December 2009 Archives

New York.jpgIn a nice obituary appreciation in today's NYT, Michael Kimmelman calls the New York Review's fabled illustrator David Levine "one of the great artists of the last half-century," and then asks:

But how so one of the great artists? Every great artist inhabits a genre, and remakes it. Saul Steinberg reinvented the gag cartoon, Jules Feiffer the comic strip, Herblock the political cartoon. Mr. Levine, by insisting on soul-searching gravity, did the same for caricatures even while remaining funny most of the time.
I'm not sure I'd call Herblock--WaPo's longtime editorial cartoonist--a great artist, but it's striking that each of these pillars of illustrative art was (or is) Jewish. And one could add to the list Al Hirschfeld, who made theatrical drawing into an art form of its own; Art Spiegelman, who fashioned countercultural cartooning into the serious graphic novel; and Maurice Sendak, who created a new world out of children's book illustration. Jews all, and all but Herblock New York Jews for most of their working lives.

As the center of the nation's publishing trade beginning in the early 19th century, New York has long since afforded aspiring artists more opportunities to sell their wares than any other city in the country. And in the mid-twentieth century, it became the center of the international art world too. And, of course, New York was where the Jews were. Still, that doesn't quite explain their ascendancy in these related fields of illustration.

"It helped that Mr. Levine spent a lifetime drawing live models," Kimmelman writes. "And it also mattered that he read closely the articles he was illustrating." Perhaps it was the opportunity to marry the pictorial to the verbal that made the difference for all these sons of the people of the Book.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Over at Politics Daily, David Gibson offers a well-balanced assessment of the reported (and partly denied) split over health care reform between the Catholic bishops and the nuns and hospitalers who do Catholic health care. Key graphs:

On the other hand, the CHA and the religious orders of nuns that generally operate Catholic hospitals tend to be more pragmatic, weighing particular problems with the greater good that can be achieved and focusing on the political process as a way to resolve any problems either now or through future legislation. It is a difference one often sees between pastors who often deal with people where they are and bishops who often deal in abstractions and whose priority is to defend principles from erosion. Both can be effective approaches in political negotiations.
But there is also little doubt that Keehan and the Catholic hospitals, like many Catholic activists promoting the church's social justice teachings, are far more supportive than the hierarchy of Obama's agenda and see the prospect of health care reform as representing a major, albeit imperfect, advance in the common good.
What's not clear to me is whether the bishops have given more than lip service to advance the reform legislation. Did they, for example, put any pressure on wavering House members to vote for the Stupak-laden bill that passed by a mere handful of votes last month? Or did they use the absence of coverage for undocumented immigrants--a complete non-starter--as just an excuse to keep withholding the hem of their garment?
| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
immigration-poll-f3.jpg
From a new survey by the Center for Immigration Studies.
| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks
What was the biggest religion story of the decade? Unquestionably, the story of how American Catholic bishops, aided and abetted by civil authorities and mental health professionals, had systematically covered up the abuse of children by priests. This was big news locally in every Catholic diocese in the country. It became, because the USCCB was forced to confront it, a major national story. And it sparked rolling international coverage that, as this year's revelations in Ireland attest, continues to play out. Given the breadth and depth of the coverage, I'm prepared to make the case that there has never been as big a religion story in the history of modern journalism--and that given the parlous state of journalism today, we may never see anything on its scale again.

But somehow, the entire thing has faded from national consciousness. There was not a peep about it in the NYT's year-by-year wrap-up of the decade in the Week in Review last Sunday: Nor (in today's NYT) did Phillip Niemeyer's Op-Chart, "Picturing the Past 10 Years," so much as allude to the scandal. When Pope Benedict met with victims of abuse during his visit in 2007, there was appreciation yes, but also a sense that the county was so over that story. A lot more attention was paid to what the pope was wearing--Prada or no Prada? Pedophile priests? Been there, done that.

That's certainly the vibe coming from the Catholic bishops, who recovered their mojo in the health care debate this year. With the help of a forgetful public, reminders of the late unpleasantness are brushed aside as so much finished business.

Take the Most Reverend William E. Lori, Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut, who spent much of the past decade fighting tooth and nail up to the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent diocesan documents on his predecessor's handling of pedophile priests from seeing the light of day--such that the predecessor, Cardinal Edward Egan of New York, was enabled to get out of Dodge rather than face the music. Having finally lost his legal battle, Lori chose to devote his column this month not to an apology for the bad actions and callous stonewalling on Egan's part that the documents reveal but to a celebration of the priesthood, complete with an assault on the media:

A kind and encouraging word also means so much to us. For example, this past weekend, local newspapers continued a spate of negative stories about the Catholic Church. They pre­sented as "news" events and allegations from the 1960s and 70s as if they had never been reported on before - when, in fact, they were the subject of more than 200 news articles in the past. In truth, there was nothing new to report. Everywhere I went, parishioners went out of their way to offer me and my brother priests encouragement. "Don't let them get you down," I was told maybe hundreds of times. Two priests celebrated their twenty-fifth anni­versaries to thunderous applause. Other priests who were unfairly targeted were surrounded by the support and love of the people they serve day in and day out.

Yes, we grieve over the events of the past and reach out to those who were harmed. And yes, we've taken massive steps to prevent these things from happening again. Yet many people are recognizing, more clearly than ever, that the Church and her priests are being unfairly and incessantly targeted for what is actually a massive societal problem. So please do not underestimate how much a kind and encour­aging word means to us, your priests.

Today in Ireland, bishops are resigning right and left as the Church experiences (as one wrap-up puts it) a wholesale fall from grace. In America, it's back to Clericalism Forever.

| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
avatar.jpgHaving just returned from Avatar (something for Jews to do on a day like today), I'd like to pick a bone with the NYT's callow conservative columnist Ross Douthat, who denounced director James Cameron a few days ago for soft-headed Hollywood pantheism. Yes, the movie does not lack for anti-colonialist, aboriginal people-loving tree-huggery. But strictly speaking, the Na'vi are not pantheists. They worship a Godness--a Nature Goddess, to be sure, but one who hears prayers and sometimes answers them. And in a way that kicks some Sky People butt.

Leaving that aside, however, consider the name of the scientist played by Sigourney Weaver: "Grace Augustine." Is Cameron giving us a little hint that the film may have something more up its religious sleeve than the Gospel of Sustainability?

On first meeting our ex-marine hero, Jake Sully, the Na'vi princess Neytiri tells him that he, like the other Sky People (that's us) is "like a baby"--and not in a good way. We're greedy, thoughtless...unredeemed (uh, sullied). Did I mention that his life is spared and he is chosen to learn the ways of the Na'vi because the Goddess' seeds alight on him? Later, he's informed that the Na'vi believe every person can be "born twice"...born again. And, at the end, he is in fact reborn as his avatar. Throughout the film, Augustine serves as the Sky Person who pretty much understands all this, albeit (up to her dying moment) through a glass darkly. So without overdoing it, I'd say that Cameron has married some good old Christian grace-and-redemption theology to his eco-anti-imperialist parable.

Doesn't that make you feel better, Ross?

Update: For some further, post-Oscar, thoughts.
| 20 Comments | No TrackBacks
The Roman Catholic archbishop of Uganda comes out against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in his Christmas message. Money quote: "The recent tabled Anti-Homosexuality Bill does not pass a test of a Christian caring approach to this issue" Likewise, the leade of Uganda's main opposition party:

What two consenting adults do, the state has no business... absolutely! It is discriminatory. Me, I don't understand this idea of "African values." Was Muwanga not a homosexual, the Kabaka 1? Eh? Was he not a homosexual? No! Let's stop this nonsense! It is natural! Many children, many young boys in school, as they are growing to adults, have this tendency of attraction.
Things in Kampala are now going to get very interesting.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
al het.jpegI've had a hard spot in my heart for Jimmy Carter since 1988, when he tried to get me fired for writing an exposé of the Carter Center. (Happily, he didn't succeed.) So what to make of his Chanukah greeting to the Jewish community offering "an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine" that might have "permit[ted] criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel"?

"Wow," said my wife, bless her heart. "Is he about to die or something?"

"Al Het" ("For the Sin") is the name of the lengthy prayer Jews say numerous times on Yom Kippur to ask God to forgive them their trespasses. It list the sins alphabetically, comprehending wrongdoing from A to Z--the alpha and the omega of misbehavior. One of my favorites is the "glance of an eye"--often translated as "wanton looks." Carter famously offered up an Al Het of that sort in 1976, when he confessed to Playboy that he had "sinned in his heart."

Anyway, inspired by the former president, it seems a good time, after 25 months of blogging in this space, to offer up some Al Hets of my own: for scoffing, evil talk, haughty demeanor, passing judgment, frivolity, tale-bearing, hard-heartedness, and (last but not least) confusion of mind.

And Happy Holidays to you all.
| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
Kobia.jpgIt can't hurt that the Methodist cleric who serves as General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, Samuel Kobia, has written a letter to Ugandan President Museveni expressing "concerns" about the proposed anti-homosexuality act. Coming from next-door neighbor Kenya, Kobia can hardly be accused of being just another neo-colonialist seeking to impose Western values on Africans.

At the same time, the letter is not notably strong. Rather than urging Museveni to pledge to veto the measure it merely says:

It is my hope and my prayer that you will join the African church leaders and fellow people of faith, to abstain from supporting any law which can lead to a death penalty; promotes prejudice and hatred; and which can be easily manipulated to oppress people.
Moreover, Kobia had nothing critical to say about the Uganda clergy who have been supporting the bill--in contrast to his criticism of politicized American churches after the 2004 election. Grade: B
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
In 1973, in the wake of the Yom Kippur war, more than 100 Reform and Conservative rabbis plus a number of leading Jewish intellectuals formed Breira: A Project of Concern in Diaspora-Israel Relations. The organization, which at its height numbered over 1,500 members, was dedicated to finding a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the face of what it regarded as intransigence on the part of both the PLO and the Israeli government. It became best known for advocating an independent Palestinian state--the two-state solution to the conflict.

In 1976, Breira was subjected to a concerted campaign of vilification. It was accused of being anti-Semitic and hostile to Israel. After agreeing to meet with representatives of the PLO, the Jerusalem Post charged it with supporting terrorists and being anti-Semitic. Its first national membership meeting was attacked by the Jewish Defense League. Two of its members were excluded from serving on the executive council of the Rabbinic Assembly of Conservative Judaism. Branding the organization as "anti-Israel," "pro-PLO," and composed of "self-hating Jews," AIPAC founder Isaiah L. Kenen charged that Breira "undermined U.S. support for Israel." In 1977, the Breira closed up shop, squashed like a bug.

It is evident that some in the Jewish world would like to do the same to J Street, the "pro-peace, pro-Israel" organization founded in April 2008. While there's been a fair amount of background sniping, the big gun was fired earlier this month by Michael Oren, Israel's current ambassador to the U.S. Speaking at a breakfast session at the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism's biennial convention December 7, Oren denounced J Street as "a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It's significantly out of the mainstream."

Oren, an American-born historian (author of a well-received account of the Six-Day War) with good neocon credentials, can be assumed to be fully aware of the Breira story. Whether history will repeat itself is another question. At its first Washington conference in October, J Street received warm greetings from Israeli president Shimon Peres and opposition leader Tzipi Livni. Its founder and executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has been included in White House meetings. The organization, after an early misstep or two, has in fact been careful to keep itself well within the bounds of "mainstream opinion."

Today, "all Israeli governments" support a two-state solution and are willing to talk with Palestinian leaders. Breira's name, which comes from the Hebrew for "there is no alternative," proved to be prescient. Three decades later, J Street has revived the Breira wing of American Jewish opinion. The unique problem it represents for Oren and company is that there's still no alternative. 
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Pew has a cool new study out on religiosity by state according to four scales: importance of religion to the individual, worship attendance, frequency of prayer, and belief in God. The national average for those who say religion is very important in their lives is 56 percent. Among the 22 states (plus D.C.) above the national average, 16 voted for John McCain in 2008 (including 14 of the top 15). Among the 29 below the national average, 23 voted for Barack Obama (including nine of the bottom 10).

Interestingly, however, the states represented by the Republican ticket ranked lower on the importance-of-religion scale than those represented by the Democratic ticket: Delaware (Biden) 25th; Illinois (Obama) 29th; Arizona (McCain) 34th; and Alaska (Palin) 49th. All four were below the national average. Make of that what you will.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
I'm sorry, but sometimes the truth overwhelms my desire to maintain at least some small measure of academic disinterestedness in this blog. Whitehouse has it right, not least about the return of the Hofstadterian right-wing paranoid style of the 1950s. And it's time for the comfortable pundits of the Beltway to wake up and see today's Republican Party for what it is. And call it as they see it.

| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
In his wrap-up of the Great Senate Abortion Compromise on Politics Daily, David Gibson suggests that Bart Stupak's opposition spells doom for the compromise in conference committee: "The reality, however, is that the House is not likely to pass a bill that Stupak does not support." That seems to me a misreading of the situation.

Once it became apparent that Stupak was going to pass in the House, a number of supporters of health care reform who are generally pro-life or who represent conservative districts (case in point: Tom Perriello of VA 5) clambered on board. But the reality, in my view, is that a Nelson-like arrangement on abortion will be good enough for enough of them, and will win the day in the House. Call them them the Bob Casey pro-life social-justice caucus.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
george in frame.jpgDavid Kirkpatick's fine profile of Princeton's Robert George, intellectual guru to the Conservative Catholic Bishops of America, shows a man as captivated by the potential of Reason to move the world as any Enlightenment philosophe. No doubt some will cavil at his elaborate argument for why only a one-man/one-woman, vaginal-intercourse-performing couple meets the Natural Law standard for marriage. As for me, I'm prepared to believe that somewhere Prof. George has an equally persuasive demonstration of why Reason frowns on positions other than the missionary.

George does allow as how he worries that his carefully constructed rationales may, in the real world, be ambushed by "what Christians describe as original sin and what secular pessimists call history." Or, perhaps, by "Nature," which has a pesky habit of resisting the Rule of Reason. What if biologists succeed in isolating a gene for homosexuality? Not to worry. In the Georgian philosophy, Nature will always be trumped by Natural Law.

But you do wonder how George's mystical union theory of marriage really strikes the celibate leaders of a church that has always valued celibacy higher than the conjugal bond. A little push, and you could see it turning into an argument for a married clergy. And then where would they be?
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
So far as I can tell (from Wapo's account), the key to bringing Ben Nelson on board for the health care bill was Medicaid. On the sausage-making front, Nebraska's senior senator managed carve out a special Medicaid subsidy for...Nebraska. On abortion, the arrangement whereby states can opt out of permitting abortion coverage in the insurance exchanges parallels the existing Medicaid arrangement, whereby states can (with their own funds) opt in to providing full abortion coverage. Federalism is a beautiful thing.

Not surprisingly, the right-to-lifers are not happy with the compromise, and Bart Stupak has promised to try to block it. My guess is that the Catholic bishops will end up opposing the final bill. There will be a lot of talk about how, as a matter of principle, the church cannot collaborate with evil. But as the rhetoric rolls forward, It's worth bearing in mind that the bishops' fervid embrace of the Stupak amendment is a prudential decision that also involves collaboration with evil. That's because, as they understand it, abortion in a case of rape or incest is just as much murder as any other elective decision to terminate a pregnancy. "Abide with Hyde" is practical politics, not moral theology.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Second reading of Ant-Homosexuality Act maybe delayed to February. Indications that President Musaveni's administration doesn't like the bill much and that the president might veto it. Probability that "neo-colonialist" pressure is having the desired effect. To keep up with the news, the place is Box Turtle Bulletin.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
As the last big Democratic holdout, Ben Nelson, negotiates with his leader, progressive religious leaders are weighing in, in response to his request to hear from them. There's an interfaith group that sent a letter to the Omaha World-Herald as well as a lot of weighing in from Nelson's co-religionists in the United Methodist Church. According to my sources, this includes a letter from the Methodist Bishop of Nebraska, Ann Brookshire Sherer-Simpson.

If any  religious denomination stands out for social reform in American history, it's the Methodists. From anti-slavery to temperance to women's rights, the Methodists were the ones in front, providing the leadership and organizational muscle. It would only be appropriate if the crucial vote for health care reform came from one of them. Here's hoping.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Mary Joseph.jpgSt Matthew-in-the-City Catholic Church in Auckland, New Zealand, has caused a commotion by erecting the above billboard with the aim of "challenging stereotypes." But actually, the portrayal of Joseph as a feckless cuckold is pretty stereotypical--or at least it used to be. In Merrye Olde Englande, Christmas plays regularly indulged in such bawdry. Take, for example, the following lines from the late 15th-century "Trial of Mary and Joseph" (from the N-Town Plays):

DETRACTOR 1 Syr, in the tempyl a mayd ther was
Calde Mayd Mary, the trewth to tell.
Sche semyd so holy withinne that plas.
Men seyd sche was fedde with holy aungell.
Sche made a vow with man nevyr to melle,
But to leve chast and clene virgine.
Howevyr it be, her wombe doth swelle
And is as gret as thinne or myne!

DETRACTOR 2 Ya, that old shrewe Joseph -- my trowth I plyght --
Was so anameryd upon that mayd
That of hyr bewté whan he had syght,
He sesyd nat tyll he had her asayd!
DETRACTOR 1 A, nay, nay, wel wers she hath hym payd!
Sum fresch yonge galaunt she loveth wel more
That his leggys to her hath leyd.
And that doth greve the old man sore!

DETRACTOR 2 Be my trewth, al may wel be,
For fresch and fayr she is to syght,
And such a mursel -- as semyth me --
Wolde cause a yonge man to have delyght!
DETRACTOR 1 Such a yonge damesel of bewté bryght
And of schap so comely also
Of hir tayle ofte tyme be light
And rygh tekyl undyr thee, too!

DETRACTOR 2 That olde cokolde was evyl begylyd
To that fresche wench whan he was wedde!
Now muste he faderyn anothyr mannys chylde
And with his swynke, he shal be fedde.
DETRACTOR 1 A yonge man may do more chere in bedde
To a yonge wench than may an olde.
That is the cawse such a lawe is ledde,
That many a man is a kokewolde.
It's hard to imagine an American Catholic church doing what St. Matthew-in-the-City has done. Auckland is evidently more in touch with the church's medieval roots.

Update: Fr. Gregory, in the comment below, correctly points out the St. Matthew-in-the-City is not a Catholic but an Anglican church. Mea culpa. Worse, the Catholic Church in New Zealand has condemned the billboard as "inappropriate and disrespectful." Mea maxima culpa. I have been led into sin by the temptation to over-quick blogging before lunch. Yet, yet, I plead not guilty to the good father's charge that I failed to grasp the ultimately pious resolution of the Christmas play quoted above. My point was only that these plays have no qualms about raising the questions about sex and paternity and cuckoldry that the Nativity story raises. In the Middle Ages, that was not considered inappropriate and disrespectful--just human.
| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
As the Uganda Parliament prepared to take up the proposed anti-homosexuality act for the second time today, Episcopal Cafe has rounded up the latest in the way of opposition, including statements of opposition from the European Union, the Church of Scotland, the Episcopal Church of Brazil, and the Archbishop of Canterbury (kind of). The latter comes to the world indirectly via a press release from the UK's Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM), which quotes the archbishop's press secretary as saying that the ABC

is "very clear that the private Member's Bill being discussed in Uganda as drafted is entirely unacceptable from a pastoral, moral and legal point of view." The press office went on to tell LGCM that the proposed Bill was "a cause of deep concern, fear and, to many, outrage."
The press office also claimed that the ABC

has been working intensively behind the scenes (over the past weeks) to ensure that there is clarity on how the proposed bill is contrary to Anglican teaching.
Yes, and Catholic teaching and Jewish teaching etc. But it's past time to address directly the bogus anti-colonialist argumentation conveyed most recently  to the London Times by James Nsaba Buturo, Uganda's Minister of State for Ethics and Integrity.

Mr Buturo maintained that it was a question of maintaining traditional Christian values as prescribed in the Bible. "You people in the West have no respect whatsoever for our traditional values," he said.

"I do understand in your case homosexuality is normal but here it is totally repugnant, it is repulsive, it's not something you would want to do if you have your normal faculties functioning," he said. "But there you are, in other societies it is different."

But of course that might require certain religionists to acknowledge that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, universal among all peoples--with all that that implies for how they organize their own ecclesiastical business.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
census.jpgI don't see how this non-governmental ad for participating in the 2010 Census is "blasphemous" or "violates the concept of separation of church and state," as Rev. Miguel Rivera, chairman of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, claims. But I'm not sure it sends Latino immigrants--its target audience--the right message.

Which message seems to be:

On government orders Joseph dragged his nine-months' pregnant bride 80 miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem and couldn't find a decent place to bed down.
(Luke 2:1-7) And then, after they registered for the Census and the baby was born, they had to flee the country because the government was after them. (Matthew 2:13-15)

Don't be afraid? Fuggetaboutit.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Over at America's In All Things blog, Michael Sean Winters slams his co-religionist pro-life zealots for demonizing Sen. Bob Casey's effort to devise an abortion compromise in the health care bill. As Winters points out, the folks at National Right to Life are opposed to health care reform altogether, so their anti-abortion zealotry needs to be taken as pretextual as well as principled.

The same cannot be said for the Catholic bishops, who continue to pound the pavement for Stupak and its progeny even as they claim to support the rest of the bill. (They would like immigrants included too.) What's at best disingenuous, however, is their continual recourse to the Hyde Amendment as the sacred text of federal health coverage.

The point to bear in mind is that the federal subsidies (I wish they'd make them vouchers) that are designed to help those of modest means buy health insurance are something new under America's health care sun. When it comes to "federal funding of abortion on demand," at the end of the day they are really no different from a pregnant woman on public assistance (TANF or Food Stamps or whatever) using "her own funds" to procure an abortion. The public support makes it easier for her to afford the procedure. In terms of identifiable dollars, she could well use a federal check to pay for it. And (as Winters points out) that's to say nothing about the way Medicaid permits states to cover abortion on demand with their own additions to the federal subsidy.

Helping subsidize the cost of living for pregnant women in any way makes it easier for them to get abortions. For some in the pro-life community, that would seem to be reason enough not to help them out at all, ever.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Aimee.jpegAnthea Butler has a nice appreciation over on Religion Dispatches, but I would pick a small bone with the subhead and the conclusion. The subhead reads:

Before there was Falwell, Robertson, Bakker, or the Crouches, there was Oral Roberts, the iconoclastic pioneer of televangelism.
The conclusion is:

My friend said, "What other Pentecostal leader had a vision, and built it?"

And she was right. Whatever can be said about Oral Roberts, he embraced the veni vidi vici of Pentecostalism full stop. I'm only wishing there was a television camera on the other side, to watch him make a grand entrance.

Angelus.jpegThe unmentioned precursor of Oral Roberts was Aimee Semple McPherson. She was the prior Pentecostal superstar who had the vision and built it. She did the healing, built the building, and (before TV existed) created her own radio station that made hers the most famous voice in the West. She may not have had the global reach of  Roberts, but she was, in her day, as big a national celebrity as he ever became, and she had a big hand in taking Pentecostalism out the storefronts and brush arbors and putting it on Main Street. And unlike Roberts, she created her own denomination, which exists to this day. 

So in all the obituary acclamation of Roberts, let's not forget that Sister Aimee was there ahead of him.

| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks
2archchurch150.jpgWhat's up with Pentecostal Pooh-Bah Oral Roberts having been a member of the United Methodist Church? George Frink writes in to ask. (GetReligion Capo Mattingly notes that the NYT omitted this interesting biographical fact, and pokes the UMC for failing thus far to acknowledge the demise of its most famous contemporary son.)

Here's the best I can do at the drop of a hat. First, it's worth bearing in mind that Pentecostalism arose out of the Methodist tradition--by way of the Holiness reform effort. There are deep affinities there, including convictions about sanctification, but let others more knowledgeable discourse on that. Second, Roberts went to seminary at Southern Methodist University, so even though he didn't join the UMC until 1968, he had personal religious roots in the denomination.

s_towerdetail.jpgFinally, there's the particular Methodist church Roberts joined: Tulsa's Boston Avenue MC. It's the big downtown Methodist enterprise, housed in an extraordinary 1929 Art Deco pile that doubtless suited Roberts' famous edifice complex to a T. (From 1978 to 1982, it was pastored by Lawrence Lacour, who came to the job from teaching worship and homiletics at ORU.)

From the look of it, Boston Avenue is a prime manifestation of The Tulsa Establishment, and if I had to guess I'd say that it represented the ecclesiastical ne plus ultra for a poor Pentecostal kid from Pontotoc County, Ok. In other words, Roberts' joining the Methodists was not about some hidden streak of liberal Protestantism but the aspiration to status that, it seems, drove him to where he got to be. Not his Rosebud, perhaps, but revealing enough.
| 3 Comments | No TrackBacks
Far be it from me to disagree with my old friend Grant Wacker, our leading historian of Pentecostalism, who told WaPo's Michelle Boorstein:

I'd say if we set aside Billy Graham and Martin Luther King and Falwell in the sense that their influence was religious but also political and social, outside them Roberts was the most important religious figure in the second half of the 20th Century. Just as a religious figure. And in lots of ways.

The most obvious way was he brought Pentecostalism out of the backwoods and made it respectable. One cannot imagine the modern day Pentecostalism without him. He transformed its image, but also its practice.

It's the respectability thing I wonder about. Roberts' signal contribution to Pentecostal teaching was the Prosperity Gospel--the idea that turning your life over to Jesus and doing good would make you rich in the things of this world. Adherents of this teaching around the world are legion. But, it seems to me, among the cultured despisers of Pentecostalism--religious and secular alike--it's as unrespectable as any Holy Roller ever was.

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
Dahlia Lithwick's piece on Slate last week, "Articles of Faith: Why Americans can't talk about religion and the Supreme Court," has its premise wrong, in my view.

We generally don't talk much about religion and the Supreme Court. We talk about the need for race and gender diversity on the court in brave, sweeping pronouncements: The court needs more women, we say, or more Asians, or more gay and disabled people. Because all those things will impact the law. But when it comes to talking about religious diversity, it happens in whispers, if at all. Because it might impact the law.
In fact, we don't (any longer) talk about the need for race and gender diversity on the court because we think diversity will impact the law. Remember the "wise Latina" controversy? We want the court to "look like America" because, well, we want the court to look like America. With the triumph of (bogus) conservative ideology about judges not "making" or even "interpreting" the law but simply "applying" it, we don't get to claim anything about a different kind of person rendering decisions differently.

In this respect, a justice's religion is like any other aspect of his or her identity: It can only be considered legitimate to notice as a measure of some diversity index, not as indicating a set of values or points of view.  As a result, we are left with the odd situation where conservatives now tend to condemn the kind of separationist rhetoric JFK used in his Houston speech ("of course, we want elected officials to bring their religious values to bear on their public work"), while professing horror (see Scalia, Antonin) at the mere suggestion that a justice's religion might affect his or her decisions. 
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
I finished reading my morning David Brooks in the hard-copy NYT at the breakfast table with the pleasurable annoyance that here was something to blog myself into a high dudgeon about. Having devoted himself to portraying Barack Obama as the consummate Niebuhrian cold war liberal in his Nobel Prize speech, Brooks ended with these paragraphs:

He talked about the need to balance the moral obligation to champion freedom while not getting swept up in self-destructive fervor.

Obama has not always gotten this balance right. He misjudged the emotional moment when Iranians were marching in Tehran. But his doctrine is becoming clear. He aims to be like Truman, not Nixon or Carter or McGovern.
Aha! thought I. In his typical soft neocon way, Brooks sticks the shiv into the doves of the Democratic left and the realists of the Republican right as contrary to the Spirit of Reinhold, but what about the self-destructive fervor of George W. Bush? I'd be willing to bet the place in Maine that had Niebuhr been alive during the past decade, the principal object of his theological swift sword would have been the messianic Wilsonianism of Bush and his neocon consiglieri. And there goes Brooks again, protecting his buds by his silence.

But lo and behold, having made my way to the office and navigated to Brooks online, what do I find subbed in for the final sentence but this new one: "The Oslo speech was the most profound of his presidency, and maybe his life." Well, I guess David had second thoughts about his kicker--as columnists are wont to do--and decided to withdraw the barbs and show the love after the column went to press. Maybe his omission of the anything-but-Niebuhrian previous administration gnawed at him.

Whatever, its worth bearing in mind--as the most knowledgeable student of Niebuhr in our time, Gary Dorrien, always makes clear--that Reinhold Niebuhr was nothing if not flexible in his application of his principles to the political circumstances at hand. While the political legatees of Brooks' Niebuhrian hero Scoop Jackson are, today, beating the drums for American military maximalism around the world, it's a fair bet that Niebuhr himself, who supported World War II but opposed the war in Vietnam, would have turned a skeptical eye on his presidential epigone's current venture in Afghanistan--and because of it not given his Nobel speech quite so high a grade.
| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
tikkun.jpegIn recent years, the rabbinic phrase tikkun olam ("repairing the world") has come to signify, in the American Jewish community, a general commitment to work for the betterment of society. Thus, in his autobiography In Praise of Public Life, Joe Lieberman retroactively invoked it to explain his personal commitment to public service:

[My faith] gave me clear answers to life's most difficult questions. The summary of our aspirations was in the Hebrew phrase tikkun olam, which is translated "to improve the world" or "to complete God's Creation." It presumes the inherent but unfulfilled goodness of people and requires action for the benefit of the community. These beliefs were a powerful force in my upbringing and seem even more profound and true to me today. The ideal of service [is] fundamental to my religious faith.
Historically, tikkun olam was used by the early rabbis to refer to an act that, while not required by biblical law, helped to avoid social chaos and promote general well-being. Campaigning for the vice presidency the year his book came out (and as recently as three months ago), Lieberman advocated repairing the American health care system by letting those as young as 55 buy into Medicare. But now that that very proposal has become part of the health reform bill in the Senate, he opposes doing so.

What's the opposite of tikkun olam, Joe?
| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks
Jesse Jackson gave his view on why Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize in an interview yesterday with NPR's Guy Raz:

RAZ: Jesse Jackson, this week, the president accepted the Nobel Prize, only the third time a U.S. president or former president has received that award. What did you make of that ceremony?

Rev. JACKSON: President Barack Obama has been the redemptive power of hope in - and the hope that he embodies has removed barriers of cynicism and fear and disbelief around the world.

In other words (as has been asserted in this space before), he won the prize for persuading Americans to elect a black man president. This was no mean feat--and, as Jackson indicated, one that has not been lost on the rest of the world.
| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
Williamsteacup.jpgSo his eminence Rick Warren issues an, ahem, "encylical video" to condemn Uganda's proposed anti-homosexual act. And then the Vatican officially seems to criticize it, but dares not speak its name. And now, buried in the middle of an interview with George Pitcher of the Telegraph, conducted over a cup of tea at his palace in Canterbury, come these remarks from Dr. Rowan Williams:

"Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can't see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades," says Dr Williams. "Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible - it seeks to turn pastors into informers." He adds that the Anglican Church in Uganda opposes the death penalty but, tellingly, he notes that its archbishop, Henry Orombi, who boycotted the Lambeth Conference last year, "has not taken a position on this bill".
Shocking severity, indeed. But of course it would be impolite for the ABC actually to declare his own position on the act. Not in this setting:

We're sitting in the bay window of the 11th-century drawing room of the Archbishop's Palace in Canterbury. Watching the winter dusk envelop the cathedral, it feels a long way from the pressures of London. "It is different here," reflects Dr Rowan Williams. "When people live in human-sized communities, they behave rather more, well, humanly."
Which might not, one supposes, be the case in Uganda. Tut tut.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
The Religion News Service consigns it to the Dept. of Things We Already Knew, but Gallup's new survey of religion and party i.d. is more noteworthy than that. For starters, it makes clear that the God Gap (i.e. the preference of the more religious for Republicans and the less religious for Democrats) is almost entirely confined to non-Hispanic whites. Although Hispanics are also more likely to identify as Republicans the more religious they are, the increase is small.

Gallup's definition of "religious intensity" involves combining self-reported frequency of worship attendance with respondents' ranking of religion's importance to them. The result is four categories: highly religious, religious, less religious, and not religious. In percentage terms, the non-Hispanic white population is split down the middle, with half "highly religious" or "religious" and half less or not. The former identify as Republicans by a 25 point margin and the latter as Democrats by a 15 point margin.

What's politically important to bear in mind that religiosity on this measure is not a bell-shaped curve, with the largest number of respondents in the "religious" and "less religious" middle and fewer at the "highly religious" and "not religious ends." Rather, the big groups--roughly twice as large as the others--are "highly religious" (34 percent) and "less religious" (32 percent). In electoral politics, it's the groups in the middle that are accessible to the other side--which is to say that the Republicans' best chances are with the "less religious" and the Democrats' with the "religious" (18 percent). (The "not religious" weigh in at 16 percent.) And that's why the Gallup array is good news for the Republicans, not so much for the Democrats.

To attract more support, the GOP has a lot more folks to go after--those who don't care about religion much but don't mind darkening a church door every now and then. Downplaying abortion and gay marriage in favor of "big government," as the Republicans are doing, is the way to appeal to them. By contrast, the Democrats are limited to the fewer number of "religious."

One of the reasons strenuous Democratic efforts to demonstrate their religion-friendliness have achieved only modest results is that two out of three of the white voters they're trying to appeal to are locked-up Republicans. Witness the limited success of "common ground" religious strategies this year. That's not necessarily to say that the Dems should stop trying, but they need to scale back their expectations, if they haven't already.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
As Michael Sean Winters has pointed out with asperity, the Beltway reaction to President Obama's Nobel speech as amounting to an "echo" of George W. Bush has been idiotic. Yes, there's evil in the world. That was the point of the speech?

But it wasn't simply that Obama laid out an approach to American war-making that was, in its careful Niebuhrianism, a very far cry from the George Bush who declared as recently as a couple of years ago that "the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy, by advancing liberty across a troubled region." Read carefully, Obama's speech charges Bush with conducting an unjust war in Iraq--and hints that the problem with the previous administration was that it had embarked on a holy war.

The word "Iraq" is conspicuous by its absence in the speech. Obama justifies American military action in various times and places--most notably World War II and Afghanistan--but says not one word about the place Bush famously referred to as "a central front in the war on terror." It is easy to see that, according to the traditional just war principles he laid out, Obama considers Iraq not to have been (as the Vatican made clear at the time) a just war. But why should we think he also considers Bush to have engaged in holy war?

The key paragraphs are these:

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

That reference to the Golden Rule suggests that what's sauce for the extremists was sauce for the Bush administration as well.

Obama justifies his intriguing (and, I predict, controversial) claim that "no holy war can ever be a just war" on the grounds that a belief that you are carrying out God's will gives you the license to commit any and all atrocities. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. But it is clear that the current president believes that the U.S. violated proper rules of military conduct under George Bush. By citing his own prohibition of torture, order to close Guantanamo, and pledge to abide by the Geneva Conventions, Obama implicitly leveled that charge at the previous administration.

Why did Bush et al. break the rules? Obama doesn't say. But he is doubtless aware of the evidence that George Bush believed he was carrying out the divine will in conducting his war on terror. Here's Nabil Shaath, then Palestinian foreign minister:

President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did.

Then there's Bush's well-attested effort to enlist the French in the Iraq war by invoking the biblical prophecy of Gog and Magog.

An echo of Bush? No, Obama's speech was a thorough-going rejection of Bush's entire faith-based project.

| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
horn.jpegYesterday, a representative of the pope attending a U.N. panel on anti-gay violence read a statement from the Holy See that can reasonably interpreted as condemning at least part of Uganda's proposed anti-homosexuality act. The money quote:

As stated during the debate of the General Assembly last year, the Holy See continues to oppose all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons, such as the use of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The Holy See also opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including discriminatory penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person.
But as Timothy Kincaid points out over on Box Turtle Bulletin, there was no actual naming of the Uganda bill. And, in fact, Vatican does not oppose criminalization of homosexual acts, as it made abundantly clear last year when it opposed U.N. endorsement of a universal declaration to decriminalization of homosexuality. Read the above paragraph carefully, and you are entitled to conclude that the Holy is prepared to give the green light to violations of homosexual persons' human rights that are not "grave," as well as discrimination that is  "just"--whatever these may be.

On Uganda, the Vatican has thus sounded a muted horn. Better than nothing, but not a whole lot better.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
After taking considerable flak for keeping his mouth shut on Uganda's proposed anti-homosexuality act, Rick Warren has issued a strong statement and video opposing it, and calling upon Uganda's clergy to do the same. Over on Religion Dispatches, Sarah Posner dismisses the statement as too late in coming and slippery on Warren's own anti-homosexual connections in the country, but to my mind this is not the time to cavil. Such forthright opposition has not been expressed by either Canterbury or Rome. By comparison, Saddleback is standing tall.

It's worth noting that Warren mentions that he expressed his "opposition and concern" to "the most influential leader" he knows in Uganda, the Anglican archbishop. Thus far, the Anglican church in the country has contented itself with opposing the bill's death penalty provision (for repeat homosexual offenders), but otherwise has taken no official position. A few weeks ago, one Anglican bishop, Joseph Abura of the diocese of Karamoja, wrote an opinion piece endorsing the legislation in no uncertain terms:

Ugandan Parliament, the watch dog of our laws, please go ahead and put the anti- Gay laws in place.
Under the circumstances, the bill needs all the opposition that can be mustered, belated or otherwise.
| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
ghost.jpegWhoa! Or should I say, Whooo! According to an intriguing new survey from Pew, Democrats are twice as likely to believe in ghosts as Republicans. Also, twice as likely to believe in fortune tellers and that they are in touch with the dead. And in reincarnation, yoga, spiritual energy, and astrology. And more likely, kinna hurra, to believe in the evil eye.

OK, so maybe this is partly an artifact of race and ethnicity. Blacks and Hispanics are a lot more likely to believe in most of the above, and a lot more likely to be Democrats. But the pattern holds for liberals versus conservatives as well. (Except for the evil eye--17 percent of both believe in it.)

Where things even out is in the realm of "religious or mystical experiences." Fifty percent of both Democrats and Republicans said they have them. Likewise, 50 percent of liberals and 55 percent of Republicans. Conclusion: Republicans and Democrats have roughly the same quantum of spiritual life--but for the Democrats it's more, ah, polymorphous.
| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
Sanforddancing.jpgMembers of a South Carolina legislative panel have declined to recommend impeachment for their wayward chief executive, but did unanimously resolve that he had "brought ridicule, dishonor, disgrace, and shame not only upon Governor Sanford but upon this state and its citizens which rises to a level which requires a formal admonishment and censure." For his part, Sanford told reporters that he hadn't been out of step with the conduct of other governors. Guess that's why governors get high marks for honesty and ethical standards from only 15 percent of the American public. 

| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
profs.jpegclergy.jpegOr so the American people believe, according to Gallup. Okay, so we are not quite up to the level of cops or dentists, but we're way above journalists (sorry, guys), bankers, lawyers, and such riffraff as car salesmen, HMO managers, and members of Congress. But back to that clergy comparison: College teachers get a "very high" or "high" ethical ranking from 54 percent of respondents; clergy, just 50 percent. Could it be that the public is a little more familiar with pastors than profs? Perish the thought. Nanny nanny boo boo!
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
The election of Mary Glasspool, interviewed today in the Baltimore Sun, seems to be hurrying up the likely extrusion of the Episcopal Church from the worldwide Anglican Communion--the association of national churches affiliated with the Church of England under the titular aegis of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The result of such an extrusion would be...well, that Episcopal bishops wouldn't get to go hobnob with other Anglican bishops every ten years at the Archbishop's Lambeth Palace.

Has anyone ever tried to determine how many Episcopalians even care if their denomination is part of the Anglican Communion? Just as the Church of England split with the Church of Rome over a matter of state (Henry VIII marital inclinations), so the Episcopal Church created itself as an entity separate from the Church of England over that late unpleasantness involving tea and other disagreements resulting in the United States of America. Maybe it's time for the Episcopalians to return to their revolutionary roots. 
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Amy Sullivan nicely summarizes the state of play of the Senate health care debate with respect to abortion. As in the House, the Catholic bishops are hanging tough, delivering a strong missive in support of the Nelson-Casey amendment, which tracks Stupak-Pitts. In an interview with the WSJ, Chief USCCB staffer Richard Doerflinger put the bishops' position this way :

"That's not a negotiation we're prepared to have," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the secretariat of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which pushed for the abortion restrictions in the House bill. "I really don't know how you compromise further."
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it doesn't seem to me that the bishops have thus far compromised at all. Unless they consider it a compromise to accept federal funding of abortions in cases of rape and incest--disallowed by Catholic doctrine.

Be that as it may, Sullivan suggests that the Democrat leadership will seek to effect cloture not via an abortion compromise but through the public option. The key player there is Olympia Snowe, who is strongly pro-choice. In the end, the bishops may find themselves with less than they might have gotten.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Last week, NCR's John Allen flung down a bit of a gauntlet to Uganda's Catholic bishops, urging them to take a stand against at least the most draconian provisions of the anti-homosexuality act now working its way through their country's parliament. Today, blogging in the same place, Sean Michael Winters urges American Catholic bishops to join the wide array of Catholic and other Christian leaders who signed a statement condemning the bill that was released today under the auspices of Catholics in Alliance and Faith in Public Life. So far, however, not a peep out of any Catholic bishop anywhere.

Say what you want about the public silence of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not have the power to order any church in the Anglican Communion except his own to do anything. But the Bishop of Rome, well, he's a different species of hierarch. When the Vatican criticizes, say, a Swiss vote to ban the construction of minarets, Catholic bishops support such a ban at their peril. So why not send out word of papal disapproval of the anti-homosexuality act?

Catholics are the largest religious body in Uganda, constituting over two-fifths of the population. If Rome would speak, people would listen.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Palin Graham.jpgOn Sunday, the gimlet-eyed Baptist planeteers over on Religious Connections discerned the spin given to Sarah Palin's recent audience with Billy Graham by Billy's son and heir, Franklin. The statement issued from the mountain top was pretty much standard Billy boilerplate:

It was an honor having Governor Palin and her family in our home this evening. I, like many people, have been impressed with her strong commitment to her faith, to family and love of country. I appreciated hearing her speak of her own spiritual journey and her life in Alaska. I shared with her my own memories of preaching in the Sullivan Arena in Anchorage in 1984. We had an opportunity to pray together. Life in the spotlight is not easy and I pray that whatever lies ahead for this family that their faith in God and His Son, Jesus Christ, would remain strong and that God would put a hedge of protection around her and all those she holds dear. Sarah and her family will always be welcome in the Graham home.
But Franklin has been putting it about that there was more to it than that; as in: "Daddy feels God was using her to wake America up."

Franklin Graham, whose engagement in GOP politics harks back to his 91-year-old daddy's younger days, has been active in the Palin neighborhood for some years. He's got a second home in Port Alsworth, a community where fundamentalists regularly gather for retreats. He keynoted the Alaska governor's (i.e. Palin's) prayer breakfast in 2007 and 2008. There is speculation that he was not the least among those pushing John McCain to put Palin on his ticket. And Palin joined him as his Samaritan's Purse organization collected food in Wasilla to distribute to needy villages last February. So it's hardly a surprise that he should try to conjure Billy's measured words into an endorsement.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
The Episcopal diocese of Los Angeles having elected a partnered lesbian to serve as one of its suffragan bishops, Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) Rowan Williams huffs and puffs thusly:

The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.

The process of selection however is only part complete. The election has to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan standing committees. That decision will have very important implications.

The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold.

But in the matter of Uganda's pending law to criminalize homosexuality up to the death penalty, the ABC saith nary a public word. Ruth Gledhill of Times of London, typically channeling the Canterbury spin, assures that we can take it "for granted" that Williams is dead set against the law, but that he's got to work behind the scenes. An anonymous source in Lambeth Palace offers:

It has been made clear to us, as indeed to others, that attempts to publicly influence either the local church or political opinion in Uganda would be divisive and counter productive. Our contacts, at both national and diocesan level, with the local church will therefore remain intensive but private.

Meanwhile, a significant figure--but not a bishop--in the Ugandan Anglican Church has denounced the anti-homosexuality bill as "state-legislated genocide against a specific community of Ugandans." It's pretty clear that time for the quiet approach is over. In a country where one-third of the population is Anglican, why not something from the ABC like:

The pending anti-homosexuality legislation represents a profound threat to the human rights of a segment of the Ugandan people. The failure of the Ugandan Anglican Church to condemn and oppose it raises very serious questions not just for the Ugandan Anglican Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.

In Gledhill's view, for the ABC to take such a stand "would almost certainly be seen as white-led colonialism of the worst possible kind, as a misguided attempt to impose western liberal values upon traditional African culture. It would not help the local Anglican Church, which has yet to come out on either side."

Heaven forfend.

| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Tebow.jpgDid Tim Tebow have an inking that things weren't going to work out so well for Numero Uno Florida against second-ranked Alabama? The verse he inscribed on the glare paint under his eyes reads:

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
Maybe  the Gators will stomp the Crimson Tide in the world to come. Or, wait till next year.
| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
The re-emergence of  the American Catholic bishops as a significant force for social conservatism on the national scene is the result of a combination of happenstance, intention, and changes in the political situation, both secular and ecclesiastical. Some of the proximate causes are covered in Barbara Bradley Haggerty's NPR story, but it worth considering the situation from the middle distance as well.

For starters, the disappearance from the scene of the founding generation of evangelical political leaders (Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et al.) has left the religious right shrunken and in some disarray. Moreover, having long since abandoned even the pretense of non-partisanship, religious right activists have lost whatever leverage they might once have had with the Democrats who now control the levers of power in Washington. Their troops themselves are so locked into the Republican Party that there's little the leadership could do to make their influence felt in any case.

By contrast, the Catholic bishops, the priest pedophile cover-up scandal more or less behind them, preside over a swing constituency that is, at least at the margins, responsive to what they have to say. Most importantly, there are enough socially conservative Catholic members of Congress for the bishops to make a difference, at least on the neuralgic issue of abortion. And so, it appears, the bishops have made a difference.

It is, in fact, hard to escape the conclusion that they are prepared to let health care reform go down to defeat if they don't get their way on keeping abortion coverage out of the final legislation. This is beginning to dawn on pro-health reform folks like John Gehring of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, who over on NCR gives the bishops a bit of the business. It would be remarkable if, after over a century of social encyclicals from Leo XIII to Benedict XVI, health care reform came about in the United States not because of the Catholic bishops but in spite of them.   
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
On November 9--that's almost four weeks ago--the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (OFANP) inaugurated a blog, whose initial post from Director Joshua DuBois announced:

In the coming days, you can expect this blog to:

    • Provide more information about the day-to-day work of the White House Office and Centers at Federal agencies;
    • Highlight the latest work of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships;
    • Point nonprofits to federal resources that can help them implement effective programs; and
    • Spotlight innovative local organizations that are strengthening our communities

I'm looking forward to using this blog to communicate important information to local organizations and community leaders.

Since then, there have been a handful of posts having to do with meetings of the OFANP Advisory Council, HHS's flu program and celebration of National Adoption Day, and a USDA hunger program. But not a peep about health reform.

OK, so OFANP is supposed to be about non-controversial Good Things. No mucking around with that pesky faith-based hiring issue, for example. And yes, let Congress take the lead in negotiating the grubby programmatic details. But the White House should be taking charge of making the moral case for covering the uninsured, for doing the right thing for those overwhelmed by health care costs. Can't OFANP show a little faith-based initiative here?

| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks
Elizabeth Tenety, a young woman who blogs over on On Faith, laments Tiger Woods' fall from grace, asking at the end of her post:

When will those in the spotlight learn that we're counting on them? Can our national heroes publicly sin and remain worthy of adoration?
The answers are 1) never; and 2) yes. If you don't believe me, try Michael Wilbon, who has made a study of the subject. Actually, the truer answer may be that those who've been in the spotlight for longer than 15 minutes know that we are counting on them--to behave badly, and repent, and get on with their messy lives, or not. Where would American culture be without celebrity falls from grace and the ensuing soap operas? That's what we adore. Go, Tiger, Go!
| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
George.jpegThe Manhattan Declaration released a couple of weeks ago caused a bit of a flurry by threatening civil disobedience if the signatories (Christian leaders of various denominational stripes) were legally obliged to do things that violated their consciences with respect to abortion or same-sex marriage. The question in this space was what kind of civil disobedience they had in mind. The Los Angeles Times chastised them for "going too far when they declare they will break laws."

Now comes an answer from the Declaration's prime mover, Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. In response to a query from NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez on the appropriate time for and expression of civil disobedience, George, after declaring that "gravely unjust laws...do not bind in conscience," allowed as how medical professionals should "abandon their careers" rather than participate in abortion and Catholic hospitals should likewise "go out of business."

Whatever one thinks of such injunctions, they have nothing to do with civil disobedience. No law would be broken or even challenged by a medical professional or institution that followed them. Indeed, what's being recommended is no more than the position taken by John F. Kennedy in his 1960 speech to the Houston ministers that Catholic conservatives these days find so inadequate:

But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
Perhaps Professor George should re-read his Thoreau. Or stop talking about civil disobedience.
| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks
Yesterday's 11-2 vote on the first reading of the D.C. City Council's same-sex marriage bill makes same-sex marriage inside the Beltway all but inevitable. Neither Catholic Church nor black clergy nor Congress is going to stop this train, and everyone knows it.

Under the circumstances, it looks like Archbishop Wuerl has decided to dial back the threats to withdraw Catholic Charities from the District. The latest on the archdiocesan website is that the legislation "could require" faith-based organizations to compromise on their religious beliefs and teachings.

Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said that if a compromise is not reached, the Church will continue to provide services but with fewer resources, because it will no longer be able to bid on city contracts.
"We are just asking for a bill that would balance the city's interest in legalizing same-sex marriage and religious groups' interest in following their faith teachings," Gibbs said.
Discussions on tweaking the bill to make it more religiously palatable are ongoing, but they're not going to change the bill much if at all.

So far as I have been able to find out, Catholic Charities has managed to continue most of their good works just fine in jurisdictions that permit same-sex marriages but which provide nothing more by way of legal exemptions than the D.C. bill--namely in Massachusetts and Connecticut. A few years ago, Massachusetts' bishops did compel Catholic Charities of Boston (over the unanimous opposition of its board) to stop placing babies with gay and lesbian couples and to withdraw from the adoption business. But otherwise, the agency seems to be engaged in business as usual. I should say, however, that my own efforts to determine whether Catholic Charities in Boston and Hartford are paying health benefits to same-sex spouses (an alleged sticking point in D.C.) have thus far proved fruitless. Maybe some full-time reporters will have better luck getting answers.

Within D.C.'s black community, there's been debate about whether same-sex marriage qualifies as a civil rights struggle. The challenge of whether to allow others a share in a critical dimension of one's own collective journey is not unique to African Americans. Jews have had to confront their "ownership" of the Holocaust--and over the years have come to acknowledge their common cause with other victims of genocide. The problem for African-Americans is more complicated, however, because of their high degree of disapproval of homosexuality. Still and all, in a majority black city, what's notable is the degree of support same-sex marriage has garnered.

As for Capitol Hill, Republicans seem resigned to waiting until they're back in the majority to overturn same-sex marriage in Our Nation's Capital. Now there's a campaign promise.
| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
The quality of Gov. Mike Huckabee's mercy was not strained. It dropped like a gentle rain from heaven, upon just about any convicted felon who claimed to have found his way to Jesus. This was well known among the incarcerated class in Arkansas and so, it seems, more than the usual number of felons included Jesus in their commutation pleas. That's the well attested old story recapitulated by WaPo religion editor David Waters over on Under God.

Meanwhile, on the schadenfreude front, NYT on-line columnist Timothy Egan lays into Huckabee and his current employer, Roger Ailes, who gleefully hung Michael Dukakis out to dry for once having pardoned a rapist named Willie Horton. On Mr. Ailes' news network, Huck's exoneration by Bill (("you're a stand-up guy") O'Reilly is, indeed, a wonder to behold: Huck innocent, Washington State judges, guilty. Mercy, mercy.

For all this, the Maurice Clemmons case (now brought to a bloody end) points to the fact that Mike Huckabee used to be a much more interesting public figure than he is now. Something like a bona fide compassionate conservative, he was, as governor of Arkansas, notably soft on illegal immigrants, did not scruple to needle the Club for Growth as the "Club for Greed," and, well, acted on the belief that criminals could actually be rehabilitated. For his pains he was, briefly, lionized by the liberal media--and ran into the buzz saw of the Conservative Elite. The kicker to today's NYT story by Kate Zernike pretty much says it all:

On Sunday, before the shooting, Mr. Huckabee sounded ambivalent on Fox News about running for president, saying he liked his role at the network and wanted to be sure that, unlike in 2008, he would receive support from the Republican establishment.
Good luck with that now, Mike.
| 0 Comments | No TrackBacks

Archives

Current Issue

Current Issue of Religion in the News

Recent Comments

  • Môlsem: By way of introduction, permit me to note that I spent some years as a professional mediator, and have an instinct to look beyond the surface of all sides to read more
  • Lionel: And those hypocrites dare call the Devil evil. read more
  • JuneAnnette: The Clergy Abuse SCANDAL continues to unfold and the pedophilia plague within the Roman Catholic “church” continues to rage. The intense scrutiny their monstrous crimes are receiving by the read more
  • Bill Wilson: My Tipperary-born father had a word for the tripe we've been getting from Rome since this scandal broke years ago: "Blather!" When will all the assertions of concern for the read more
  • Stephen Doyne : Imagery and possible specific associations aside, what troubles me is what appears to be an utter lack of self-examination from anti-abortion groups and the fragile-minded people who are sometimes attracted read more
  • Cathy Grossman: Note taken: 1-million member can stand without a qualifier. read more