One of the Democratic presidential candidates has a pastor who opposed both Iraq wars, supports same-sex marriage, opposes the death penalty, and has been a passionate critic of American foreign policy. The clergyman isn't the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama's spiritual leader who has become a household name and a campaign issue for his fiery rhetoric, but the Reverend Edward Matthews, a little-known Arkansas preacher who is the closest Senator Clinton has to a pastor of her own. While Mrs. Clinton says she would have quit Rev. Wright's church, Rev. Matthews expressed sympathy for Rev. Wright in a 35-minute phone interview with The New York Sun. "We preachers get irresponsible," Rev. Matthews, the former pastor of First United Methodist Church in Little Rock, said yesterday with a laugh. His take on Rev. Wright's now-infamous exclamation, "God Damn America," is that many pastors, himself included, say things "that if we had to say it over again we probably wouldn't say it in the same way."

The report in The New York Sun >>

Thanks to Media Roundup: a report on the use of religion in American life, presented by The Interfaith Alliance >>

Sara Robinson, writing for Campaign For America's Future, appreciates that in this year’s presidential campaign, wearingly long though it may be, progressives are for the first time in years speaking out of the deep cultural and political resources of America’s civil religion.

She quotes Norman Lear, speaking at the Take Back America conference last week:

Can we progressives -- who won't be caught dead these days calling ourselves liberals -- can we stop serving as a punching bag for the right?

And speak with depth and conviction about the things that really matter to us? Once and for all, can we break through the false and humiliating charade that they and they alone are the arbiters of family values, morality, patriotism, the flag, the life of the spirit, God-talk? And that they alone have the credibility to speak to these subjects and concerns? 

The search for meaning that defines us as humans is the greatest conversation going, and I want in.

The old framework of the U.S. civil religion has come unglued, she says, as Robert Bellah showed it does every century or so. But after the disintegration of the past few decades, people are turning to those narratives and symbols again, and the progressives are taking part in the recovery – and they should be working at doing that well. She concludes: 

The entire country is desperately hungry for a new, compelling story about what it means to be American, and what America means to the world. It does not have to be exclusive, nationalistic, or imperialist – in fact, we've got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity right now to offer the country another narrative entirely, one that will move us away from the madness of the past. Norman Lear and Bill Moyers moved us all when they preached the gospel of this 21st-century civil religion from the pulpit at Take Back America; Barack Obama also showed us how it's done last week in Philadelphia. The new stories are already emerging; and the country is inspired by what it hears.

The Nation has published an article suggesting, on the basis of efforts for health care reform in California and Massachusetts, that current proposals for national health care reform being advanced by all the presidential candidates may fall far short of meeting the needs.

Market-based efforts, working through existing insurance companies, simply leave too many people out. Ultimately, says the author, “any effective reform will have to bring everyone into the insurance tent.”

Of National Lies and Racial America
[3-24-08]

Tim Wise, the author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son, and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (both published in 2005), argues that “as much as white America may not be able to hear it (and as much as politics may require Obama to condemn it) let us be clear, Jeremiah Wright fundamentally told the truth.”

He goes on:

Wright said not that the attacks of September 11th were justified, but that they were, in effect, predictable. Deploying the imagery of chickens coming home to roost is not to give thanks for the return of the poultry or to endorse such feathered homecoming as a positive good; rather, it is merely to note two things: first, that what goes around, indeed, comes around – a notion with longstanding theological grounding – and secondly, that the U.S. has indeed engaged in more than enough violence against innocent people to make it just a tad bit hypocritical for us to then evince shock and outrage about an attack on ourselves, as if the latter were unprecedented.

Wise develops in detail his case that Wright has simply been portraying reality as it is seen in the African-American community, and that whites are outraged because they cannot accept – or even permit the expression off – such a view of the world. Our big white lies are too important to us to allow for any consideration of anyone else’s truth.

Published in Counterpunch >>                     Originally published in LiP Magazine >>

For another look at racism in the U.S. you might turn to the just-published Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II, by Douglas A. Blackmon.  The Chicago Tribune summarizes:

Slavery by Another Name (Doubleday, $26), by Douglas A. Blackmon, due in stores in late March, shows the Civil War did not end racial oppression in America. Subtitled "The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans From the Civil War to World War II," this book by The Wall Street Journal's Atlanta bureau chief tells the often-overlooked story of neoslavery. From the 1870s until well into the 20th Century, under laws passed to intimidate them, black men were arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned, made to work off room and board in jail and, in effect, turned into unpaid slave laborers who were leased by manufacturers, farmers, mines and other businesses. This is a hard look at a horrifying aspect of recent history.

We received this note in response to our posts on March 18:

Thanks so much for sharing the supportive comments from others of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s preaching. He was well-named, wasn’t he?

Thanks also for re-printing the transcript of Barack Obama’s magnificent speech.

I look forward to hearing a lot more support from Presbyterian preachers who believe that the pulpit should be the place where those who study the Scriptures and follow the teachings of Jesus are free to pass on their understandings to others.

Lynne Reade, Fremont, California

After a note like that, how can I resist looking for more?

What do our candidates for Moderator have to say?

With all the discussion this week about Obama’s speech, both as a perspective on American race relations and as a look at the role of the prophetic tradition in American religion, it occurred to me to see whether any of the four candidates for Moderator might be putting forth their views.

Only one of them, as far as I can find from their websites and blogs, has offered any specific comments on Obama’s speech. But each has said something over the past few days that offers food for thought.

As it happens, the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow posted a blog note under the heading “bleep that chinaman.” He starts from a scrawled sign he saw recently in front of his favorite café in San Francisco, which uses an offensive word to tell what should be done to “that chinaman.” With apologies for the language, he offers three generalizations about our racism today: it has diversified, it will not go away, and it “must be challenged with a spirit of solidarity.”

The Rev. Bill Teng offers reflections on the role of the Moderator, and offers his own vision of serving as a witness to the grace of God, and the gratitude and hope that grow in our responding to God’s grace.

The Rev. Carl Mazza, in his blog of March 12, reflects on his own ministry with Meeting Ground, a shelter for the homeless, and finds an image for the church’s mission in “the table” around which “there is always room for one more.”

Elder Roger Shoemaker, in a brief reflection on Micah 6:8 dated March 14 (his reflection, not Micah!), notes in passing that a commentary he looked at shows Micah’s words set in the context of his presentation of “God’s case against Israel.” While Shoemaker is not discussing America’s problems with race, this does give a little reminder that the prophetic tradition, which the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has sought to represent, does have a pretty sharp, critical edge.

A couple other views

“Obama shows grace under fire”

Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, praises Obama for facing directly the obviously big issue hanging over his campaign, and doing it with “courage and candor and grace.”

Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, praises Obama for facing directly the obviously big issue hanging over his campaign, and doing it with “courage and candor and grace.”

She concludes: It's possible Obama placed the wrong bet. His sort of politics may be well-loved by editorial writers and civics teachers but ill-suited to winning presidential campaigns. Straight talk and tough truths may have no place on the stump. It may be that campaigns are still won by those willing to kneecap their opponents with vicious ads and ugly rumors. Voters may prefer focus-grouped slogans to uncomfortable facts.

But it certainly was encouraging to hear from a politician willing to take his chances with a pander-free hour at a difficult moment in his campaign. It doesn't happen often.        The full column >>

“Obama, Reverend Wright, The Speech: A Problem And An Unanticipated Upside”

Thomas de Zengotita, a contributing editor at Harper's Magazine, says that’s Obama’s speech is “being justly compared, by knowledgeable people, to some of the great political speeches in American history.” But, he adds, it may not be remembered as are the speeches of old, simply because our communication channels are too busy today, and we are not likely to retain and reflect on any single speech or event, because there’s too much more information coming at us.

Sen. Barack Obama’s former pastor has drawn attention recently for his rather heated rhetoric about some of the less admirable characteristics of the United States, such as racism and a tendency toward imperial thinking and acting.

Sen. Obama himself today offered a deeply personal and thoughtful response to the criticisms of him and his pastor.

For the transcript of the speech >>

Another response comes from John Thomas, the President of the United Church of Christ, which is the denomination of which the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a member.

What Kind of Prophet?

Reflections on the Rhetoric of Preaching
in Light of Recent News Coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
and Trinity United Church of Christ

by John H. Thomas, General Minister and President, United Church of Christ

Over the weekend members of our church and others have been subjected to the relentless airing of two or three brief video clips of sermons by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ for thirty-six years and, for over half of those years, pastor of Senator Barack Obama and his family. These video clips, and news stories about them, have been served up with frenzied and heated commentary by media personalities expressing shock that such language and sentiments could be uttered from the pulpit.  

One is tempted to ask whether these commentators ever listen to the overcharged rhetoric of their own opinion shows. Even more to the point is to wonder whether they have a working knowledge of the history of preaching in the United States from the unrelentingly grim language of New England election day sermons to the fiery rhetoric of the Black church prophetic tradition. Maybe they prefer the false prophets with their happy homilies in Jeremiah who say to the people: “You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you true peace in this place.” To which God responds, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. . . . By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed,” (Jeremiah 14.14-15). The Biblical Jeremiah was coarse and provocative. Faithfulness, not respectability was the order of the day then. And now? 

What’s really going on here? First, it may state the obvious to point out that these television and radio shows have very little interest in Trinity Church or Jeremiah Wright. Those who sifted through hours of sermons searching for a few lurid phrases and those who have aired them repeatedly have only one intention. It is to wound a presidential candidate. In the process a congregation that does exceptional ministry and a pastor who has given his life to shape those ministries is caricatured and demonized. You don’t have to be an Obama supporter to be alarmed at this. Will Clinton’s United Methodist Church be next? Or McCain’s Episcopal Church? Wouldn’t we have been just as alarmed had it been Huckabee’s Southern Baptist Church, or Romney’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?  

Many of us would prefer to avoid the stark and startling language Pastor Wright used in these clips. But what was his real crime? He is condemned for using a mild “obscenity” in reference to the United States. This week we mark the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war conceived in deception and prosecuted in foolish arrogance. Nearly four thousand cherished Americans have been killed, countless more wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered. Where is the real obscenity here? True patriotism requires a degree of self-criticism, even self-judgment that may not always be easy or genteel. Pastor Wright’s judgment may be starker and more sweeping than many of us are prepared to accept. But is the soul of our nation served any better by the polite prayers and gentle admonitions that have gone without a real hearing for these five years while the dying and destruction continues? 

We might like to think that racism is a thing of the past, that Martin Luther King’s harmonious multi-racial vision, articulated in his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 and then struck down by an assassin’s bullet in Memphis in 1968, has somehow been resurrected and now reigns throughout the land. Significant progress has been made. A black man is a legitimate candidate for President of the United States. A black woman serves as Secretary of State. The accomplishments are profound. But on the gritty streets of Chicago’s south side where Trinity has planted itself, race continues to play favorites in failing urban school systems, unresponsive health care systems, crumbling infrastructure, and meager economic development. Are we to pretend all is well because much is, in fact, better than it used to be? Is it racist to name the racial divides that continue to afflict our nation, and to do so loudly? How ironic that a pastor and congregation which, for forty-five years, has cast its lot with a predominantly white denomination, participating fully in its wider church life and contributing generously to it, would be accused of racial exclusion and a failure to reach for racial reconciliation. 

The gospel narrative of Palm Sunday’s entrance into Jerusalem concludes with the overturning of the money changers’ tables in the Temple courtyard. Here wealth and power and greed were challenged for the way the poor were oppressed to the point of exclusion from a share in the religious practices of the Temple. Today we watch as the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the obscenely poor widens. More and more of our neighbors are relegated to minimal health care or to no health care at all. Foreclosures destroy families while unscrupulous lenders seek bailouts from regulators who turned a blind eye to the impending crisis. Should the preacher today respond to this with only a whisper and a sigh?  

Is Pastor Wright to be ridiculed and condemned for refusing to play the court prophet, blessing land and sovereign while pledging allegiance to our preoccupation with wealth and our fascination with weapons? In the United Church of Christ we honor diversity. For nearly four centuries we have respected dissent and have struggled to maintain the freedom of the pulpit. Not every pastor in the United Church of Christ will want to share Pastor Wright’s rhetoric or his politics. Not every member will rise to shout “Amen!” But I trust we will all struggle in our own way to resist the lure of respectable religion that seeks to displace evangelical faith. For what this nation needs is not so much polite piety as the rough and radical word of the prophet calling us to repentance. And, as we struggle with that ancient calling, I pray we will be shrewd enough to name the hypocrisy of those who decry the mixing of religion and politics in order to serve their own political ends.  

March 17, 2008

In any age, a prophet draws wrath
[3-18-08]

So what do you think of this quote:

"The Almighty God himself is not the only, not the, not the God just standing out saying through Hosea, 'I love you, Israel.' He's also the God that stands up before the nations and said: 'Be still and know that I'm God, that if you don't obey me I will break the backbone of your power, and slap you out of the orbits of your international and national relationships.'"

Ralph E. Luker, an Atlanta historian, co-editor of the first two volumes of "The Papers of Martin Luther King," offers us that thought – from the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.  Walker’s preaching, he says, like that of King, echoes the prophetic tradition of the ancient Hebrews.

And he also presents a view of Wright's ministry a bit different from what we’ve been hearing:

Critics of Wright never cared that for 36 years he labored to build a community of redemption on Chicago's Southside. They didn't notice that his congregation had become the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ, a denomination rooted in the traditions of Puritan New England. They wouldn't care that it claimed to be "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian." Wright's words become significant for them only as a means of damaging Wright's most prominent parishioner, Obama.

Two modest pointers toward a meeting of religious right and left
[2-25-08]

What Does a Progressive Christian Believe?
A Guide for the Searching, the Open, and the Curious

Delwin Brown, dean emeritus of the Pacific School of Religion and formerly Professor of Christian Theology at Iliff School of Theology, “writes with a passion for clear thinking about what it means to be a pluralistic, compassionate, open-minded, justice-seeking Christian today,” according to a reviewer on the website of The Center for Progressive Christianity.

While he is critical of both conservative and liberal , Brown “reclaims the ideas and language of traditional Christianity, carefully reconstructing them in positive ways. If there is such a thing as progressive Christian apologetics, Brown has come close to producing it. For example, he rediscovers a positive meaning for ‘biblical authority’.”

The reviewer summarizes some of Brown’s major points:

A uniquely helpful part of the book is Brown’s wisdom about the role of religion in politics. “There are good reasons, then, for urging that religion be kept out of politics. The only problem is that it is not possible...” (p 112) So he proposes six ways to manage the inevitable relationship between the two: don’t privilege any one religion, understand one’s adversaries, find common values, seek compromise, don’t outlaw conduct unless it directly undermines the common good, and deliberate with others in community. “Our Christian voice is vitally important. It endeavors to speak reflectively on behalf of justice, repentance, inclusion, and healing. The progressive Christian witness is ‘good news’ for everyone.” (p 121)

And maybe things are changing anyway, as the generations change ...

The Austin (TX) American-Statesman carries a report of a Tuesday-night gathering in an Austin restaurant of “mostly 20- and 30-something Christians [who] drank iced tea, red wine and Belgian ale and traded thoughts about the war in Iraq, abortion and immigration reform. Some of them support Sen. John McCain for president. Some are torn between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. All said their Christian faith informs the decision they will make in the voting booth.”

Reporter Eileen E. Flynn writes that “at the moment, no candidate can lay sole claim to the evangelical vote,” citing Michael Lindsay, a sociology professor at Rice University in Houston, author of Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, who pictures evangelicals today as much more “diverse and sophisticated than the stereotype of the right-wing fundamentalist.”

SBC President’s call for united evangelical front against Giuliani raises tax law issues, says church-state watchdog group

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has cautioned the top official of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) that using his denominational news agency to oppose Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani raises federal tax law issues.

In a Jan. 24 letter, Americans United advised SBC President Frank Page that the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the use of tax-exempt resources to support or oppose candidates for public office.

Americans United acted after learning of a Jan. 21 analysis distributed by Baptist Press, the SBC’s official news agency. The analysis stated in part, “Page said he agrees with James Dobson of Focus on the Family that a united front against Giuliani is needed and that ‘evangelicals can realistically defeat him.’ Even a ticket with Giuliani on top and Huckabee for vice president ‘would be problematic for Dr. Dobson and myself,’ Page said.”

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, urged Page to review the requirements of tax law.

“Since you are the top official of the Southern Baptist Convention and Baptist Press is the denomination’s official news agency,” wrote Lynn, “Southern Baptists and other readers could easily get the impression that you are using the denomination’s tax-exempt resources to oppose Giuliani’s candidacy…. [W]e encourage you to review the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and to refrain from activities that might endanger the tax-exempt status of the Southern Baptist Convention.”

The Internal Revenue Code bars religious leaders serving in their official capacities from involvement in political campaigns. When church leaders use their pulpits, church newsletters or other official resources of their organizations to advocate or oppose candidates, federal tax law is violated.

In its letter, Americans United notes that the Baptist Press article identifies Page as SBC president and gives no indication that he is being interviewed as an individual citizen rather than as the top official of the Southern Baptist Convention. (The Southern Baptist Convention is the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.)

AU’s Lynn says he hopes Page and other religious leaders take the time to learn about the law.

“We should have learned by now that churches should not become political machines,” said Lynn. “If clergy are a little fuzzy on federal tax law, now is a good time to get sound information. With a presidential campaign underway, it’s especially important for everyone to play by the rules.”

* * * *

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Presidential candidates are increasingly talking about the impact of bad trade deals. Global Trade Watch urges: Please write your local paper today urging the candidates to make clear their opposition to expanding the current NAFTA/WTO model!

The Global Trade Watch message begins:

With all the news coverage focusing on the horse race aspects of the presidential primary, it's been hard to follow a fascinating - and hopeful - trend: criticism of our current NAFTA-WTO trade model has been a prominent aspect of all of the Democratic and a number of the GOP candidates' campaigns. We wanted to share with you the most comprehensive compilation of candidates' trade positions ever released.

Check out what the candidates are saying about trade and globalization here >>

Read what they're saying and you'll see that current candidates are now more critical of our failed status quo than even the most critical candidates in past presidential elections. Could it be that we have finally reached the tipping point where candidates must reflect the public's views on these issues - even though it flies in the face of their major corporate funders?

R. Gustav Niebuhr, Director of the Religion & Society Program, Syracuse University, offers these on the “On Faith” Web page of Newsweek and The Washington Post.

Here’s a brief version of the five questions he raises:

Kentucky may be a "red state," but it's turning a paler shade of red    [8-14-07]

By Berry Craig

PADUCAH, Ky. – My buddy Alan and I were college freshmen during the Tet Offensive of 1968 when Walter Cronkite said on TV what millions of Americans were thinking: "… It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate."

Cronkite’s candor floored LBJ. "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America," the president said.

"How many more people have to die because George Bush and Dick Cheney won’t admit they made a mistake in Iraq?" Alan mused at our recent 40^th high school class reunion.

I was floored.

Alan is a conservative, buttoned-down, corporate lawyer who often votes Republican. (He’s on my prayer list.) But my old classmate has had it with Bush.

Cronkite, the famous CBS news anchor dubbed "the most trusted man in America," reputedly represented "middle America." Has Bush lost middle America over Iraq?

If the polls are right, the war’s not playing in Peoria, about as middle America as middle America gets, I guess.

My buddy and I are Kentuckians. The Bluegrass State is Red State America. Bush won Kentucky big in 2000 and 2004.

If Alan is an accurate indicator, the president is in hot water in our old Kentucky Home, too.

Evidence is more than just anecdotal. Last November, Louisville, our largest city, elected an anti-war Democrat to Congress. He beat a pro-war, five-term Republican incumbent closely allied with the president.

In Paducah last spring, we wanted to have a public debate on Iraq at the community college where I teach history. We had no trouble lining up somebody from a local anti-war group. We couldn’t find anybody from the other side.

A retired Green Beret colonel who is a Middle East expert agreed to come – but to provide historical and geopolitical perspectives. The decorated Vietnam vet is not a Bush apologist.

"Condoleezza Rice," he suggested to one of our American government classes, "would make a great middle school social studies teacher."

We believe in truth-in-labeling at our school. So we dropped "debate." We billed our program a"discussion" of the Iraq war. It featured questions from the audience, no-holds-barred.

Almost all of the queries – including one from a mom whose son is in Iraq -- reflected deep skepticism about the war. So did applause for the doubting questions.

Doubts about Iraq were almost certainly mirrored, too, in a June Survey USA Poll in Kentucky. Fifty-nine percent of respondents disapproved of the job Bush is doing as president. Thirty-eight percent approved; 3 percent were unsure.

The poll numbers are almost exactly the reverse of the 2004 presidential election. Bush beat Kerry about 60-40 in Kentucky.

I believe in truth in labeling, too. I’m a liberal, union-card carrying Democrat. I didn’t vote for Dubya or his Daddy.

Partisan politics aside, it doesn’t look like Bush’s war, which he still insists is a noble cause, is playing in Paducah, Pikeville and points between. There seem to be a lot of Kentuckians like Alan.

Kentucky might be changing its hue, if not to Blue, at least to a paler shade of Red.

This past weekend was brightened (or burdened, depending on your point of view) by an important step in the current Presidential campaign. Initiated largely by Jim Wallis of Sojourners, the three leading Democratic candidates – Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards – appeared together on CNN, where each responded to several questions from journalists and religious leaders about the intersection of faith and politics. The stated topic was "Faith, Values and Poverty," reflecting Wallis’ conviction that poverty must be seen as the major issue in this campaign.

So, how did it go?

We bring you comments from Jim Wallis himself, Peter Steinfels of the New York Times, Brian Lewis wrote in the Springfield, MO, News-Leader, and Sister Joan Chittister -- with perhaps the most provocative of the responses.

A vital step forward in relating faith and politics

Jim Wallis himself reported that the forum was indeed a "groundbreaking" event, and a successful one, for two reasons: "First, the presidential forum ... clearly showed that faith is alive and well on both sides of the political aisle, and that God is, indeed, not a Republican or Democrat. It served to help ‘level the playing field’ on faith and politics, where the Republicans have enjoyed a decided advantage for several decades now. Second, it clearly moved the faith and politics debate far beyond the narrow two-issue agenda of abortion and gay marriage, which have for so long been ‘the religious issues.’"

A start – but only a start

Peter Steinfels, writing in the New York Times – or his headline writer – called it "a tentative first step in addressing faith and politics." And he suggested a long list of weightier questions that might have been asked, including: "What does the Bible or any other religious source tell you about fighting poverty — and what doesn’t it tell you? Likewise for writing tax legislation or extending health care. ... Does your faith dictate any absolute principles, ones you would never compromise, for using military force? For interrogating prisoners? For making peace in the Middle East? For legal provision of abortion? For recognizing gay marriage?"

It may have been, he concluded, a good start – "but only a start."

Pointing to deeper issues

Brian Lewis wrote in the Springfield, MO, News-Leader that "This is a promising start. This effort isn't about the Democrats becoming the Religious Right Lite. More spiritual without the guilt and pettiness! ... It's also about realizing that it's not healthy for candidates to compartmentalize their religion and the demands that faith places on believers apart from the decisions on public policy that their jobs require they make."

Judging by the questions asked, "Jesus would not do well in these elections."

Sister Joan Chittister had one of the sharpest comments, opening with "Frankly, I thought the questions not only completely missed the mark, they trivialized the very subject they purported to talk about. ‘How do you pray?’ they asked Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards on national TV. ‘What's the biggest sin you've ever committed?’ the interviewer wanted to know. ‘Do you believe in evolution?’ she asked, ‘And if so are the churches that believe in it wrong?’ she prodded. ‘What got you through marital infidelity?’ she went on. ‘Is this a Christian nation?‘ she asked while millions of people listened for right answers with bated breath."

Like the other commentators, she points to the vital questions that didn’t get asked, such as: "Do you sleep at night knowing that the longer you do nothing about ending the war in Iraq [the] more people will die? Or, does it bother your conscience that the more money we spend on war, the more children in this country will go without food or education or medicine? Or, do you ever pray that we'll start spending money on child care so women won't feel a need to have an abortion? Or, do you ever ask God to forgive you for supporting torture in the name of security?"

She moves beyond this to explore the very basic difference between the Democrats’ discussion of faith and religion as relating to public issues, and the Republicans’ insistence that religion deals primarily with private morality, and not the kinds of issues that really matter in politics.

Judging by most of the questions put to the candidates, she says, if they "are any sign of what we think religion is all about, Jesus would not do well in these elections."

A major
Ghost Ranch event this summer!

July 28 - August 3, 2008

Paths toward Peace and Justice:
Spirituality, Earth-Care, and the Prophetic Word in a time of Violence

More info >>

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon  Bookkeeper: