October 2009 Archives

"I believe the best response to abortion is not to criminalize what, I believe, is often a tragic and desperate choice; but rather to find effective and proven solutions to reduce abortion. This is the common ground possible between pro-life and pro-choice views."

While religious people don't all agree on all the issues of abortion, we should agree that it must not be allowed to derail the crucial need for comprehensive health care reform.

The only voice to pierce the self-congratulatory tone of the gathering was that of Birthright co-founder Steinhardt. During a question-and-answer session, he stood up and railed against the notion of time and energy being spent on reports and what he called "dialogue."

"This study is an important study, and I think it says some very significant things," Steinhardt said. "But do you recall any Jewish study meaningfully changing the Jewish world over the last 20 or 30 years? I don't."

Now, 19 years ago, the National Jewish Population Study "changed the agenda of American Jewry." It did so by finding that less than half of American Jews--say, about 46 percent--were marrying other Jews. In short order, the agenda of the organized Jewish community became "continuity"--i.e. keeping the next generation within the fold. And a key element of that agenda has been, you got it, Taglit-Birthright Israel. And you know what? It appears to be working.

So a study created an agenda that created a program that appears to be helping to solve the problem identified by the study. Mazel tov, Mr. Steinhardt. And congratulations on your new award!

Given that even Democrats don't agree on whether current versions of health-reform legislation will or should cover abortions, don't the bishops' concerns seem perfectly reasonable and consistent?

Exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test.

3. We welcome Pope Benedict XVI's stance on the common biblical teaching on human sexuality, and the commitment to continuing ecumenical dialogue.

4. At the same time we believe that the proposed Anglican Covenant sets the necessary parameters in safeguarding the catholic and apostolic faith and order of the Communion. It gives Anglican churches worldwide a clear and principled way forward in pursuing God's divine purposes together in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ. We urge churches in the Communion to actively work together towards a speedy adoption of the Covenant. 

In other words, we've got our own authentic and universal church, so long as the ABC continues down the path towards the proposed Anglican Covenant. What is this Covenant of which they speak? It's a new constitutional regime whereby Anglican headquarters would be able to impose doctrinal discipline upon its constituent parts. In its current state, this would mean relegating a "province" that didn't go along with a ban on, say, partnered gay bishops, to second-class status in the Communion. The Akinolites mean to hold the ABC's feet to the fire on that one:

6. As Primates of the Communion and guardians of the catholic and apostolic faith and order, we stand in communion with our fellow bishops, clergy and laity who are steadfast in the biblical teaching against the ordination of openly homosexual clergy, the consecration of such to the episcopate, and the blessing of homosexual partnerships.

No way, of course, are married hierarchs like Akinola going to lead their flocks to Rome, subordinating themselves to local Catholic primacy and either giving up their wives to stay bishops or keeping them and becoming mere priests. But that doesn't mean the Communion can't fall apart, or divide schismatically into North and South. Williams dithers as Canterbury burns.

"I think a win in Virginia will be a shot heard around the world and will show a strong comeback in the making," said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean, who added that a McDonnell victory would create a "template for Republicans on a national level."

Stupak says language specifying that someone obtaining an abortion must use her own money, not federal money from the subsidies, doesn't go far enough because it's impossible to clearly segregate funds in that way.

"Once you get the affordability credits (subsidies) in there, that's public funding of abortion. We're not going there," Stupak said. "How do you get past the affordability credits is really the issue. And we can't."

This confuses "public funding of abortion" with "public funding of abortion coverage." What the bill would do is provide a subsidy to help a woman purchase an insurance policy. The subsidy could not, under the Hyde Amendment, go towards that portion of the plan that covers abortion--presumably, under a separate rider whose price tag would be determined by the insurance company. If the woman chose to purchase the rider, and then obtained an abortion, the company would pay for it, as it would any other medical treatment covered by the plan.

What Stupak and his allies oppose is heath care legislation to help purchase policies that could include abortion if other monies were added. By that logic, they should support ending Medicaid, since states can and not a few states do add their own funds to provide Medicaid recipients with abortion coverage. 

Addendum: Think about Stupak's use of the phrase "affordability credits." What are affordability credits? They're vouchers--as in the education vouchers so beloved of conservatives, that inoculate public money from the taint of Establishment Clause violation because they go directly to individuals, not religious institutions. Only in this case instead of public money going directly (via vouchers) to religious schools, it would only go to help pay for the (non-abortion) portion of a health insurance policy, with the insurance company paying for the abortion with non-government money. Call it twice (or thrice) inoculated.

I've made this case before, so let me just say here that, if the pro-health care reform folks had their heads in the abortion question, they would be emphasizing that what they're talking about with the subsidies are health care vouchers. Like education vouchers. Get it?

"Sometimes, you have to get out like this to really understand why you do what you do," he says. "This is what Oregon's all about. This is who we are as people -- on the natural resource side of our lives. ... I must admit, I may not be as religious but I'm very spiritual -- and I believe if there is a God, this is where he lives. He's on the river, he's in the mountains -- this is what it's all about."

"I do not see why it is necessary at this point in history, ACK Archbishop Eliud Wabukala told the Nation."The Archbishop of Canterbury sent us letters welcoming the offer but for him, it is essentially to deal with the local England context and does not apply to other provinces," he added.

Archbishop Wabukala said there were major differences on how Catholics and Anglicans, whom he described as more evangelicals, understand the ministry and sacrament, which he said have to be harmonised before any formal reunion.

Any Anglican priest intending to cross over to the Catholic Church must understand these differences beforehand, he said.

It would not occur to me to see this as an act of aggression or a statement of no confidence, precisely because the routine relationships that we enjoy as churches will continue

More importantly, could married Roman Catholic men from the traditional dioceses join the Anglican ordinariate and become seminarians and priests? If so, we have just solved the priest shortage problem and within a generation there will be more priests in the Anglican ordinariates than in the traditional dioceses. The rest of the people will soon follow and the Anglican ordinariate will hold a majority of Roman Catholics.

He is a sharp critic of the governor on urban education. He sides with Republicans in his advocacy of school vouchers. He led the effort to stamp out racial profiling by the State Police. Yet he was outspoken in denouncing the cheap use of the race card by politicians like the former Sen. Sharpe James. The reverend's convictions run deep.

Now, though, Jackson is in the painful position of having to wriggle away from this obvious conflict of interest. He can take the donation. Or he can offer the endorsement. But how can he do both?

"Those who don't know me, I can easily see why they would feel, 'They bought him off,'" says Jackson.

There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves. By not using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation's pennies and trying to preserve our country's wealth and our economy's viability to give all an opportunity to succeed.

I want to reflect also tonight on another group for whom race and religion are treated race and religion are treated as defining characteristics, to the concern and detriment of us all. I'm speaking of Muslim Americans.

This can be a difficult time to be a Muslim in America.  The terrorist attacks of September 11th were a terrible blow to all Americans, and Muslim Americans shared in our collective grief about the loss of thousands of innocent lives. But Muslim Americans have also suffered in an additional way: Crimes against Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim have escalated dramatically since September 11th.  Some hate-mongers seem to have adopted the twisted logic that an attack on innocents can somehow be avenged by another attack on innocents.

29% Huckabee

24% Romney
18% Palin
14% Gingrich
4% Pawlenty

6% Some other candidate
7% Not sure

Interestingly, Huckabee and Romney also have the lowest negatives--under double digits, and less than half of Palin, Huckabee, or Pawlenty; as in:

8% Huckabee
9% Romney

20% Gingrich

21% Palin

28% Pawlenty
5% Some other candidate
9% Not sure

My sense is that Palin's votes go to Huck, Gingrich's to Mitt, and Pawlenty's are split between the two. That would put Huckabee over Romney by 49-40. Don't think this won't be a donnybrook.

Update: Rasmussen has released the head-to-head result, showing Huckabee over Romney  44 percent to 39 percent.

The apparent difference between the Pew Research Center estimates is explained by the fact that both the 2007 Muslim American Survey and the 2007 Religious Landscape Survey deal only with adults, while the more recent report, Mapping the Global Muslim Population, deals with the total population (i.e., both adults and children).  Based on questions in the Muslim American survey about household size and the religious affiliation of children in the household, we estimate that Muslims account for a larger proportion of the population that is under 18 than they do of the 18-and-over population; thus, our estimate of Muslims' share of the overall population is larger than our estimate of Muslims' share of the adult population.

The Pew Research Center's 2007 Muslim Americans survey (Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream) estimated that 0.6% of U.S. adults are Muslims.  The first chapter of the accompanying survey report, "How Many Muslims Are There in the United States," provides detailed information on how the 0.6% estimate was obtained and why we think it is superior to estimates derived from most surveys that are conducted only in English (or English and Spanish, as was the case with the 2007 Religious Landscape Survey, which found 0.4%).  (See U.S. Religious Landscape Survey Report II transcript at http://www.pewforum.org/events/?EventID=190.)

I'd only add that it would have been better had Pew given the actual .4 percent number in its Landscape Survey report, and explained why it believes the actual percentage of Muslims in is higher, rather than simply substituting what it believes to be the more accurate number. Results are results. But anyway, thanks, Brian.

Silverman's assault on Catholicism is just another example of HBO's corporate irresponsibility. Time and again, if it's not Bill Maher thrashing the Catholic Church, it's one of his guests. There is obviously something pathological going on there: Silverman's filthy diatribe would never be allowed if the chosen target were the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem and the state of Israel.

Here's a reality check for Silverman: the Catholic Church operates more hospitals and feeds more of the poor than any private institution in the world. It also saved more Jews during the Holocaust than any other institution in the world.

The standard I use to judge the secular meaning of religious imagery is plausibility.  If the nonreligious meaning of a religious symbol is plausible, the use is constitutional. The nonreligious meaning of a cross in a WWI memorial, which is the context in Buono, is clear. Perhaps such use would not be plausible in a memorial for Iraq. I agree that government endorsement of a religion or religion in general is unconstitutional.  But religious symbols can have both religious and nonreligious meaning and when that is the case their use should be permitted.

I am finishing a book on the constitutionality of the public use of religious imagery, so I appreciate any chance to communicate my ideas to the public (and to potential publishers). Thanks again for your response.

I'd like to know more about this plausibility standard. Is it purely historical? That is, if it's plausible that the symbol of a religion was originally put in place for a secular purpose (e.g. to memorialize the war dead, to spread holiday cheer, provide illumination on a dark street), then no matter how it is regarded afterwards, it's permitted?

Moreover if, as Ledewitz claims, images can be both religious and secular, then is it that case that one could be erected with both a religious and secular meaning? That is: Could a group be allowed to place a Ten Commandments monument in a courthouse by claiming (plausibly) that its meaning is religious as regards the Judeo-Christian tradition and secular as regards the importance of law? That, it seems to me, would eviscerate Establishment Clause jurisprudence in such cases--which is maybe what Ledewitz has in mind. On the other hand, maybe his plausibility test would relate only to something like "primary intent." It makes me uneasy.

I may have created some inadvertent confusion here myself. As you say, Gilgoff is a reporter, not a religious voice. I'm awaiting answers from him and Rachel Laser on another matter tangentially related to this one.

My question for him wasn't about his personal beliefs, but what independent evidence he had to accept Rachel Laser's perspective on voters being worried about Democratic overreach on abortion. That doesn't seem supported by the polls, and I wonder what they have to support the position.

 "I've been a Catholic all my life. My faith means a lot to me. Marriage to me is a great institution that works, and it's what I want for my children, too."

One of the most troubling developments in contemporary culture is the proposition that persons of the same sex can "marry." This proposal redefines the nature of marriage and the family, and, as a result, harms both the intrinsic dignity of every human being and the common good of society.

Naturally, as our society fragments in its beliefs and nonbeliefs, a biblical image will no longer embody the universal messages that it held for earlier generations. In that new context, it is undoubtedly better to find new modes of expression, which is why memorials of recent wars tend not to use biblical imagery.

There has been considerable debate over the exact number of Muslims in the United States. The 2.5 million figure is a projection for 2009 based on the Pew Research Center's 2007 survey "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream" (http://pewforum.org/surveys/muslim-american/) and available Census Bureau data (http://factfinder.census.gov/), adjusted for U.S. population growth. For a discussion of the larger debate, see http://pewresearch.org/pubs/532/questions-muslim-survey.

Arguing for the retention of the display, lawyers for the government are expected to argue that the Mojave cross is constitutional because it represents a secular symbol intended to honor those who died in the nation's service in World War I.

At this point, Christians should pay particular attention. While the government's lawyers try to press their case, Christians should reject any argument that presents the cross as a secular symbol. There is nothing remotely secular about the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Arguments for the constitutionality of religious language and symbolism based in the supposedly secular character of the speech or imagery may win in the courtroom, but the arguments are devastating to authentic belief.

Of all people, followers of the Lord Jesus Christ must be the first to insist that the cross is a symbol of Christian faith, pointing directly to the cross on which Christ died as our substitute. The cross must not be reduced to a generic symbol of death and the memory of loved ones.

It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it was erected in honor of all of the war dead. It's the--the cross is the--is the most common symbol of--of the resting place of the dead, and it doesn't seem to me--what would you have them erect? A cross--some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Moslim half moon and star?

"These Men and women were passionately religious and saw the hand of God all around them."

No health care reform plan should use federal dollars for abortion, or compel people to pay for or be involved in other people's abortions. Longstanding federal laws governing other major health programs, including the health insurance program for federal employees, prevent federal funds from being used for abortions or to help purchase benefits packages that include abortions. (Italics in original)