, and Sojourners tried its hand at fooling.

"Video: Rush Limbaugh to Speak at Sojourners’ Mobilization to End Poverty"

Limbaugh, longtime champion of conservative media, announced his acceptance of the invitation on his daily radio show. Interrupted occasionally by call-ins of incredulous listeners, Limbaugh detailed months of off-the-record conversations with Wallis during which the two forged a deep friendship despite political, theological, philosophical, ideological, ecological, anthropological, eschatological, and soteriological differences.

... Anonymous sources have confirmed that TV talk show host Stephen T. Colbert (pictured) will be delivering the prayer of invocation to kick off the event. Also, Bono has cancelled the free U2 concert for emerging leaders due to lack of interest.

(h/t David Neff)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 1, 2009 11:54PM | Comments

The president of the National Association of Evangelicals took a rare step into the immigration debate Tuesday, saying that the long waiting period for citizenship must be
shortened.

"There are inconsistencies and many outdated aspects of immigration laws, and I think they are therefore unjust and unfair," said Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

The NAE consists of 79 different member denominations, which is one of the reasons Anderson said he is hesitant to make strong statements on immigration. The NAE is drafting a resolution on this issue, and Anderson said the first draft found support at a board meeting in March.

"There was a very positive response that this was an important issue, and I think that makes sense because so many of our evangelical denominations have significant growth through the Hispanic community, and the Hispanic community is increasingly a major part of the evangelical movement through the United States so of course we care about that," Anderson said.

Anderson, a megachurch pastor in Eden Prairie, Minn., acknowledged the economic challenges facing lawmakers, but said government leaders can begin with the most obvious issues -- one of them being the long waiting period to gain citizenship.

"Immigration policy in the United States has changed a lot of times throughout our history, and it is time for immigration policy to change again," Anderson said, "and in terms of what that means, it means fairness, it means family, and it means finances."

Don Golden, senior vice president of the NAE's Baltimore-based humanitarian arm, World Relief, said his agency has seen the consequences of a broken immigration system. Although he supports border security, Golden also said he supports further legal means of attaining citizenship, including an expedited family reunification policy.

"Earned legalization will allow our immigrant brothers and sisters to come out of the shadows toward restoration and full integration, lessening the fear many immigrants feel in communities across the nation," Golden said.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 1, 2009 4:43PM | Comments (1)