George Tiller, one of the few doctors to perform late-term abortions, was shot to death today in a church in Kansas.

Tiller, 67, was shot in the lobby of Reformation Lutheran Church, where he was a member. According to the Wichita Eagle, he was serving as an usher at the church and handing out bulletins to people going into the sanctuary minutes before being shot. A 51-year-old male suspect was arrested about three hours later.

The New York Times offers more background on Tiller.

Dr. Tiller, who had performed abortions since the 1970s, had long been a lightning rod for controversy over the issue of abortion, particularly in Kansas, where abortion opponents regularly protested outside his clinic and sometimes his home and church. In 1993, he was shot in both arms by an abortion opponent but recovered.

He had also been the subject of many efforts at prosecution, including a citizen-initiated grand jury investigation. In the latest such effort, in March, Dr. Tiller was acquitted of charges that he had performed late-term abortions that violated state law.

Several pro-life groups have issued statements condemning the killing.

Family Research Council

As Christians we pray and look toward the end of all violence and for the saving of souls, not the taking of human life. George Tiller was a man who we publicly sought to stop through legal and peaceful means. We strongly condemn the actions taken today by this vigilante killer and we pray for the Tiller family and for the nation that we might once again be a nation that values all human, both born and unborn.

Susan B. Anthony

The Susan B. Anthony List condemns this anti-life act in the strongest of terms. The heart of the pro-life movement is one founded in love. Without this driving powerful center no justice can possibly be achieved. Authentic progress in women’s rights has always encompassed the protection of human rights of every person across the board. The rights of one human being can never be honored by diminishing or ignoring the rights of another.

David Cry of the Associated Press writes that anti-abortion leaders fear backlash.

Many anti-abortion groups condemned the killing of Tiller, a prominent abortion provider who was shot dead at his church in Wichita, Kan. But they expressed concern that abortion-rights activists would use the occasion to brand the entire anti-abortion movement as extremist.

They also worried that there would now be an effort to stifle anti-abortion viewpoints during questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Her exact views on abortion aren't known, but conservatives fear she supports abortion rights.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 31, 2009 3:58PM | Comments (56)

A representative of Focus on the Family attended a faith-based office discussion on children in foster care, and a follow-up CitizenLink article seems cautiously optimistic.

Kelly Rosati, adoptive mother of four and senior director of Focus on the Family’s Sanctity of Human Life department, was among those in attendance.

“The Obama administration is really listening," she said, "and wanted to know from those on the front lines what could be better done to serve the kids in America’s foster care system."

Unfortunately, the president supports placing some of those kids with homosexual couples.

This takes a different tone from the pretend letter that Focus on the Family Action issued just a few weeks before the election, which said that several events would take place during an Obama administration, including terrorists attacks on four U.S. cities.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 28, 2009 10:29PM | Comments (21)

Members of Liberty University's Democratic Club met with Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. today to develop a proposal that would let the club regain official status while promoting a pro-life agenda, according to the local newspaper.

On Monday, Falwell wrote on the university's website that the club can continue to meet on campus but will no longer be officially recognized.

"Liberty University is pro-life and believes that marriage between one man and one woman provides the best environment for children," he said. "Liberty University will not lend its name or
financial support to any student group that advances causes contrary to its mission."

Ray Reed writes that the club is drafting an apology to the school and a retraction of some statements it made to the news media last week that accused university administrator Mark Hine of saying a person could not be both a Democrat and a Christian.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 27, 2009 3:36PM | Comments (10)

Focus's political arm released a statement attributed to Judicial Analyst Bruce Hausknecht. As with other pro-life groups, the statement doesn't talk about Judge Sotomayor's legal decisions but rather focuses on the 2001 Berkeley speech and the 2005 Duke panel.

“With President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the country is again confronted with the question: What type of justices should sit on the Court? Americans overwhelmingly support justices who base decisions on the law and the Constitution, practice judicial restraint, and believe judges should never make policy," Hausknecht said in the written statement. “From what we know about her, though, Judge Sotomayor considers policy-making to be among a judge’s roles, no matter what the law says. She disregards the notion of judicial impartiality, even stating that as a Latina woman with her life experience she should ‘more often than not’ reach a better conclusion than a ‘white male who hasn't lived that life.’"

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 1:43PM | Comments (39)

The former Christianity Today columnist, now writing for The Daily Beast, writes, "I have been rooting for [Sonia Sotomayor] all along. Not only because I know her, but because everything I know about her suggests that she will be a fantastic justice. ... I suppose the left will not be entirely happy with the president’s choice, and the right, not entirely unhappy."

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 1:34PM | Comments (2)

Christianity Today readers interested in the California Supreme Court decision and related news coverage will also be interested in Books & Culture's new review of Andrew Marin's Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community.

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 12:46PM | Comments (12)

More reactions to Obama's Supreme Court nominee continue to come in from pro-life groups. So far all include a reference to Sotomayor's "where policy is made" comment, and none include a reference to her decisions related to abortion.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice calls the Sotomayor nomination "a very aggressive decision that will trigger a national debate on the issue of judicial activism."

Mario Diaz, Policy Director for Legal Issues for Concerned Women for America, called Sotomayor's "policy is made" statement "a very dangerous way of looking at the role of a judge for those of us who value our freedoms as guaranteed in the Constitution."

Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright is more troubled by a 2001 speech Sotomayor made at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, in which she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The comment "reveal[s] her immodest bias," Wright said.

The full speech is worth reading, not least because Sotomayor makes repeated reference to Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby by Yale Law School professor (and former CT columnist) Stephen Carter.

"I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group," she wrote. She continued:

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. ...

I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering.

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 10:52AM | Comments (1)

Worth noting: Before today's news, LifeNews called Sotomayor "The only potential Supreme Court justice who may provide hope for pro-life advocates."

Update: Be sure to read LifeSite's Steven Ertelt explaining the characterization in the comments section, below.

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 10:29AM | Comments (1)

Expect to see a lot less discussion of Sotomayor's two abortion-related decisions than interpretation of this quote, said in an ambiguously humorous context:

All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is - Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.

Indeed, Americans United for Life's first press release on Sotomayor says nothing about Center for Reproductive Law & Policy v. Bush or Amnesty America v. West Hartford. Instead, the group says:

For all the President's talk of finding "common ground,' this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise. Judge Sonia Sotomayor's judicial philosophy undermines common ground. She is a radical pick that divides America. She believes the role of the Court is to set policy which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the 'National Abortion Control Board,' denying the American people to right to be heard on this critical issue. This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench, at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations – supported by the vast majority of Americans – like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance.

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 10:17AM | Comments (1)

In 1989, members of Amnesty America entered an abortion clinic in West Hartford, Connecticut, chained themselves together, and blocked the entrance. When police arrived, the protesters used passive resistance to continue their protest (among their techniques: covering their hands in maple syrup to make handcuffs less useful).

The police dragged the protesters out anyway, and Amnesty America members sued, saying several of them suffered lasting physical damage from the police officers' actions (among the claims: an officer rammed a protester's head into a wall).

A district court issued a summary judgment for the town of West Hartford, but Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and sent it back to the lower court for a jury trial.

"It is entirely possible that a reasonable jury would find, as the district court intimated, that the police officers' use of force was objectively reasonable given the circumstances and the plaintiffs' resistance techniques," Sotomayor wrote. "Because a reasonable jury could also find that the officers gratuitously inflicted pain in a manner that was not a reasonable response to the circumstances, however, the determination as to the objective reasonableness of the force used must be made by a jury following a trial."

Sotomayor also warned the group that its lawyer was unprofessional. He "has hardly acted as an effective advocate for his clients by presenting briefs so haphazardly prepared that they contain almost no legal argument," she wrote. His behavior was so bad, she wrote that, "we would be within our discretion to summarily dismiss this appeal. We opt, however, to consider the merits of this appeal because plaintiffs' claims are substantial enough to merit a trial, and declining to consider this appeal would unfairly penalize plaintiffs for Williams's failings as an advocate."

Pro-lifers seem unimpressed by the decision. "Though not concerning abortion policy directly, the case is viewed as a stand against free speech for pro-life advocates," says a briefing at LifeNews.com. Eh? It's hard to see the decision as anything but a good thing for this particular pro-life group. The question is more about how large the decision's implications are.

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 9:30AM | Comments (2)

Shortly after President George W. Bush reinstituted the Mexico City Policy (which bars government funds to groups that support or perform abortion), the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy sued.

The pro-choice group's argument was that the Mexico City Policy unconstitutionally violated rights of speech (since it couldn't "actively promote" abortion) and association (it couldn't work with abortion rights advocacy groups overseas) as well as the constitution's Equal Protection Clause (it wasn't on "equal footing" with prolife groups in competing for funds).

When the case came before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whom President Obama this morning nominated to the Supreme Court) ruled against the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy.

"The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds," Sotomayor wrote.

Does that mean she's pro-life? No. It means she had read Rust v. Sullivan, the 1991 Supreme Court's decision that said Congress could prohibit federal funds for "programs where abortion is a method of family planning."

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 8:56AM | Comments

President Obama will choose U.S. Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court today, according to an AP report.

Sotomayor (SUHN'-ya soh-toh-my-YOR') will take retiring Justice David Souter's place if she is approved by the Senate. She would be the first Hispanic and third woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

According to the New York Times Caucus blog, Obama's short list included Federal Appeals Judge Diane P. Wood of Chicago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

Obama will make the announcement at 10:15 Eastern. You can watch live on the White House website. Check back here for updates.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 26, 2009 7:38AM | Comments (1)

President Obama has pledged to make the war in Afghanistan a top foreign policy priority. He has maintained strong relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai (inset photo) and spoke out in favor of winning the conflict there.

But the military strategy, just like the Bush administration, has come to dominate the American response from keeping the Karzai regime in power to fighting the Taliban.

From an evangelical point of view, the Obama administration goals do not seamlessly match up with gospel priorities. The situation is complicated significantly by the number of evangelicals in the Armed Services in Afghanistan and many of them are commited to spreading the gospel.

Note this recent article from Al Jazeera English language service:

US soldiers have been encouraged to spread the message of their Christian faith among Afghanistan's predominantly Muslim population, video footage obtained by Al Jazeera appears to show.

Military chaplains stationed in the US air base at Bagram were also filmed with bibles printed in the country's main Pashto and Dari languages.

In one recorded sermon, Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, the chief of the US military chaplains in Afghanistan, is seen telling soldiers that as followers of Jesus Christ, they all have a responsibility "to be witnesses for him".

"The special forces guys - they hunt men basically. We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down," he says.

"Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That's what we do, that's our business."

Here is the You Tube/Al Jazeera segment:

This entanglement of fervent faith and lethal military might sure looks like a potentially dangerous combination to me. What do you think?

This kind of effort touches on a wide collection of missiological issues. Certainly, Christians worldwide endorse the place of military chaplains and the universal right of people to spread their faith.

However, the US military mission gets intermingled with the freedom of religious expression and outreach. On the receiving end in Afghanistan, I imagine this is pretty confusing for Muslims.

Posted by Tim Morgan at May 19, 2009 10:53AM | Comments (29)

Bible verses were used on cover sheets for intelligence reports written for Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials, according to GQ magazine.

One of the cover sheets features a photo of a tank in the sunset inlaid with Ephesians 6:13: "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."

A "World Intelligence Update" included Proverbs 16:3: "Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed" above a picture of a machine-gunner.

Lawrence Di Rita, former Pentagon spokesman, told David Sanger of The New York Times that he had no recollection of the briefs, and that the secretary would not have tolerated them for long.

"The suggestion that Rumsfeld would have used these reports to somehow curry favor over at the White House is pretty laughable," Di Rita told Sanger. "He bristled anytime people put quotes or something extraneous on the reports he wanted to read."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 17, 2009 9:18PM | Comments (18)

President Obama addressed abortion for the first time since his election during his speech to Notre Dame graduates today.

"So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term," Obama said to applause.

"I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away," Obama said. "No matter how much we may want to fudge it ? indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory ? the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable." He called for a respectful debate with "open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words."

Obama re-told his conversion story of how he worked as a community organizer with church members. "I found myself drawn ? not just to work with the church, but to be in the church," he said. "It was through this service that I was brought to Christ." Obama also noted his African American race and the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

Here are some clips edited by the Associated Press:

Here's a video from Politico where a person in the audience starts to heckle Obama:

The full text of Obama's prepared remarks continue after the jump.

Thank you, Father Jenkins for that generous introduction. You are doing an outstanding job as president of this fine institution, and your continued and courageous commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.

Good afternoon Father Hesburgh, Notre Dame trustees, faculty, family, friends, and the class of 2009. I am honored to be here today, and grateful to all of you for allowing me to be part of your graduation.

I want to thank you for this honorary degree. I know it has not been without controversy. I don't know if you're aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I'm only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that's better. Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers on how to boost my average.

I also want to congratulate the class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame, I mean both in the classroom and in the competitive arena. We all know about this university's proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world ? Bookstore Basketball.

Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year's tournament, a team by the name of "Hallelujah Holla Back." Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the "Barack O'Ballers" didn't pull it out. Next year, if you need a 6'2" forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you are today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare ? periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.

You, however, are not getting off that easy. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world ? a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It is a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations ? and a task that you are now called to fulfill.

This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit ? an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day's work.

We must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity ? diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.

It is this last challenge that I'd like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century ? whether it's global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease ? do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground ? recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" ? is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man ? our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website ? an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that ? when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do ? that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand ? I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it ? indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory ? the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

It's a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. The lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where "?differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." And I want to join him and Father Jenkins in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today's ceremony.

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago ? also with the help of the Catholic Church.

I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help ? to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn ? not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads ? unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, "You can't really get on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched minds and hearts."

My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I'd like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

You are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You will be called upon to help restore a free market that is also fair to all who are willing to work; to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or someone who simply insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communications than have ever existed before. You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they're talking about. Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds. In fact, I suspect that many of you will be among those bright stars.

In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule ? the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame ? by the last count, upwards of 80% -- have lived this law of love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. That is incredibly impressive, and a powerful testament to this institution. Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn't just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens ? when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another ? all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African-American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. the Board of Education. Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the "separate but equal" doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God's children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the twelve resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of the commission. It included five whites and one African-American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. They worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. Finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame's retreat in Land O'Lakes, Wisconsin, where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

Years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered that they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away. Life is not that simple. It never has been.

But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations on your graduation, may God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 17, 2009 3:47PM | Comments (37)

If you're reading this, you're likely one of the few people who know about the controversy over President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame.

According to a Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life poll, 52 percent of Americans had heard nothing about "criticism of Notre Dame for abortion opponents for inviting Barak Obama to speak at its graduation and receive an honorary degree." Among Catholics who attend mass every week, one-third had heard "nothing at all" and another third had heard "very little."

The criticism of Notre Dame is not a grassroots movement. It is but the recent incident in an elite debate over the nature of Catholic higher education. It is a debate that is difficult to navigate because of the complexities of Catholic social teaching and intellectual history.

At most (but not all) Catholic colleges and universities, there are no religious restrictions. People of all faiths can attend, work, and teach. There is a Catholic ethos and a commitment to Catholic morality and values. It is telling that opposition to Obama is not about his own faith - even among opponents would be acceptable for Notre Dame to honor someone who does not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church so long as the person supports the Church's moral teaching.

This has raised the question - what is "Catholic" about Catholic higher education?

This debate has become more heated, with groups like the Cardinal Newman Society pressuring Catholic colleges to become more distinctly Catholic, which often means orthodoxy in religious courses and an elimination of groups on campus that support abortion, gay rights, birth control, and other positions antithetical to (some) Catholic moral teaching.

Catholic social teaching, however, is broader than just abortion and sexuality. It does not fit neatly into the red and blue boxes of American politics. Supporters of Obama's invitation note the importance of social justice, peace (including opposition to Iraq War), and other causes where Obama's positions are arguably more in line with Catholic morality than those held by President George W. Bush. Notre Dame has said that it is honoring Obama for his "leadership," not his politics. For Catholics on the left, such as Joe Feuerherd of the National Catholic Reporter, the flap over Obama is a hypocritical political attack by the right. For other groups, like Catholics United, it is an effort to politicize and factionalize Catholics.

The Notre Dame controversy is unlikely to politicize Catholics - few know or care. The most likely outcome will be that, like nearly all commencement addresses, no one in the audience will remember what was said.

Read petition against Obama's speech here. Read counter-petition in favor here.

For two commencement addresses that were noteworthy for the content rather than controversy, see JK Rowling's 2008 Harvard address and Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford address.

Tobin Grant is an associate professor of political science at Southern Illinois University - Carbondale. Christianity Today interviewed Notre Dame visiting professor Francis Beckwith over the debate.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 17, 2009 12:16PM | Comments (4)

A new Gallup poll suggests that for the first time in more than 10 years, more Americans are calling themselves pro-life than pro-choice when asked about abortion.

More Republicans increasingly calling themselves pro-life, a shift from 60 percent to 70 percent, while there was no significant change among Democrats. The poll conducted May 7-10 suggests that Catholics and Protestants are also becoming increasingly pro-life.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center also suggested that fewer Americans support legalized abortion, but the survey did not use language like "pro-choice" or "pro-life." In that survey, 46 percent of Americans supported legalized abortion while 44 percent said it should be illegal. Both surveys suggests a shift in abortion views, but it's unclear whether the words pro-life or pro-choice effected the Gallup poll outcome.

A separate poll conducted by CNN April 23-26 suggested that 49 percent of Americans consider themselves pro-choice while 45 percent of them consider themselves pro-life.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 15, 2009 9:34AM | Comments (5)

Sarah Palin will become an author in 2010, the year she's up for re-election. The book will be co-released by HarperCollins' Harper and Zondervan for the Christian audience.

Palin has agreed to talk about the Katie Couric interviews, Bristol's pregnancy, family, religion and politics.

"There's been so much written about and spoken about in the mainstream media and in the anonymous blogosphere world, that this will be a wonderful, refreshing chance for me to get to tell my story, that a lot of people have asked about, unfiltered," Palin told the Associated Press. "Being a voracious reader, I read a lot today and have read a lot growing up. And having that journalism degree, all of that, will be a great assistance for me in writing this book, talking about the challenges and the joys, balancing the work and parenting, and, in my case, work means running the state."

Politico's Mike Allen writes that the Zondervan edition could be a little bit different.

The book might have a slight addition on faith for the Zondervan edition. The Bible publisher is part of the same company, and its sales reps have close relationships at Christian bookstores that can get better display for political titles. Barnett has made similar deals for other authors whose faith is an important part of their story, including Dan Quayle, Oliver North and Bill Bennett.

Two years ago, Palin told PBS' Charlie Rose one of her favorite writers is C.S. Lewis ("very, very deep"). It'll be interesting to see how much Palin addresses her faith and whether Christian audiences will buy it just because of the author or because of the content.

Would you buy a book by Sarah Palin? Why or why not?

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 13, 2009 11:39AM | Comments (49)

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has apologized for a recent comment he made that linked Mitt Romney's failed presidential campaign to Republicans' concern about
Romney's Mormon faith.

"It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism," Steele told a caller May 8 on a radio talk show when he served as a guest host for conservative Bill Bennett.

The audio and transcript of the portion of the show featuring Steele's comments were posted on Think Progress, the Web site of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The Republican National Committee responded by telling reporters that Steele considers Romney to be a "respected" part of the GOP.

"Chairman Steele regrets the way his comments have been interpreted," RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said in The Hill newspaper. "Chairman Steele believes Mitt Romney is a respected and influential voice in the Republican Party and looks to his leadership and ideas to help move our party and our nation in the right direction."

Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, declined to comment on the matter.

But Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told The Hill: "Sometimes when you shoot from the hip you miss the target. This is one of those times."

A 2007 poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that GOP evangelicals were the most reluctant to consider voting for a Mormon -- 36 percent -- compared to 25 percent of the overall electorate.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 12, 2009 3:39PM | Comments (6)

CatholicVote.org, which received praise and panning for its "Imagine" video, has just put together a new offering as part of its "Life: Imagine the Potential" campaign. Organizer Brian Burch says the Fox network has agreed to air the ad during the finale of "American Idol." Like "Imagine," this one is well worth your 60-second investment.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at May 8, 2009 3:20PM | Comments (12)

Jack Kemp died this week at the age of 73. According to columnist Peggy Noonan, the late NFL quarterback, congressman from Buffalo, HUD secretary, and vice presidential candidate was spiritually grounded and supported by a praying wife, Joanne.

She picked their first house because it was near her church, Fourth Presbyterian in Bethesda, Md. For 38 years she's led a Christian study group that meets every Friday morning at her home. She did the same in Buffalo. "He was the power of political ideas, she was the power of spiritual ones," says their son. She has devoted her time and energy to friends, neighbors, husband, Prison Fellowship, groups that advocate for the unborn, four children and 17 grandchildren. She is one of those who quietly make it possible for Washington to function, however imperfectly, as a real and coherent community.

Once before I was to give a big speech, I saw her in the audience and told her I felt nervous. "Then we must pray," she said, and did, unselfconsciously, with focus, in a gray folding chair in a cavernous auditorium with hundreds of people milling about. That's who was behind Jack Kemp. No wonder he did what he did.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at May 8, 2009 1:20PM | Comments (3)

Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said the Christian community should stand behind Miss California, even after a racy photo of her appearing in panties appeared on a gossip blog.

"In her moment of truth, standing on a national stage and defending marriage, that meant more for the cause of marriage than anything else," he said.

Several conservative Christian groups praised Carrie Prejean for her voicing her opposition to same-sex marriage during the Miss USA pageant. After a racy photo of her was posted on the web, Prejean said her Christian faith was under attack and that the photo was taken while she was a teenager.

CitizenLink writes, "Daly pointed out that we are all sinners, saved by grace."

"I think at this moment, we should stand behind Carrie," he said. "The reality is we're all fallen people, we're all made in God's image, and Jesus has come to set us free."

Dobson will interview Prejean for a two-day broadcast starting Monday.

Update: Jim Daly told Christianity Today that the Prejean interview was taped before the semi-nude lingerie photos emerged, so there will be no questions asked about them on broadcast. But James Dobson does plan to make a brief statement at the beginning of the show.

"Within the Christian community, it's a fair debate about what she's done in the modeling industry. But it's a distraction to the more important story of religious freedom," Daly said. "Pageantry and underwear commercials: We would not encourage Christian women to go do those things. At the same time, no matter what your profession, I've heard of God using it and radical grace breaking through. It can find any of us at any times in our lives: the alcoholic, the prostitute, the model, the businessman that's having an affair. I'd hate to have the Christian community focus on poor decisions she's made as opposed to celebrating that she had the courage to speak for biblical truth."

But did she speak for biblical truth? After all, she started her answer by saying, "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite."

"Some would debate whether she gave a forceful statement," Daly said. "Some might say it was tepid. It was a little easy; it was soft. But even it was was feebly stated, the point is that she did come out and say, 'In my family we believe it's between a man and a woman.' ... She says in the [Focus on the Family] broadcast that airs Monday and Tuesday that while she was on stage, she was considering, 'Do I go for the crown or do I do what God asked me to do?'"

"There are questions about the modeling profession, and Focus on the Family isn't on a position to critique the modeling profession," Daly said. "Her past modeling jobs don't make her opinion on marriage any less valid. ... She's a 21-year-old girl whose Christian worldview is probably not fully formed. In this environment of pressure she's in right now, it will probably form. All of us as Christians as teenagers and in our 20s faced decisions. We did well at times and poorly at times."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 8, 2009 9:08AM | Comments (60)

More news about the fiscal 2010 Federal Budget is trickling out this week. Less than expected funding for treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS, malaria, and TB is not what many public health professionals were hoping for.

In fact, some are saying President Obama has broken a campaign promise he made last year to increase by $1 billion the total amount allocated to fighting HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria.

The Center for Global Health Policy said:

Leading disease experts said President Barack Obama's 2010 budget proposal for global health falls far short of what is needed to combat the deadly twin epidemics of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. Details on global health spending were released by the White House today, and a preliminary analysis indicates the President is proposing only $165 million in additional funding for bilateral AIDS as well as the US contribution to the Global Fund. "This proposal is even worse than we had feared. With this spending request, Obama has broken his campaign promise to provide $1 billion a year in new money for global AIDS, and he has overlooked the growing threat of tuberculosis," said the Center for Global Health Policy's Director, Christine Lubinski. While malaria receives a significant boost, Obama's call for a meager increase in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) budget is no match for the scope of the AIDS crisis, which killed 2 million people in 2007, nearly 5,500 a day. Obama's detailed budget blueprint comes as developing countries are struggling to preserve their fragile health systems. In several countries, drug shortages and treatment program cutbacks now threaten the lives of millions of HIV/AIDS and TB patients. This unfolding health crisis could quickly spread, as people who stop treatment become far more infectious. Treatment disruption can also lead to drug-resistance, an extremely expensive and potentially deadly development.

Meanwhile, the President has named his top person on HIV/AIDS. He is a career physician with a long-standing focus on HIV: Dr. Eric Goosby (photo above).

Click here for his bio.

Generally, the secular media has been supportive of this Clinton era appointee. POZ magazine notes:

"Dr. Goosby has always been an advocate for evidence-based prevention policy, a perspective that is much needed in our global response to the epidemic," said Kevin Robert Frost, CEO of The Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR). "We must do more to implement evidence-based policies such as harm reduction and age-appropriate sex education, and Dr. Goosby has a keen understanding of what needs to be done." The Global AIDS Alliance also applauded Goosby's selection, but it is urging him to fulfill a campaign pledge to double U.S. foreign assistance from $25 billion to at least $50 billion by 2012. "The president's [Fiscal Year 2010] budget request is well below what is required to keep that promise," the group said in a statement, adding that Goosby "has a unique opportunity to hold the Obama administration accountable for its campaign promises to increase funding for prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS overseas."

If you follow the global HIV/AIDS story, you know that HIV is spreading much more quickly than we can spend money to fight it effectively. It is also clear that in developed nations, such as the US and key Euro-zone nations, HIV is making a comeback. Call it the Third Wave of this pandemic if you wish.

Fighting HIV globally is a money/resources game right now.

If you don't spend the money now, you will spend it later after people are infected; then, they will need drugs every day for the rest of their lives to survive. Every year, more children are getting HIV; at the moment, there are more than 2 million kids who have the virus, according to UNAIDS estimates.

I suppose this sounds harsh, but:

I know some in public health who are now wondering why we are willing to spend trillions of tax dollars to save Citibank, AIG, GM, Chrysler, yet not fully fund the global fight against HIV.

Unless adequate money is spent each and every year, HIV will continue to take more lives year after year for the imaginable future.

HIV and AIDS look like they are going to get worse during the next four years.

Click here for the full statement from the Center for Global Health Policy.

Posted by Tim Morgan at May 7, 2009 3:20PM | Comments (5)

The National Day of Prayer, held annually on the first Thursday of May, is today generating not just supplications to heaven, but wrangling on earth. The Obama administration, in a departure from its predecessors, is marking the day with a statement but not the President's attendance at a ceremony. Meanwhile, some religious groups and others are criticizing the President for stepping back from involvement. However, the administration and some Republican lawmakers are defending the constitutionality of the observance by fighting atheists in court.

Here is the text of the President's proclamation:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Throughout our Nation's history, Americans have come together in moments of great challenge and uncertainty to humble themselves in prayer. In 1775, as the Continental Congress began the task of forging a new Nation, colonists were asked to observe a day of quiet humiliation and prayer. Almost a century later, as the flames of the Civil War burned from north to south, President Lincoln and the Congress once again asked the American people to pray as the fate of their Nation hung in the balance.

It is in that spirit of unity and reflection that we once again designate the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer.

Let us remember those who came before us, and let us each give thanks for the courage and compassion shown by so many in this country and around the world.

On this day of unity and prayer, let us also honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. We celebrate their commitment to uphold our highest ideals, and we recognize that it is because of them that we continue to live in a Nation where people of all faiths can worship or not worship according to the dictates of their conscience.

Let us also use this day to come together in a moment of peace and goodwill. Our world grows smaller by the day, and our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife; and to lift up those who have fallen on hard times. As we observe this day of prayer, we remember the one law that binds all great religions together: the Golden Rule, and its call to love one another; to understand one another; and to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.

The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, as amended, has called on the President to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a "National Day of Prayer."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 7, 2009, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon Americans to pray in
more thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Posted by Stan Guthrie at May 7, 2009 10:42AM | Comments (10)

Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land, a leading Christian conservative who helped advance the Bush administration's agenda on a range of social issues, said Monday that the formerly sanctioned practice of waterboarding of suspected terrorists is torture and
"violates everything we stand for."

Land, who is president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, repudiated the simulated drowning techniques in an interview with Religion News Service.

According to recently released memos, federal agents under Bush waterboarded two suspected terrorists 266 times in attempts to extract information.

"I consider waterboarding torture," Land said. "One of the definitions of torture is that it causes permanent physical harm. I can't separate physical from psychological. And I can't imagine that being repeatedly subjected to the feeling of drowning would not, in some cases, cause lasting psychological trauma."

But Land also criticized President Obama for publicly releasing Bush-era documents that authorized particular interrogation techniques.

"To leave open the possibility of prosecuting men for what the Justice Department had declared was legal, I think is a horrific mistake," Land said. "If it were to lead to trials of some sort, it would rip the country apart."

Land's comments come amidst ongoing public debate about what constitutes torture, whether harsh interrogation techniques result in useful information, and what should happen to Bush administration officials who advised that waterboarding was legal, not torture.

Land explained that while he supports capital punishment for convicted killers, he denounces torture in all cases because he's compelled to honor the image of God as reflected in all human beings -- even suspected terrorists. To justify waterboarding on the grounds that it helps save lives is to suggest that ends justify means, Land said, adding: "that is a very slippery slope that leads to dark and dangerous places."

"If the end justifies the means, then where do you draw the line?" Land said. "It's a moveable line. It's in pencil, not in ink. I believe there are absolutes. There are some things we must never do."

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has defended waterboarding as part of a "remarkably successful effort" to gather information about the al-Qaida terrorist network. Support for Cheney's position has come from such prominent Christian conservatives as former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who is Pentecostal.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 5, 2009 4:37PM | Comments (36)

Lawmakers in Maine voted to pass a bill legalizing same-sex marriage this afternoon. Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat, could veto the bill, The New York Times writes. The Catholic Diocese of Maine and the Maine Family Policy Council, an affiliate of the Family Research Council, will be among the groups lobbying Mr. Baldacci to veto the bill.

Mr. Baldacci opposed same-sex marriage before the bill was introduced this year, but he has since said he is keeping an open mind.

Mr. Baldacci’s spokesman, David Farmer, said he was still mulling his position on the bill and would not make a final decision until after it reached his desk. That could be as soon as tomorrow, when the State Senate is scheduled to formally enact it. Mr. Baldacci will have 10 days to act on the bill once it is delivered to him.

The D.C. Council also voted today to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The New Hampshire House is expected to take up the bill at tomorrow.

In case you've lost track, Maine would join Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut, and Massachusetts in legalizing same-sex marriage.

Update: Maine Governor John Baldacci signed the bill today legalizing same-sex marriage.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 5, 2009 4:08PM | Comments (7)

Miss California Carrie Prejean responded to a Web site that posted racy photos of her by saying it was an attempt to mock her Christian faith.

"I am a Christian, and I am a model," Prejean said in a statement. "Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be."

A gossip blog posted photos of Prejean wearing only pink panties with her back turned to the camera.

Prejean was praised by several conservative Christian groups for her voicing her opposition to same-sex marriage during the Miss USA beauty pageant. She was then offered a scholarship by Liberty University and portrayed in a National Organization for Marriage advertisement. According to the website this morning, she was invited to the Values Voter Summit, a conference put on by Family Research Council Action.

Katelyn Beaty has posted previous commentary over at Her.meneutics, CT's new women's blog.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 5, 2009 8:34AM | Comments (49)

The Obama administration says it will issue a proclamation marking the National Day of Prayer on Thursday, but appears to be moving away from the White House ceremonies hosted by former President George W. Bush.

"President Obama is a committed Christian and believes that we should be engaging Americans of faith in efforts to renew our country," a White House official said.

"He is following the tradition of Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and others by signing a proclamation honoring the National Day of Prayer, while continuing to work with communities of faith to improve our country."

During Bush's eight years in office, prominent evangelicals, including National Day of Prayer Task Force chairman Shirley Dobson, and her husband, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, gathered each year for an East Room ceremony on the first Thursday in May.

"We are disappointed in the lack of participation by the Obama administration," Shirley Dobson said in a statement issued by the task force on Monday. "At this time in our country's history, we would hope our president would recognize more fully the importance of prayer."

This year, task force organizers went ahead with their own plans and scheduled their traditional morning ceremonies on Capitol Hill for the morning, the same time of day when past White House events had been held. They asked for a White House representative to attend but had not received a response as of Monday.

At his press briefing on Friday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president's upcoming plans included signing a proclamation to recognize the prayer day.

The National Day of Prayer was signed into law in 1952 by President Truman. President Reagan amended the law in 1988 to state that the observances would be held the first Thursday in May.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 4, 2009 3:35PM | Comments (38)

Former vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp has died, according to the Associated Press. Kemp was diagnosed with cancer in January.

Kemp ran on the presidential ticket with Sen. Bob Dole in 1996. A 1996 New York Times article provides more background on Kemp's faith and politics.

After his marriage, Mr. Kemp became a Presbyterian. He does not like to talk about his religion, although he says he has become a born-again Christian. He is a staunch opponent of legal abortions. But as a politician, he has always been more interested in economic issues than in the social issues like abortion that dominate the political thinking of organizations on the Christian right.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 2, 2009 9:08PM | Comments (3)

A new study suggests that evangelicals are the most likely religious group to justify torture. Around 60 percent of evangelicals said use of torture against suspected terrorists can often or sometimes be justified, compared to 50 percent of Catholics 46 percent of white mainline Protestants who said the same thing, according to a survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. David Neff takes a look at the survey over at CT's liveblog.

Meanwhile, the latest national survey suggest that overall support for legal abortion is down 8 percent from last August. Just 23 percent of white evangelical Protestants now favor legal abortion, down from 33 percent in August and mid-October and 28 percent in late October.

Also, a new Quinnipiac poll suggests that while Catholics support same-sex civil unions 68 -27percent, evangelicals oppose the unions 61-34 percent. Catholics support gay adoption 61-33 percent, while evangelical Christians oppose gay adoption 64-30 percent.

I received an e-mail from reader John Mills, who express his frustration with how evangelicals deal with torture:

Should we be standing against abortion & gay marriage? Certainly, but we should do the one and not neglect the other. This is an issue with terrible moral implications. If we can boycott Disney for it’s pro-gay agenda and deny communion to Joe Biden for being pro-abortion, why are our churches silent about torture? Why are we not denying entrance to our churches of Bush, Cheney, and the authors of these memos?

The real issue for the church is why are we not talking about this? Why have we not been talking about this? Were are the Christians that work for the CIA and the military that have refused to participate and resigned or been court-martialed rather than participate in a patently immoral activity?

If the church can’t hold a moral line on this issue, which is easy to be against, then we really have lost everything. The church is dead.

Do you agree with Mills?

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 1, 2009 3:23PM | Comments (36)