May 2008 Archives

Obama leaves his church. Let's see what he has to say about the decision tonight.

What I missed yesterday was the afternoon's reprimand of Fr. Pfleger by his boss Francis George, the cardinal archbishop of Chicago. Let's assume, then, that Bill Donohue knew that Pfleger had incurred episcopal displeasure. Is it any more the Catholic League's business to serve as the hierarchy's enforcer of ecclesiastical discipline?

More interesting, though, is this first paragraph of George's statement:

The Catholic Church does not endorse political candidates. Consequently, while a priest must speak to political issues that are also moral, he may not endorse candidates nor engage in partisan campaigning.

But assume for the sake of argument that Cardinal George is right. Should that require a reprimand of Monsignor Jim Silante, shown below giving an Obama-mocking, McCain-endorsing invocation at the annual dinner of the New York Republican Party Thursday evening? And what about the partisan activity of the Catholic League itself? Does the Catholic League speak for the church?

Not that it's likely to make a difference, but has anyone asked the Clinton campaign for a reaction to New York Gov. David Paterson's order that state agencies recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state? Earlier in the campaign, this would have been a subject of considerable media interest, especially after Hillary's flip-flop on supporting then-Gov. Spitzer's proposal to allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. Paterson did not endear himself to the Clintonistas by describing Hillary as showing "desperation" in her campaign, and this latest act can hardly have been considered good news. As for Barack Obama, he will sooner or later be called upon to pronounce on the subject. Sure, he (like Clinton) have assumed the approved Democratic position of favoring civil unions but not anything more. Then there's the John McCain "states rights" dodge. You've got to figure that the issue has traction in the campaign, but maybe more at the state and local level.

Bill Donohue, sachem of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, does not lack for partisan chutzpah. In his ongoing war on Barack Obama, he today took after the Illinois senator for his relationship with Fr. Michael Pfleger, last Sunday's Trinity U.C.C. sermonizer. Here's a piece of what Donohue had to say:

Father Pfleger’s tirade would be inexcusable anywhere, but it is even more offensive when it happens in a church. It does not matter that it was not his own, nor does it matter that it happened in a church that has a record of allowing demagogues to exploit it. When churches become forums for political rallies, both religion and the First Amendment are corrupted.

“Obama and Pfleger are no strangers. Indeed, when Obama was in the state senate in Illinois, he conveniently arranged for Father Pfleger’s St. Sabina’s Church to receive state monies for its social programs.

The Catholic League is the nation's largest Catholic civil rights organization. Founded in 1973 by the late Father Virgil C. Blum, S.J., the Catholic League defends the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.

Motivated by the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment, the Catholic League works to safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened.

When does a "controversial" preacher become a public pariah? In Jeremiah Wright's case, it was when he danced gleefully around the podium before dozens of cameras at the National Press Club. In John Hagee's case, it was when an old audiotape seemed to suggest that he believed God had acquiesced in the Holocaust to hasten the ingathering of the Jews in the Holy Land.

Never mind that a semi-respectable theological case could be made for what Hagee said. The tape proved to be the last straw for his endorsee John McCain, and McCain's disavowal of the pastor meant that one and all were free to pronounce Hagee beyond the pale of respectability.

Enter the revelation that McCain's best senatorial buddy, the self-anointed "Independent Democrat" Joe Lieberman, was listed as featured speaker at the annual "summit" of Hagee's fundraising support group, Christians United For Israel (CUFI). Such was the heat that even the notoriously unapologetic Lieberman, who at last year's summit praised Hagee as a Moses-like "Man of God,"
felt compelled to vouchsafe a few words of criticism even as he declared his intention of sticking to his plan to headline the CUFI event. As in:

I believe that Pastor Hagee has made comments that are deeply unacceptable and hurtful. I also believe that a person should be judged on the entire span of his or her life's works. Pastor Hagee has devoted much of his life to fighting anti-Semitism and building bridges between Christians and Jews.

Considering the hateful statements Mr. Hagee has made and Mr. McCain's repudiation of the pastor, it is odd and inappropriate for Mr. Lieberman to sit at Mr. Hagee's table again this year. The pastor is clearly a bigot.

Last week, Tacoma News Tribune political reporter Niki Sullivan wrote a story about an appearance by Washington State's GOP gubernatorial hopeful Dino Rossi at a meeting of the local chapter of the Christian Businessmen's Connection. On the strength of an audiotape and a blogger's post, Sullivan suggested that the not-for-profit had violated the IRS rules banning endorsement of political candidates by 501 (c) 3 organizations. Two days ago, Americans United for Separation of Church and State wrote a letter to the IRS calling for an investigation. A prayer was said for Rossi's campaign, and fundraising envelopes were left on the tables.

As American Jewish Congress legal eagle Marc Stern points out in a forthcoming article in Religion in the News (out in a few weeks, keep your eye on this site), it is precisely through this kind of sequence of events that the IRS is as engaged as it is in scrutinizing not-for-profits. A decade ago, Americans United decided to mount a campaign to get the agency to enforce its rules against political activity by tax-exempt religious entities, and now, with recording devices and blogs ubiquitous (to say nothing of web-posted sermons), any faith-based organization that gets even moderately close to the line is at risk. Which, as the United Church of Christ found out recently, doesn't mean that it will be found in violation. But no one likes to have The Service (as my lawyer calls it) knocking at your door.

Father Michael Pfleger, the priest of the Chicago's famous largely African-American Catholic Church St. Sabina's, has been called the greatest white black preacher in America. Here, last Sunday, he did some major signifying as the guest preacher at, yes, Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, wherein he makes some serious ugly fun of Hilary Clinton as an entitled white broad.Naturally, Barack Obama has been taxed with those remarks, and in response has therefore issued a statement saying he is "deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause." Significantly enough, Pfleger had the wherewithal to issue an apology for his performance. (Rev. Wright, not so much.)

One of the fabulous things about Chicago is the special connection between some inner-city Catholics and African-Americans. Think about the Blues Brothers. It's a story about a couple of black-music-crazed white ethnic Catholic orphans, who take America on a tour of the blues by way of putting together their mixed-race band to save their hideous Catholic orphanage. It's the kind of Catholic love affair with black culture that Fr. Pfleger displays, and which (so far as I know) can't be found anywhere else in America. Poor Obama must disavow it. The rest of us can enjoy it.

The latest Pew poll shows Barack Obama widening his slight lead among Catholics over John McCain since April from two to four percentage points, losing seven percentage points to McCain among Protestants, and increasing his margin over him among the unaffiliated by nine percentage points. The biggest shift came among white evangelicals, who now favor McCain over Obama 71-20, up from 65-32 a month ago. The current number represents the usual margin by which white evangelicals favor Republican presidential candidates over Democratic ones these days. So McCain's evangelical problem, to the extent he has one, has only to do with motivating turnout. That could be a big issue, of course, but not as big as would be any evidence that Obama was picking up a significant new fraction of the white evangelical vote.

GOM wonders why John McCain, in seeking to firm up his evangelical support, hasn't played the abortion card. After all, his record on abortion (with the not unimportant exception of his support for stem cell research) is as good as any pro-lifer could wish.

The answer, I submit, is that abortion has become a much trickier political proposition for Republican candidates than it was in the days when the Supreme Court could be depended upon to uphold abortion rights. Now, the Roberts court is a good bet to overturn Roe v. Wade, thereby making abortion an issue for legislatures to deal with. By publicly emphasizing his opposition to abortion, McCain lifts it up as a voting issue in November, knowing that a majority of Americans do not want to ban the practice. Does the Arizona senator want to hold himself out as the candidate who will undertake to bring the era of legal abortion to an end in the United States? I don't think so.

If the new Field poll is on the money, not only is same-sex marriage a done deal in California, but anything looking like the national GOP of the past generation can pack up and head back east. The only religious bloc in solid opposition are evangelicals (those identifying themselves as born again). Other Protestants (by my back-of-the-envelope calculation) are in favor by a small margin, while Catholics are in opposition by a mere three percentage points. Those belonging to other religions split nearly two-to-one in favor, while the religious "nones" are in favor by nearly seven-to-one. Field divides up proponents in other ways--by age, gender, and geography--but no matter how you slice it, the answer's the same.

An AP review of polls shows Obama and McCain splitting the Catholic vote. So, it seems, no particular Catholic problem for the Illinois senator.

Tomorrow at 5:30 Eastern Daylight Savings Time I'll be talking about the campaign on a radio show called The Blog Bunker, which airs daily on Sirius Radio's Indie Talk Channel 110. The Blog Bunker bills itself as a "cutting-edge roundtable featuring a selection of the over 100 million bloggers around the globe," which makes me think we've pretty much won the lottery, no matter how many people listen in, which I have no idea how many do.

Of course, there aren't, so far as I know, even 100 thousand people blogging on religion and the 2008 campaign, though it sometimes seems that way. Apart from the many, many political blogs that have seen fit to comment on the various religious issues that have reared their heads during this election cycle, church-state guru Melissa Rogers lists 100 blogs about religion and public affairs on her own blog on religion and public affairs. Understanding that narcissism is its own reward, it does make you wonder whether you're adding any value to the world. Say we are, O Blog Bunker!

Max Blumenthal, who has been on the Hagee beat for a long time (in not a positive way), goes after Joe Lieberman for continuing to support Pastor John in the wake of the Great McCain Separation. Lieberman, of course, has endorsed McCain's presidential bid with a fervor rarely displayed by one senator for another, much less by one whose career has been spent in the other party. (Zell Miller's 2004 embrace of George W. Bush does come close, however.)

Anyway, it seems that Lieberman, far from joining McCain in distancing himself from Hagee, has chosen to be a headliner at his Christians United for Israel annual "summit" in Washington July 22. The new anti-Aipac lobby, J Street, is soliciting signatures on a petition calling on Lieberman to cut his ties to Hagee. Not bloody likely. How much of a headache this will create for McCain will be interesting to see, but I suspect not much. Hagee will, however, find less smooth sailing than he's enjoyed heretofore in the Jewish world.

Strictly speaking, the constitutional ban on religious tests for office only prohibits the government from erecting religious barriers to public office, such as a requirement to swear to one's belief in the Trinity. But the ban has over the years cast a penumbra, casting into disrepute efforts to make candidates' religion (or lack thereof) a basis for denying them electoral success. The American Party of the 1850s has gone down in history as the Know-Nothing Party because members were ashamed to admit that its principal plank was anti-Catholicism, and so when queried about the organization answered that they "know nothing" about it. The evangelicals who voted against Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries this election season because of his Mormonism are not considered to have behaved according to proper American norms.

But how do we feel about those who gin up opposition to a co-religionist running for office, on the grounds that the candidate's religious views are insufficiently orthodox? By penumbra standards, that would seem to qualify as a religious test for office. At the same time, when those doing the ginning happen to be the leaders of a religious community, then the free exercise clause of the First Amendment entitles them to govern that community as they see fit.

Which brings us to the case of Kathleen Sibelius, governor of Kansas and possible running mate of likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Last month, Sibelius was publicly chastised by Kansas City archbishop Joseph F. Naumann for her pro-choice actions in gubernatorial office. Yesterday, columnist Robert Novak sought to stick a shiv in Sibelius' vice presidential aspirations by casting her as the "poster girl" for abortion rights in America. Novak, who converted to Catholicism a dozen years ago, has taken more than a passing interest in the bitter abortion struggle currently going on in Kansas.

Pro-choice Catholic politicians have been a common part of the landscape in America ever since Roe v. Wade, and they have included Republicans as well as Democrats. But in recent years, Catholic church hierarchs have increasingly made abortion the critical litmus test for receiving their nihil obstat. Above all, the idea of having a pro-choice Catholic elected as either president or vice-president seems unacceptable. It's kind of a religious test for office. And I'm kind of unhappy with it, especially when the lay likes of Novak get into the act.

Julia Duin's roundup of Jewish defenders of Pastor Hagee in the Washington Times has the virtue of making clear that holding God in some way responsible for the Holocaust is not beyond the bounds of Jewish opinion. Which isn't to say that Jewish opinion is unanimous on this subject--as if Jewish opinion were unanimous on any subject. Note Dennis Prager's disagreement with his own father.

For a statement of the anti-Hagee point of view, there's this posting by Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, in the Washington Post's department of religious kibbitzing, On Faith. According to Saperstein, Hagee's offense lay in blaming the Holocaust on European Jews for their failure to immigrate to Palestine. Although Hagee didn't say that, it is not an illogical conclusion to draw from his remarks.

By including the Book of Job in their collection of approved texts, the compilers of the Bible figured that Jews ought from time to time ponder the question of why an almighty God permits the apparently innocent to suffer. Whether a presidential campaign is one of those times is another question.

Is Abe Foxman having second thoughts about John Hagee? Back in March, after charges of anti-Catholicism unsettled Hagee's endorsement of John McCain, the ADL's national director waved away the controversy as “not a Jewish issue,” telling the Forward, “Are we troubled by Hagee’s support of McCain and McCain’s acceptance? The answer is no, and that’s where it ends for us.” But now the shoe is on the other foot and Foxman believes that relations between the Jewish community and Hagee's pro-Israel organization, Christians United for Israel, should be be on "hold" pending clarification of his views, according to the New York Jewish Week.

It's now necessary for us to look at the totality of (Hagee's) views, said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), in a Jewish Week interview on Thursday....Hagee has "started to deal with some of the issues" raised by his controversial books and sermons, which deal extensively with Biblical prophecy and the role of Israel and the Jews, "but not in a satisfactory manner; it's not quick enough and not sufficient," Foxman said.

What exactly were Hagee's offensive words? Exegeting a passage in Jeremiah (interesting how often that prophet has been surfacing this election season), Hagee said:

A hunter is someone with a gun, and he forces you....Hitler was a hunter....How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said, "My top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel."?

All who survive of all those nations that came up against Jerusalem shall make a pilgrimage year by year to bow low to the King Lord of Hosts and to observe the Feast of Booths.

Any of the earth's communities that does not make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem to bow low to the King Lord of Hosts shall receive no rain.

For what it's worth, Hagee's former chief religious antagonist, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, having made his peace with the good pastor, is now standing up for him:

One week ago today, I met with Pastor Hagee in my office. I found him to be sincere, apologetic and friendly. I also found him to be the strongest Christian defender of Israel I have ever met, and that is why attempts to portray him as anything but a genuine friend to Jews—one for whom the Holocaust is the horror of horrors—is despicable.

He's the man the people choose,

Loves the Irish and the Jews.

Jews became solid Democratic voters early in the 20th century, and they've never wavered since (unless you count the disillusionment with Jimmy Carter in 1980). If the old quip that Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans is as true now as it ever was, it's because of the rise of the religious right. When Christians are on the march, Jews run the other way, and the the embrace of the evangelical agenda by the Republican Party has pretty effectively inoculated Jews against the GOP for a generation. Hence the smallness of George W. Bush's gains among Jewish voters in 2004, despite heading the most aggressively pro-Israel administration in history.

That said, Orthodox Jews are (as Mattingly recognizes) somewhat more likely to vote Republican than Reform, Conservative, and secular Jews. And, in the current primary mode, old Jews (the preeminent type in Florida) tend to cling to Hillary Clinton (like old whites of all other religious persuasions).

As for the presumed general election match-up, there's good reason to expect John McCain to outperform George W. Bush among Jews precisely because he is not joined at the hip (or any other place) to the religious right. Oh yes, and does Obama's Arabic name and Muslim antecedents and black face cause some Jews some heartburn? I'm afraid the answer is yes.

So look for McCain to get 30-32 percent of the Jewish vote in November--about the same as what Reagan got in 1984, but not up to the level of Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 (36, 40), Nixon in 1972 (35), Reagan in 1980 (39), or George H.W. Bush in 1988 (35).

Anyone interested in following the time line of Wright/Hagee/Parsleyana in the campaign should take a look at Hans' posting on the Obama-loving website, Too Much Information Anonymous.

And so, in one day, McCain has rid himself of the two troublesome clerics, disendorsing both John Hagee and Rod Parsley because he was shocked, shocked, at what had escaped their lips. To be sure, he did it gracelessly. He adjured one and all not to indulge in any moral equivalence by equating the vile Hagee with the vile Wright. Hagee had not been my pastor for 20 years--i.e. it only took me a few months to figure out that I had to throw the fat frog under the bus. As for the Columbus Chrysostom, well, the announcement of his jettisoning was slipped into a little phone conversation with the AP's Libby Quaid from Stockton, CA: "I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America, and I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn't endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement." (Actually, McCain did endorse Parsley, insofar as someone in Parsley's position can be endorsed, by referring to him as "one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide.") But Parsley's anti-Islam rants had begun to make their way out into the wide Muslim world, and so the time had come to be lose the compass.

One of the odd things about the Hagee affair is that it did not end in the usual way. Usually, there's some particular religious group--Catholics, say, or Muslims, or Mormons--who take offense at some remarks, and thus the candidate must disavow. Thus it was the Catholic League's Bill Donohue who blew the anti-Catholicism whistle when Pastor Hagee surfaced in the present campaign, first inviting Mike Huckabee to his church and then giving his thumbs up to McCain. But there has been no outpouring of outrage from the organized Jewish community in reaction to the revelation that Hagee had, in a sermon perhaps a decade ago, allowed as how God had permitted the Holocaust in order to hustle the Jews off to the Holy Land. So far as I can see, only the leader of Reform Judaism, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, spoke out publicly, in the form of a letter of inquiry on behalf of his constituents to Pastor Hagee. Yoffie has in recent weeks stood out as a prominent critic of Hagee's, in the face of his warm embrace as a friend of Israel by the likes of Aipac and Abe Foxman. One can only imagine the hue and cry had Jeremiah Wright been captured on tape saying that God had stood aside and let the Holocaust happen.

That Hagee's claim was, in fact, not outside the pale of Judeo-Christian traditions of theodicy is beside the point. It is, evidently, not possible for the beneficent God of the American civil religion to be publicly blamed for acts of, ah, God like Katrina, or to be considered as permitting genocidal destruction for the sake of some greater good.

In any event, having cut himself off from his two most prominent clerical supporters, candidate McCain must now bethink himself more seriously than ever how to engage the support of his party's evangelical base. This is something of a conundrum these days. Jerry Falwell is dead, and the other old lions of the movement don't seem to be feeling so good themselves. If Bob Novak is to be believed, McCain recently spurned an invitation to meet with James Dobson. Mike Huckabee proved that it is still possible to turn out the evangelical vote across the GOP heartland, and (pace Novak) his endorsement of McCain seems wholehearted--but no one knows how much it matters. Presumably, the wise heads in the GOP, if there are any left, would like to get the evangelicals on board the Straight Talk Express without anyone else noticing. Good luck with that.

ABC is on the case about Rod Parsley, the Columbus pastor into whose warm endorsing embrace John McCain has been happy to fling himself. Nothing said by Jeremiah Wright or John Hagee comes close to mattering as much to a presidential candidate as Parsley's straight-up denunciation of Islam. No "militant Islam" or "extremist Islam" for him. It's just Islam, neat. The mere rejection of Parsley's statements by a McCain campaign spokesman does not come close to what McCain needs to do to separate himself from Parsley. McCain has now gotten around to rejecting Hagee's endorsement. For him not to do the same with Parsely posthaste would show an astonishing incomprehension of the magnitude of being identified with the holder of such views. Danish cartoons, anyone? Regensburg?

Obama's appearance at last year's United Church of Christ convention in Hartford was about as carefully managed by denominational authorities as it could have been. The IRS complaint was close to frivolous, as yesterday's IRS dismissal suggests.

It's worth taking a look at GOM's interview with Eric McFadden, who has had the job of mobilizing Catholics for the Clinton campaign.

GOM argues that there is a "God gap" between Obama and Clinton because Obama picked up a higher percentage of "Nones" than of Protestants or Catholics in Oregon. But it's worth keeping in mind that the this gap has always been about worship attendance regardless of religious affiliation. Thus, the God gap between Democrats and Republicans reached 20 percentage points in 2000-2004, as measured by the preference of frequent attenders (once a week or more) for Republicans. In 2006, that number declined to 14 percent. In Tuesday's Democratic primary in Oregon, there was virtually no difference between Obama and Clinton by attendance. Weekly and occasional attenders went for Obama 58-41; those who said they never attend did the same by 59-41.

In Kentucky, religious differences of any kind simply didn't amount to much. Those who said they never attend religious services were a bit less likely to vote for Clinton than those in other attendance categories. Clinton won two-thirds of Protestants, Catholics, and Other Christians. Obama did a tad better among Catholics than he did among the others. There was a small though not insignificant difference between white Catholics and Protestants, the latter going for Hillary by 74-21, the former by 69-27. No other categories (Jews, those of no religion, non-Judeo-Christians) registered high enough to merit a number in the Bluegrass State.

In Oregon, the picture was more interesting. Both Protestants and Catholics split their votes, pretty evenly, going to Obama by narrow margins. Among the Other Christians, Obama did substantially better (63-36), and even better among the non-Judeo-Christians (71-28). Obama did somewhat worse among white Catholics (48-51) than white Protestants/Other Christians (53-46). That he ended up capturing the Catholic vote 51-49 says that there were enough Latino, Asian (Filipino and Vietnamese), black, and "other race" Catholics for Obama to reverse the result. Oregon is the least religiously identified state in the nation, and of the 28 percent of Democratic primary voters in that "none" category, Obama prevailed by 61-39--just a few points better than his numbers in the state as a whole. This is yet another indication of the degree to which no-religion is the norm in the Beaver State.

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, rising star of the Catholic right, has ruffled the dovecotes of the Catholic left with a broadside published on the First Things website, addressing the issue of excommunication for pro-choice politicians and those who support them. Of particular concern to him is the group called Roman Catholics for Obama '08.

Let's be clear how far Chaput and company have raised the stakes. For them, it is not sufficient for Catholics to say that they support a politician despite his or her pro-choice position. They

also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

Catholic conservatives have decided to take their stand on a piece of ecclesiastical law known as Can. 915:

Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Whether Catholic prelates of as high or higher stature than Chaput will say this nay remains to be seen. What's clear, however, is that the Catholic right regards with exceeding concern the readiness of some prominent pro-life Catholics (including some women religious) to publicly support the Democratic presidential candidate. Like the Dobsons of the evangelical world, they seem to regard it as anathema for a pro-choice Democrat to vie for the votes of the faithful.

So now Obama's got a new religion. The Crow adoption ceremony now. And then. According to the New York Times.

“Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support.”

Over the weekend, the Obama-supporting law professor Doug Kmiec reported that he had recently been berated for his political "heresy" and denied receipt of communion by an irate college chaplain. Earlier this month, Kansas City archbishop Joseph F. Naumann announced that he had asked Kansas governor Kathleen Sibelius not to present herself for communion because of her support for legalized abortion.

The standard view among Catholic prelates is that--I heard Archbishop Timothy Dolan of Milwaukee say this the other day--excommunicating Catholic politicians is a great way to ensure that those politicians get elected; in other words, it is imprudent and ill-advised. But I suspect we're going to see a good deal more of this kind of thing this election season.

The Revealer is pushing the discovery by blogger Brian Wilson of an audiotape sermon in which John Hagee talks about the Holocaust as a fulfillment of divine prophecy (to bring about the Jewish ingathering in Israel) and pointing to the Jews in Israel as "spiritually dead." Wilson (and Jeff Sharlet, the Revealer's editor) see this as evidence of the famously philosemitic Hagee's "other" anti-Semitic side. That seems to me an exaggeration at best. Theological interpretations of the Holocaust as God's judgment is pretty standard in ultra-Orthodox Jewish circles, for example. And bear in mind that Hagee is exegeting the story of the dry bones in Ezechiel 37; it's typical evangelical interpretation to see God's action there as stirring the spiritually dead. I'm inclined to see this as Hagee indulging in the normal evangelical understanding of the Jews as not yet "awakened" through knowledge of Christ. That's hardly anti-Semitic. The tape, perhaps from the late 1990s, at most suggests that Hagee had not yet gotten around to rejecting "Replacement Theology"--the idea that the Christian covenant has completely replaced the old Jewish one--what's known in other theological contexts as supersessionism. Anyway, judge for yourself.

Surprise! Mike Huckabee would like to be John McCain's running mate. The lukewarmness of the big evangelical dogs toward Huck during the GOP primary contest probably doesn't matter as much as the fact that he did stir the troops. Given the inability of the GOP to win congressional races in formerly safe districts in Huck's part of the country, the troops need some stirring, bad. A two-maverick (or quasi-maverick) ticket? I'd say the Huckabee futures market is looking up.

When it comes to reckoning with the increased impact of religion on American electoral politics in the past generation, the focus, not unreasonably, has been on the "values" agenda, starting with abortion and issues relating to the rights of homosexuals. But the importance of the Israeli-Arab conflict is not to be underestimated. What was once the particular preoccupation of the American Jewish community has climbed ever higher on the list of evangelical policy priorities. Not that evangelicals are newborn supporters of Israel, but with America's role in the world increasingly cast for them in terms of a struggle with Islam (or perhaps radical Islam), support for Israel has become a virtual article of faith in evangelical political theology.

Meanwhile, the official American Jewish community has come to see Israel as its sole public raison d'etre--linked inextricably to the only other thing that matters: Jewish continuity. Emboldened by an evangelical community that is more pro-Israel (in the sense of supporting Israeli maximalists) than American Jews are, American Jewish leadership can indulge its Zionist enthusiasms without stint, and in a way that seems increasingly out of touch with the more sober assessment of mainstream Israeli politicians.

Such, at any rate, are the views of Jeffrey Goldberg and Thomas Freedman in today's New York Times. Both address themselves, more or less explicitly, to the Times' Jewish readers and the heartburn they may be feeling about the near inevitability of Barack Obama running as the Democratic Party standard bearer in November. Reading not very closely between the lines, it's clear that both think Obama stands a better chance of making headway with Israelis and Palestinians than another Republican administration; both believe that an administration that is prepared to push Israel to undo settlements and encourage the creation of a viable Palestinian state on the West Bank is more in Israel's interests than an administration that gives at most lip service to such goals.

As the general election campaign gets under way, the only back-and-forth on Israel/Palestine has concerned the profoundly silly matter of the significance of an Hamas official expressing a preference for an Obama presidency. Prospects for a reasonable debate between the candidates seem not much brighter than prospects for a comprehensive peace settlement. But on Israel's 60th birthday it is perhaps not out of place to remember that the Israeli national anthem is called Hatikvah--Hope.

Here's Mike Huckabee's response to the California decision. It's less than a summons to arms. But there are those who will issue them. California presumably will have a gay marriage ban on its ballot in November. Where else is this possible?

Wikipedia has a useful review of all state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in one way or another. The swing states (interpreted broadly) that have not taken action are: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Minnesota, Iowa, New Mexico, and Washington. An amendment will be on the ballot in Florida in November. Here's the AP roundup.

GetReligion's Mollie reviews the coverage of the "Barack Obama Christian candidate" advertising in Kentucky. Of particular interest is Joseph Gerth's article in yesterday Louisville CourierJournal, which notes how Obama is being identified as a Christian in a couple of radio spots airing in the state as well as via the very churchly brochure. As I noted a few posts ago, this is not a new thing under Obama's sun. Is it appropriate? By longstanding campaign rule of thumb, once a subject is on the table, you've got greater latitude (as a journalist, as a candidate) to bring it up. Think marijuana use, which has been on the table since the 1988 campaign cycle (does anyone remember Judge Ginsburg?). Obama's religion is, for better or worse, very much on the table. The question is: Does the upside of quelling the persistent rumors of his Muslim identity outweigh the downside of reminding everyone of Jeremiah Wright?

Whatever such a campaign might do to neutralize antagonism to (or even generate support for) Obama among white churchgoers, the real oomph for him in organized religion is going to come from the black churches, come the general election. The bump-up in African-American turnout thus far gets the attention it deserves from Adam Nossiter and Janny Scott in today's New York Times. We ain't seen nothing yet.

This morning, Politico's Jim Vanderhei and Mike Allen proferred six ways for the Republican Party to resuscitate itself, based on a canvas of GOP pooh-bahs. Notable by its absence was any call to gin up a religious appeal. Only Jeb Bush (remember him?) touched on the subject, to wit:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said it’s time to return to a family values message — backed up by ideas families actually like. “Our reforms and beliefs need to be framed in the context of how they help families. A family-friendly focus is really important, given the angst that people feel these days.”

Which brings us to the California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision this afternoon legalizing civil marriage for gays and lesbians. As Ambinder notes, the GOP quote meisters have been notably slow off the mark responding to this latest threat to the republic. We'll see what the morrow brings, but given John McCain's more or less federalist approach to the subject (let the states do what they want), it doesn't look like the current powers-that-be think that this dog can hunt.

Stories hither and yon (and yon) on Pastor Hagee's apology to the Catholics.

On Kos, Hunter thinks it's curious that Hagee should write his letter to Donohue, rather than some official Catholic entity. But this problem should really be laid at the feet of the Catholics, not Hagee. It was Donohue who took the lead in criticizing the good pastor, and in fact official American Catholicism has more or less (with a wink and nod) given Donohue, who's no theologian or otherwise accredited expert in Catholicism, the role of responding to real and perceived incidents of anti-Catholicism. Effectively, he's the Catholic Abe Foxman; but whereas the Jewish establishment in America has always functioned with separate communal agencies operating independently or with voluntary coordination, the Catholic Church is the kind of top-down enterprise that used to like to respond in its own name.

In the present case, it's worth recalling (as the coverage I've seen hasn't) that Donohue over a month ago declared himself satisfied with Hagee. So his latest statement of satisfaction, expressed in a God-o-Meter interview, is just reiteration. Put that together with the dance Hagee's done with Deal Hudson and other Catholic right-wingers and you know what's going on here. After the second round of the Wright story, Hagee reemerged as a McCain problem, so GOP Catholics like Donohue and Hudson had to engineer another end to the Hagee saga. And you see, Hagee actually apologized for what he said, whereas Wright didn't. Nyah, nyah.

On the substance (be warned, you may not be able to download the first page), Hagee does reasonably well allowing as how he's been educated on the rather more mixed record of the Catholic Church and the Jews over the ages, and I suppose he sort of wiggles out of those pesky whore-of-Babylon references. But the idea that his ministry demonstrates his "profound respect for the Catholic people" is a load of longhorn flop. As this blog has made clear, Hagee's ministry at Cornerstone Church has for decades dealt in the denigration of Catholicism, and prospered by persuading San Antonio Hispanics to leave the faith of their fathers and sign up with his brand of premillenialist evangelicalism.

But politics is a beautiful thing, and if the desire to be a big national and international player has impelled Pastor Hagee to embrace a more charitable view of his separated brethren, who are we to cavil?

This is the kind of brochure you might send out if you were running for Congress in, say, Mississippi's first district. Either Obama's folks are a little bit rattled by the size of their loss in WV or they've decided to try a little experiment looking ahead to November. My advice: Dial it back.

Quick update: Whoops! Reid just reminded me that Obama began using a piece of literature of this sort back in January, when rumors of his being a Muslim began surfacing big time. Reid blogged it then. The only difference is that they seemed to have upped the ante by highlighting the white cross in front of the organ. Anyone remember Mike Huckabee's floating cross Christmas card?

In West Virginia, Obama did better with Catholics--white Catholics--(45 percent) than he did with any other demographic, secular or religious, including voters aged 18-24 (38 percent), and including those with no religion (34 percent). Figure that sucker out. (For the record, there are not enough African Americans in the state to register on an exit poll.)

Morning Update: Altogether, Catholics constitute less than six percent of the WV population, but represented eight percent of Democratic primary voters. Their greatest concentration is up in the panhandle, where WV is squeezed between PA and OH. Ohio County, where Wheeling is located, is nearly 40 percent Catholic--by far the largest Catholic concentration in the state. There, Clinton won by a 58-36 margin, 19 percentage points less than her 67-26 spread statewide. So apparently it's the old Catholic steelworker families that were the base of such support as Obama got in the Mountain State. (Clinton got just 52 percent of the Catholic vote.)

The following comment from Cindy just came in:

Hold on there, I'm an ex-Huckabee supporter present Obama supporter unless possibly old, incoherent, cancer surviving McCain picks Huckabee as VP sidekick -- and I perceive you mocking my belief in the rapture and consider it really tacky and ad hominem caricature-baiting not worthy of this fine blog.

Yesterday's Robert Novak column floats the idea that Mike Huckabee is playing a double game, publicly supporting John McCain's candidacy while secretly encouraging his hard core evangelical backers to withhold the hem of their garment. The idea is to acquiesce in an Obama presidency as divine punishment on a sinful people--whose sin, presumably, will be sufficiently expiated by 2012 that Huckabee can be elected president.

There's so much spinning and woofing in this classic Novakian exercise that it's hard to tell the real from the fantastical. It is not unlikely that some Huckabites imagine themselves laying back in the weeds (homeschooling their kids and subsisting on nuts and berries) during the Obama Tribulation until the arrival of Messiah Mike. The question is: Who will be raptured away before the election?

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

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

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

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

How does religion relate to presidential conduct? Every now and then, a president acts in a way that pretty clearly seems to express his religious commitments. Rarely is the expression as clear as it's been with George W. Bush's faith-based initiative. But it was not hard to see a religious impulse at work in, for example, Jimmy Carter's assiduous pursuit of a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.

With presidential candidates, of course, we can only ask questions. And, when a candidate's religion worries some portion of the electorate, the questions tend to be unedifying. Would Jack Kennedy take orders from Rome? Would Mitt Romney take orders from Salt Lake? Would Barack Obama take orders from Jeremiah Wright?

Of greater use to to try to see the candidate's religious background and journey (if journey there be) as a window onto his or her identity. In this regard, Hillary Clinton's more than passing engagement in the semi-secret organization known as The Family is of more than passing interest. Yesterday this blog received a comment from Jeff Sharlet, whose book on the organization, The Family, will be out in a little over a week. Our exchange is here.

Having not yet read the book, I'm not sure to what extent, if any, Sharlet ties Clinton to the Family's right-wing political inclinations. He agrees that the thing has a fundamentally establishmentarian ethos--how the Family is dedicated to bringing Washington's movers and shakers together. That is the source of its particular appeal to Clinton, I suspect. (It is sort of the Renaissance Weekend of American religion.) That her favorite Bible story is Esther speaks volumes: Make me the queen and I'll save the people from the evil that threatens.

More than anything else, it is the impulse to solve problems from the top down, from the inside out, that seems at the core of Clinton's public being. Her failed health care initiative is the case par excellence. What's missing is the inspirational voice, the prophetic challenge, the spiritual summons. That latter--just words, she says--is, of course, Obama's stock in trade. At bottom, they are religious opposites.

Update: My exchange with Sharlet continues in the comments to this post.

Obama's Catholics bite back at Donohue, on God-o-Meter.

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

Jews back Obama over McCain by 61 percent to 32 percent, according to a new Gallup poll. No surprise that they back Clinton over McCain by a higher margin, but it's not that much higher: 66 percent to 27 percent. I predict that come November, McCain will draw no more than 30 percent of the Jewish vote against Obama. That would be just under what Reagan drew against Walter Mondale in 1984, almost twice what Bob Dole drew against Bill Clinton in 1996, and six points higher than what George W. Bush drew against John Kerry in 2004.

With adjustments made for the final results, yesterday's exit polls show Clinton winning white Catholics and Protestants by nearly identical margins of 62-38 and 61-39 respectively in Indiana. In North Carolina, she did considerably better among white Protestants (67-30) than white Catholics (58-41). So what gives?

White Protestants in Indiana are a fairly even mix of evangelicals and mainliners, with the former more plentiful in the southern part of the state and the latter in the northern part. Catholics, too, are thicker on the ground in northern Indiana, but can be found in significant numbers throughout the state. Both Catholics and Protestants are longtime residents, and in class terms, there's not much to choose between them. In contrast to Pennsylvania, then, which saw a sharp divide between blue-collar Catholics and white-collar mainline Protestants in the primary, Indiana's white Christians are much of a muchness, and voted that way.

White Protestants in North Carolina are a good deal more evangelical than they are in Indiana, but the important point to bear in mind is that Catholics Tar Heels are more likely to be recent arrivals in the state: younger, better educated, better off, and hence with a greater propensity to vote for Obama than Catholics in Pennsylvania.

Among the several religious categories, Obama polled most strongly with non-Judeo-Christians and those with no religion. That's a pattern that has held pretty much across the board throughout this mercifully ending primary season.

Update: Not surprisingly, the Obama campaign sees its improved performance in a more self-congratulatory light.

Andre Carson wins handily in Indiana 7, in all likelihood ensuring that there will continue to be a 2-person Congressional Muslim Caucus after November.

Forgive me, but I think it's time to put aside the meme of Obama's Catholic problem. As I predicted, Obama did about the same among white Catholics as among white Protestants in Indiana. (Actually he did a little bit better.) And he did significantly better with white Catholics than with white Protestants in North Carolina. What matters is the kind of white Catholics and white Protestants in a given state. More on this in due course.

While you're waiting for Indiana and North Carolina to weigh in, you might make a note of the forthcoming issue of the Review of Faith and International Affairs, which will evaluate the record of U.S. international religious freedom policy since passage of the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998. The issue features key foreign policy leaders and noted experts on religious freedom worldwide. Most of the essays were first presented as part of a conference series hosted by Georgetown University. (Dis)Claimer: The Greenberg Center is a co-sponsor of the series. The full lineup of contributors is as follows:

Asma Afsaruddin, University of Notre Dame
Judd Birdsall, U.S. State Department
Jose Casanova, Georgetown University
Brian Grim, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
Laura Bryant Hanford, a principal author of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
Jeff Haynes, London Metropolitan University
Allen Hertzke, University of Oklahoma
William Inboden, Legatum Institute
Keith Pavlischek, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Liu Peng, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
Daniel Philpott, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies
Robert A. Seiple, Council for America’s First Freedom
Nina Shea, Center for Religious Freedom, Hudson Institute
Tad Stahnke, Human Rights First
Victor Yelensky, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences

To receive the issue subscribe at www.cfia.org/subscribe. The Review of Faith & International Affairs is published quarterly by the Council on Faith & International Affairs, a research and education arm of the Institute for Global Engagement. For more information contact CFIA at review@cfia.org.

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

Here's a curious item from Zogby's final Indiana tracking poll.

Among Indiana Catholics, Obama holds a three-point lead, while Clinton holds a similarly small edge among Protestants.

Huffington Post's Sam Stein picks over John McCain's National Catholic Steering Committee and finds a few dubious characters--or at least ones with checkered pasts (e.g. Deal Hudson). The important point is made by Chris Korzen of Catholics United, to the effect that these are the "usual suspects" you find on the GOP side. Of course, there are usual Catholic suspects on the Democratic side as well. When either side says, as Korzen does, that the folks on the other side "have a history of putting partisan politics ahead of the teachings of their faith," we're into a pretty familiar civil war. Korzen thinks McCain's Catholics should be challenging their guy on war and torture. McCain's Catholics think Obama's and Clinton's Catholics should be challenging their guy on abortion and gay marriage. The great thing about Catholicism in America is that the teachings of the faith always put it at some cross purposes with partisan politics.

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

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

Bill Clinton asked two congregations in NC today to pray for Hillary, and to vote for her. "I just want you to pray for her and to make your voices heard," Clinton said. "Do whatever you think is right. But don't sit this out, because we are being called upon to return to our true purpose."

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

New poll numbers are emerging that are show some indication that Rev. Wright's comments have hurt Obama. Michael Barone tells a story with the numbers "Gallup showed him [Obama] tied with John McCain 45 to 45 percent before the Wright appearance and trailing 47 to 43 percent afterward; at the same time, it shows Hillary Clinton tied with McCain 46 to 46 percent. Similarly, Rasmussen has McCain now ahead of Obama 46 to 43 percent and McCain tied with Clinton 44 to 44 percent" Worse for the upcomming IN and NC contests is a Fox News Poll that says 36% of Dems wont vote for Obama because of Wright.

The AP has got hold of a draft of something called "An Evangelical Manifesto" (not to be confused with the National Association of Evangelicals' "An Evangelical Manifesto"), calling on evangelical activists of the left as well as the right to love more, politick less, hew to the actual gospel message, and see the mote in their own eye--or words to that effect. Eighty signatories have apparently been lined up, but the only ones mentioned are Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, and Os Guiness, the semi-well known evangelical author, speaker, and oddsbody. No big dogs on the right appear to have been asked. Is the inclusion of a critique of the "left" meant to take a swipe at Jim Wallis? The spokesman for the effort is A. Larry Ross, a faith-based P.R. guy from Dallas. This would seem to be one of those well meaning, carefully calibrated expressions of concern destined to be forgotten almost as soon as it is rolled out--which apparently will be next Wednesday.

The Catholic League, doing Republican wet work, takes after Obama's Catholic advisory board according to the criterion that only Catholics who oppose abortion and stem cell research and oppose school vouchers are true Catholics. In other words, Bob Casey, Jr. (pro-life, anti-stem cell research, anti-school voucher) doesn't count.

Meanwhile, on insidecatholic Deal Hudson has got hold of a letter from Mara Vanderslice, who's heading the pro-Obama Matthew 25 project. It seems that she's whomping up an ad for Indiana newspapers (as many as they can pay for) that will feature religious leaders telling Obama that America needs his leadership. (That's, like, an endorsement, get it?) Helping Vanderslice organize the ad is Kirbyjon Caldwell, the black United Methodist megachurch pastor from Houston who introduced George W. Bush at his 2000 inaugural but in January of this year announced his support for Obama.

It will be interesting to see what kind of enthusiasm this elicits from black pastors, who (as outlined in Campbell Brown's excellent piece in today's New York Times, tend to be much more supportive of Jeremiah Wright than their parishioners.

Update: Whoops! insidecatholic seems to have taken Hudson's post down.
Later Update: God-o-Meter's got the Obama camp's response to Donohue.
Still Later Update: Here's the cached version of Hudson's post.

So you're aware that on O'Reilly Hillary Clinton pronounced these magical five words: “Rich people—God bless us.” A new devotee of the prosperity gospel? A clinger to the famed Calvinist preferential option for the rich? Well, fairness obliges a link to Trailhead's Christopher Beam, who pooh-poohs anything of the sort (while castigating Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson for fibbing about the words).

So "God Bless Us," in Clinton's Protestant lexicon, should just be taken as a kind of verbal hiccup, meaning something like, "Aren't we the fortunate ones!" The Jewish equivalent, which comes from an entirely different semantic place, is (as my grandmother pronounced it) kinna hurra. The actual Hebrew for that, transliterated, is "Kain Eyin Harrah," or "no evil eye." The point is, any verbal acknowledgment of something good must be followed by an imprecation that the evil eye stay away. As in, "My grandson just got into medical school, kinna hurra." Or, as Wolfson's grandmother might have put it, "Rich people like us--kinna hurra."

From time to time during this election campaign, Barack Obama has been compared to John F. Kennedy as the dashing new face of a revived Democratic Party. But it’s time to think more deeply about the comparison, and the way Obama mirrors Kennedy’s place in the larger American political narrative.

Kennedy’s great challenge was to lay the ghost of anti-Catholic bigotry in America, and make no mistake, anti-Catholicism was a significant presence in American society in 1960. Protestants—especially but not only conservative evangelical ones—continued to harbor profound uneasiness about the prospect of turning the country’s reins over to a member of the “Roman Church.”

At the time, there was no ethno-religious group more consequential to the success of the Democratic Party than Catholics, and for the party to refuse to nominate one of them whose time had come held promise of electoral disaster. But Kennedy needed to make clear—as he did in his famous speech to the Houston ministers (and they were not a friendly crowd)—that he would be his own and not his church’s man. And he had to declare his opposition to the two main issues on the Catholic agenda: public aid to parochial schools and a U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.

Jesse has Barack's back on Jeremiah. Kind of. He said he supports Obama for breaking with his pastor, but (so far as the reporting indicates), offered no criticism of Wright himself. Al Sharpton merely said it took "a lot of courage" for Obama to do what he did. Anyone keeping a tally of black church leaders?

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

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

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

Update: E.J. has the same thought.