The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is praising Sojourners for passing its test. GLAAD sponsored an advertisement for the Ali Forney Center, a homeless shelter that aids lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) youth. The advertisement was, in part, a test of whether Sojourners would print an ad sponsored by a group like GLAAD.

In May, Sojourners declined to place an advertisement for Believe Out Loud, an organization that advocates for greater acceptance of LGBT individuals by churches. The video ad featured two women with a child entering a church where they were not welcomed by parishioners.

GLAAD's director of religion, faith, and values Ross Murray approached Sojourners after the Believe Out Loud decision. GLAAD asked if the magazine would be opposed to advertisements by LGBT organizations who focus on one of Sojourners areas of focus and the organization agreed, according to Murray.

Sojourners president Jim Wallis said the magazine declined the Believe Out Loud ad because it did not address one of Sojourners core issues (e.g., poverty or homelessness). Expanding the scope of the social justice mission of the magazine to include LGBT rights was not feasible, Wallis said, because of a lack of consensus on the issue and limited resources.

“Instead, we have taken this opportunity to affirm our commitment to civil rights for gay and lesbian people, and to the call of churches to be loving and welcoming to all people, and promote good and healthy dialogue,” Walis said. “It is our hope that differing viewpoints are not silenced, but are lifted up in a display of Christian, and often interfaith, sisterhood and brotherhood. It is for this reason that we wish to engage first and we typically do not display advertising relating to issues amongst people of faith that have unfortunately, and too often, been reduced to political wedge issues.”

Brian McLaren, a former Sojourners board member, said he empathized with of those were frustrated with the Sojourners decision, but he agreed with it because expanding the magazine's poverty-focused agenda to include LGBT issues. It would damage the coalition of progressive Christians Sojourners represents, he said.

“One can’t lead on other issues that would split the coalition,” McLaren said. “If Sojourners decides to lead on LGBTQ issues, someone else will have to arise to lead a broad coalition on poverty issues because Sojourners will be — as things stand — excluded from the table. Conversely, if Sojourners decides to lead a broad poverty-related coalition, others will need to lead on LGBTQ issues.”

GLAAD partnered with the Ali Forney Center to create an ad featuring a father leaving his young son sitting on a railroad track. The ad features statements about LGBT homeless youth on the high percentage of homeless youth who are LGBT and the greater risks of homelessness, depression, and insecurity faced by LGBT youth who are rejected by their families.

“[The ad] tests the notion of whether Sojourners would really accept an ad placed by an LGBT-focused organization,” Murray said. “It also demonstrates to the leadership and readership the overlap between the LGBT community and poverty, war/peace, and environment. It also continues the conversation about LGBT inclusion in the life of the church and the world.”

Sojourners communication director Tim King said that in addition to the ad, the magazine will be featuring blog posts on LGBT homeless youth and other issues raised in the ad. King said the ad highlights how LGBT youth are disproportionately affected by homelessness.

Prior to coming to Sojourners, King worked for years with homeless youth in Illinois. “I have talked with many teens who became homeless because they were kicked out of their homes or ran away from abuse by their parents because of their sexual identity,” King said. “After their homes became dangerous, they went to the streets, where many were attacked and some were trafficked or forced into prostitution.”

GLAAD's Murray said his organization will continue to advocate that Sojourners address issues that affect LGBT people. “This is a first step on the journey, but by taking this step, GLAAD has found new potential allies and opened their eyes to the realities of LGBT people’s lives,” Murray said.

Sojourners’ balancing act on gay and lesbian issues will likely continue. Its coalition includes some progressives who see gay rights as a social justice issue. It also includes those who hold to—theologically if not politically—conservative beliefs about marriage and sexuality. It includes pragmatists, like McLaren and others, who do not want to see a coalition of poverty-focused Christians cracked by the issue.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 31, 2011 10:29AM | Comments (15)

An earthquake. A hurricane. The East Coast is having one tough month.

Princeton political scientists Chris Achen and Larry Bartels say that voters will blame incumbents for many disasters, including shark attacks. For example, counties that are hit with drought are more likely to vote against the president's party.

The effect is small—just a few percentage points—but real. Achen and Bartels find that incumbents are more likely to be blamed when the disasters are viewed as social or political disasters.

Even those who do not seriously believe God is sending a message with the week's disasters, the back-to-back disasters were fodder for humor at the expense of politicians.

GOP Presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann said at an event in Florida, “Washington, D.C. You'd think by now they'd get the message. An earthquake, a hurricane, are you listening? The American people have done everything they possibly can, now it's time for an act of God and we're getting it.”

"Obviously she was saying it in jest," campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart told Talking Points Memo.

With the current run of events, there are some who view the disasters as spiritual disasters, too. Some were quick to suggest divine retribution. As he has in the past, Pat Robertson saw the earthquake as a sign from God. Speaking as part of a weeklong “Sign of the Times” special on the 700 Club, Robertson saw a symbol comparable to the tearing of the Temple curtain following Jesus Christ's crucifixion.

“I don't want to get weird on this, so please take it for what it's worth, but it seems to me the Washington Monument is a symbol of America's power. It has been the symbol of our great nation, we look at that monument and we say this is one nation under God. Now there's a crack in it,” Robertson said. “Is that a sign from the Lord? Is that something that has significance, or is it just the result of an earthquake?”

For many Americans, rare earthquake might be considered part of the dangers of life. A hurricane hitting New Orleans with flooding made worse by poor planning? That is not just a natural disaster; it's a political disaster.

Image: The National Cathedral, which was damaged in the August 23 earthquake.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 30, 2011 9:55AM | Comments (11)

Is the tea party just a rebranding of Christian conservatives? Debate over this question is not new, but it has received new fuel recently.

David Campbell of Notre Dame University and Robert Putnam of Harvard University wrote an August 16 op-ed for the New York Times, reporting on their recent survey that shows that those who like the tea party are not the non-partisan fiscal conservatives described by the movement's leaders. Campbell and Putnam find that the tea party has attracted Republicans—not just any Republicans—social conservatives who want religion to play a greater role in political life.

“The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government,” Campbell and Putnam concluded.

First Things editor R. R. Reno agreed that tea party supporters were religious conservatives. However, he took issue with Campbell and Putnam's conclusion that it was religion, not fiscal issues, that were drawing people to the tea party.

“The religious and social conservatism of the Republican Party intermixes with the fiscal and economic conservatism in all sorts of close and complex ways,” Reno wrote. “But it is willful of Putnam and Campbell to conclude that it’s the religious dimension that constitutes the most salient—and most controversial—dimension.”

Campbell and Putnam are not the first to find a link between the old-fashioned conservative Christian movement and the tea party movement. A link, however, does not mean that the two are the same.

Among the general public, neither the tea party movement nor conservative Christians are well-known. In last year's religion poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, only 28 percent of registered voters had heard enough about both groups to voice an opinion on them. For the vast majority of Americans, neither is something they have heard of or care about.

Of the one-in-four American voters who do have an opinion, most disagree with both groups. But of those that do find at least one of the movements attractive, very few agree with conservative Christian only. Instead, most conservative Christians also like the tea party. Many who like the tea party, however, do not agree with Christian conservatives.

The tea party, then, is a larger movement that the vast majority of conservative Christian political activists find appealing. Christian conservatives are now part of a larger grassroots conservative movement that includes others who are not driven by social issues. By appealing to the tea party, a politician could appeal to both social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Appealing to Christian conservatives alone could alienate many grassroots conservative activists.

We can see a similar relationship in Congress. In 2010, Michele Bachmann founded the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives. Most of the members were social conservatives who scored perfectly on voter guides by Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.

The 2010 election swept in 84 freshmen Republicans, many of whom rode the tea party wave into office. Upon arriving in Congress, however, they were hesitant to join the Tea Party Caucus. Today, just 17 of these Republican freshmen have joined the group. These freshmen are, like those who started the caucus, social conservatives who are also deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives.

Among voters and in Congress, we see a similar pattern. Social conservatives are saying “amen” to the tea party. Even though many of them have joined the party, the party is larger than social conservatives. A diverse set of grassroots conservatives has emerged. Some are social conservatives. Some are not. But the tea party applies to them both.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 26, 2011 10:50AM | Comments (20)

Vice President Joe Biden in China last weekend prompted renewed controversy over China's one-child policy, in remarks that seemed to condone the government rule.

"Your policy has been one which I fully understand -- I’m not second-guessing -- of one child per family," Biden told a crowd Sunday at Sichuan University, the keynote speech of his four-day trip to China.

Condemnation of Biden's remarks came swiftly from human rights groups and the pro-life sector, as well as from several political leaders. Many perceived Biden's comment as a softening of the U.S. diplomatic stance toward China's policy, which mandates that most families limit themselves to only one child and prioritizes male children above female.

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser called the remark “pandering” on the SBA List blog. “Vice President Biden should be doing much more than second guessing the policy, he should be outright condemning it,” Dannenfelser said.

Biden spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff sought to clarify Biden’s comment in a statement reported by the conservative news site The Daily Caller on Tuesday evening. “The vice president believes [China’s coercive birth limitation policies] practices are repugnant,” she said.

Biden's remarks came in response to a question about U.S. debt. Biden compared the U.S. “baby boom” to China's one-child policy in that both have created an unsustainable problem. "The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people,” Biden explained to the Chinese audience.

“He was arguing against the one-child policy to a Chinese audience,” Barkoff explained in the statement. “[Biden] also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable.”

Republican candidates for the presidential nomination Mitt Romney and Rick Perry and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) condemned the policy in response to Biden’s comment. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on human rights who has worked to publicize the work of activist anti-gendercide organizations such as Christian group All Girls Allowed, called the remarks “outrageous” on conservative Laura Ingraham’s radio show Tuesday morning.

“This is the worst, most pervasive act of violence against women anywhere in the world,” Smith said. “The Vice President, in this outrageous statement, is showing the world that we do not care about Chinese women and Chinese babies.”

Arguments have been made that the government mandate helps women—who are now greatly outnumbered by men in China—excel in career and education. The policy, initially implemented in 1979, was designed to control population growth in the world’s most heavily-populated country. However, the policy has been linked to infanticide, forced abortion and sterilization. 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came under fire after suggesting human rights issues in China should not interfere with economic issues, though she has spoken out against the one-child practice in the past.

Groups such as All Girls Allowed have ramped up calls for the U.S. to take a less lenient position on the policy of the Chinese government as the U.S. has become more dependent on top-lender China.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 24, 2011 10:03AM | Comments (5)

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is more than politician. He's a brand. For the past decade he has represented the libertarian movement within the Republican Party, often putting him at odds with hawks and social conservatives. But to win in Iowa, South Carolina, and other early primary states, Paul needs to win over more than fiscal conservatives. Paul’s campaign has been recently repackaging his candidacy for evangelical voters, preaching a new political gospel that may resonate with many evangelicals: to save America you need to change the culture, not replace the politicians.

Last week, the Family Research Council's Values Bus tour cruised around Iowa with top Republican contenders including Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty (who dropped out of the race), and Rick Santorum. They spoke to crowds about their social conservative credentials. Paul, however, is not that kind of conservative. Other candidates are social conservatives who want public policy to reflect, defend, and promote morality.

Paul, however, has built his brand as a libertarian who wants government to stay out of regulating pornography, prostitution, drugs, gambling, and other vices that excite social conservatives. He preaches a message of liberty, and that often puts him at odds with Christian conservative groups.

However, Paul’s campaign is now reaching out to evangelicals, focusing on how Paul sees libertarianism as reflecting his Christian faith. Senior Paul strategist Doug Wead told Politico that the campaign is actively campaigning to win over evangelical voters.

“The missing link for us, the outreach to evangelicals, which is so key to South Carolina and the south — we’re filling it,” said Wead.

To do this, Paul is talking about his positions using Biblical allusions and references to doctrine. His speech at this year's Faith and Freedom conference illustrates this approach well:

1) Pass the Abortion Litmus Test. Paul begins his talks to evangelicals with a clear statement on his pro-life position. Paul says that life is the one political value higher than liberty. "As an OB doctor, let me tell you,” Paul said, “life does begin at conception."

2) Agree that American Society is Immoral. Paul echoes the social conservative narrative about the change in American society. The problems in American society began in the 1960's with the sexual revolution, the drug culture, and other changes began a decline in morality. Paul's twist, however, is that this is not a reason to enact new laws. Instead, he says that policy reflects morality, so the focus should be on changing the culture, not trying to change society through government.

3) Give Biblical Justifications for Positions. Paul describes his economic views as “biblical economics.” He references Old Testament admonishments against false weights and measures as a reason to go to the gold standard and to get rid of the Federal Reserve. He talks about government as a false idol. He recounts the story of Saul as a lesson against the temptation to want a king—which is an all-powerful government—who will steal young people for war and overtax the people.

4) Use Christian Doctrine, Not Constitutional Jurisprudence. Paul opposes most military conflicts that the U.S. has engaged in since World War II. Rather than explaining this position through the language of libertarianism, national self-interest, and the War Powers Act, Paul uses just war theory, which limits military conflict to defense and the protection of innocent lives.

5) Talk about Social Issues that Require LESS Government. Paul opposes the current role of government in education. He favors private schooling and homeschooling, an area where many evangelical GOP voters want less government.

6) Don't Mention Social Issues that Call for MORE Government. He keeps mum on legalization of heroin, pornography, and prostitution.

For others, however, Paul's views toward legalization of drugs and prostitution make him unacceptable as a candidate. Former President George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post that Paul's libertarian policy positions are based on an unrealistic view of human nature.

“[Libertarianism] is the arrogance of the strong. It is contempt for the vulnerable and suffering. The conservative alternative to libertarianism is necessarily more complex,” Gerson said. “Responsible, self-governing citizens … are cultivated in institutions — families, religious communities and decent, orderly neighborhoods. And government has a limited but important role in reinforcing social norms and expectations — including laws against drugs and against the exploitation of men and women in the sex trade.”

Publicly, Paul remains reticent about his personal faith, much more so than others in the GOP field of candidates. For instance, you won’t find YouTube videos showing him giving his testimony or talking at length about his faith. One of the few windows into his beliefs came during the 2007 Values Voter Debate. Paul was asked, “Tell us about your personal faith and what it means to your life.” Paul answered by talking about his belief in God and how it affected his view of the Iraq War.

I get to my God through Christ. Christ to me, is a man of peace. He is for peace. He's not for war. He doesn't justify preemptive declared war. I strongly believe there is a Christian doctrine of Just War and I believe this nation has drifted from that, no matter what the rationals are, we have drifted from that and it's very, very dangerous and I see in many ways being un-Christian.
And to justify what we do in the name of Christianity I think is very dangerous and not part of what Christianity is all about. Christ came here for spiritual reasons not secular war and boundaries and geography. Yet we are now dedicating so much of our aggressive activity in the name of God, but God---He is the Prince of Peace. That is what I see from my God, and through Christ, I vote for peace.

Later in his 2008 campaign for president, Paul released a letter that gave this statement on his religious beliefs:

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

That was 2008. This time around, Paul has included a “Statement of Faith” on his campaign website. It is listed as an “issue,” along with taxes and homeschooling.

“My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain. Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate,” said Paul in the statement.

The document lists Paul's religious beliefs, a statement that the candidate has a Christian faith. The remainder of the document is as much about the Constitution and freedom as it is about religion.

A Facebook page for “Christians for Ron Paul” points to his 50 year marriage, his family, and his career as evidence of a life practicing family values.

Editor's note: This post has been updated to include Paul's "Statement of Faith."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 19, 2011 11:31AM | Comments (48)

Tim Pawlenty ended his campaign for the Republican nomination yesterday, the day after Pawlenty ended a distant third in the Ames Straw Poll. The poll is non-binding, but it is an early test of a candidate's campaign strength. Pawlenty's campaign was well-organized, but it did not have the excitement and dedicated following of Rep. Michele Bachmann or Rep. Ron Paul, each of whom finished far above him in the poll.

The departure of Pawlenty is unlikely to shake up the GOP field, but it does raise the question about evangelicals in the Republican party. Pawlenty was the type of candidate that mainstream evangelical leaders would like. In June, 45 percent of the National Association of Evangelicals leadership said Pawlenty was their top-pick for the GOP candidacy. The next favorite pick—“no preference,” followed by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

Pawlenty has evangelical bona fides. His pastor is Leith Anderson, president of the NAE who officiated Pawlenty's marriage in 1987.

Pawlenty also had the support of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Standing next to Pawlenty at an event at the Iowa State Fair, Huckabee said, “I’m endorsing the principles of people who will stand for a smaller, more efficient government, lower taxes, the sanctity of life. And I wouldn’t be on this stage if this guy didn’t stand for those things.”

Dave Peterson, a political science professor at Iowa State University, told CT that Pawlenty was the only candidate that was acceptable to everyone, but he couldn't inspire enough voters to be a viable candidate.

“Pawlenty's strategy was a decent one in theory,” said Peterson, who was at the Iowa State Fair on Saturday. “His hope was that there would be a deadlock between candidates who were unacceptable to sizable portions of the party. Social conservatives wouldn't trust Romney, more establishment Republicans wouldn't trust Bachman, and lots of folks wouldn't trust Paul.”

Speaking on ABC's This Week, Pawlenty said the Republican voters this year were looking for a different kind of candidate.

"What I brought forward I thought was a rational, established, credible, strong record of results, based on experience governing – a two-term governor of a blue state – but I think the audience, so to speak, was looking for something different,” Pawlenty said.

This comment was considered to be a thinly veiled critique of Bachmann. Pawlenty focused on his fellow Minnesotan during last week's Iowa debate where he suggested that she was:

-- irrational (“Her answer is illogical”)

-- unestablished (“It's not her spine we're worried about, it's her record of results.”)

-- not credible (“She's got a record of misstating and making false statements”)

-- with no record of results or experience (“In Congress, her record of accomplishment and results is nonexistent.”)

But it was Bachmann who won the straw poll, even though her campaign was less organized than Pawlenty's.

In January, Pawlenty told CT that to build a viable campaign he needed to build name recognition and raise funds. Speaking yesterday, Pawlenty said he needed a stronger showing in the straw poll to keep raising funds.

"We had some success raising money, but we needed to continue that and Ames was a benchmark for that, and if we didn't do well in Ames, we weren't going to have the fuel to keep the car going down the road,” Pawlenty said.

Minnesota Public Radio suggests a Senate run could be Pawlenty's future.

Image via Pawlenty's campaign.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 15, 2011 9:24AM | Comments (26)

In the first Republican presidential debate in Iowa, all of the candidates were asked about their positions on issues and their qualifications, and the topic of marriage came up more than once. Only one candidate, however, was asked about her own marital relationship. The Washington Examiner's Byron York asked Michele Bachmann if she would “be submissive to [her] husband.” York's inquiry has now become its own debate topic: was the question out of bounds?

York framed his question by asking about Bachmann's own statements on submitting to her husband. Bachmann spoke at the Living Word Church in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, in 2006. Bachmann recounted how she felt God to lead her into law and, eventually, a career in politics.

York asked:

In 2006, when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea, and then you explained: 'But the Lord said, be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husband.' As president, would you be submissive to your husband?

Bachmann paused (while many in the audience booed) and then answered:

Thank you for that question, Byron. [laughter in audience] Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I'm in love with him. I'm so proud of him. And both he and I...what submission means to us, if that's what your question is, is respect. I respect my husband. He's a wonderful godly many and a great father. And he respects me as his wife. That's how we operate our marriage. We respect each other. We love each other. And I've been so grateful that we've been able to build a home together. We have five wonderful children and 23 foster children. We've built a business together and a life together, and I'm very proud of him.

York has received criticism for asking the question. On Twitter, York said, “Thanks to all for comments on 'submissive' question. It's the kind of question a candidate will have to face, if they go far enough in race...” He later tweeted, “Haven't talked to Bachmann campaign, but I think they're happy with her answer. It was a good one, and most human moment of the night.”

This was not the first time Bachmann has been asked about her statements on submission. In a recent Newsweek interview, Bachmann said that as president, “I would be the decision maker.”

Gary Marx, executive director of Faith and Freedom Coalition told CNN's Belief Blog, "She answered it the most appropriate way in the context it was being asked. She was being asked a deeply theological question in front of millions of Americans. That's why there was such a strong and visceral booing over the very premise of the question."

Other conservatives saw the question as appropriate. The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin said Bachmann supporters are “feigning outrage.”

“That indignation is unwarranted. She said it and should be asked about it,” Rubin said. “Moreover, her answer was a home run, not only in substance but in delivery. First was the dramatic pause. Then the smile — no offense taken — and then the conservative feminist grand slam. Whether her answer is scripturally accurate, I have no idea; what matters is this is how she thinks and how she expresses her religious views.”

What do you think? Was the question legitimate or inappropriate? 

Image via Wikimedia Commons.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 12, 2011 12:01PM | Comments (17)

Texas Governor Rick Perry will announce this Saturday his official bid for the Republican nomination for president. Politico reports that  Perry “will remove any doubt about his White House intentions” during an upcoming speech at a South Carolina conservative conference.   

Perry’s decision does not come as a surprise. The past few months were marked with the obvious signs of a presidential run: reports that he was meeting with donors, discussing plans with key Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire, and planning an August speech in South Carolina, an early primary state.

But there were also oblique indications. Perry makes his official bid just days after participating in “The Response,” a prayer event in Houston he helped organize. While Perry’s involvement with the 30,000- strong-event was described by some commentators as a “coming out party” for the Texas governor, he remained tight-lipped on his political intentions during the conference, which he described as “apolitical” and “nondenominational.” His remarks and prayer were more veiled than those of others on stage. In fact, nowhere in his prayer did Perry address “Jesus” or “Christ,” preferring instead the more ecumenical “Lord” and “Father.” [full text of his prayer below]

Either way, Perry enters the race with evangelical-Republican bona fides.

It is not clear, however, whether Perry will draw support away from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota), who has received much of her support from grassroots social conservatives. Polls suggest that, despite his stance as a social conservative, evangelical, and southerner, the Texas governor is more likely to pull most of his votes from former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

In a June Rasmussen survey, Romney polled at 33 percent of GOP likely voters. Bachmann was second at 19 percent. A new Rasmussen poll, however, included Perry. Perry received 18 percent support while Romney's support dropped to 22 percent, and Bachmann's numbers remained relatively static at 16 percent. Other polls indicate a similar pattern. On average, Romney is polling at around 19 percent compared to Perry and Bachmann, who are each receiving around 13 percent support among Republican voters.

Perry's announcement is likely to overshadow Saturday's Iowa straw poll, an annual event in Ames that Perry will not participate in. The straw poll is one of the first harbingers of the Iowa Caucus. Campaigns with well-organized, highly-motivated campaigns can do well in the straw poll. 

In 2008, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee did surprisingly well. He later won the Iowa Caucuses. This year, the straw poll is expected to go to Bachmann, but a strong showing by former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty or Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) would signal that they have strong campaign organizations. With Perry entering the race on the same day, however, the straw poll's importance drops significantly. Perry is not a straw poll candidate, yet his entry into the race is certain to shake up the field.

 

Perry's prayer at The Response:

 

Lord, You are the source of every good thing, You are our only hope. And we stand before You today in awe of your power, and in gratitude for Your blessings; in humility for our sins.

Father, our heart breaks for America. We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government. And as a nation we have forgotten Who made us, Who protects us, Who blesses us, and for that we cry out for Your forgiveness.

We pray for our nation’s leaders, Lord -- for parents, for pastors, for the generals, for governors -- that You would inspire them in these difficult times. Father, we pray for our president, that You would impart Your wisdom upon him, that You would guard his family. We pray for our military and the families who love them. Father, especially for those special operators who lost their life yesterday in defending our freedoms.

You call us to repent, Lord, and this day is our response. We give it all to You. For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen and amen.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 8, 2011 5:19PM | Comments (29)

New data offers evidence for a patriotism God-gap in America. Evangelicals are most likely to think that the U.S. is the best country in the world, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Those with no religion, however, hold a much less rosy view of the country.

Nearly all Americans think they live in the best country on earth. While a majority of Americans believe there are other countries just as great, nine-in-ten say no nation is better. Within this high view of America, there are differences between different religious groups.

Four-in-ten Americans agreed that “the U.S. stands above all other countries in the world,” according the Pew Political Typology poll that asked 1,525 Americans about their view of the United States. Evangelicals (52 percent) were the more likely to hold the view that the U.S. stands above other countries. Nearly all of the other evangelicals surveyed said “the U.S. is one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others.” Only 3 percent said they believed there were other countries better than America.

This high view of America is echoed by evangelical leaders. For example, just last month BreakPoint's Chuck Colson told listeners “America was -- and is to this day -- different. It was founded on a shared belief.” Colson said this belief was encapsulated in the opening of the Declaration of Independence---”that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

“These are the words that Americans live for -- and if necessary, die for,” Colson said.

Other Christian traditions were less enthusiastic about America's position in the world, but they still saw the U.S. as one of the best on the planet. About 40 percent of other Christians said the U.S. stands alone as the greatest country; around 55 percent said it and some other countries were equally great. As with evangelicals, only a few said there were greater countries in the world.

Those with no religion stand out as being much less likely to see the U.S. as the greatest country. Only 20 percent said the U.S. was the best country in the world. The same percentage said “there are other countries that are better than the U.S.”

These results reflect a patriotism “God Gap” that CT Politics reported on in other polls. In an April Pew poll, evangelicals were the most likely to say that they displayed the American flag on their clothing, in the office, or around their home. Those Americans unaffiliated with religion were the least likely to put the flag on display.

 

Editor's Note: The Pew Research Center for People and the Press provided Christianity Today with a religious breakdown of questions from the poll. However, CT is responsible for all analysis and interpretation of the results. Pew identifies evangelicals as white, non-Hispanic Protestants who described themselves as "born-again or evangelical." Around 18 percent of Americans are evangelicals by this definition. The margin of error for each religious group is larger than for the sample as a whole. The results are descriptive; religious differences could be due to partisanship, ideology, income, or other factors.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 5, 2011 8:32AM | Comments (29)

Family Research Council (FRC) recently released a new ad, saying that Christian leaders who are trying to protect poverty programs “well-meaning but misguided.” FRC's Faith Family Freedom Fund released radio ads in Ohio and Kentucky in response to a Sojourner-sponsored campaign. Sojourners' ad calls on Christians to join the Circle of Protection, a broad coalition of Christians that wants to reduce the debt without harming programs aimed at helping the poor.

Sojourners' ads hit the airwaves last week, targeting Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). The Sojourners ads feature local pastors calling for protection of the poor. The Ohio ad, for example, featured Pastor Nan Erbaugh (Lower Miami Church of the Brethren) who lives in Boehner's district. She said in the ad,

The Book of Proverbs teaches that “where there is no leadership, a nation falls” and “the poor are shunned, while the rich have many friends.” Sadly, Congress has failed to heed these Biblical warnings, and our own Rep. Boehner is risking the health of our economy if America defaults on its debts. All to protect tax cuts for the rich and powerful.

In budget debates, the rich have many political friends and lobbyists. The poor and needy do not. That's why thousands of pastors are joining a Circle of Protection to protect programs that keep the most vulnerable from going without food, shelter, and medicine.

Please join this growing chorus of faithful Americans by telling Representative Boehner not to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. He is responsible to all of us, not just a few at the top. (listen to the Ohio ad)

The FRC countered the Sojourners ads with one of its own. The group said it was “countering an ad campaign by Sojourners opposing necessary cuts to government spending.” The FRC ad featured pastors who said government programs hurt the poor and get in the way of charity. The Ohio ad featured Pastor J.C. Church (Victory in Truth Ministries, Bucyrus, Ohio) and Bishop Harry Jackson (Hope Christian Church, Washington, D.C.):

There's a group of well-meaning but misguided ministers who believe that the government is responsible for meeting the needs of the poor, calling proposed budget cuts immoral. But Jesus didn't instruct the government of his day to take the rich young ruler's property and redistribute it to the poor. He asked the ruler to sell his possessions and help the poor. Charity is an individual choice, not a government mandate.

Multiplied billions in government spending has not eradicated poverty. In fact runaway government spending and increasing debt have actually crippled our economy and now churches have even less to spend to meet the needs of the poor, so that we might tangibly show them the love of Christ. (listen to the Ohio ad)

The ad concluded with a call to tell Congress that the “moral choice” is for Congress to live within its means. The FRC broadcast its ads in Ohio and Kentucky only, not Nevada.

Sojourners communications director Tim King said the FRC's response goes against the teachings of most denominations. King said most churches believe that government is responsible for making sure the poor have their basic needs met.

The Circle of Protection includes a broad coalition of Christian groups. Evangelical supporters of the Circle include leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, World Vision, the Salvation Army, Evangelical Environmental Network, Willow Creek Community Church, Vineyard Columbus, Evangelicals for Social Action, and the American Bible Society.

“These groups might disagree on how to implement those values from a policy perspective, but they at least agree on the premise that when it comes to concern for the poor, there is a role for private charity and government action,” King said.

King said the FRC position on the budget would hurt the work of evangelical groups such as World Vision, the Salvation Army, and the International Justice Mission. King cited the FRC's support for cuts to USAID. The FRC does support cutting $1.39 billion in support for USAID from the federal budget. Interestingly, the FRC's justification for the proposal was taken verbatim from a January 2011 report by the Republican Study Committee on a bill to cut the federal spending.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 3, 2011 11:07AM | Comments (15)