Open Left - religion

Why Republicans Should Be Really, Really Scared

dreaminonempty — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:00:00 GMT

In one of the first diaries of this series, we noted that 90% of John McCain's votes came from white voters. More specifically though, 83% of John McCain's votes came from white Christian voters. As a proportion of the electorate, we saw whites are declining. But guess what? So are Christians, slowly but steadily. Here's how that looks:

Click to enlarge.
Double Trouble, Again

Once again, it's not just that the primary Republican demographic is declining, that demographic is also voting increasingly for Democrats:

Click to enlarge.

Both Christians and non-Christians have been trending towards Democrats over the past 30 years. The trend among Christians can not be completely accounted for by the increasing number of non-white Christians, either, as slight (but not significant) trends can be seen among white Protestants and white Catholics as well:

Click to enlarge.

Basically, McCain barely won Christians in 2008, and non-Christians are solidly Democratic. Meanwhile, all the trends are against Republicans.

Changes in Identification

The Pew survey on religion has a wealth of data regarding changes in religious identification, and Gallup has long-term trends. Looking at people who join and leave certain religions over their lifetime, they found the fastest growing identification was Agnostic, followed by Other (New Age, Unitarian, Native American), Atheist, Nothing in Particular, Buddhist, and Muslim. Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant groups showed net losses.

Despite losing almost a quarter of their ranks to other denominations, Catholics are maintaining their proportion in the electorate because of immigration, mainly from Latin America. This is not, however, particularly soothing to Republicans. Overall, recent immigrants are about the same proportion Unaffiliated (Atheist, Agnostic, and Nothing in Particular) as the country as a whole, but about twice as likely to belong to a non-Christian religion (8-10% instead of 5%). They are also far more Catholic - almost 50% Catholic, and only about a quarter Protestant; currently the nationwide figures are about 50% Protestant and a quarter Catholic.

The Numbers

Looking at the bar chart in the introduction, white Mainline Protestants and Catholics (two diverse groups themselves, mind you) were essentially split 50-50, white Evangelical Protestants were strongly Republican, and non-white Christians were strongly Democratic. All together, Christians were split close to evenly, with a slight advantage for McCain. However, every category of non-Christian voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Here's another way to look at the data from Pew, combined with other polls, with more divisions:

Click to enlarge.

There's really only three bright spots for Republicans: Mormons, White Evangelical Christians, and Orthodox Jews.

More Trends

We have data for a few more religious groups as well:

Click to enlarge.

Mormons may show a weak trend over the years towards Republicans. The data shown are for Rich County, Utah, which was 85% Mormon in 2004 (95% in 1989), according to LDS church records (which may overstate the number). Sadly for Republicans, Mormons make up only about 2% of the country. Even in Utah, projections are that less than half the population will be Mormon by 2030. Not only that, but the increasingly obvious antipathy of the Republican base towards Mormons in general and Mitt Romney in particular might throw some cold water on this trend. Especially in light of the appointment of popular Utah governor (and Mormon) Jon Huntsman as ambassador to China.

The Jewish vote has not only long been a solid Democratic demographic, but has been an increasingly Democratic demographic, despite quadrennial stories on Republicans making gains with Jewish voters. In 2008 Obama had the highest support of any Democratic candidate since the measurements began, at 83%, besting even the Gore/Lieberman ticket. (Note that because of small samples, this is not significantly stronger support than prior years.) This in a year of Barack the Scary Muslim emails targeting Jewish voters in particular, which were clearly ineffective. Once again, however, we see an example of We Are Not All of Us Alike, as Orthodox Jews showed strong support for McCain this year and Bush in 2004. (Note that poll results shown in the chart above among Jewish subcategories are based on results from a July poll that have been adjusted to fit the final exit poll results.) Estimates seen earlier for several Jewish immigrant communities in New York and Americans in Israel also showed strong support for McCain.

The Muslim community showed very strong support for Democrats this year, and among Arab Muslims at least, a dramatic increasingly Democratic trend. The poll of Muslim voters was completed by randomly selecting names from a list of Muslim voters, so there could be a bias to it depending on how the list was generated. However, the results are in agreement with the Muslim subsample in the poll of Arab Americans, and the Bangladeshi and Pakistani subsamples in the Asian American poll. Another demographic slice of the Muslim American community, African Americans, is also strongly Democratic. The recent development of Muslim American political behavior has been described as occurring in three stages: first, debating whether to participate in elections at all prior to 2000; second, whether to increase political power by voting as a block prior to 2004; and third, a less organized but perhaps more involved participation prior to the 2008 elections. It has been a dramatic ten years, from the seeming betrayal by George Bush, who had strong Muslim support in 2000, to the 2008 campaigns where the Muslim label was used as a rhetorical bludgeon (a ploy which may have backfired), to the election of a man who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia and has family ties to Islam.

White Evangelical Christians show a short-term trend that parallels Rich County, Utah, but there's really not enough data to make much of it. More on this group can be found here.

Finally, a brief mention of Baha'i and Zoroastrianism: very small samples in the poll of Iranian-Americans in California indicated Iranian-American members of these faiths have views aligned with the more conservative of Iranian-Americans, and would therefore likely have more or less split their presidential vote. Clearly, the uncertainty here is very large.

________________________________________________
This diary is the fifteenth in a series taking a close look at the 2008 electorate and exploring three themes: diversity within demographics, progressive feedback loops, and demographic change.

Previous diaries:

Looking Back
Alternate History
Why Republicans Should Be Really Scared
African-Americans - We Are Not All of Us Alike
East and South Asian Americans - Diverse and Growing
West Asian Americans - Rapid Change
Native Americans - Increasing Participation
Islander Americans - In Need of More Representation
Alaskan Natives - An Economic Factor?
Latino Americans - Increasing Influence
European Americans - Tribal Politics Persist
"American" Americans - You Might Be Surprised
White Evangelicals - Influence Beyond Their Numbers
Appalachia - Surprisingly Democratic

Tomorrow: Why Republicans Should Be Really, Really, Really Scared - Age
Sunday: Last of the Series - Extra Bits and Pieces

Cross posted at DailyKos.

2008 Electorate: Appalachia - Surprisingly Democratic

dreaminonempty — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:00:00 GMT

What in the heck is wrong with Appalachia? I keep running into interesting correlations that tells me Appalachia should be giving far less support to Democrats at the presidential level than it actually does.

Here's the example from yesterday:

Click to enlarge.

If all of Central Appalachia behaved like the rest of the region, we'd expect to see all the points scattered near the line in the graph above. Instead, the points representing counties in parts of Appalachia go soaring off above 50%.

And Southern Appalachia does its own strange thing too. More below.
Ten Second Summary
Appalachia has been moving away from Democrats over the last 30 years, although faster rates of decline in Democratic support (in relative terms) can be found among non-Appalachian Southern whites. Still, Appalachia is far more supportive of Democrats in places than one might have expected based on several variables. Religion and history both likely play a role.

Back to Mississippi

Back in one of the first chapters of this series, I showed a plot of percent Obama versus percent white in Southern and Central Mississippi. There's a reason for that: counties in Northern Mississippi just don't fall on that line. They're a good deal more supportive of Obama than we might have expected given their racial composition. (Note that only counties where 97% or more of the population in 2000 was either African-American or white are included in the regression.)

Click to enlarge.

The same is true for Alabama. When you look at which counties don't fit on the line (shown in green below), it's a familiar pattern:

Click to enlarge.

The counties where Obama did better than expected based on the percent of the population that's white are almost all in Southern Appalachia. There's a few more along the Gulf Coast, too. Also note that the one red county is red not because whites there are far more Republican, but because it is 14% Native American, and thus an analysis based on a binary black/white universe does not work with that county.

Change, Change, Change

The pattern was even more striking in the past. Here's the graphs for the 2008, 2004 and 1988 elections:

Click to enlarge.

You can see Southern Appalachia used to be even more Democratic, given its racial composition, than the rest of Alabama and Mississippi. White support for Democrats has decreased in all parts of these states. Outside of Appalachia, support among whites in Mississippi and Alabama fell around 15-25% between 2004 and 2008 - a mere trifle compared to the 65-75% decrease between 1988 and 2008. In Southern Appalachia, support fell as well, but not as much - about 10-20% from 2004 to 2008, and 40-60% from 1988 to 2008.

Central Appalachia

In Central Appalachia we see a similar pattern. Although, as I showed in the introduction, we see far more support in parts of this region than we would have expected, this is after a substantial decline in support compared to support for Kerry. Indeed, many counties in this region showed some of the largest decreases in Democratic support at the presidential level from 2004 to 2008, both in absolute numbers and percentages.

A major difference shows up when you look at vote totals, however. In Appalachian Mississippi and Alabama, vote totals are generally a little higher in 2008 than in 2004.

In many of the counties with the greatest drop in Democratic support in Appalachian Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, however, vote totals dropped a lot. For example, (and this is one of the most extreme examples) in Harlan County, Bush had 6659 votes to Kerry's 4332 votes. In 2008, McCain had 7165 votes (506 more than Bush) but Obama only had 2586 votes (1746 fewer compared to Kerry, a 40% drop). Harlan County is not one of the Central Appalachian counties that gives more support to Democrats than we expect. But the same pattern shows up in those counties as well - for example, Floyd County, Kentucky. This suggest that many Democrats in Central Appalachia didn't vote for McCain last year - they simply didn't vote.

Why?

We now have several questions to answer:

Why did Obama do so much worse than Kerry among many Appalachian whites?

Why do Democrats do so much better in Appalachia than we might otherwise expect?

Why are some Central Appalachians so different, politically, from their neighbors?

Why did Obama do worse than Kerry in so much of Appalachia?

First, let's assume that many Kerry voters stayed home in 2008 in Central Appalachia. Mathematically, it could be that many Bush voters stayed home and many Kerry voters voted for McCain, but that doesn't make as much sense to me. In Southern Appalachia, on the other hand, it was more of a switch to the Republican, as turnout did not decrease as much.

So why stay home or switch? Possibilities include: not a strong Obama campaign presence, and rumors Obama would eliminate the coal industry (a reason specific to coal-producing areas). Or maybe it's because he's African-American.

I can't claim to know what's in any voter's mind. However, I believe there's evidence that Obama's low support in this region was not because he's African-American. At least, not in Tennessee. Why? Because Harold Ford, in a Senate election in which race played a role, did better than John Kerry in every county in the state, including in Appalachian Tennessee. In fact, he essentially did just as well as Al Gore throughout the whole state, once home-county favorites are accounted for.

So in Tennessee at least, it's not that people wouldn't vote for an African-American, because they have in the past. Harold Ford did just as well as Al Gore, who did better than John Kerry, who did better than Barack Obama. So how else was Obama different from Kerry? Another possibility is the labeling of Obama as the ultimate "Other". Forget race - he's a Socialist Secret Muslim Foreign Anti-American Terrorist, born in ~~Hawaii~~ Kenya and raised in Indonesia!!!! As cskendrick put it (more reasonably) in a diary well worth the read:

A urbane, well-educated, well-off, well-spoken, forward-looking son of a recent immigrant who did not share the country-boy-can-survive ethos would have been a tough sell in the most affable of Appalachian moods.

The final potential reason I will bring up is simply a continuation of prior trends. Essentially, whites in Appalachia have a strong Democratic tradition that has been on a slow decline over the last thirty years that is accelerated in areas with a strong Baptist presence (not necessarily caused by Baptism itself). In Southern Appalachia, the Republicans' racist Southern Strategy has also played a role. The 2008 election is simply consistent with prior trends, and the splotch of purple showing decreased Democratic performance is not necessarily due to anything specific about Obama. Let's look at the voting records of selected nearly all-white counties to see how this plays out:

Click to enlarge.

On the left, we see two counties in Central Appalachia with very few Baptists and the state of West Virginia essentially following the country in voting preferences until about 1980. After 1980, the country gradually swings towards Democrats, while Central Appalachia slowly slides the other way, although still maintaining relatively strong support for Democrats. In the middle, we see a different pattern post-1980 in counties with large numbers of Southern Baptists: a surge of support for Clinton, followed by a precipitous drop as the faith-based Republican Permanent Majority get out the vote program is put in place. On the right, we see the effect of Civil Rights and the Reagan Revolution. In the Roosevelt era, white Southerners were strongly Democratic; after a wild ride of third party candidates and Nixon mania, Carter pulled the old Democratic coalition together one last time before the plunge. After 1980, we see a Baptist and Appalachian pattern in the two counties shown, according to their characters.

Why is Appalachia unusually Democratic?

Part of the answer to this question lies in perspective and the way I've set up the narrative of this diary. When we're looking at Alabama and Mississippi, whites in Appalachia are far more Democratic at the presidential level than whites in the rest of these two states. Comparing Appalachian Pennsylvania to the rest of that state shows a different story. What we're really seeing is a geographic/political/cultural boundary that follows the physical geography - the Appalachians on their Eastern and Southern side - instead of the political geography - state lines. (On the other side of the Appalachians, the boundary of political behavior is more diffuse, as we saw in the previous diary, and indeed extends to some degree well past the Appalachians, through the Upland South and Ozarks).

The real question then becomes, Why is Appalachia behaving as a political unit? That is a more complicated question to answer, rooted in history, class, and economics, and I would refer you again to cskendrick, and also Genius at Wrok.

Why are there large differences among "American" Central Appalachians?

In the previous diary, and in the Introduction, we saw some very large discrepancies in the voting behavior of those who label their ancestry as "American" or who do not chose a label. In some parts of Central Appalachia, this group more or less evenly split their vote; in other parts, it was a landslide in favor of McCain.

In Western Kentucky, for instance, the Northern half was fairly supportive of Obama; the Southern half had low support. There's no clear difference in variables such as race, education, and income. But one variable does stand out: religion, as shown above. Take a look at the table comparing two Appalachian counties in Kentucky:

Click to enlarge.

There's two major differences - population density and religion. The county that is more rural gave much more support to Obama. The county that is more Baptist gave much more support to McCain. This pattern holds throughout Appalachian Kentucky: maps show the patterns of religious membership and population density have a rough relationship to the pattern of places with relatively high Democratic support. And the churches we're talking about are predominantly Baptist.

Note that those not claimed by a religious body are not necessarily non-believers; rather, their denomination may not have been surveyed, or they may be religious without attending formal services. For instance, home-based bible study groups.

What we see here may be the effect of the institute of Baptist religion on politics. There could be something else at play as well: Why do we see the particular pattern of Baptist adherence in the maps above? Is it related to the geography and population density? There could easily be some underlying factor not captured by the numbers above the results in resistance to the Baptist faith, lower population density, and support for Democrats.

However, on the statewide level, there is a strong relationship between the percent of whites who voted for Obama and the percent who call themselves evangelical or born-again. This relationship is described in a diary that is essentially the next part of this series, although it was published last year.

For more on religion, we'll wait until tomorrow.

________________________________________________
This diary is the thirteenth in a series taking a close look at the 2008 electorate and exploring three themes: diversity within demographics, progressive feedback loops, and demographic change.

Previous diaries:

Next in Series (Previously Published): White Evangelicals - Influence Beyond Their Numbers

Tomorrow: Why Republicans Should Be Really, Really Scared - Religion

Cross posted at DailyKos.

The Bishop vs. The Grassroots

Adam Bink — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:15:00 GMT

This is part of a series of on-the-ground coverage with the No On 1 campaign in Maine, generously funded in part by you and with the support of the New Organizing Institute's National LGBT Blogger and Citizen Journalist Initiative. For other posts in this series, click here.

Since I've arrived in Maine, I've spent a good deal of time exploring people of faith, their reaction to same-sex marriage, and involvement in the No on 1 campaign. I wrote previously about Bishop Gene Robinson and his framing of religion and same-sex marriage here, and about supportive religious communities here.

Today I want to talk about the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese here, his involvement in the issue- which has become something of a flashpoint here in Maine- and the backlash and response to it in the grassroots.

Full story on the flip.
First, let me give a little overview of the demographics. Maine is a state of about 1.3 million people, approximately 198,000 of which are Catholics, according to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland. Everyone up here tells me there are "two Maines", but it's not just split in terms of political ideology, but also in terms of Catholicism. French Catholics are concentrated in St. John River Valley, Lewiston-Auburn, Livermore Falls- where Franco-Americans came into Maine and worked in mill towns. Those are all in the less populated areas of the state. In Portland, the state's largest population center, it's a mix of Irish/Italian/Polish Catholics, who are all more culturally Catholic (or what some would call cafeteria Catholics, twice-a-year Catholics), compared to northern Maine, where religious piety is stronger. A number of people active in the Catholic community to whom I spoke up here acknowledged the Gallup statistic that Maine is the third-least religious state in the country as consistent with their experience, but added that even for those who do respond that religion is an important part of their lives, many of them are culturally, liberally Catholic. They are not monolithically pious people who take the Bishop's word as Gospel.

That cultural difference helped serve as a flashpoint for what has happened with the Church. In May and June, Bishop Richard Malone ordered the parishes in Maine to print handouts and distribute them in the church bulletins for six straight Sundays- each discussing a different aspect of how marriage equality would destroy Maine. The Bishop also ordered parish priests to give a homily about the topic, and ordered that a second collection be taken up to pay for television ads. For those who are unfamiliar, a collection is taken up weekly to pay for the activities of the Church, and a small percentage goes to the Diocese. A second collection is sometimes taken up for special occasions, such as to help the needy, support troops overseas, Katrina victims, etc. For a second collection to be taken up for a political occasion, was, according to many longtime active Maine Catholics to whom I spoke, unheard of. Then the Bishop produced a DVD and ordered priests to screen it during Sunday services. This absolutely sent people off the rails.

The DVD move, according to many, was crossing the line, both in terms of the reaction from rank-and-file Catholics as well as from priests. I've heard stories of priests standing up, flatly announcing the Bishop ordered the following DVD be screened, and then sitting down. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. In terms of the rank-and-file, many saw it as taking the Church into the political realm far more than it should be. As Ann Underwood with Catholics for Marriage Equality told me, "when the Bishop is stating that Catholics should oppose marriage equality, he is stating his political opinion. It is not an opinion of the Church. He is using his position to propagate a political opinion, and that really got to people." That's accentuated by the fact that the church bulletin leaflets the Bishop ordered placed were entirely devoid of religious teachings, and sounded straight out of Stand for Marriage Maine's talking points (unsurprising, considering the leader of SFMM is Marc Mutty, who is on leave as public affairs director at the Diocese). Two examples are here and here.

Much of the pushback is in the form of Catholics for Marriage Equality, a group which has sprung up in response to the Bishop's moves, and which Jesse Connolly, the No On 1 campaign manager, mentioned on Rachel Maddow on Tuesday night as leading the pushback.

I talked with Ann yesterday, a co-founder of the group, about their tactics.

Q: Tell me about Catholics for Marriage Equality and what they're doing here in Maine.
A: Catholics for Marriage Equality started on Labor Day. We had two reasons for starting: one was to give hope to people who are angry and hurt because of the Bishop's determination to overturn same-sex marriage for couples in Maine, as well as people who are Catholics, but also GLBT or parents/grandparents/siblings of GLBT people, who say "how can a Church who stands for justice do something terribly hurtful?" The second reason we formed is to disseminate information which is both truthful and respectful stating why Catholics can oppose the Bishop's opinion on same-sex marriage, why they do not have a duty to do what the Church hierarchy says they want to have done on this issue. There is so much in Catholic social teachings that says one must form one's own conscience on an issue, and with prayerful discernment, and so we wanted people to have information on which they could educate themselves and make prayerful discernment. The Church has a right under canon law and civil law to restrict information that is given out on its premises, and regrettably they've chosen to do that. Opinions counter to the Bishop's are not being permitted. So practicing Catholics and members of the community have no way of understanding what blogs, websites, articles, people they could go to seek information that would give them the ability to form an educated opinion as to how they should vote on same-sex marriage in Maine.
Q: To that end, what have you done in terms of outreach?
A: What we've done in terms of outreach has been primarily by word of mouth and online because we can't get into church publications or on church property. Last May/June, in every church bulletin in every parish for six Sundays, the Diocese printed very glossy, attractive sheets of paper that each week would address one topic on same-sex marriage the Bishop wanted to call attention to. One week was how parental rights would be harmed, another week was how religious liberty would be harmed. So people had to read those, and may were immediately saying, 'how do we respond to this?' So in August I sat down and wrote brief responses to each of those statements or arguments by the Bishop and we printed those up. We have them in hardcopy and obviously most successfully online at religiouscoalition.org. C4ME was part of the two rallies that the interfaith community held in Portland and Bangor on Sunday. We were part of the sponsorship of Bishop Gene Robinson this past Thursday. We have people from Kittery all the way up to Houlton that have signed an online petition that is a statement of conscience, online, saying that as faithful Catholics, we do not support the kind of hatred that we feel is being displayed in the way they are framing their opposition to same-sex marriage. We point out that Catholics in America are people who have traditionally been on the outside, who have been marginalized, who know what it's like to have the body politic of a dominant group casting aspersions, and how can we now be doing the same thing that's unconscionable? In this Sunday's Portland Press Herald, we took out advertising space to print a declaration of conscience (Adam: you can view it here) that 128 relatively prominent Maine Catholics signed saying that we regret the Diocese has chosen to take energy and financial resources and put them into a campaign at a time that there is so much need for the Diocese to be addressing homelessness, food banks, etc.
Q: Has the Church responded to your efforts? Have they made any statements?
A: The Church has had no direct response to our efforts, no. I think periodically Marc Mutty seeks to reassure people that it's a very small group of Catholics that feel this way. The Bishop spoke at the Yes rally in August at the end of September said there was a small group of dissidents called C4ME, but then tried to make sure people understood we were small.
Q: What kind of response have you had from both Catholics who may be favorable to your message as well as rank-and-file Catholics who may be less favorable?
To be honest, I haven't heard anything from anybody that hasn't been favorable. I get so much enthusiasm, especially from younger Catholics, who are the face of the Church we'd all like to see, the face of the Church of a God of expansive and not exclusionary love. One of the things that's struck me in this campaign is when the Bishop did his six statements, he never cited Scripture. He never talked about Jesus. He never talked about God. He never talked about love, justice, fairness and compassion. He had a strict political message. And what we've been trying to do with our buttons is say God is love. We're speaking out of our tradition and out of the Gospels and speaking about love, not a political action. My experience with the people I've been talking with and the stories I was hearing, I thought I would be doing something political. I really feel I'm doing something more pastoral, and listening to people's stories, hurt, and hope.

In addition to the rallies and advertising Ann mentioned, C4ME also asked people to put notes instead of money in the plate for the second collection and walk out on "DVD Sunday", in addition to the usual bumper stickers and buttons. They also have responded to the Church in the traditional press (examples here and here), placed this op-ed in the Lewiston paper, and the same ad in the Portland Press Herald is being run this Sunday in the Bangor Daily News.

The No On 1 campaign itself has also pushed back on TV, with this ad. The mother self-identifies as "a Catholic all my life", and has got an accent that everyone can recognize as being from Lewiston, a very Catholic town in Maine.

The emergence of a Catholic backlash to the Bishop over the issue is great, and as I wrote the other day, also helps in another way. Many GLBT individuals have an automatic association with Catholicism as being negative for GLBT equality. Institutionally, it's true. The emergence of a grassroots rebuttal to that is encouraging. My hope is that in other states, a similar pushback begins even prior to direct actions the Diocese might undertake.

Religious People Aren't Always Who You Think They Are

Adam Bink — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:30:00 GMT

Since I've arrived here in Maine, I've been intrigued at the element of religion in the debate, religious activism around marriage equality. Earlier this month, Nate Silver calculated that support a marriage ban rises on a one-to-one level with religiosity in a state. Maine is the third-least religious state in the Nation, according to Gallup, so he argued that bodes well for our prospects.

I don't doubt the statistical analysis, but what I think is being missed is the element in which people of faith mobilize to support marriage equality.

On Thursday, I went to a packed-to-the-walls talk by Bishop Gene Robinson in the Cathedral of St. Luke's here in Portland, where he spoke movingly about Question 1. Yesterday, I went to a large march that concluded with a several-hundred person rally in a Unitarian Universalist Church in the afternoon (this is on a Sunday afternoon in the rain in seemingly a Patriots-rabid area).

What amazed me was the degree to which people of every faith had turned out for this campaign. Nearly every religious creed was represented. I spoke with a number of people at the rally who self-identified as regular worshipers and people of faith- those would respond affirmatively to the Gallup question. But they were not only against Question 1, they were activists.

I talked with Pastor Stephen Carnahan of The Open House United Church of Christ in Portland, who MC'ed the rally:

The United Church of Christ of which I'm a part, and the Unitarian Universalist churches, we've been out on front of this issue for some time, so there's been a groundswell of support among progressive Christians in the Maine community... the Catholic Church and some of the conservative Protestant chruches, progressive Protestants on the other. There are a LOT of progressive Protestants in this area, though, so it's been a large and growing number... I don't think we're any less spiritual than any others.

He went on to mention how approximately 140 ministers had went to testify on marriage equality at the state legislative hearing, the congregation has done phone banking, and so forth. This, I think is something that's being missed in analyses like Nate's.

It really is heartening to see this, because in many places, there's prevalent assumption that if it's religious, it must not bode well for LGBT people. I have a lot of friends who feel this way, and I personally have a reflexive antipathy towards religion until I went to the famous Glide Memorial Church in San Francisco, an incredibly community of volunteering and welcoming towards all people of all walks of life, but where members of the congregation were just as religious as any other. That congregation, and the ones in Maine I saw gathered on Thursday and today, prove the assumption wrong.

The Framing of Same-Sex Marriage and Religion

Adam Bink — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:00:00 GMT

On Thursday, Bishop Gene Robinson- the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church- was here in Portland speaking about the marriage ballot initiative. I sat down with him beforehand to ask him about the religious aspect of this. Here's what he had to say:

There was a particular part of what he said that struck me as interesting.

I see marriage as becoming more and more of a civil institution as religious affiliation shrinks. The main reason two people become married is for the civil benefits- taxes, health care, transfer of property, and so forth- has become more prominent. Yet religion has become a stakeholder in the institution so much that religious institutions have a seat at the table in debates like this. And so when there is a movement to expand marriage rights to LGBT couples, churches cry foul and stoke fears that they will be required to marry such couples. The same fears were expressed regarding marriages between people of different religions and people of different races.

In reality, as Bishop Robinson said, this is the church imposing its will on the state. "Separation of church and state works both ways." The framing of what he meant is what really caught me: that churches, as he said, are deputized by the state for civil purposes. If you want to get married, you to a church and you get married. Or you can go get a justice of the peace. You can even have a friend become a Universal Life minister just for the occasion. There are lots of ways. And as Bishop Robinson pointed out, when you get a divorce, you don't go back to the church. You go to the courts. But because marriage originated as a religious concept, and because churches and other religious organizations are massive and organized, the church has a seat at the table, and the religious exceptions written into the New Hampshire and Maine legislation has a specific exception for that. So they get to cry foul and people listen to them.

A way to counter that is that religious institutions should not be allowed to say who should and who should not be married outside their doors. Stay out of state affairs. Thus, his frame: that religious institutions are deputized to perform marriages, just as a library is used for a blood drive. But that doesn't mean the library gets to have a say on who shall give and who shall not. Ergo, neither should a church, and separation of church and state run both ways.

The Pan Atlantic (state-based pollster) poll this past week showed 50.0% voting Yes, 42.7% voting No, and 7.3% undecided (albeit a sample size of 110 Catholic voters). Anecdotally, since I've gotten to Maine I have heard story after story of someone's Catholic mom or grandmother who is voting No, in a state where there is a strong Catholic Church presence and the Church has done two collections for the initiative. For me, the jury is out on whether Bishop Robinson's frame is resonating, but I think it's one to push.

The Catholic Church, Private Insurance and Abortion

danps — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:45:29 GMT

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently weighed in against a Democratic health care reform proposal, calling it a legal fiction. It may be opposing it on grounds that are a moral one.

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

On Monday I sent the following email to Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Colorado:

The recent letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops [USCCB] opposing a House health care plan on the grounds that its prohibition of abortion funding was a "legal fiction" raised a question to me. I first learned of you because of your statement that voting for John Kerry in 2004 was cooperating in evil due to his position on abortion, so I know how seriously you take the issue. My question is, has the American church, the Conference or any other official Catholic body or agency taken a position on Catholics' purchasing insurance from companies that provide abortion services? All of the major ones - Aetna, Blue Cross, Cigna, United Healthcare and so on - provide abortion services in their policies. Doesn't anyone who pays premiums to these insurers help to fund abortion, and wouldn't that also amount to cooperating in evil?
It seems the Catholic Church has focused all of its energy and activism on government's role but left the private sector off scot-free. I am not aware of any visibility on this from the church, and that appears to be a glaring omission. Has it been addressed, and if so has it been addressed as forcefully? On the face of it, it seems to me that anything contributing to abortions, public or private, would be equally objectionable.
Thanks in advance for any time and attention you are able to provide.

Archbishop Chaput declined to provide an on the record response. He is obviously not obligated to, but the opposition to the House bill raises what I believe is a legitimate question: Why has the church not targeted private insurers for the last thirty years? They are indispensable players in providing abortion services, yet as far as I know they have not been highlighted the way pro-choice politicians have. The Democratic nominee for president is singled out for his position. Why not the CEO of Aetna?

How is it that the USCCB can object to increased health care coverage that will "subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions" while having never said a word about the provider networks themselves? Why oppose raising the quality of life of millions of people through insurance reform if the objection is to the health care infrastructure? Or conversely, if you object to adding new people to the system then why not also work to get current enrollees out of it? Don't employers who provide health care plans subsidize provider networks? Why aren't they being targeted for doing so? Why is the system as it exists now and has existed for decades so studiously ignored if putting new people into it is so problematic?

The disparity between the easy treatment of private insurers and the objection to a public one could create a philosophical tipping point. Since Roe v. Wade the church has been visible and energetic in its opposition to abortion while giving comparatively short shrift to other life issues such as capital punishment and war. The fact that such emphasis lined up nicely with conservative ideology is presumably coincidence. The church's recommended political course for addressing abortion is to support pro-life candidates on the theory that they will appoint pro-life judges who will eventually overturn Roe. That too benefits the GOP, coincidentally I am sure. In a few years this strategy will conclude its second full generation as an exercise in futility. Meaning, in practice it boils down to perpetual straight ticket voting for the party in pursuit of a goal forever just out of reach. As year after fruitless year passes, claims of nonpartisanship begin to strain credulity.

Any religion worth its salt will periodically cause great discomfort at points across the political spectrum, and opposing Democratic health care reform because it expands coverage may be a coincidence too far. It makes the leadership's position look more political than moral - abortions paid for by the private sector are acceptable, abortions paid for by the public sector are not. The long running alignment between the church's antiabortion activism and the right wing has been plausible as just circumstance, but we may now be entering an area where the American Catholic Church risks looking like nothing so much as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

The Future of the Electorate: Religion

Chris Bowers — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:55:00 GMT

Following up on yesterday's look at the future of racial / ethnic demographics of the electorate, today's look into the future focuses on religious self-identification among the electorate from 2012-2032. Lacking census data on religion (asking about religion in the census is unconstitutional), the best sources for data on religious affiliation in America are the 2007 Pew U.S. Religion Landscape Survey and the 2008 Trinity College American Religious Identification Survey. Here are the age-crosstabs for each survey:

Age-cross tabs, Trinity ARIS (PEF)
Age-cross tabs, Pew Religion Survey (PDF)

The comparison between the 18-29 demographics and the 65+ (in Pew) and 70+ (in ARIS) make the trends clear. Across the two surveys, Mainline Protestants are declining rapidly, Evangelicals and Catholics are declining very slowly, and non-Christians are going to continue to increase as a percentage of the population. For example, among seniors, there are more than twice as many Mainline Protestants as "Nones," (people who don't list a religion, but not necessarily aethists). However, among the under-30 population, there are more than twice as many "Nones" as Mainline Protestants.

Evangelicals and Catholics have done a bit better among younger generations than Mainlines, but are still slightly underrepresented within the under-30 set according to Pew. As such, they are also likely to decline as a percentage of the population over the long-term.

Since both surveys have age crosstabs, they make it possible to forecast future religious affiliation with reasonable accuracy. However, before we make such a forecast, since we are looking at the future of religious from an electoral perspective, it is necessary to sort the numerous religious affiliations into coherent units of partisan preference. The Pew survey allows us to do this, given their far more detailed demographic crosstabs. Looking at the Pew survey, and at exit polls, there are four clear partisan categories:

White Evangelicals / Born Agains: This is a group that breaks 3-1 Republican. It includes white evangelicals, but also white Mormons and white "other Christians." It is declining from its current 24% of the electorate, but only slowly.
White Traditionals: This is a group with a slight Republican lean, favoring John McCain by about 7% in the most recent election. It is includes mainly white Catholics and white Mainline Protestants (whose voting habits have very similar partisan splits), and also a smaller amount of white Orthodox Christians. While it is the largest group, forming 37% of the electorate and nearly one-third of the over-18 population, it is also, by far, the fastest shrinking group.
Non-Christians: This is an overwhelmingly Democratic group, breaking 3-1 for the blues. It includes all self-identified non-Christians, whether they are white or non-white. This group is (very) slightly whiter, and vastly more Asian, than the rest of the population. At 21% of the over 18 population, and 20% of the electorate, it is the smallest group, but it is increasing in size rapidly, mainly due to the growth of Asians and "nones."
Non-white Christians: This is the most Democratic group of all, favoring President Obama by a 4-1 margin in 2008. It is the second smallest overall group (22% of the over 18 population), and the smallest voting group (representing 19% of the electorate). It is increasing in size, but not quite as quickly as non-Christians. It is also the most ideologically diverse group, given that it has large populations of African-American Christians (20-1 Obama) and Latino and Asian Christians (just under 2-1 Obama).

From now until 2032, these four groups should make up the following percentages of the electorate (or something very, very close to these percentages):

Projected Ethno-religious % of Electorate, Presidential Elections 2008-2032

Group	2008	2012	2016	2020	2024	2028	2032
White Evangelicals	24%	24%	24%	24%	23%	23%	22%
White Traditionals	37%	35%	33%	31%	29%	27%	26%
Non-Christians	20%	21%	22%	23%	25%	26%	27%
Non-white Christians	19%	20%	21%	22%	23%	24%	25%

The increasing trend toward political polarization in this country is largely the result of this ethno-religious trend. The only one of these groups that is even close to a 50-50 split, "white Traditionals," is quickly declining as a percentage of the population. The increasing polarization in America can thus be understood as largely a result of the end of a white Catholic / white Mainline Protestant era of bi-partisanship. As that group undergoes a rapid decline, all that remains are ethno-religious demographic groups that break overwhelmingly in favor of one party or another. The end result is a more culturally, and thus ideologically, divided country. White Catholics and white Mainline Protestants just have more in common with each other than, say white Evangelicals and non-Christians.

This chart also further emphasizes the long-term electoral trouble the current Republican coalition faces. Combined, the two strongly Democratic groups, non-Christians and non-white Christians, should increase from 39% to about 52% of the electorate between now and 2032. A shift like that would add another 10% to the Democratic margin if partisan preferences within the groups remain the same. (The preferences won't remain the same, of course, but I don't intend to predict how they will change.)

The troubles for Republicans don't end there. Tomorrow, as "the future" series continues, I will discuss why the country will keep becoming gayer. Or, at least, more openly LGBT.

Amazing Numbers

Chris Bowers — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:33:52 GMT

I couldn't quite turn any of these numbers into an article of their own, but they still deserve more attention:

According to the most recent poll on the subject, 81% of the country believes that people who are openly homosexual should be allowed to serve in the military. This is higher than the percentage of Americans who self-identify as Christian, which has dropped to 77%. It is kind of surprising that allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military is now a more commonly held belief than the divinity of Jesus.
According to new data released by the Cook Political Report, only one congressional district in the country voted for John Kerry and John McCain: the Pennsylvania 12th, represented by John Murtha. Either that district just really likes people named "John," or perhaps Western Pennsylvania isn't as representative of the country as we were told last year during the Pennsylvania primary.
Since last year, Federal Reserve Chief Ben Bernake's approval rating has dropped 25% among Republicans, and increased 24% among Democrats. Not that we don't live in a partisan nation or anything...
Over the past thirty years, real income for the top 1% of all households has increased 3-4 times over, which dwarfs the meager gains by the bottom 80%:

This graph is reflective of many things, including who controls governmental policy.
Republicans have become even less popular, if you can believe it. According to the most recent polls from CBS, Fox, NBC and CNN, the percentage of Americans who view the Republican Party as "favorable," has declined by at least 4% since late October. Outside of these four, no other polling firm with October trendlines has taken a "favorable / unfavorable" poll of the Republican Party in 2009.

Like the end of a Saturday Night Live sketch, it is difficult to figure out a way to end this article.

Religious Identification Survey, Follow-up

Chris Bowers — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:35:20 GMT

As a quick follow-up to yesterday's release of the American Religious Identification Survey (pdf), it felt necessary to discuss the slowing rate of decline among non-Christians in America, and also to try and divine what trends we can expect in the future.

More in the extended entry.
From 1990 to 2001, the rate of decline in the number of self-identified Christians was 0.86% (from 86.2% to 76.7%), but from 2001 to 2008, it that decline was only 0.10% a year (from 76.7% to 76.0%). That is a significant slowdown in the rate of decline of self-identified Christians as a percentage of Americans. The causes for this change are not at all clear, and far beyond the reach of hackneyed generalizations about the cultural mood of the 1990's versus our current decade. Anyway, I am not particularly interested in the causes of this change, but rather the effects it will have on future religious self-identification.

Looking at the age crosstabs of the poll (page 14 of the pdf), it appears that, last year, just under 69% of the population under the age of 30 self-identified as Christian, while just under 75% of the 30-49 population self-identified as Christian. Twelve years from the date of the survey, in 2020, these numbers project to a national Christian self-identification of about 73%, or a decline of 3% from current levels. While higher than the rate of decline from 2001-2008, it is still closer to that slower rate than to the rapid downward shift in Christian self-identification from 1990-2001.

According to current voting patterns, where non-Christians broke for President Obama by a 75%-23% margin, it also indicates a national shift of about 1.5% in favor of Democrats by the time of the 2020 elections. Add that 1.5% to the projected 2.5% shift expected for Democrats from the rising number of non-whites in the electorate, and overall trends suggest a 4% shift in favor of the Democratic coalition eleven years from now. Since 1988, Republicans have only won two presidential or congressional elections by more than 4%--the 1994 and 2002 midterm elections. Clearly, maintaining the current demographic balance of the two major political coalitions is a big-time, and long-term, loser for Republicans. They simply must improve their performance among growing demographics.

It is also worth noting that, long-term, America will have more Muslims than Jews, as currently there are equal numbers of both under the age of 30. However, the number of Buddhists is rising so rapidly, that they might not only pass both groups, but they could even pass Mormons in total population. Also, long-term the number of Baptists is in for a huge decline, greater than that currently facing Mainline Protestants. Only 8.3% of the 18-29 population self-identifies with the Baptist religious tradition. While I don't know the specific political indications of these smaller trends, they do seem significant on at least a cultural level.

Number of Non-Christians Continues To Increase

Chris Bowers — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:00:00 GMT

Although it receives noticeably less media attention then the changing ethnic makeup of America, there is a deep shift in religious self-identification that is changing the national cultural landscape at an equal rate. The latest version of the American Religious Identification Survey, which was released earlier today, confirms a continuing shift away from Christian self-identification in America:

The percentage of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation. The faithful have scattered out of their traditional bases: The Bible Belt is less Baptist. The Rust Belt is less Catholic. And everywhere, more people are exploring spiritual frontiers - or falling off the faith map completely.

These dramatic shifts in just 18 years are detailed in the new American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), to be released today. It finds that, despite growth and immigration that has added nearly 50 million adults to the U.S. population, almost all religious denominations have lost ground since the first ARIS survey in 1990.

An 11% drop in Christian self-identification has major political implications. In 2008, self-identified non-Christians voted for Barack Obama by a massive, 75%-23% margin. If, in another 18 years, there is a further 11% shift away from Christian self-identification, according to current voting patterns it would increase the Democratic margin of another 5-6%.

I'll be eager to look over the entire survey because, while some news reports indicate the drop in Christian self-identification has been over 11%, others place it at 10%:

In 2008, Christians comprised 76 percent of U.S. adults, compared to about 77 percent in 2001 and about 86 percent in 1990. Researchers said the dwindling ranks of mainline Protestants, including Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, largely explains the shift. Over the last seven years, mainline Protestants dropped from just over 17 percent to 12.9 percent of the population.

No matter how often politicians and pundits decry polarization in America, none of them ever really address the broad cultural trends that play a role in this. Christianity used to be a nearly consensus aspect of ideology in this country, and now that consensus is crumbling. When such a large ideological institution begins to lose sway over the population, only the most sheltered among us would expect the vacuum to be filled with bland, centrist, Broder-esque uniformity.

The Wolf Barack Obama Feeds

Betsy L. Angert — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:32:02 GMT

Pt 1 - National Cathedral Message - Story of The Two Wolves

It was 11:22 Ante Meridian, on January 21, 2009. I did as I rarely do. I stood silently and watched television. As one who listens to what is aired, and does so from another room, this was an unusual occurrence. However, the Cherokee wisdom of wolves, an illustration that represents the internal strife within every human being beckoned me.

Then, at the very same hour on the very next day, again I was compelled to do what is odd for me. I did not say a word as I glared at humanitarian actions took place on the screen. President Barack Obama proclaimed, by Executive Order, the United States would not torture. Nor would we, as a nation, detain presumed "combatants" without a just trial. On each occasion, I was in awe as I gazed upon what I had not imagined would come to pass. Upon reflection, the two events seem to be related.
On Wednesday, the voice of the speaker was unfamiliar to me. The narrative, she share was extremely familiar. Perchance that is why I was drawn into the calm drama as it unfolded before me. Reverend Doctor Sharon E. Watkins, in her candid manner, in the Inaugural Prayer, brought the Chief Executive of the United States to task. With knowledge of The Obama Administration's agenda, a plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan, Doctor Reverend Sharon E. Watkins shared a allegory and directly addressed the analogy. The President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) spoke to the President of the United States with intent. Her prayer was meant to be more than a homily, easily left in the home of the Lord. The passionate cleric conceded, the circumstances that exist today are dire.

What you are entering now, Mr. President and Mr. Vice President, will tend to draw you away from your ethical center. But we, the nation that you serve, need you to hold the ground of your deepest values, of our deepest values.
Beyond this moment of high hopes, we need you to stay focused on our shared hopes, so that
we can continue to hope, too.
We will follow your lead.
There is a story attributed to Cherokee wisdom:
One evening a grandfather was teaching his young grandson about the internal battle that each person faces.
"There are two wolves struggling inside each of us," the old man said.
"One wolf is vengefulness, anger, resentment, self?pity, fear . . .
"The other wolf is compassion, faithfulness, hope, truth, love . . ."
The grandson sat, thinking, then asked: "Which wolf wins, Grandfather?"
His grandfather replied, "The one you feed."

The congregation was spellbound. The camera showed a meditative Barack Obama. The President, with his head in his hand, seemed to consider the parable. He looked as if he might ponder the parallel. Minister Watkins continued.

The frank Theologian furthered the thought when she said, "There are crises banging on the door right now, pawing at us, trying to draw us off our ethical center - crises that tempt us to feed the wolf of vengefulness and fear."

President Obama, from his facial expressions, understood. He knew the weight placed on his shoulders. As he oft expressed, the decision to serve the public was his, and he would do so to the best of abilities. Yet, Barack Obama often proclaimed, he could not do the nation's work alone. Indeed, he would need help from the public. The Reverend was ready to lend a hand to the Commander-In-Chief. In service to her country, and perchance, more significantly to the Almighty and the people, planet-wide Sharon E. Watkins submitted.

We need you, Mr. President, to hold your ground. We need you, leaders of this nation, to stay centered on the values that have guided us in the past; values that empowered to move us through the perils of earlier times and can guide us now into a future of renewed promise.
We need you to feed the good wolf within you, to listen to the better angels of your nature, and by your example encourage us to do the same.

In the hours before the erudite religious leader spoke, much laid in the balance. Doctor Watkins likely heard the whispers; President Obama might not close Guantanamo Bay Prison as quickly as he had promised. When asked of the possible release of detainees Barack Obama was hesitant. He discussed what logistically would be difficult.

Doctor Sharon E. Watkins seemed to inquire as an ABC News interviewer had not. Mister President; which path will you choose? How will ethical principles shape your policies President Obama?

She too may have marveled at the statement a pious man offered just prior to the inauguration. On "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama stated, homeland security is his top priority. The "need" to fight back when terrorists threaten would be prominent features in an Obama Administration. "We are going to have to stay vigilant, and that's something that doesn't change from administration to administration," the then President Elect said.

Hence, in her homily Sharon E. Watkins invited the newly installed President Obama to obey the sacred principles he had oft professed to believe.

On Thursday, perhaps he did honor the ethical traditions. As I again, listened to the television from afar, the baritone sounds that echoed in the next room were recognizable. Barack Obama addressed a small audience of onlookers, each anxious to see him sign three Executive Orders. Indeed, Commander-In-Chief Obama decreed that this country act on the "some" of the ethical standards the Minister spoke of only twenty-four hours earlier.

President Obama signed directives that authorize a Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities. A Review of Detention Policy Options, and he approved an order that would Ensure Lawful Interrogations.

However, what the President has yet to act on the poignant matters that affect every American, in truth all human beings every day. War. As I situated myself before the screen to watch the invocation, I saw a pensive man. Barack Obama, unlike most in the National Cathedral congregation seemed to study Reverend Doctor Sharon E. Watkins' every word.

The Commander-In-Chief appeared to recognize the depth of the sermon Reverend Watkins delivered. Indeed, that is what captured my attention. While Doctor Watkins had command of her language, she commanded the person who is perhaps, the most powerful human being in the world. This articulate Minister stood before the President, and eloquently presented parables and scriptures that spoke to the less than honorable and moral issue of vengeance.

This uncommon; yet commoner, cleric addressed a reverent Barack Obama. She welcomed reflections on stark realities in a manner that few might. Doctor Reverend Sharon E. Watkins essentially confronted the new Commander and asked him to evaluate his ethics.

Solemnly she said, "In international hard times, our instinct is to fight - to pick up the sword, to seek out enemies, to build walls against the other and why not? They just might be out to get us. We've got plenty of evidence to that effect. Someone has to keep watch and be ready to defend, and Mr. President - Tag! You're it!"

The congregation laughed. The air for them was light. However, for Doctor Sharon E. Watkins, there was no humor in her words.

G-d's representative spoke of the change she, and I could, believe in.

While most Americans delighted in the news of today's Executive Orders, I wonder if Reverend Doctor Watkins worried as I do. Later, on Thursday afternoon, at 3:10 Post Meridian, when once again, I stood frozen in front of the "tube." I felt the futility of fight would be America's fate.

The baritone, Barack Obama boomed, as if defiant of the deities. "The world needs to understand that America will be unyielding in its protection of its security and relentless in its pursuit of those who would carry out terrorism or threaten the United States."

I wondered. Had Reverend Doctor Watkins heard the statement? Does she now know as I do, which wolf Barack Obama will feed.

Update . . .

Two U.S. missile strikes kill 17 in Pakistan, sources say,
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Seventeen people were killed Friday evening in two U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan's tribal region, said one government and two military officials.
They are the first such strikes since President Obama took office Tuesday.
Both hits were near the Afghan border, said local political official Nasim Dawar. The Pakistani military sources asked not to be named because they are not authorized to release such information.
The first strike, which killed 10 people, occurred about 5:15 p.m. (7:15 a.m. ET) in a village near Mir Ali in North Waziristan, the officials said. Seven people died in the second hit at 7:30 p.m. (9:30 a.m. ET) near Wana, the major town in South Waziristan, 17 miles (27 kilometers) from Afghanistan, they said.

References for realities, real, and those imagined by vengeful, fearful, humans . . .

Harmonies of Liberty, Isaiah 58:6-12, Mt 22:6-40. Reverend Doctor Sharon E. Watkins. National Prayer Service. January 21, 2009
Obama Orders Secret Prisons and Detention Camps Closed, By Scott Shane. The New York Times. January 23, 2009
Obama Promises New Destiny, Work Begins Today, By Joe Klein. Time. January 21, 2009
Executive Orders. WhiteHouse.gov.
Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities. WhiteHouse.gov. January 22, 2009
Review of Detention Policy. WhiteHouse.gov. January 22, 2009
Ensuring Lawful Interrogations. WhiteHouse.gov. January 22, 2009
Reverend Doctor Sharon E. Watkins. Disciples World. November 9, 2009
Obama to Explore New Approach in Afghanistan War, By Karen DeYoung. Washington Post. Tuesday, November 11, 2008; A01
Obama: Guantanamo center might not close within first 100 days, By Jill Zuckman. Baltimore Sun. January 2009
'This Week' Transcript: Barack Obama, George Stephanopoulos' Exclusive Interview with President-Elect Barack Obama. ABC News. January 11, 2009
Obama Pool Report Thursday, January 22, 2009. Time. January 22, 2009

Religious Belief Astounds Me...

btchakir — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:39:46 GMT

Tonite is the first night of Chanukah and here in our half-Jewish descent, half-Christian descent and all-Atheist household we are getting ready to have a daughter and grandsons over for first night dinner. It's interesting how we align ourselves with the holidays in order to maintain gift-giving and food celebration traditions.

It started me thinking about belief in general and, watching CBS News Sunday Morning as they did a piece on Angels, I heard that 65% of Americans believe that angels exist as messengers from heaven. Many believe they have spoken with angels. And, of course, they substantiate the basic belief in Heaven (and Hell) that an ABC poll of a couple of years ago said 85% of Americans share.
Searching the web for background on the belief in Heaven, I found a list at ReligiousTolerance.org that pulled some quotes from a variety of sources:

•"If you are a [born-again] Christian, you will go to heaven; If you're following another religion, then by default you will go to Hell." Radio program "Life on the Edge," sponsored by Focus on the Family, and directed to teens, 2001-MAY-5.
•"If YOU believe in Evolution instead of Jesus, you'll end up in hell." Chick Publications' gospel tract "Apes, lies and Ms. Henn." (Emphasis in the original)
•"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
•"...we are asked to believe that God endlessly tortures sinners by the million, sinners who perish because the Father has decided not to elect them to salvation [while they were alive on earth], though he could have done so, and whose torments are supposed to gladden the hearts of believers in heaven. The problems with this doctrine are both extensive and profound." C.H. Pinnock
•"That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly, they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell." Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 CE), Summa Theologica

There are more quotes on the list, but you get the drift.

In a 2004 Gallop poll we learn that 81% of Americans believe in heaven and 70% believe in hell. A previous Poll said 77% of Americans felt they would make it to heaven - very few saw themselves as going to hell.

The belief in life after death, Heaven and Hell, is common to more than Christianity (and, of course, Judaism, where Heaven is a place where souls live before coming down to earth, and the place they go back to after finishing their mission in this world) - Muslims have a similar belief. According to the World Assembly of Muslim Youth:

The question of whether there is life after death does not fall under the jurisdiction of science, as science is concerned only with classification and analysis of sense data. Moreover, man has been busy with scientific inquiries and research, in the modern sense of the term, only for the last few centuries, while he has been familiar with the concept of life after death since time immemorial.
All the Prophets of God called their people to worship God and to believe in life after death. They laid so much emphasis on the belief in life after death that even a slight doubt in it meant denying God and made all other beliefs meaningless.
The very fact that all the Prophets of God have dealt with this metaphysical question of life after death so confidently and so uniformly - the gap between their ages in some cases, being thousands of years - goes to prove that the source of their knowledge of life after death as proclaimed by them all, was the same, i.e. Divine revelation.

So here I am on Sunday morning on the eve of a religious holiday, pondering how beliefs like Heaven, Hell, the existence of Angels and the acceptance of these beliefs by Americans in the 21st century can even exist and I am astounded. The many centuries of varied but god-based beliefs are not shaken off... not by logic, or science, or the advancement of knowledge of the real world. That people NEED these beliefs in order to function in the world is what I find most amazing. And I also wonder how many centuries will go by until they can be shaken off and replaced with reality.

Happy Winter Solstice... enjoy the longest night of the year.

Under The LobsterScope

Rick Warren Hates Atheists, Like Me

Chris Bowers — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:18:31 GMT

Left-wing pressure seems to have dubious effect, so here are some right-wing atheists upset with Rick Warren:

Too bad Rick Warren isn't so open-minded. After his over-hyped and intrusive interviews of Obama and John McCain this last August, the best-selling author of A Purpose-Driven Life disclosed to his congregation at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Ca., the one kind of person he couldn't vote for. "I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, 'I don't need God,'" Warren preached, according to the Los Angeles Times. "They're saying, 'I'm totally self-sufficient by [myself].' And nobody is self-sufficient to be president by themselves. It's too big a job."

It's hard to decide which is more laughable: Warren's conception of the presidency or of atheists. Unfortunately, both conceptions are widespread among Americans.

I second that. Warren posits atheists as people who are openly thumbing their noses at God--sort of like people who recognize there is a God but who just refuse to bow to "His" authority. As with many Americans, the notion that some people simply fail to believe in a self-conscious power that exists outside the laws of nature doesn't enter into the equation. Further, being an atheist isn't even a rejection of something--it is merely a failure to make an assertion. I always hate it when I have to answer the question "well, why don't you believe in God?" The burden of proof doesn't rest with me. God is a positive concept that must be proven, not an obvious construct that must be disproven.

More in the extended entry.

Now, atheists, like the LGBT community, are not as numerous as evangelicals. The most recent poll I could find on the subject showed 78% believed in "God," 14% believed in a "universal higher power," and only 7% believed in "neither" (1% was "unsure"). When you are an atheist, it is pretty obvious to you that you are in a small minority. Further, since many people, not only Rick Warren but often members your own family, consider your atheism as somehow an affront rather than just a personal lack of belief, to make life easier you do your best to never bring up religion as a topic at all. Just being left alone about it becomes both the short-term and long-term goal. I don't even like writing about it on Open Left, because I know that some members of my family read it.

I do have to wonder though--why are opposing equal rights for LGBT, and why are hating atheists, still tolerated as mainstream opinions in America? The only reason why someone like Rick Warren represents "bringing people together" rather than hatred of multiple large minorities in America, is because hatred of atheists and homosexuals are tolerated. Maybe people like me haven't done a good enough job of demanding that we be allowed to be open about our views and not hated for them. For one, it isn't difficult to succeed in life while still being an atheist. For another, it isn't difficult to hide your views in situations where they might cause you problems. Further, you don't want to be associated with the atheists that attack religion in general, and you really don't want to start arguments with people.

However, as atheists, it is probably time that we stopped being withdrawn about our beliefs. Our public image is lower than even that of homosexuals, for example. The reason it is lower is because they fight for their rights and they fight for inclusion. We atheists don't. If we are all working together to try and end homophobia as a tolerated, mainstream position worthy of the inaugural benediction for a Democratic President, then we should probably work to make intolerance of atheists unacceptable, too. When we start excluding certain groups, it has the potential to spill out over into all groups, as Natasha wrote yesterday at MyDD.

If I am not speaking up for my owns rights to tolerance and inclusion, how can I speak up for others? A lot of the problem is probably my own damn fault, because I have never bothered to even ask for inclusion and tolerance of my beliefs. So, let me start with this: I am an atheist, there is nothing wrong with my beliefs, you are not going to convert me, and so you are going to have to live with it.

Someone asked me why I HATE republicans so much.

Sean Gallegos — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:42:09 GMT

Allow me to describe to my level of hate. According to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:
1hate Listen to the pronunciation of 1hate
Pronunciation:
hÃt
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English hete; akin to Old High German haz hate, Greek kÃ"dos care
Date:
before 12th century

1 a: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b: extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing 2: an object of hatred

Do I hate republicans? Do I have every reason to hate republicans? I believe that I do, for love of country alone should I hate and call upon all who would listen to share in that hate. But no I don't hate the average republican on the street, even though they have expressed their unmitigated hatred of me. You see republicans have often spoken words of hate for me, simply for my beliefs. To illustrate allow me to tell you what I believe. I believe in God, and I believe that God calls me to action. That action includes defending immigrants as Jesus was an Undocumented Immigrant. That faith makes the demand of me to give to and care for the poor. This covenant comes with the requirement that I shall not judge if someone is not perfect (Although hypocrisy is ok to judge). And more importantly my God has said to me many times in many different ways, but I think he said it best, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL!" -GOD
You see I am a constitutionalist, I believe in the less than perfect nature of our founding fathers. But, I also believe in the hope and wisdom of these less than perfect men. For they put their hope in a future that would have cost each of them their very lives for expressing those hopes. Yet, their hope cast no rosy outlook to cover their eyes in regards to the new nation which they had birthed. They knew both of their cowardly failure to address the lack of rights for Women, Slaves, and Indigenous Natives. But with that cowardly nature came the foresight that though they failed, perhaps future generations maybe willing and capable to take up the mantle and chart a new course for this great nation. Yet, the same republican party that hides behind the constitution was the party that tried to set it on fire. By completely revoking habeas corpus, torture, false imprisonment, wire tapping, loss of human rights, making being human illegal.

You see I'm a member of a rare family in this country. My family has had at least one member in every military action since the revolution. We know and understand what soldiers need and go through upon their return. First and foremost if you plan to send them into harms way it BETTER BE A LAST RESORT! Second, YOU BETTER GIVE THEM THE BEST FIGHTING CHANCE AND THE LATEST EQUIPMENT! Thirdly upon their return, YOU HAD BETTER GIVE THEM THE BEST DAMNED CARE MONEY CAN BUY! Fourth, THE SOLDIERS SHOULD NEVER BE THE ONLY ONES SACRIFICING! All Americans should share in the burden. And Lastly, NEVER LIE TO YOUR ARMED FORCES IF YOU SAY THEY ARE THERE TO FIND WMD's THEY BETTER BE THERE!

You see, I am a computer scientist who graduated in 2002 unfortunately, by 2001 150,000 jobs had been outsourced by the Bush administration. And then to add insult to injury The Bush Administration and the republican majority gave tax cuts to those corporations who sent my job to another country. My tax dollars were used to support a company that didn't support me.

You see I am a father of a beautiful daughter, and I will not have her education be intentionally undermined by some who wants to teach abstinence only education, or to ignore science and teach only creationism, or UNDERFUND SCHOOLS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

You see I am a human, who plans to be on this planet and/or my children, grandchildren and so on, for a very long time. And as such... HURRICANES HAVE GOTTEN WORSE BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING! THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. GLOBAL WARMING IS A REALITY DEAL WITH IT!

You see I have every right to hate the GOP... I don't mind you, but I don't think anyone would blame me if I did. ;) good luck and God bless...

The Battle To End Right-Wing America

Chris Bowers — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:41:02 GMT

I have often wondered why America is more right-wing than some other wealthy nations. In particular, among the original G7 nations, Canada, France and Germany have all operated decisively to America's left over the past three decades. America's ideological status compared to Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom is much more debatable.

The question is only relevant as a recent historic development, too. Until Nixon took office, it is possible that America was the most consistently progressive nation on Earth for its entire history. Sure, we were far from perfect, but we were less imperialist than European nations, we were a republic far earlier, we were a relative haven of religious freedom, our social safety net was comparable or superior to just about all other wealthy nations, we were moving toward universal suffrage quite quickly, the death penalty was illegal, we were at the forefront of the early environmental movement, we founded the U.N., and we were, by far, the number one destination of people around the world who were seeking freedom and opportunity.

What happened over the last forty years? In most of the categories I listed above, we have now fallen behind other nations. How did our rate of progressive development slow to a relative crawl compared to many other wealthy nations? I can think of three reasons, one of which can be done away with, possibly permanently, if Obama wins the Presidential campaign. I explain in the extended entry.
Three reasons why America turned to the right:

The Cold War. Our heavy engagement in the Cold War opened the floodgates in the federal government to the military industrial complex and also created paranoia about left-wing politics in the United States. Our excessive military spending is acting as a long-term drag on social investment projects, and it began because we decided to engage the Cold War so intensely. Whether or not that was a good idea is debatable, but I don't think the effects of that engagement can be debated. In the span of only a couple of decades, we shifted from being an isolationist nation with virtually no military spending to a nation that allied itself with right-wing totalitarians around the globe and which dumped 6-8% of our GDP into military spending even during peace time. It pulled us to the right, big time. This won't really change much under an Obama administration.
Intense Religious Belief. Compared to other wealthy nations, America is a vastly more religious nation. This is at least partly due to our lack of a state religion, as the direct attachment of religion to states in most western European nations probably helped to discredit all religions in those countries. Religion was often a propagandistic, officially oppressive force in those states in a way it just wasn't in America. In fact, many of the progressive reforms in the United States, from abolition, to suffrage, to civil rights and the anti-war movement, came from religious organizations. However, overall, the greater connection to religion, especially the better organizing of conservative religious organizations of late, has been a socially conservative force in this country.
Our Apartheid State. This is the big one, and perhaps a more important cause than the previous two combined. The truth is that while America was the most consistently progressive country in the world from the 1790's through most of the 1960's, we were also an apartheid state in respect to our largest minority, African-Americans. Our greater income inequality, our lack of effective opposition to rising corporatism, our relatively smaller union movement, our lack of universal health care, our suburban car culture, the one-third of our public schools that perform very poorly--all of these are directly connected to our apartheid legacy. What's more, the movement to end the apartheid state caused a huge backlash against other aspects of the progressive agenda from many white working class quarters. The net effect was to create a conservative plurality in America that has largely governed, and retarded our progress, for the past forty years. Certainly, gains were made, but not nearly as many as in other wealthy nations.

This morning, as I saw John McCain pull even, or possibly slightly ahead, of Barack Obama in the presidential campaign, I was thinking about these three causes. It occurred to me that by electing Obama, we could strike a major blow against the third cause by defeating the conservative backlash coalition and ending electoral reliance on socially conservative whites. This wasn't a new thought, as I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago in The Nation and for much longer than that online, but it did occur to me that striking this major blow against right-wing America was going to be far more difficult than I had previously appreciated. This election will turn on identity, and progressives haven't won an election like that in at least 44 years. If we pull it off, it means that the third major cause of America's right-wing slide will have been defeated, but clearly it isn't going to come easy.

A More Positive View of Saddleback

Mike Lux — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:30:00 GMT

There has been a lot of negative commentary, both in the traditional media and the blogs, about Obama's appearance at the Saddleback Church. Some didn't see the point of him going to a stacked forum, some didn't think he did very well overall, some were critical in both regards. While I didn't think he was as sharp as he could have been in terms of his performance, I think there were some very good things about him going to Saddleback. A couple of points on this:
1. In some senses, this is not that different than a McCain showing up at the NAACP strategy- the point isn't so much to win the people represented by Rick Warren, it's to appeal to moderates unsure about whether Obama shares their values. There are a small number of evangelical whites who are swing voters, but there are a lot more church-going, generally religious moderate Christians (moderate in both politics and theology) who are comforted by Obama reaching out to churchgoers.

2. Having Rick Warren talk about Obama being a patriot and a good man, and having Obama talk about his Christian beliefs, is going to help with the Muslim rumors and all the other rumors right-wingers are spreading about Obama.

Speaking more broadly than just about the political tactics of all this, I can say unequivocally that it made my day when Obama asked what was America's greatest moral failing, he talked about our failures to help the "least of these." I know we got a lot of you secular humanist types reading this, so let me reference what Bible story Obama was referring to here:

Matthew 25: 31-46
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, escorted by all the angels, then he will take his seat on his throne of glory. All the nations will be assembled before him and he will separate one from another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats. He will place the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right hand, "Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take for your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you made me welcome; naked and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me." Then the virtuous will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you; or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, naked and clothe you; sick or in prison and go to see you?" And the King will answer, "I tell you solemnly, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers and sisters, you did it to me." Then he will say to those on his left hand, "Go away from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, lacking clothes and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me." Then it will be their turn to ask, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty, a stranger or lacking clothes, sick or in prison, and did not come to your help?" Then he will answer, "In truth I tell you, in so far as you neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me." And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life."

These verses, the inspiration behind the new group Mara Vanderslice and others have started calling Matthew 25, are the clear, bright dividing line between Christians: those who quote and love it almost always are progressives, those who spend their time on the three verses in the entire Old and New Testament that mention homosexuality are invariably conservatives. It is verses like Matthew 25: 31-46 which make many of us think of Jesus as a lefty, and the right-wingers who claim to believe in him as flaming hypocrites, so it was a pleasure to see Obama quote that core verse of the progressive Christian faith as his choice for America's greatest moral failing.

The Heartland of Southern California

Chris Bowers — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:58:04 GMT

McCain and Obama are attending a forum this Saturday, hosted by Rick Warren, the author of The Purpose Driven Life. It will focus on "heartland questions":

The Rev. Rick Warren said Thursday that his upcoming forum with Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama will be aimed at asking them tough "heartland questions."

The author of the best-selling book "The Purpose-Driven Life" is to interview McCain and Obama on Saturday.

Heartland questions, eh? Where is this "heartland" that Warren speaks of?

The candidates will appear together at Warren's 20,000-member Saddleback mega-church in southern California.

Ah, I see. Southern California. Truly, the heartland of America.

Jujitsu in Action - The Smart Way to Fight Smears Against Obama

Joe Brewer — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:33:32 GMT

By Evan Frisch and Joe Brewer, co-founders of hivethrive

How should we respond to lies and deceptions about a person who has instilled hope in millions of Americans? The attacks, as we know only too well, have a long history of effectiveness that could keep our hopes from being realized. This is unacceptable.

The Obama campaign has just launched a new website to fight the smears. While it is encouraging that they are taking seriously the need to respond quickly to hateful distortions and fabrications, we want to lay out a more effective approach than the standard myth-busting tactic. This conventional approach to dispelling myths about a candidate is to first present and label the smear, then offer facts that contradict it. Recent studies have shown that this approach can backfire and reinforce the ideas you are attempting to debunk. Studies have shown that people often to "misremember" falsehoods as facts the more efforts to dispel the myth are repeated. The Washington Post and FactCheck have also pointed out the drawbacks of this approach to myth-busting.
Let's consider why these smears work in the first place. This will allow us to identify a strategy that works.

What is the purpose of a smear? Every smear has a proximate goal and an ultimate goal. The proximate goal is to instill some false or misleading idea in the minds of listeners. This serves the ultimate goal of subverting the moral character of the person being attacked. So when Obama's birthplace is called into question, the ultimate goal is to spread doubt about his integrity and weaken the inspirational power of his life story. When his religious affiliation is challenged by falsehoods, the ultimate goal is to instill fear and distrust in the populace through associations with beliefs that are unfamiliar to and mistrusted by many Americans.

This observation about the nature of smears leads to a piece of strategic advice: respond to the ultimate goal directly. To focus on the proximate goal is to fall into a trap of reinforcing the original association that the smear-mongerer is pushing.

A second observation can be made about the focus of a smear. Karl Rove is famous for asserting that opponents should be attacked where they are strongest. A key part of his approach that doesn't receive enough attention is the fact that the focus is always directed toward a perceived moral strength. So when Obama's integrity is challenged by a smear, we can safely conclude that his integrity is widely seen as an advantage that his opponents must overcome.

Another piece of strategic advice: respond with a focus on the moral weakness of the attacker, rather than the intended target of the original attack. To focus on the details of Obama's birthplace, for example, creates a sense of legitimacy to the controversy. All the while, the attacker remains hidden in the wings and suffers no rebuke.

Missing from responses that focus on the details contained in a smear is the story about why these smears are being conducted, and who is doing the dirty work. There is an effective strategy that deserves consideration - what we'll call Political Jujitsu. The central feature of this approach is to turn the attacks against the aggressor by calling into question the intentions and credibility of the instigator.

Political Jujitsu, like the martial art, is a form of self-defense that is only effective when a person is forcibly attacked. Smears are intended as a weapon for character assassination, used by aggressors who prefer to remain hidden from view, which we could liken to the art of assassination, Ninjutsu.

This approach is founded upon the recognition that human beings organize our knowledge in the form of stories. Facts alone will not demonstrate the moral character of our candidate, just as they do not encapsulate the moral failures of our opponents. New information can transform the stories we tell, just as a new ingredient can transform a recipe. Adding turnips to a cake makes for a very different dining experience! Instead of simply seeking to "update" the facts, we must craft alternative stories that reveal the deception at work.

Let's attempt to clarify this with an example. How might we respond to an email asserting that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Just as in jujitsu, there must be a point of contact for leveraging a shift in the attacker's momentum. One point of contact is the role that the facts play in the story. Shifting this role can reverse the direction of the attack back upon its creator.

In the original attack, the role of facts (e.g. Obama's religious affiliation) is a point of entry for introducing a new narrative - one in which Obama has secretly practiced something other than what he publicly professes. Here is a sample response that references the use of faulty facts to deceive people:

We need to be aware that there are people trying to use us to spread misinformation and do their dirty work for them. We live in a democracy and there are powerful interests who fear the idea of letting us choose our own leaders. Some have exploited the flaws in our democracy to get their hands on the levers of power and they don't want to let go. One of their standard tactics is to introduce an anonymous message filled with lies and distortions, trusting that we will blindly distribute it to all our friends. This is terribly destructive, not only to democracy, but to our personal lives because the tactic exploits the trust we share with those who are closest to us.
Barack Obama has devoted his life to public service. He has worked tirelessly for years to help people, like the factory workers in South Chicago who lost their jobs when work was shipped overseas (work he did through a Christian church). Whatever your political views, I'm sure you'll agree that fighting for American workers is something we can all respect.
I am happy to share with you a thoughtful speech by Obama that tells how his Christian faith has shaped his political beliefs. Weigh his lifetime of service motivated by his belief in Jesus Christ against the anonymous author spreading falsehoods through email. We need to call out the act of deception for what it is - an attempt to assassinate the character of a good man.
A question I urge you to ask yourself is why the exploiters of power who started this lie don't have the integrity to be honest with the American people? The vast majority of Americans know that the economy is not working and the country is going in the wrong direction. But a few are profiting like never before at our expense and they are afraid of policies that would respect and value the efforts of hard-working Americans. Rather than challenge such policies head on, they prefer to use us to spread their propaganda.
Smears like the one in that email are meant to draw our attention to some moral failing in our leaders. The real moral failing is in the people who concocted this smear in the first place and thought so little of us when they sought to hijack the democratic process that makes America great.
There is more I could say about attacks on a person's faith, such as the impossibility of responding to claims by an anonymous attacker that you, or a member of your family, secretly believe something other than the faith that you profess and demonstrate. But I think it is more important to point out the level of vigilance we need to practice if we want to preserve our democratic traditions. This includes a recognition of the motives held by those who would so cavalierly distort our political process to serve their selfish ends.
We're going to see more smears by these powerful elites who profit while most Americans suffer. I hope I can count on you to help alert others when they use these tactics to try to divide us in the days ahead.

This sample shifts the role of facts from asserting a falsehood in the original attack to revealing the existence of a deceiver in the response. The emphasis becomes one of questioning the sources of such messages to confirm their validity, instead of digressing into a "he said, she said" that only reinforces the false idea as it is repeated over and over.

This Political Jujitsu can be used every time you are exposed to a smear against Obama, or any other honest candidate. The story of deception is there to be told in every instance of smear. It structures the facts in a way that is meaningful and memorable. Try it and see how well it works.

Shadow Elites And Religion UPDATE

Paul Rosenberg — Tue, 20 May 2008 20:54:26 GMT

My series, "Shadow Elites And Religion" was interrupted after its first two installments (Part 1, Part 2), mostly because I'd built up such a head of steam that I wanted to do a lot more digging for the third installment, focused on John McCain and his ties to two Word of Faith ministers--John Hagee and Rod Parsley. All sorts of other stuff intruded, and, well, the hiatus continues.

But meanwhile, Sarah Posner, Word of Faith expert extraordinaire, has posted an excellent piece over at Huffington Post--"McCain's Pastor Problem", while Gary Kamiya chimes in at Salon with "Psycho Christians and the media", and there's even signs of catchup with my second installment, "Shadow Elites And Religion--Part 2: Sun Myung Moon", as noted in a frontpage post at DKos, "Moonshadows ", by DarkSyde, which focuses on recent attention to the connections between Moon and Bush Sr.--connections that I didn't delve into in my post, because I wanted to focus on the deep structural connections, but that are quite considerable in themselves.

Darkside highlights this piece at the Houston Chronicle, and John Gorenfeld's book, Bad Moon Rising.

I'll be writing more this weekend, but one thing worth highlighting now is the thinness of the McCain defense--"He's not my pastor, so it's not my fault."
Well, turn this around--since he's not your pastor, then why all the investment in associating with him in the first place, and the reluctance to condemn him in the second?

Kamiya writes:

even if Hagee and Parsley had been McCain's pastors, it's hard to imagine that the media would have attacked him as relentlessly as it has attacked Obama over Wright and Farrakhan.
The media's double standard is all about deference to perceived mainstream norms, and tiptoeing around the Christian right. Despite their cartoonish views, the media treats Hagee and Parsley as quasi-mainstream figures, which makes McCain's relationship with them non-newsworthy. The dirty little secret of mainstream American journalism is that it operates within invisible constraints that conform to some imagined Middle American consensus. The issue isn't that journalists share Hagee and Parsley's views so much as that they know that they are widely held, which makes them reluctant to acknowledge how truly outrageous they are.

This is all quite true. It's also true that qustioning these charlatans would involve acts of actual journalism, and as Chief Wiggums famously said (regarding his chances of having an actual friend), "What are the chances of that?"

Posner, too, takes on the "he's not my pastor" trope:

When Hagee and Parsley were revealed to have spewed bigotry from their pulpits, many people wondered if McCain had a "pastor problem" like Obama's supposed problem with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The rejoinder from the McCain camp was that he was not responsible for every sentence uttered by people who endorse his candidacy. But his pastor problem is not just his own, it's his party's too. And it's not about candidates bearing responsibility for odious sermons. It's about bearing responsibility for propping up religious demagoguery in order to win elections.

"He's not my pastor" is a narrative trope. As the TVTropes Wiki explains:

"Tropes are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations."

A large part of the work that the right has done over the past four decades has involved consciously pushing its tropes. This is a major part of cultural hegemony and the Gramscian "culture war"/"war of position" is all about. In such a context, something sounding "reasonable" is much more important than anything else. If it "sounds reasonable" it will be far less likely to be questioned, even if it has little or nothing to do with the underlying facts.

After all, who's going to look at the facts if reasonable explanation tells them there's no need to even look? Only those with a bad attitude, that's who!

That means us.

Wicker: I didn't mean to insult blacks, I meant to insult gays

T Rex — Wed, 14 May 2008 07:33:56 GMT

If you remember, a while back a Pastor Hayes Wicker of Naples had this to say about gay marriage:

This is a tremendous social crisis, greater even than the issue of slavery.

Not surprisingly, a lot of people, such as myself had some problems with that statement.

Wicker, for some reason, took umbrage at the outrage against his hate speech. Here's what he said in a letter to the editor:

Recently, couples from diverse denominations gathered to celebrate marriage in the Chapel of First Baptist Church, where I have served as pastor for 16 years. It was particularly part of the statewide support of seniors for Constitutional Amendment #2, which has been placed on the November 4th ballot. We renewed the vows of "holy matrimony" and affirmed that marriage is "the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife" the bedrock institution upon which the family and civil society are built.

Unsupported hyperbole and introductory remarks. Nothing too bad yet.

At that event, I made several remarks regarding the grave dangers facing America if the institution of marriage is redefined and cast aside.

A few years back, George Carlin had a routine where he described that when listening to someone speak you can say to yourself, "he sounds reasonably okay," which is how Wicker started out. Then, all of a sudden, the person will say something that will lead you to the realization that the person is "full of shit." This is that moment in Wicker's letter. See, the root of this type of thing is that Wicker and people like him don't like gay people. For whatever reason, maybe it's hatred of anyone who is "different," maybe it's a nonsensical "gross-out" type of thing, maybe it's closeted fears about one's own sexuality, whatever. The point is that people like Wicker can't just come out and say they don't like gay people, so they mask their hatred in reasonable-sounding langauge. They're still full of shit.

Take the above line, for instance. There is no attempt to "cast aside" marriage, except maybe by Republicans like Vito Fosella and Rush Limbaugh. In fact, attempts to legalize gay marriage not only don't "cast aside" marriage, they seek to make marriage stronger. And while gay marriage would change the definition of marriage, it would be a change for the better. And it's not like that definition has any sacred quality to it. It's a definition that was made up by human beings and human beings can easily change that definition. Wicker goes on:

Opponents to marriage have strategically seized upon those remarks in an attempt to take the focus off the issue of marriage and the danger of permitting the U.S. Courts to reconstruct this most basic human institution.

By definition, people who want more people to be able to get married aren't "opponents" of marriage. To say that is to assume that nobody that reads what you write is more intelligent than a three-year-old. Clearly, if you want more marriage, you are a supporter of marriage. And if one was an opponent of marriage, why would they be trying to take the focus off marriage? Wouldn't they want the focus on the thing they are trying to destroy? Did he even read this letter before he sent it in? And the courts already have the power to define what rights exist and what words like marriage mean. This was written into the original Constitution and affirmed in Marbury v. Madison. The Madison in that case, by the way, was James Madison, the guy who wrote the Constitution, so it's pretty clear that he agreed with the ability of the courts to do this.

I also noted: "If marriage and the home deteriorates, the culture and society will be dissolved."

Gay marriage will not dissolve our culture or society. How do I know? Because we already have gay marriage in Massachusetts. We're still around. Other countries have legalized gay marriage, none of them has dissolved. Heck, if George W. Bush can't destroy America after eight years of actively trying, gay marriage has no chance.

"From the very beginning, according to nature, history, tradition, and the Word of God, marriage has been between a man and a woman."

No matter how many times hatemongers repeate this idea, it's still not true. First off, marriage existed long before the Bible, so it wasn't defined by the Christian tradition. Second, and more importantly, the most dominant form of marriage throughout most of history was polygamy. You know Big-Love-one-man-and-as-many-women-as-he-can-get kind of marriage. In much of the world, that was way more prevalent than one-man and one-woman marriage. And, in fact, if you haven't read your Bible lately, there's a whole lot of polygamy in the Old Testament, in particular, and God's just fine with it. Another passage in the book says something about leaving judgment up to God. And if one is a Christian, Jesus made it quite clear what his priorities were. He never mentioned homosexuality. He did, however, mention helping the poor hundreds of times. So, if your community, Pastor Wicker, has any poor people and you are focusing instead on gay people, then you probably need a refresher course in your own religion.

In my remarks I mentioned slavery because it was the defining issue of social justice from the Founding era until the end of the Civil War and even into the 1960's.

Notice how the post-Civil War period is somewhat of an afterthought to the Pastor -- "even into the 1960's." It's already clear that Wicker knows little to nothing about history, but this makes it even more clear. For most of the era between the end of the Civil War and when the former slaves died, little changed for them. Because of things like sharecropping, Jim Crow, peonage, the prison-work system, etc., most "freed" slaves never knew freedom.

My remarks were not intended to diminish the crucial importance of eliminating slavery and all forms of racism from American culture.

Intended or not, they did. And what is left unsaid here, is that your remarks were intended to diminish gay Americans and meant to increase bigotry towards gay people in American culture. You can't get away anymore with directly attacking black people, so you're moving on to a new group of people to hate.

I am deeply sorry for any hurt that my statement may have caused to anyone affected by the evil stain of slavery.

And totally don't care about the hurt that your statement caused anyone affected by the evil stain of homophobia.

As a Christian, I deeply deplore hatred in all its forms and urge love for all people.

Except, of course, for gay people. That kind of hatred, he loves. A lot.

Radically reconstructing the institution of marriage could readily become the defining issue of social justice in the 21st century, especially if such a radical change occurs through the abuse of power by activist judges.

In addition to his ignorance of history, the Pastor shows a clear misunderstanding of basic English words such as "radical" and "reconstruct." If gay people are allowed to get married, the effect on other marriages is nonexistent. And, checking back with that Bible the pastor claims to love so much, I'll wager that the real defining social justice issue of the 21st century is still poverty.

Even a brief study of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas reveals the dangers of judicial activism to the institution of marriage and to the most basic civil rights of association, free speech and religious liberty.

To come to this ridiculous conclusion, one would have to do a really, really brief study of Lawrence v. Texas. That or be a graduate of the Liberty College law school. It's clear that since Lawrence v. Texas was decided, that marriage, freedom of association, freedom of speech and religious liberty haven't been affected one iota. The law that Wicker favors -- a constitutional ban on gay marriage -- goes much further towards violating these rights. The Constitution doesn't grant a right for straight people to get married. It grants the right to citizens. It also grants the right for you to associate (which includes legal association, such as marriage) with whomever you choose. And what about religions that support gay marriage, wouldn't Wicker's favored law be discriminatory towards those religions? (The answer is yes).

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia rightly indicated that this ruling now defines personhood on the basis of sexuality and has enormous implications for marriage and the home.

The same Scalia who is a big fan of the orgy? (Again, the answer is yes). What are these "enormous implications" we always hear about? They've been talked about so much I wonder what they are? they certainly can't be the other things that Wicker talked about in this letter, since you'd have to be really, really dumb to think that gay marriage would hurt straight marriage, so I wonder what he's really talking about? Maybe the big implication would be that it would be harder for hatemongers to practice their hate?

As in some other countries, those who hold to traditional marriage could be prosecuted for "hate speech" if they publicly speak out.

Ah, I was right. All he really cares about is protecting his right to be a bigot. And, again based on history, "traditional" marriage would be polygamy. Also, I'd suggest that the Pastor look up the legal definition of "hate speech," since it differs with what he is saying here.

Destroying the institution of marriage will affect every person of every race, every family, every local community and state, every school district, legislature, courtroom, classroom and board room in America. Such a watershed issue cannot be diminished in its significance.

Again, there will be no destruction. And even if there were, it certainly wouldn't affect every person. It wouldn't affect nonmarried people much at all. And it wouldn't affect anyone who really loved their spouse, since that love would really kind of go beyond a ceremony or piece of paper or contract. True love is in the heart and in the mind, not in the Pastor's strange definitions of words. And it's incredibly clear that gay marriage would have no effect on school districts, legislatures, courtrooms, classrooms or boardrooms. In fact, there isn't even any form of stretched logic to validate that claim. It's just plain nonsense. You can, it must be said, diminish the significance of a watershed issue by engaging in nonsensical, inflated hyperbole.

It is incumbent on the people of Florida and every state to do all they can to make a clear constitutional statement of intention in support of the traditional definition of marriage as the union of only a man and woman.

Actually, no such thing is incumbent, particularly, since that isn't the traditional definition of marriage. Besides, such a state law would clearly conflict with the United States Constitution, so pursuing this is a waste of time and resources that could go towards better things. Like that whole "helping out the poor" thing. If you didn't notice, Pastor, the economy sucks and people are really in real trouble. Not fantasyland trouble based on things that are actually already illegal in Florida.

While we offer love to all, may true patriots and lovers of truth never turn a deaf ear or blind eye to evil as once happened during those years of slavery.

Again, the Pastor is having problem with basic definitions here. The word "all" would include gay people. "Never," as in "never turn a deaf ear or blind eye," would include bigotry towards gay people. History has shown, though, that people who call themselves true patriots almost never are. And, really, does anyone "love" the truth? The truth quite frequently hurts. And it quite frequently sucks. Like the truth that Pastor Hayes Wicker and his supporters are hatemongers who are seeking to advance their own radical political agenda by attempting to marginalize gay American citizens.