Faith in Public Life

Despite constant political attacks designed to dismantle regulations and environmental protections, an exciting new report from the University of Maryland Center demonstrates there is tremendous room for dialogue with members of the religious community on issues of environmental justice. As the report cites, environmental concerns often disproportionately impact the poor and increase the challenges of poverty, issues central to the mission of a broad range of faith groups.

A majority of believers, including majorities of Catholics and Evangelicals, see addressing global poverty as a spiritual obligation and see addressing the risks posed by nuclear weapons and global warming as moral imperatives, even if they do not initially associate these imperatives with spiritual obligations. The study finds little variation between Evangelicals and Catholics on these points. It also finds that a majority of all believers think that the United States should work cooperatively with other nations to reduce poverty, the risks of nuclear war, and the impact of environmental degradation, including the effects of climate change

An increased level of dialogue is needed within congregations to exhibit the high cost facing both the environment and people in poverty if measures are not taken against further environmental destruction. These polling results should embolden religious leaders and congregations to aggressively find new, creative forms of environmental advocacy and work as a unified community of faith for the protection of the earth's resources.

Beau Underwood, FPL Partnership and Outreach Coordinator, discusses the role of faith in the public square during a great interview this week with Liz Essley at The Washington Examiner:
You've been doing some work with the Occupy movement. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently said that Jesus would be among the Occupy protesters in London. Do you agree? Would Jesus be camping with Occupy DC?

There's no way that I, even as a pastor, would ever claim to speak for Jesus. Do I think that when we read through Scripture we see Jesus being extremely concerned about some of the issues that the Occupy movement has promoted? Absolutely. The Bible is laden with references to justice, concern for the oppressed, wanting to make sure that people are treated fairly. And that's what we're hearing from the Occupy movement -- concern for economic inequality and the way that those who have suffered the most were the least responsible for this crisis. I see an echo there that's really hard to ignore.

Where do you draw the line between what the government should be doing to help those in need and what the church should be doing?

Throughout the church's history it has always served those in need, both here in the United States and around the globe. The church will always do that. But when we look at the magnitude of the challenges we're facing, and the resources of the church, there just simply isn't enough there. The church cannot carry the burden that society is facing; it's just not possible; it's not realistic. You can talk to pastors -- they'll be the first ones to tell you that. Churches are facing shrinking budgets and rising costs. As a pastor in a local congregation who's trying really hard to serve his community, I'm saying that the church can't do this all, that charity just is not enough.

At your core, what is one of your defining beliefs?

At my core, the belief that I hold dear, and that drives me in everything that I do is the sense that tomorrow can be better today, that just because things are one way today doesn't mean that they have to be that way tomorrow. Continue reading about Beau's faith background and his work at the intersection of faith and politics here.

An infographic to complement the new study on the relative job-creating value of spending on defense vs. discretionary budget items. From MilitaryEducation.org:

Spencer Ackerman weighs in on the exchange between Secretary Stockton and Rep. Lungren about conservative insistence on "naming the threat" of violent Islamist extremism.

Acknowledging that this framing can sound "on the surface" like a good way to distinguish between terrorists and peaceful Muslims, he points out more nuanced flaws:

"Violent Islamist extremism" means the U.S. is at war -- war - with Hamas, with Hezbollah, arguably with Iran. Little unites these organizations and entities with al-Qaida in any programmatic way. They just all claim to be motivated by Islam; all take a fevered and conspiratorial understanding of Islam (though conspiratorial in different ways); and all use violence as a tool to achieve their goals. Fighting al-Qaida is already a big, big enterprise, since anyone the government says is "affiliated" with al-Qaida, worldwide, is in its crosshairs, and no one knows how to define "affiliated" in any rigorous way.

Larding other Islamist extremist groups on top of that is, I argue, a bad idea. It ensures the U.S. loses focus on its core enemy. It will mean lots of blood and lots of money for a long time. And even if you were, miraculously, to rid the world of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups I'm neglecting at the moment, it wouldn't get you a hair closer to the core goal of eradicating al-Qaida. So thanks but no thanks.

Second, "Violent Islamist Extremism" only means something in English. In Arabic, Urdu, Pashto, Farsi, etc., it means, "The U.S. will attack every Islamic group it can think of, so we're all under threat." In other words, the key demographic in play -- the world's Muslims, whom every smart counterterrorist recognizes are the difference-maker determining whether al-Qaida gets a new lease on life -- hears "Violent Islamist Extremism" as "Islam." That is very bad for strategy.

Following Dan's debunking of Tony Perkins's argument that "Jesus is a free-marketer" yesterday, Aaron M. G. Zimmerman also has a theology lesson for the Religious Right leader:

Perkins writes: "Jesus rejected collectivism and the mentality that has occupied America for the last few decades: that everyone gets a trophy - equal outcomes for inequitable performance. There are winners and yes, there are losers. And wins and losses are determined by the diligence and determination of the individual."

Wait just a cotton-pickin' minute there, Tony. Actually, Jesus' message was that everyone gets a trophy. Christianity says we are saved by grace. In other words, we get the Big Reward apart from what we do, apart from our performance, and only because of God's gracious gift.

I'll grant that Jesus told lots of parables in which there were winners and losers. But the funny thing is, the winners in his stories often looked a lot like losers.
...
Take the parable in the 20th chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew. A vineyard owner hires some guys to work in his vineyard at different points in the day. Some work all day in the hot sun. The ones who are hired last only work one hour. But at the end of the day, scandalously and unjustly, the owner pays them each the same wage. There is no pay for performance here! In fact, the slackers get rewarded! The trophy goes to the ones in last place. The owner declares: "So the last will be first and the first last"

Nice work from Aaron, though the Religious Right is one step ahead of him. Under the leadership of David Barton and Jay Richards, they've conveniently recast the story as a Biblical injunction against the minimum wage.

Last week, a group of prominent evangelicals penned a Washington Post op-ed calling for a rethinking of international nuclear policies. "Nuclear weapons, with their capacity for terror as well as for destruction of human life, raise profound spiritual, moral and ethical concerns," they said.

They also outlined concrete steps toward ensuring that nuclear weapons are never used:
"As leaders in the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), we believe thoughtful application of evangelical principles and consideration of the current realities support:

• Re-examining the moral and ethical basis for the doctrine of nuclear deterrence


• Maintaining the taboo against nuclear use


• Achieving verified mutual reductions in current nuclear stockpiles


• Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty


• Increasing safeguards against accidental use


• Resolving regional conflicts


• Preventing the unauthorized spread of fissile material


• Continuing dialogue on the effects of possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons"

The letter was signed by Leith Anderson, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Dennis Hollinger, president of Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, John Jenkins, of First Baptist Church of Glenarden, and Jo Ann Lyon, of The Wesleyan Church.

This statement echoes the faith activism around last year's START nuclear arms reduction treaty. The NAE joined fellow evangelicals at the Two Futures Project as well as Jewish, Catholic and Protestant leaders calling on Congress to ratify this important agreement.

Promoting peace is a central component of almost all faith traditions and now is the time to put their faith into action toward making our world safe and secure for all.

Photo credit: Kingdafy, Fotopedia

The FPL News Reel is a daily round-up of the top faith and politics stories in the news. You can sign up for the email version of the News Reel here and follow it on twitter at @FPLNewsreel

99 Percent' Drop In On DC Power Players
By Associated Press
The message to the power brokers: They should be making laws for people who can't afford lobbyists. Much of it was taken from the Democrats' playbook, like extending unemployment insurance, and making wealthy people pay more taxes.

The New Evangelicals
By Marcia Palley -- New York Times, Campaign Stops
Even if most new evangelicals remain Republican, were they to move the party toward economic justice, immigration reform and environmental protection, that would be a very large achievement.

Middle-class relief: Congress should extend the payroll tax cut
By Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Editorial
Most economists agree that putting money in the pockets of lower-income families who are most likely to spend it will provide a boost the economy needs. Effectively raising the payroll tax now would have the opposite effect. Congress can and must prevent that from happening.

Gingrich Courts Christian Leaders; Viability Still Questioned
By Paul Stanley -- Christian Post
...Gingrich met with 63 of the nation's most prominent [Christian] conservative leaders...at an Arlington, Va., hotel on Wednesday to outline his plan for winning the GOP nomination.

Why Rick Perry's New Ads Are Wrong on Religion-And Obama
By Amy Sullivan -- Time, Swampland
The casualness with which Perry tosses off the charge about "Obama's war on religion" is at odds with how corrosive the accusation really is.

Politics and Plan B
By Akron Beacon-Journal, Editorial
The Obama White House... undercut its own reasoned goal of putting in place policies that prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions...

Alabama GOP leaders have 2nd thoughts on immigration
By Phillip Rawls -- Associated Press
Alabama Republicans who pushed through the nation's toughest law against illegal immigrants are having second thoughts amid a backlash from big business, fueled by the embarrassing traffic stops of two foreign employees tied to the state's prized Honda and Mercedes plants.

Fingerprint program targeting illegal immigrants now running across Georgia
By Jeremy Redmon -- Atlanta Journal-Constitution
All 159 Georgia counties are now participating in a federal fingerprint-sharing program aimed at deporting violent illegal immigrants...Civil and immigrant rights groups in Georgia have called on the Obama administration to dump the program

Anti-death penatly advocates vow to abolish death penalty in Georgia
By Michelle Wirth -- WABE News
Democratic state Senator Vincent Fort rallied with anti-death penalty activists and religious leaders in front of the state capitol Thursday. Those attending the rally say they will fight against Georgia's death penalty in the upcoming legislative session.

Religious Freedom Panel Prepares to Close
By Josef Kuhn -- Religion News Service
A federal watchdog panel that monitors religious freedom around the world is preparing to shut down next Friday (Dec. 16) unless Congress passes a last-minute measure to save it.

Religious Americans See Green as Good
By Tim Wall-- Discovery News
A recent survey found that the majority of Americans who believe in God also believe in protecting the environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preventing nuclear war.

Gay marriage - a Lutheran leader's plea to Catholic bishops
By Herbert W. Chilstrom -- Minneapolis Star Tribune, Opinion
Church leaders should embrace, engage all, says the former presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

People of faith came together this morning for a prayer vigil in support of unemployed workers, calling on Congress to extend unemployment insurance to protect the economic security of struggling families. Part of the Take Back the Capitol activities, hundreds of people joined together in prayer and song on Capitol Hill before marching to Capitol offices to share their stories of financial struggle and waning hope in the American Dream.

Rev. Jennifer Butler, executive director of Faith in Public Life, participated in the service, reading a litany asking participants to commit their "congregations to stand in support of the unemployed and to demand that our elected representatives work to create jobs and turn this economy around."

And J. Herbert Nelson, head of the Presbyterian Church (USA) Washington's office, passionately spoke about the moral need to extend benefits and the role of faith in helping sustain the demonstrators as they fight for economic justice:

As the economy relegates social issues to the back-burner, Religious Right leaders are baptizing the Tea Party's agenda of punishing the vulnerable in order to further enrich the wealthiest Americans. Toward this end, Tony Perkins wrote a post on CNN's Belief Blog this week arguing that "Jesus was a free-marketer."

To make this point, Perkins offers a noncontextual exegesis of the parable of the ten minas in Luke 19. Rather than a figurative lesson about using Spiritual gifts to grow the church, Perkins interprets the story as proof that God rewards industrious businesspeople with fantastic wealth and punishes lazy people. He also offers this dubious, troubling description of the nature of our modern capitalist society:

Jesus rejected collectivism and the mentality that has occupied America for the last few decades: that everyone gets a trophy - equal outcomes for inequitable performance. There are winners and yes, there are losers. And wins and losses are determined by the diligence and determination of the individual. [emphasis added]

This, in a nutshell, is what I call The Big Lie about our economic system - the argument that everyone gets what they deserve, that poverty and prosperity alike are truly earned.

Taken to its logical conclusion, Perkins's argument means that there was a sudden massive collapse of individual work ethic in Fall of 2008 that led to millions of layoffs. It concludes that those who currently can't find work have only themselves to blame (never mind the fact that job-seekers outnumber job openings more than 4-to-1). Perkins's argument suggests that a difference in work ethic is what keeps 49 million Americans in poverty and allocates to the richest 400 Americans more wealth than the bottom 50 percent. In other words, it's pure fantasy that serves no other purpose than to deny the existence of economic injustice.

Perkins also clearly argues that this system is not inevitably sinful:

Some would argue that such an approach encourages abuses, the likes of which we have seen on Wall Street. While some egregious abuses have taken place, they are not inevitable or intrinsic to free enterprise. [emphasis added]

This claim ignores that corruption and predatory practices are ubiquitous features of not only free-market capitalism, but also the entirety of human history. I'm sure Perkins recognizes that we are a fallen people, but his economic philosophy doesn't seem to square with this belief.

Two immutable aspects of human nature are that we have a strong desire to pursue narrow self-interest, but are also social beings who seek the moral approval of our neighbors. Free-market capitalism, in theory, reconciles these impulses by harnessing our selfishness in a way that establishes an inherently fair economic and social order. The problem, in practice, is that it simply doesn't work. The continued prosperity of the bankers whose greed crashed the economy and the ongoing hardships faced by teachers and nurses who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own, are but two small pieces of evidence.

I don't mean to imply that hard work has nothing to do with prosperity. It absolutely does. I know of many very rich people who work very hard, and have also met poor people who don't. But the inverse is also true. Reducing success and failure to consequences of personal virtues is foolish at best and dishonest at worst. And Perkins should be ashamed of himself for using the Bible to perpetuate this myth.

Of the three witnesses that testified on the first panel of Rep. King's hearing yesterday, the Assistant Secretary of Defense and U.S. Army Senior Adviser for Counterintelligence Operations may have been the higher profile names, the third witness, Lieutenant Colonel Reid L. Sawyer--Director of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, was just as important.

The Combating Terrorism Center was most recently in the news as the "clean-up crew" for the FBI after Spencer Ackerman's reporting exposed the sloppy, anti-Islam bias in the Bureau's training materials. As Ackerman notes, the CTC has "earned high praise from counterterrorism experts as a haven for rigorous, practical scholarship on terrorism and Islamic extremism."

In other words, it's the direct opposites of the self-styled anti-Islam "experts" whose broad stereotypes and wild conspiracy theories currently seem to count as "scholarship" for conservative politicians.

At the hearing, Lt. Coloner Sawyer explained why rooting out these kind of voices from policy and training materials is so important:

There are two critical parts to this. The first is that we do not want to inhibit our ability to educate our forces whether it's within the inter-agency intelligence community or the military on these critical threats. How do we get our solidiers or our intelligence or law enforcement officials to understand these threats in which they can react to them in a proactive manner and to understand them in depth to be able to focus on the changing trajectory of our time.

To achieve uniformity in this what we need to do is really to instill that there's a competency in the people that are producing the training materials--that they're academically rigorous, that they're based on sound research in which they're producing and that they are fact-based and devoid of political agenda or personal opinion in those. And if we accomplish that I think that the training materials become much more responsible in the general sense across the general enterprise and, in fact, the reviews have shown this to be the case.

In the ongoing economic debate over the most effective way to manage debt and create jobs, conservative ideologues have maintained a hard line of cutting taxes and slashing spending--except when it comes to the defense budget. Paradoxically, while dismissing the ability of government spending to create jobs, conservatives simultaneously insist that reducing military spending will lead to greater unemployment. However, a new study from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, proves this talking point wrong.

The study shows that investing money in domestic sectors rather than defense programs actually creates more jobs than funneling those funds to military programs alone. The two economists who authored the study used figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to determine the number of jobs created by government spending in areas like tax cuts, energy, health care, and education. The chart from the study illustrates the number of jobs that each area created from a billion dollars in spending:

It's easy to see that military spending isn't as crucial to creating jobs as the conservative talking points would have you believe--in fact, it's not even close to the most important spending area. The combined areas of major domestic spending--investing in clean energy, health care, and education--create about twice as many jobs per dollar than military spending. Even separately, it's clear that the numbers come out higher than the military category. As the study's authors conclude, "spending on clean energy, health care, and education will all create many more jobs overall, at all pay levels, than spending on the military."

In order to work toward a moral budget that takes the needs of all Americans into account, it's important to get past the rhetoric to find economic solutions that will actually help put struggling Americans back to work. It's immoral to pursue a budget that slashes government spending for important domestic programs while refusing to trim spending in an area that has proven less effective at spurring job creation.

H/T ThinkProgress

The FPL News Reel is a daily round-up of the top faith and politics stories in the news. You can sign up for the email version of the News Reel here and follow it on twitter at @FPLNewsreel

Religion Stories Of 2011: The Top 11
By Paul Brandeis Raushenbush -- Huffington Post
In the final days of 2011 we pause to reflect on the year that has past -- the good, the bad and the ugly. Here are the HuffPost Religion Top Stories of 2011.

Where is Wall Street accountability?
By Elizabeth Warren -- Politico, Opinion
For more than a year, one story after another has come to light exposing how some of America's largest financial institutions broke the law. In some cases, their blatantly illegal behavior in the foreclosure process pushed families out of their homes.

Obama's New Square Deal
By E.J. Dionne Jr. -- Washington Post, Opinion
Roosevelt did not become a full-throated economic populist until the election was upon him -- and only after he was pressed by a left and a labor movement that demanded more of him.

Census: Income gap growing in cities
By MJ Lee -- Politico
As affluent African-Americans leave cities for the suburbs and the South, the income gap between whites and blacks in cities is continuing to widen, new census data show.

Perry hits Obama for war on faith, despite a ghost of 'holiday season' past
By Kevin Liptak -- Belief Blog, CNN
Rick Perry doubled down on his religion-based attack of President Barack Obama Wednesday, saying the president was preventing students from celebrating Christmas in schools. But just last year, Perry issued a holiday statement as governor of Texas that omits any mention of the Christian holiday.

Newt Gingrich strong with Iowa evangelicals, Tea Partiers
By Brian Montopoli -- CBS News
Newt Gingrich's 14-point lead over Mitt Romney among likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers is grounded in large part in support from Tea Party and evangelical voters, who have a far more positive view of Gingrich than they do Romney.

Alabama's tough immigration law questioned
By Associated Press
Alabama Atty. Gen. Luther Strange proposes throwing out parts of the immigration law to make it easier to defend and to 'remove burdens on law-abiding citizens.'

Free Will Baptists offer study in racism after interracial ban overturned
By Peter Smith -- Louisville Courier-Journal, Faith & Works
The publishing arm of the Free Will Baptist denomination has produced a seven-page, downloadable study guide on racism. It's a rapid response to the recent controversy over a member church in Pike County, Ky., approving a short-lived ban on interracial couples.

The War on Black Voters
By Cynthia Gordy -- The Root
"This disenfranchisement of voting rights continues to disproportionately affect African-American men," said Benjamin Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP

The (bogus) number that won't die
By Bill McKibben -- Politico, Opinion
Twenty thousand jobs. All summer and fall, while the Keystone pipeline debate raged, that was the one constant...Given the jobs-starved recovery, it's no wonder that Big Oil stresses this number. The only problem is that it's wrong.

In a brief aside during his hearings on radicalization in the military, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) praised the 6,000+ Muslim U.S. service members have served overseas since 9/11 and the 14 Muslim troops who have been killed in the line of duty.

King went on to explain that "there's no desire on anyone's part to denigrate the contributions of the Muslim community. We're talking about a small, small minority."

Even though it may seem unnecessary, kudos to King for clearly and publicly articulating this point. Unfortunately, while nobody on the committee may be motivated by a desire to demean American Muslims, the same can't be said of the conservative community at large which tolerates anti-Islam sentiment that has naturally led to calls for Muslims to be banned from the military.

Most prominently, these offensive proposals have come from a Republican state senator in Tennessee, conservative stalwart Phyllis Schafly's Texas Eagle Forum, and the American Family Association.

Hopefully Rep. King will continue to recognize Muslim Americans' contributions to our national security and make clear to his fellow conservatives that those who propose such bans do not reflect American values and have no place in mainstream political discourse.

If Rep. King is looking for an example, he could do no better than to emulate former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who shared a moving story of a Muslim soldier who was killed in action and condemned anti-Muslim attacks against then-candidate Obama in a 2008 Meet the Press appearance:

Brian at Political Correction flags a telling exchange from yesterday's hearing on radicalization in the military, in which Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) tries to get Assistant Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs Paul Stockton to validate the conservative talking point that America is at war with the ideology of violent Islamist extremism.

Secretary Stockton, however, refused to participate in that kind of over-simplification, clarifying instead that America is engaged in a fight against very specific terrorist groups rather than some indeterminate, limitless war with an ideology.

LUNGREN: Secretary Stockton, are we at war with violent Islamist extremism?

STOCKTON: No, sir. We are at war with al Qaeda, its affiliates, and adherents --

LUNGREN: Ok, I understand that. My question is, is violent Islamist extremism at war with us?

STOCKTON: No, sir. We are being attacked by al Qaeda and its allies.

LUNGREN: Is al Qaeda -- can it be described as being an exponent of violent Islamist extremism?

STOCKTON: Al Qaeda are murderers with an ideological agenda --

LUNGREN: That's not my question, that wasn't my question. My question was, is al Qaeda acting out violent Islamist extremism?

STOCKTON: Al Qaeda is a violent organization dedicated to overthrowing the values that we intend to advance --

LUNGREN: Yes or no?

STOCKTON: Can I hear the question again?

LUNGREN: [silence]

STOCKTON: I'll make it as clear as I can: We are not at war with Islam.

LUNGREN: I didn't ask that. I did not ask that, sir. I asked whether we're at war with violent Islamist extremism. That's my question.

STOCKTON: No. We're at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.

LUNGREN: Al Qaeda -- How does al Qaeda define itself? Are they dedicated to violent Islamist extremism?

STOCKTON: Al Qaeda would love to convince Muslims around the world that the United States is at war with Islam. That's a prime propaganda tool, and I'm not going to aid and abet that effort to advance their propaganda goals.

I think Secretary Stockton could have acknowledged that Al-Qaeda uses a flawed interpretation of Islamic principles to justify its despicable actions without undermining his argument, but I respect his persistence as well.

As he explains, Al Qaeda is just as eager to cast the conflict as an epic religious struggle and national security leaders have a clear strategic rationale for deflating this kind of propaganda. Kudos to him.

After publishing my post on the U.S. Catholic bishops' approach to poverty and economic justice a few weeks ago, I received a note challenging my representation of the bishops' record on these issues.

On a specific point I should make a correction. When I said the Bishops' "seemed content to let others be the faces of" the Circle of Protection efforts they signed on to, I was thinking mostly of TV and public speaking appearances. But I neglected to mention that the Bishops did lend their voices on press calls about the coalition and join Circle in-person lobby visits.

To clarify more broadly, I appreciate the Bishops' important work on economic issues and involvement in the Circle of Protection. At both home and abroad they are engaged in real and substantive work for marginalized and vulnerable people. It's also true that the media seems less interested in writing about this economic justice work in favor of the more controversial culture war issues.

I just don't think the Bishops should treat that problem as a dead-end, but rather as a particular strategic challenge they have to overcome if they want to be effective and influential in economic and budget debates. If reporters seem unaware or uninterested in drawing attention to their work and message, the Bishops should be actively looking for new ways and strategies to get it out.

The point of my earlier post is that I think they already know what those strategies are--namely, simplifying their message into something easy to understand, giving it an attractive news hook so it fits into the media conversation of the day, and highlighting the personalities and conflicts at the heart of the story.

For example, when the health care bill came close to final passage, the bishops made clear that they objected to the provisions in the bill they (erroneously) believed provided tax-payer funding for abortion. As such, they declared their opposition to its passage and gained widespread attention and media coverage for their stance.

In contrast, Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal from earlier this year that made dramatic cuts to international and domestic social safety net programs raised great concern among the Bishops, but the letters they sent Members of Congress about the bill were long and broad-- expressing nuanced reservations and suggestions for continued dialogue, rather than standing in stark opposition. The Bishops' statements are strong from a policy standpoint, but function much less effectively as tools for media coverage or political pressure (particularly in comparison to the kind of hard opposition of the health care statement).

The vague language, in fact, gave conservative supporters of the Ryan budget the opportunity to claim that their proposal actually aligned with Catholic social teaching. As I pointed out before, when Paul Ryan wrote a letter full of erroneous policy and theological arguments to that effect, Archbishop Dolan's response was so imperceptibly critical that it was reported as a de facto endorsement of the bill that the Bishops were so concerned about to start with. (A conclusion that did not appear to be publicly challenged by the Bishops.)

The contrast here is to the way in which multiple Bishops quickly and publicly rebuked Rep. Nancy Pelosi for her misrepresentation of Catholic theology on abortion in 2008.

To his credit, Archbishop Dolan has started speaking more publicly about poverty and economic justice recently, including weighing in on the minimum wage fight in New York.

I think that it's this kind of principled stand that we need more of from the entire Bishops' conference. They should make clear that in every political fight over economic justice issues, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stands clearly and forcefully on the side of the working and middle class and against concrete policies and proposals that would harm them. With the media's ongoing focus on jobs, economic growth, and income inequality, a strong, visible message in support of economic justice can break through.

Photo credit: Catholic News Service

In his previous hearings on the "threat of Muslim radicalization in the United States" Rep. Peter King invited witnesses who seemed selected for the likelihood that their testimony would validate King's misinformed conviction: that the primary threat facing the U.S. comes from "Islamic extremism" and that liberals' refusal to "name the threat" is making the country unsafe.

But the witnesses at today's round of hearings, which focused on the threat of radicalization within the military itself, didn't play along. In particular, Jim Stuteville--United States Army Senior Adviser for Counterintelligence Operations and Liaison to the Federal Bureau of Investigation--explained to Rep. King that adopting a narrow focus on only one ethnic or religious group could distract the armed forces from the broad array of threats they face. Instead, the Army has trained personnel to monitor behavioral indicators of extremism to prevent threats:

STUTEVILLE: These indicators though are focused on behavioral activity, not on any specific ideology, religion or ethnic group. We adopted that approach because we want to make sure we can account for any type of threat both those previously and those in the future. And so focusing on the behavioral activity is how we've looked at doing this.

As you can see, Rep. King didn't particularly appreciate that answer and proceeded to essentially implicate Mr. Stuteville as more evidence of crippling "political correctness." Defending his position, King goes on to try to explain that he's not Islamophobic because if other particular groups (like Irish Catholics) were the primary threat, he'd be saying the same things.

The problem, of course, is that Rep. King's fundamental analysis of the situation is wrong. As we've shown before, comprehensive studies have shown that Islamic extremism is nowhere close to the only threat, nor is it (as King has also claimed) the fastest-growing threat.

It's King's single-minded insistence on exclusively (and divisively) investigating this one threat in spite of this evidence that has earned him deserved criticism--not some ambiguous distraction about political correctness.

The core lie underlying the recent rise of Islamophobia is the claim that Muslims' loyalty to their faith makes them untrustworthy Americans. As we've tracked in the past, Anti-Muslim commentators (and even former presidential candidates) continue to falsely promote this divisive rhetoric, propagating the myth that if Muslims find their religion and loyalty to America in conflict, they would ultimately betray America.

With such an intense focus on the "loyalty" of American Muslims, it should serve as a surprise to anti-Muslim commentators that a new poll from Gallup finds that devotion to one's faith before country is not exclusively a characteristic of minority religions. American Christians--particularly white evangelicals (who are least comfortable with public displays of Muslim religion and culture) actually report thinking of themselves in terms of their faith first in much higher numbers.

So why don't pundits and politicians consider American Christians' allegiance to their faith as a threat to American democracy? It seems unfortunately likely that some conservatives' attacks on Muslims' loyalty to "religion above country" has nothing to do with the significance of religion in one's life, but is merely a pretext to cast a cloud of suspicion over the Muslim community as a whole.

David Sirota at ">Salon explores this question:
Because Christianity is seen as the dominant culture in America -- indeed, Christianity and America are often portrayed as being nearly synonymous, meaning expressing loyalty to the former is seen as the equivalent to expressing loyalty to the latter. In this view, there is no such thing as separation between the Christian church and the American state -- and every other culture and religion is expected to assimilate to Christianity. To do otherwise is to be accused of waging a "War on Christmas" -- or worse, to be accused of being disloyal to America and therefore a national security threat.Besides spreading the myth that it is impossible for Muslims to adhere to their faith and be loyal American citizens, this rhetoric only helps spread even more divisive anti-Muslim sentiments. During the past two years, dozens of states proposed legislation banning Islamic Sharia law, despite the fact that the Constitution prohibits the government from targeting one religion and ">respected researchers repeatedly reject the claim that Muslims are pushing for Sharia law in U.S courts. ">Fearmongers push these fictional problems as evidence that Muslims are not entitled to the same treatment and religious freedom as every other American.

Andrea Elliott at The New York Times questions the origins of the anti-sharia movement:
Yet, for all its fervor, the movement is arguably directed at a problem more imagined than real. Even its leaders concede that American Muslims are not coalescing en masse to advance Islamic law. Instead, they say, Muslims could eventually gain the kind of foothold seen in Europe, where multicultural policies have allowed for what critics contend is an overaccommodation of Islamic law.

"Before the train gets too far down the tracks, it's time to put up the block," said Guy Rodgers, the executive director of ACT for America, one of the leading organizations promoting the legislation drafted by Mr. Yerushalmi.

The more tangible effect of the movement, opponents say, is the spread of an alarmist message about Islam -- the same kind of rhetoric that appears to have influenced Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in the deadly dual attacks in Norway on July 22. The anti-Sharia campaign, they say, appears to be an end in itself, aimed at keeping Muslims on the margins of American life.Herman Cain even went so far as to ">claim that a majority of all Muslims are extremists and proposed a "loyalty test" for Muslims holding government office.

All of these efforts, of course, harken back to similar periods of religious suspicion in U.S. history. In the 1960's, John F. Kennedy had similar charges levied against him for his Catholic faith, with critics claiming he would never be able to maintain his loyalty to the Presidential office and identify as a practicing Catholic. Looking back, the majority of Americans would now find those claims to be unfounded and extreme.

It is a sad testimony to the state of religious freedom and tolerance in the U.S. that members of minority religions are regarded with such distrust, especially when Christians are treated with a presumption of loyalty.


Photo Credit: A Gude, Flickr

As John noted yesterday, some Catholic bishops and conservative pundits have been criticizing the Obama administration for a purported "anti-Catholic bias," citing a Department of Health and Human Services grant with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that was not renewed. The HHS funding is awarded to organizations that aid victims of human trafficking; staffers explained that HHS's decision resulted from a "strong preference" for groups that provide a "full range of gynecological and obstetric care," which would include information about contraceptive and abortion services.

Last Thursday, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a congressional hearing to examine whether HHS's funding decision was a case of discrimination against faith-based groups. Two opposing threads of reasoning emerged, highlighting the fundamental dichotomy at the heart of this debate.

On one hand, House Committee Chair Darrell Issa argued that the government has a responsibility to accommodate faith-based groups that may fall outside of the bounds of specific guidelines. In an exchange with HHS Assistant Secretary George Sheldon, Issa illustrated his point with a comparison to an Orthodox Jew seeking employment as a driver despite the fact that he is unable to perform his driving duties on the Jewish Sabbath:

ISSA: "Mr. Sheldon... we're not arguing today specifically about whether those services are right or wrong, about abortions...any of that. We're arguing over who had the responsibility. And you seem to think--repeatedly, in every answer--that the bishops had the responsibility and I'm going to say from this position as chair that we, the government, have the responsibility to square executive orders, and the law, and our requests for proposals and grant writing. Not the religious-based person who says 'I can't drive on Friday night through Saturday at dusk because of my religion, and yes there's someone else who can't do it on Sundays; let's reconcile that.' It's our obligation as government. That's my view."

D.C. Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton voiced the other perspective, disagreeing that the government is responsible for finding ways to reconcile their objectives with faith-based groups' objectives:

NORTON: "I just want to say for the record that this is a hearing about public money. No one is entitled to a grant in the United States, faith-based or otherwise. There is no preference for any group to receive a grant, and each funding cycle is a new cycle. Public money in our country comes from people with many different background and many different views. They come continually from people with many different religious views. So there is only one issue here, and that issue seems to be whether HHS followed or failed to follow the objective procedures for awarding a grant... I don't see how Congress can be concerned with anything but two issues: were the procedures followed, and are we paying attention first and foremost to the victims - as opposed to the organizations whose power systems, after all, are in competition with one another?

In this light, allegations of the Obama administration's anti-religious bias distract from this larger policy debate. It's important to recognize the root of the conflict in order to have a respectful debate going forward.

Following the defeat of a radical "fetal personhood" ballot initiative on Election Day in Mississippi, another abortion legislation battle looms in Ohio, where the state Senate is considering H.B. 125, which would make performing an abortion a felony if a fetal heartbeat is detectible. Such a far-reaching restriction would likely lead to a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade. Republican Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder even admitted that "we're writing bills for courts."

As the New York Times reports, the legislation is dividing social conservatives:

Ohio Right to Life, which has been the premier lobby, and the state Catholic conference have refused to support the measure, arguing that the court is not ready for such a radical step and that it could cause a legal setback. But the idea has stirred the passions of some traditional leaders, even winning the endorsement of Dr. John C. Willke of Cincinnati, the former president of National Right to Life and one of the founders of the modern anti-abortion movement.

At issue is a strategic difference about whether to continue the traditional approach of incrementally restricting abortion -- which has steadily narrowed access in dozens of states -- or to make an immediate, direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by outright criminalizing abortion. This divide is more than a momentary split - it's a schism that signals an intensification and radicalization of the abortion debate.

Making abortion a felony in an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade (as Ohio's H.B. 125 would do), and restricting contraception and outlawing abortion even in cases of rape (as Mississippi's fetal personhood amendment would have done), would bring the issue back into the partisan spotlight just in time for an election year. Similar legislation is in the works in at least ten other states, which leads the debate away from finding common ground and toward greater polarization than we've seen in decades.

In the context of the upcoming elections, it'll be fascinating to see whether the usual pro-life boilerplate and vague assurances about "activist judges" suffice when controversial, concrete measures are on the agenda and division grows among opponents of abortion.

But regardless, this political dance does nothing for the women facing the difficult circumstances that lead to abortion. Doubling down on stalemated federal court battles and drastically cutting protections for vulnerable families instead of preventing unintended pregnancies and supporting those facing economic hardship is a recipe for polarization, not progress. Thankfully there are also people of good will on both sides of the abortion debate working on pragmatic solutions.

Photo credit: katerkate, Flickr

President Obama invoked both Christian faith and the plight of immigrants at the National Christmas Tree Lighting last Thursday saying in part:

"More than 2,000 years ago, a child was born to two faithful travelers who could find rest only in a stable, among the cattle and the sheep. But this was not just any child. He grew up to become a leader with a servant's heart who taught us a message as simple as it is powerful: that we should love God, and love our neighbor as ourselves."

Watch the President's full remarks below:

The speech came days after Obama's Thanksgiving Day speech, for which he was slammed by some on the Right for supposedly ignoring God and focusing on community.

The context--that the President did mention God in his 2009 and 2010 addresses, as well as in his written remarks this year and the press release about his remarks--of course, doesn't seem to matter to those making these attacks.

This attempt to label Obama as hostile to religion is the latest example of the Right using religion as a divisive tool to score political points. Although President Obama deserves an apology for the constant untruths spouted by detractors, I'm afraid all he can hope for is that their New Year's Resolutions include a newfound commitment to reality.