TruthBook Religious News Blog

By Daniel Schultz
September 15, 2009

Those on the religious right and left not only diverge wildly on everything from abortion to torture, but in their composition and distribution as well.
A graph showing the opinions of progressives on raising their profile.

It should be said at the outset that the new poll released today by the Bliss Institute and Public Religion Research concerning religious activists (on both the left and the right) contains very little that will surprise anyone who has studied religion and politics in recent years.

That should not be taken to mean that there is nothing of worth in the poll results. Far from it. It confirms, for example, much that observers have had to intuit or scratch out from other data. The religious right—pardon me, conservative religious activists—is mostly evangelical (54%), with lesser contingents of Catholics and mainline Protestants. If you’re not standard-grade Christian, however, you’re probably not a part of the demographic: only 1% were Mormon, Orthodox, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, and less than 1% were non-Christians.

Progressive believers were a much more diverse group, which is also not a surprise: 44% mainliners, 17% Catholics, 12% Unitarians/mixed faith, and so on down the line. Only 10% claimed to be evangelicals, a point we’ll come back to in a moment.

More not-shockers: conservative activists are focused like laser beams on abortion and homosexuality, while progressives are interested in poverty, health care, the environment, the economy in general, and ending the war in Iraq. Conservatives love them some individualistic ethics and free-market economics, progressives want to see structural reform. Cons are for torture and progs are against it (if that makes any sense). And the two sides have very different views about church-state relations, though interestingly enough, they both agree that faith should play a role in the public square in roughly equal numbers. [For an in-depth analysis of progressive attitudes on church-state issues see Rebuilding the Wall of Separation: A Progressive Discussion on Church & State—Ed.]

One last result that should not come as a surprise if you stop to think about it: conservatives report attending church far more frequently than their liberal counterparts. 52% of conservatives are in the pews more than once a week, compared to 25% of progressives. Once-a-week numbers are a little more balanced: 37-36. Does this mean that conservatives are more religious than progressives, or that there’s something about church that makes one a conservative? Nope: evangelical and Catholic churches typically offer more than one service a week. Mainline congregations, which tend to be smaller, are open for business only on Sundays.

Labels: Bliss Institute, Conservative, Daniel Schultz, politics, religion, religious left, religious right

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The End of Christian America

The End of Christian America

The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades. How that statistic explains who we are now—and what, as a nation, we are about to become.

By Jon Meacham | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 4, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Apr 13, 2009

It was a small detail, a point of comparison buried in the fifth paragraph on the 17th page of a 24-page summary of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey. But as R. Albert Mohler Jr.—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth—read over the document after its release in March, he was struck by a single sentence. For a believer like Mohler—a starched, unflinchingly conservative Christian, steeped in the theology of his particular province of the faith, devoted to producing ministers who will preach the inerrancy of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only means to eternal life—the central news of the survey was troubling enough: the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. Then came the point he could not get out of his mind: while the unaffiliated have historically been concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, the report said, "this pattern has now changed, and the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified." As Mohler saw it, the historic foundation of America's religious culture was cracking.

"That really hit me hard," he told me last week. "The Northwest was never as religious, never as congregationalized, as the Northeast, which was the foundation, the home base, of American religion. To lose New England struck me as momentous." Turning the report over in his mind, Mohler posted a despairing online column on the eve of Holy Week lamenting the decline—and, by implication, the imminent fall—of an America shaped and suffused by Christianity. "A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us," Mohler wrote. "The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture." When Mohler and I spoke in the days after he wrote this, he had grown even gloomier. "Clearly, there is a new narrative, a post-Christian narrative, that is animating large portions of this society," he said from his office on campus in Louisville, Ky.

There it was, an old term with new urgency: post-Christian. This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory. To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population.

According to the American Religious Identification Survey that got Mohler's attention, the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent. The Jewish population is 1.2 percent; the Muslim, 0.6 percent. A separate Pew Forum poll echoed the ARIS finding, reporting that the percentage of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith has doubled in recent years, to 16 percent; in terms of voting, this group grew from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008—roughly the same percentage of the electorate as African-Americans. (Seventy-five percent of unaffiliated voters chose Barack Obama, a Christian.) Meanwhile, the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about double the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.)

While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world." As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience. At our best, we single religion out for neither particular help nor particular harm; we have historically treated faith-based arguments as one element among many in the republican sphere of debate and decision. The decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.

NB: This is only a small excerpt of a four-page article which can be accessed by clicking on "external source" at the bottom of this snippet.

Labels: ARIS, Christianity, culture, Jon Meacham, Newsweek magazine, politics, post-Christian, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, April 10, 2009

After 4,000 Comments, Taking the Pulse on Modern Christianity

Kurt Soller

...Newsweek proclaimed "The Decline and Fall of Christian America" on its cover. The Washington Post/Newsweek "On Faith" blog featured a post that belittled the significance of Jesus' death and resurrection. The Discovery Channel aired a documentary that painted Jesus as little more than an opportunistic politician who caught a bad break in a trial."

Whether valid or not, it's portrayals like these that have you readers -- especially Christians -- up in arms. The majority were using our forum to share their beliefs on where Christianity is headed. And as Christians, there were some great first-hand accounts of life in an increasingly "post-Christian" society. "As an Evangelical Christian from Africa, I should say this article was long overdue... I have always been bothered by Political Evangelical Christianity in America and the spreading of the same Political Christian dose in Sub Saharan Africa," wrote commenter Katm. "Any thinking and discerning evangelical Christian should take the critique in this article as a positive." Many agreed, echoing an overarching idea that Christianity in America has long been too political, and that this post-Christian America may be well-warranted. "Raised as I was, I am very familiar with the teaching of Christianity, and I am painfully aware of the holes my parents conservatism left in my education," echoed one reader."But, my favorite bible verse is the one about man being created in the image of God. Isn't that another way of saying that God and man are the same? To me it's just that simple."

With the numbers of believers down in this year's American Religious Identification Survey -- the inspiration for our cover -- I was surprised by the commenting Christians who were open about why the left organized religion. "People are not abandoning Christianity so much as abandoning organized religion," offered commenter xargaw. "Many of us have found a deeper faith in our own searching and in our communities outside of the church where irrelevant doctrine and hypocrisy are hard to ignore. There is often more of God at work in volunteerism in your town and being a true friend to someone in need than in the church building. Many are striving to live as Jesus directed rather than simply warming a pew once a week." But why forget organized Christianity? Others were quick to explain: "Most Americans still believe in God. But the last several decades the most visible voices of Christianity have been those who preach judgment, hatred, anger and violence."

Getting even more specific, there seemed to be an overwhelming amount of blame placed on the previous administration and the effect it had on politicizing religion. "I watched with dismay as the religious right hijacked the political process and decisions that were previously individual became part of a movement to impose a group's religious views on all of us," wrote Bookfan. "Abortion, intelligent design, stem cell research, and gay marriage became the property of voters' sectors--rather than a personal moral decision." Even Christians agreed, many of whom were unwilling to refute Meacham's assertion that we've entered a new era when discussing how the church interacts with the state: "Although I was raised in the US and in the Christian faith, I have come to see it primarily as something very ugly and divisive," wrote the reader 'Meditating.' "Instead of concentrating on loving one another, the Old Testament Christians (yes, it's an oxymoron) seem to have taken over the religious dialogue of my faith and turned it into a weapon intended to wound anyone who disagrees with them. What moral person would want to identify themselves with a faith like that? I don't and I am now one of those people who would not want to be identified as a Christian. It seems no one injures the name of Christ like the Christian have done."

That's certainly a harsh response, and it's worth pointing out that many Christians who read the piece were justifiably worried that Meacham and the magazine were dismissing Christianity. That's not the case; since the cover's publication, Meacham has published a follow-up -- asserting that faith, regardless of how it interacts with politics and American society, will never disappear. "The Newsweek of my childhood would have included historical data on church affiliation/attendance in America over the last two centuries," wrote Bobsf_94117. And others agreed that they wish our article had provided more context into how we've been approaching this post-Christian status." With that, came myriad arguments explaining what the Founding Fathers intended, as Christians or non-Christians, when they wrote The Constitution. But obviously, constitutional interpretation -- even as it interacts with religion -- is a different, and very huge, topic. Another time? On that note, I won't address the hundreds of comments that went back and forth arguing whether Hitler was a Christian. Not relevant...

Of all the thousands of comments though, the story about declining Christian identification focused squarely -- and nicely -- on one topic: the purpose of Christianity in society. I'm obviously not the right person to answer that, but I was intrigued by the hundreds of readers who wished religion away in sum, despite it's long history in American society. "This can only be good for the United States," argued one commenter. "We have lost our competitiveness in Science and the quality of our Education has been declining thanks in part to religious minded people who have been corrupting both Science and Education with nonsensical concepts such as Intelligent Design." In a less-specific away, hundreds agreed: "I am pleased!," wrote commenter Thevail. "How wonderful that humans have chosen once again to think for themselves, rather than depending on "the big book of answers." Religion is supposed to inspire us to be better people, make us aspire to higher goals, make us think before we act. But the truth is that if Christianity is wounded..it's a self-inflicted wound." Immediately, a committed Christian took it a step futher: "Another sensational title by Newsweek; however, as Christianity goes, so does America....maybe, that's why this country is going into the toilet."

As I'm sure you realize, it's impossible to cull more than 4,000 thoughts on Christianity into a few concise paragraphs. But from all these viewpoints, we can glean a few things: Faith isn't headed away, but our country an impasse between what Christians want from their government, and how the rest of non-Christian America views Christianity. Whether you believe Christianity is impure, or that our Democracy itself is faulted, it's clear that both politics and religion are in a time of flux. When do you think it will settle? And how will both religion and democracy -- even in a post-Christian society -- intersect? Your comments below.

Please click on "external source" for a look at a collection of reader comments...

Labels: 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, believers, Christianity, faith, God, Kurt Soller, Newsweek magazine, organized religion, politics

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, March 27, 2009

Americans Losing Their Faith in Faith ... And Everything Else

by Nate Silver

Note: There is a great graph chart in this article which shows clearly the elevls of confidence discussed in this article. Please click "external source" for complete article.

The longstanding project called the General Social Survey, which has polled Americans about their feelings on a variety of political and social issues for more than 35 years, just recently came out with their preliminary 2008 data (which, I should warn you, is a little bit cumbersome to access).

The only major institution to have gained a statistically significant about of trust since 2000 is the military, which is now the most trusted major institution in the country . The gain came as a result, presumably, of 9/11, with the number of Americans expressing a great deal of confidence in the military shooting up from 41 percent in 2000 to 57 percent in 2002. The figure peaked at 59 percent in 2004 and has fallen slightly since, but the rating was slightly higher in 2008 than it had been in 2006 before the Iraq conflict had begun to wind down.

Trust in major corporations plummeted following the Enron scandal and is off slightly further since. In fact, the 16 percent of Americans who said they have a great deal of confidence in such institutions is the lowest figure on record. Banks and financial institutions were holding up a bit better ... until last year, when the trust score dropped to 19 percent from 30 percent two years earlier. This is not an all-time low -- confidence in the banks had been slightly lower during the S&L crisis of the early 90s -- although we'll see where we end up once the financial crisis ends.

Confidence in organized religion also fell significantly under Bush's watch, although most of the decline came between 2000 and 2002, when the rating dropped from 29 percent to 19 percent. I'm not sure whether that was the result of the Catholic priest scandals, some odd kind of ricochet from 9/11, or something else, but the scores have yet to really recover.

Medicine is less trusted than it once was -- the 39 percent score it achieved in 2008 was an all-time low -- and to a lesser extent so is science. Nobody, whatever their political persuasions, has much trust in the press, although the decline came long ago in the 1980s, perhaps as conservatives learned the utility of bashing the institution. And some instutitons are perennially unpopular -- particularly the Congress, which has never polled higher in this survey than 17 percent (in 1984).

We are not a very trusting bunch, it would seem.

Labels: confidence, General Social Survey, medicine, Nate Silver, organized religion, politics, the military

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, January 30, 2009

New Analysis Finds African-Americans are Markedly More Religious Than Overall U.S. Population

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On the eve of Black History Month, the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life released a new analysis (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=389) that paints a detailed religious portrait of African-Americans. The analysis finds that African-Americans are markedly more religious than the U.S. population as a whole on a variety of measures, including reporting a religious affiliation, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and the importance of religion in people's lives.

Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans are among the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87% of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another. The analysis also finds that nearly eight-in-ten African-Americans (79%) say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 56% among all U.S. adults.

These are among many findings of the new Pew Forum analysis detailing the unique nature of religion in the African-American community. Other highlights include:

* A large majority of African-Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular faith (72%) say religion plays at least a somewhat important role in their lives; nearly half (45%) of unaffiliated African-Americans say religion is very important in their lives, roughly three times the percentage who says this among the religiously unaffiliated population overall (16%).

* African-Americans express a high degree of comfort with religion's role in politics, with roughly six-in-ten saying that houses of worship should express their views on social and political topics and roughly half saying that there has been too little expression of faith and prayer by political leaders. At the same time, most African-Americans support certain restrictions on the mingling of politics and religious institutions, with nearly six-in-ten (58%) saying that churches and other houses of worship should refrain from endorsing political candidates.

* The link between religion and some social and political attitudes in the African-American community is similar to that seen among the population overall. For instance, just as in the general public, African-Americans who are more religiously observant are more likely to oppose abortion and homosexuality and more likely to report higher levels of conservative ideology.

* On a variety of other questions, including political party identification and opinions about the proper role of government in providing services to the citizenry and assistance to the poor, there are few differences in the views of African-Americans across religious groups. Perhaps most strikingly, the partisan leanings of African-Americans from every religious background tilt heavily in the Democratic direction.

The analysis is based on the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Forum in 2007 and released in 2008, as well as other Pew Research Center surveys.

The report is for immediate release and is available online at http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=389.

The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life delivers timely, impartial information on issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs. The Pew Forum is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy organization and does not take positions on policy debates. Based in Washington, D.C., the Pew Forum is a project of the Pew Research Center, which is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Labels: African-Americans, faith, government, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, politics, religious belief

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Testing the Limits of What I Know and Feel

by John Updike

John Updike won two Pulitzer Prizes for his series of novels chronicling the life and death of Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom. He is also a noted poet and essayist, as well as a critic of literature and fine art.

John Updike died this past week...

All Things Considered, April 18, 2005 · A person believes various things at various times, even on the same day. At the age of 73, I seem most instinctively to believe in the human value of creative writing, whether in the form of verse or fiction, as a mode of truth-telling, self-expression and homage to the twin miracles of creation and consciousness. The special value of these indirect methods of communication — as opposed to the value of factual reporting and analysis — is one of precision. Oddly enough, the story or poem brings us closer to the actual texture and intricacy of experience.

In fiction, imaginary people become realer to us than any named celebrity glimpsed in a series of rumored events, whose causes and subtler ramifications must remain in the dark. An invented figure like Anna Karenina or Emma Bovary emerges fully into the light of understanding, which brings with it identification, sympathy and pity. I find in my own writing that only fiction — and rarely, a poem — fully tests me to the kind of limits of what I know and what I feel. In composing even such a frank and simple account as this profession of belief, I must fight against the sensation that I am simplifying and exploiting my own voice.

I also believe, instinctively, if not very cogently, in the American political experiment, which I take to be, at bottom, a matter of trusting the citizens to know their own minds and best interests. "To govern with the consent of the governed": this spells the ideal. And though the implementation will inevitably be approximate and debatable, and though totalitarianism or technocratic government can obtain some swift successes, in the end, only a democracy can enlist a people's energies on a sustained and renewable basis. To guarantee the individual maximum freedom within a social frame of minimal laws ensures — if not happiness — its hopeful pursuit.

Cosmically, I seem to be of two minds. The power of materialist science to explain everything — from the behavior of the galaxies to that of molecules, atoms and their sub-microscopic components — seems to be inarguable and the principal glory of the modern mind. On the other hand, the reality of subjective sensations, desires and — may we even say — illusions, composes the basic substance of our existence, and religion alone, in its many forms, attempts to address, organize and placate these. I believe, then, that religious faith will continue to be an essential part of being human, as it has been for me.

Labels: creative writing, freedom, John Updike, materialism, politics, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

What's the Status of Religion and Politics Post-Obama?

Published Jan 1, 2009, by Carol Forsloff

It seems that many Americans have had their fill of churches being involved in politics George Bush in 2001 ushered in a period where the religious right was particularly active in governmental affairs.

In 2001 the airwaves were filled with ministers praising the election of Bush as president. His leadership was treated as something that had been divinely ordained. The Post at the time talked about the number of religious leaders who met with Bush during the first year of his Presidency who testified in their faith in Bush and his ability to lead the country as God-ordained. Web sites encouraged people to pray for the President, to recognize his position as both government leader and spiritual model, virtually a Messiah for the government at the time.

According to the Pew Forum things have changed from 2000 and the election of George Bush and the election of Obama in 2008. A survey finds a small majority of the public now declares religion and politics shouldn’t mix, and ministers and religious leaders should not express their opinions on daily activities or political matters. This change follows ten years when most Americans supported religious involvement in government with Christian leaders able to express their views on political matters.

Pew Research Center research reveals that most conservatives have reexamined their position regarding the involvement of religion in politics, and now only 50% of them express support of it. Four years ago 70% believed that churches should involve themselves in governmental affairs. So there has been a sizable shift in public opinion during the last years of the Bush Presidency. Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view. This is likely why it was said that there was only “soft support” among religious conservatives for John McCain.

Despite the fact that Congress is accused of not representing fully the religious views of the rest of the country, the fact is that Pew reports that the composition of the new Congress is similar to that of the population of the United States, although somewhat less diverse in its representation of minority religious groups. The largest main group in the Congress is Protestant, but if the denominations are considered separately the majority group is Catholic. One unique distinction between Congress and the general population is the fact that fewer political leaders claim no religious affiliation (about 1%) than the rest of the United States (16%)

It seems, however, with the public shift towards less involvement of religion in politics, politicians may not longer have to protest their specific religious views in order to be elected. Or the pendulum may swing again, depending upon future issues because that has been the pattern of American history. The country has struggled with the issue of religion and politics since the beginning of the government, with the battle never being fully won on either side. This newest finding just measures citizen opinion at this point in time.

Labels: Barack Obama, Carol Forsloff, church-state, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, politics, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, December 12, 2008

Obama's faith policy and our nation's future

Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Cassie Olson

In the United States, 83.9 percent of adults affiliate themselves with a religion and 78.4 percent say they are Christians, according to the Pew Forum U.S. Religious Landscape Survey conducted in 2007. Believers and nonbelievers alike wonder how Obama's faith will affect policies of the United States.

According to his campaign, Obama hopes to mend the nation's religious divide by forging common ground between the polarities, while also diverging from some of President Bush's policy.

Despite rumors spread across the country, Obama says he deeply believes in the precepts of Jesus Christ.

"I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes in the U.S. Senate, when I'm presiding," Obama said in response to e-mail allegations mentioned during the 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas.

Obama explained his perspective on faith and politics in an acclaimed "Call for Renewal" speech in June 2006. He acknowledged religion couldn't be ignored in a country of religious people. However, Obama said church and state should remain separate.

Because the religious and the secularists are both important in solving the nation's problems, Obama said nonbelievers must realize faith is part of the solution.

"The problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect 10-point plan," Obama said. "They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness -- in the imperfections of man. Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds."

He encouraged nonbelievers to stop forcing the religious to leave their beliefs out of public debate. He brought to mind the countless reformers -- Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr. -- who used their religion to foster change.

At the same time, believers need to maintain an open discussion.

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion- specific, values," Obama said. "It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason."

Obama also wants believers to ensure their policy does not exclude any one American. He reminded believers they can recognize public policy without it dictating church practices, and he reminded Americans not every mention of God is a breach in the separation of church and state.

Obama's faith will provide a moral base for his decisions, but will not dictate his policy. While campaigning in Ohio during July 2008, Obama said he hopes to reform and expand Bush's faith-based programs. However, Obama supports keeping abortions legal and promotes embryonic stem cell research.

Although some might disagree with his policy, Obama hopes Americans can join forces to prevent the nearly 1 million abortions that have occurred in the United States each year from 1975 to 2003, as reported by the Center for Disease and Control. Obama also believes United States citizens can cross party lines to eliminate the poverty 37.3 million Americans were living in during 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Americans can be thankful Obama is neither forcing beliefs on anyone nor opposing or excluding either side from the debate or the solution. The years following 2008 are a new dawn, but Obama will only succeed in mending the country and bringing the right change if Americans are willing to lay down their pride, work past their apathetic resentment and take action -- together -- for the common good.

Labels: Barack Obama, Cassie Olson, Christianity, faith, politics, religion, United States

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, November 03, 2008

Muslims In America

Powell's remarks solace for many
By LINDSAY WISE
Oct. 25, 2008

On the TV screen, former Secretary of State Colin Powell was telling host Tom Brokaw he was disturbed that some Republicans have been spreading rumors that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim," Powell said. "He's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no. That's not America."

...Powell's remarks seemed like a tonic for a presidential campaign that has often made them feel marginalized and vilified.

A humiliating feeling

From e-mail campaigns spreading false rumors that Obama is a secret Muslim to Republicans invoking Obama's middle name, Hussein, at rallies to cast doubt on his faith and background, Muslims resent the implication that their faith makes them unpatriotic or even dangerous.

Obama has clarified repeatedly that he is not a Muslim, but he has not denounced the prejudice behind the rumors, as Powell did last week.

Neither campaign has visited a single mosque on the campaign trail.

Recent studies by the Pew Research Center found that 35 percent of Americans have a negative view of Muslims and about half think that Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence.

The reality is that Muslim Americans are diverse, middle class, and mostly mainstream in their outlook, values and attitudes, according to a national survey published by Pew last year. In fact, Muslims tend to be much more conservative than the rest of the American public on hot-button social issues, such as prayer in schools, gay marriage and abortion, the survey reported.

And that's why Powell's remarks came as such a pleasant surprise.

As Obama shot ahead of McCain in the polls over the past few weeks, the media started buzzing about a possible "Bradley effect" — coined for 1982 California gubernatorial candidate Tom Bradley, who is black, and led in the polls until election day but lost. Analysts theorized that voters weren't honest with pollsters about their support for a black candidate.

In the 2000 presidential election, Muslims supported Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, 42 percent to 31 percent, according to a Zogby International poll.

Three years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, however, Muslim support shifted decisively toward the Democratic Party. Only 7 percent of Muslims said they planned to vote for Bush for president in 2004, compared to 68 percent who backed Democrat John Kerry, Zogby reported.

This year, in Texas, the Muslim American Republican Caucus decided not to endorse the Republican nominee for president for the first time since the organization was formed in 2000. The caucus will still support Republicans in all local and congressional contests.

Board Member Farha Ahmed said the decision not to endorse McCain was based on several conferences with his national campaign in which the caucus asked officials to address Muslim voters' concerns about the war on terror, civil rights and anti-Muslim rhetoric attributed to McCain, his campaign and other GOP supporters.

In time, the idea of a Muslim becoming president of the United States might no longer seem so outrageous, said Ruth Nasrullah, the 47-year-old manager of an Islamic bookstore in Willis.

Labels: Barack Obama, Colin Powell, Lindsay Wise, Muslims, politics

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Poll: Americans wary of churches pushing politics

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—Americans strongly believe churches should tread lightly when it comes to political activity.

According to a survey released by LifeWay Research, Americans believe churches should not campaign for or endorse political candidates and pastors should only endorse candidates as private citizens outside of a church service.

When asked for their level of agreement with the statement “I believe it is appropriate for churches to publicly endorse candidates for public office,” 59 percent said they strongly disagree. Sixteen percent somewhat disagree.

When it comes to how churches use their resources, Americans believe overwhelmingly that churches should not use those resources to campaign for candidates for public office.

When asked to respond to the statement “I believe it is appropriate for churches to use their resources to campaign for candidates for public office,” 85 percent disagree, including 73 percent who disagree strongly.

Regarding whether churches should lose tax-exempt status for publicly endorsing candidates, a slim majority agree and differences appear along many of the same lines.

Thirty-eight percent strongly agree and 14 percent somewhat agree “that churches who publicly endorse candidates for public office should lose their tax exemption.” Twenty-five percent strongly disagree, 17 percent somewhat disagree and 6 percent are not sure.

“Americans overwhelmingly want pastors to stick to faith and not political endorsements,” Stetzer says. “However, they are less certain that they want the government to strip them of their tax exemption. Americans don’t want churches in politics, but they are not as certain they want the government in the churches.”

When the question centers on pastors rather than churches, Americans are slightly more open to endorsement of candidates, but not during a church service.

Although more than half believe it is appropriate for pastors to endorse candidates for public office outside of the church, only 13 percent believe it is acceptable for pastors to endorse candidates during a church service.

The telephone survey was conducted in June 2008 among 1,208 adults randomly selected throughout the country in proportion to population. Weighting is used to adjust for non-response controlling for region, age, race, religion and gender. The sample provides 95 percent confidence that the margin of error does not exceed +2.9 percent.

To view the entire report in addition to charts, visit www.lifewayresearch.com.

Labels: Americans, church, LifeWay Research, politics

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

How religion got deep into politics

How religion got deep into politics

By John Shulson | The Virginia Gazette
October 1, 2008

WILLIAMSBURG -- Bruton Parish Episcopal Church recently launched its fall series, “The Influence of Religion on Presidential Politics,” with an overflow crowd in Lewis Hall to hear Dan Roberts speak on “America’s Vacant Public Square.”

Roberts, a true Renaissance man, is a professor of history at the University of Richmond. He’s also a Presbyterian minister, a Bronze Star Medal recipient and a jazz pianist. Roberts created the syndicated Public Radio series, “A Moment in Time,” which plays to 2 million listeners eager to resist “this growing epidemic of ignorance about the [historical] past.”

The radio program was inspired by a survey in which 78% of college seniors from 55 top universities could identify Bevis and Butthead, while only 33% could connect the dots between George Washington and Yorktown. Roberts set about to make history relevant in short radio bursts.

His thoughts concerning religion and politics date back to the founding days of our country and its disenchantment with the Church of England.

Assuredly, “Church and state were tightly locked,” he told his Bruton Parish audience, “but distrust also existed.” He recalled that the Founding Fathers rejected sectarian religion in government. “The state would not be the people’s moral salvation, and it wouldn’t seek to manage people’s lives.”

Instead, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution addressed religion in non-specific terms. “We could have created a Christian republic, but we looked west toward something new,” he said.

However, the seeds of a growing religious movement within the state were sown when the Constitution was ratified. “Evangelicals said they wanted a Bill of Rights and freedom of religion and bartered with James Madison to achieve this.”

As America began to grow into a diverse republic, the Great Awakening saw a growth in evangelical churches. Later, the immigration of many Catholics and Jews tended to undermine Protestant dominations, he said.

Roberts said presidential candidates realize “it’s dangerous to play the religious card. Candidates try to avoid making it an issue... in order not to offendcategories of people.”

Since candidates need to be careful not to make overt appeals, Roberts said, politicians resort to code language such as “family values.” He explained that “family values” can mean one thing to a couple with a child in Virginia and quite another to two men who adopt a child in Chicago.

Of the need to tread lightly in the use of religion, Roberts illustrated three candidates who traversed political minefields: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Richard Nixon.

Even though Jefferson was accused of being a deist and the father of a child born to a slave, he refused to respond to allegations and chose to ignore the subject of religion. He decided instead to hit hard on John Adams’ position on war.

Lincoln didn’t conform to orthodox religious folks. He reacted against sectarian rivalry and even used reason and ridicule to counter aspects of the Bible. However, Lincoln eventually grew into a form of Unitarian religion, using it not in debates but in other ways. He used biblical language in fighting slavery. He could speak the religious language of the voters he needed. The result was that his humor and his personal demeanor propelled him to office even though the people didn’t share his religious beliefs.

It was Nixon, Roberts said, who started “pious presidential pandering” to play to the religious. He explained that Nixon, a Quaker, occasionally went to church, preferring to hold Sunday services in the White House. However, Nixon tended to stay away from the subject of religion.

Instead, he used overt religiosity as a code.

“Nixon’s strategy was to win the Southern white vote. Many in the South were racists and religious. He realized a direct racist appeal couldn’t be done. But he did appeal to them through the use of code phrases familiar to Southern whites such as ‘states’ rights’ and ‘law and order.’”

In drawing his extensively prepared comments to a close, Roberts returned to his theme of a town square.

“The vacant public square is under attack. Many voters calculate to use religion to determine who they’ll vote for. It’s now factored into the strategy. The fate of the public square hangs in the balance.”

Labels: Abraham Lincoln, America, church-state, Dan Roberts, history, John Shulson, politics, religion, Richard Nixon, Thomas Jefferson

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, September 29, 2008

Religion and Politics: Combustible Combination Influences Voters' Choices

September 25, 2008 —

Americans who regularly attend worship services tend to hold more conservative religious views, so if they decide to be similarly dedicated to voting in November, their votes could tip the presidential election to John McCain.

But if Barack Obama can rouse the more lackadaisical Christians among us, they may swing the election in his favor, based on historical trends.

Those were some of the links between religion and politics highlighted by Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, who spoke Monday evening at a University of Virginia Center for Politics event.

Lugo presented findings from the Pew Forum's recent U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, which was based on interviews with more than 35,000 American adults.

The survey found strong correlations between Americans' degree of religiosity, as measured by church attendance, and voting patterns in the 2004 election. Survey respondents were asked to describe how often they attended church: more than weekly, weekly, monthly, a few times a year, or seldom to never. Those who attend church more than weekly chose Bush over Kerry by 64 percent to 35 percent, while 58 percent of weekly churchgoers voted for Bush.

In a nearly symmetrical reversal of those preferences, those who seldom attend church favored Kerry by 62 percent to 35 percent. The preference for Bush declined steadily in correlation with attending church less often.

This so-called "God gap" is more accurately described as a church attendance gap, Lugo said, and the Obama campaign is absolutely determined to close this gap.

Political preferences can also be broken down by religious affiliation, Lugo said. White evangelical Protestants, who make up nearly a quarter of the American electorate, voted for Bush at a 78 percent clip in 2004. In contrast, even higher percentages of Jews and black Protestants favored the Democratic candidates in 2000 and 2004.

But despite all the efforts of Obama to appeal to Christians, surveys show that he has made no progress appealing to self-described white "evangelical" voters. About 71 percent of them back the McCain-Palin ticket, according to a Pew survey conducted Sept. 9-14 — up from 61 percent in June, and about the same proportion as supported Bush in 2000, said Lugo.

Catholics make up nearly 20 percent of the electorate, and they have become a key swing vote in American politics, Lugo said. Gore won the overall Catholic vote by 3 percentage points in 2000, but Kerry lost that bloc by 5 points in 2004.

While about two-thirds of Hispanic Catholics favored both Gore and Kerry, white Catholic voters were much more evenly divided, with Bush garnering 52 percent of their vote in 2000 and 56 percent in 2004. How these white Catholics vote will be critical to the upcoming election, Lugo predicted.

Religion has always been important in American public life, with attitudes only shifting gradually, and over decades. From 2000 through 2008, a steady 70 to 72 percent of Americans agree with the proposition: "It's important to me that a president have strong religious beliefs." In the 1950s, Americans were much more open to electing an atheist or someone without strong religious convictions, Lugo said.

The increase in pro-religion sentiments in the past 50 years was spurred in part by facing the "godless" enemy of communism in the Cold War, said Charles Mathewes, a professor of religious studies. If Americans continue to face a significant threat from fundamentalist Muslim terrorists for the next 30 to 40 years, he wondered, will the importance of religion in public life wane?

As for this year's election, the "fundamentals" of an unpopular Republican president, a tanking economy and a derided war appear to favor the Democrats, Lugo said. But current polls show a very tight presidential race.

"In this election, everything is against the Republicans," Lugo said. "To be honest, I'm just surprised it's so close. ... I guess there's a lot of underlying discomfort in closing the deal with Obama."

— By Brevy Cannon

Labels: Barack Obama, Brevy Cannon, church, election, John McCain, Luis Lugo, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, politics

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, September 19, 2008

How different faiths view major issues

By CATHY LYNN GROSSMAN • USA TODAY •
September 18, 2008

God is punishing us.

Guardian angels protect us.

The Earth is in grave danger.

So finds Baylor University’s newest survey on Americans’ religious beliefs and practices.

The survey, to be released today, is based on interviews with 1,700 adults conducted in fall 2007. Among the highlights:

Environment

Evangelicals less worried about global climate change

Most respondents to the Baylor Religion Survey agree that “if we do not change things dramatically,” global climate change will be ”a disaster” (67%); coal, oil and natural gas will be exhausted (70%) and most plant and animal life will be destroyed (57%).

But evangelical Protestants are significantly less likely (55%) than other religious groups to be alarmed about global climate change or to forecast destruction of life unless changes are made (49%).

While 56% of U.S. adults say the government is not spending enough to improve and protect the environment, fewer evangelicals do — 41%, says Baylor sociologist F. Carson Mencken.

Indeed, evangelicals are at least twice as likely as any other major religious group to say the government is already spending too much. Most likely to say spending is too little: Jews, 81%, and people with no religious affiliation, 79%.

Environmentalism has been controversial among evangelicals. When the National Association of Evangelicals launched a “Call to Action” on climate change in 2006, some religious conservatives, led by James Dobson of Focus on the Family, strongly opposed it.

Gender and politics

Are women suited for politics? Americans are deeply divided

The survey reveals deep divisions over women’s roles in society, splits that may play out in the November elections.

For example, 33% of Americans say ”Most men are better suited emotionally for politics than most women.” But 44% of evangelical Protestants agree, more than other Christians and markedly higher than Jews (29%), other religions (23%), and those with no religion (14%).

The Baylor data was gathered in 2007, when Sen. Hillary Clinton was seeking the Democratic nomination, but long before Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was named to the Republican vice-presidential ticket, putting motherhood and gender in the spotlight. Palin is a mother of five, including an infant with Down syndrome.

Both Republican candidates are evangelical Protestants (John McCain is Baptist and Palin non-denominational). Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is a mainline Protestant (United Church of Christ), whose running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, is Roman Catholic.

The survey also finds:

• 41% say a preschooler suffers if the mother works (54% of evangelicals say so, nearly double for other groups).

• 31% say “it’s God’s will that women care for children” (48% for evangelicals).
Will these views shape votes?

Tragedy and evil

Dealing with evil: Candidates disagree

God either causes or allows “major tragedies to occur as a warning to sinners,” say 20% of U.S. adults.

While 43% say most evil is caused by the devil, 47% disagree — a statistical tie.

But most (68%) would not say human nature is basically evil.

So where does evil dwell — in the devil or in mankind? The Baylor survey allows for overlapping views; it finds 36% strongly agree with both statements.

"Those who believe God causes or allows bad things to happen did not speak in terms of tragedies being God’s fault,” says Baylor sociologist Christopher Bader.

Bader says people told him that “tragedies are our fault. We have sinned as a nation and God has stood aside and allowed terrible things to happen.”

Among the questions that the Rev. Rick Warren asked both presidential candidates at his Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency was, ”Does evil exist?” Both candidates said yes.

Sen. Barack Obama said it is “God’s task” to ”erase evil from the world” but “we can be soldiers in that process.”

Sen. John McCain said, ”Evil must be defeated,” and linked it entirely to “the transcendent challenge of the 21st century — radical Islamic extremism.”

Labels: Barack Obama, Baylor Religion Survey, Cathy Lynn Grossman, environmentalism, evil, John McCain, politics, women

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Survey shows increase in support for separation church and state

Alison Wing
Updated: Thursday, September 18, 2008

Mixing religion and politics has long been an issue in the United States, and with the next presidential election upon us, some people are once again questioning the importance or unimportance of the separation or non-separation of church and state.

A recent survey conducted by The Pew Research Center reported the percentage gap between the general public thinking church and state should be separate has increased almost twenty percent over the past decade.

Four years ago fourty-four percent of the public thought the two should be kept separate. Today fifty-two percent say that the church should stay out of social and political matters.

Sixty-three percent say they want their leader to have the same beliefs and faith, but the church should not endorse nominees.

The Pew Forum survey, however, said although fifty-one percent of Americans don’t mind listening to politicians talk about how religious they are, fourty-six percent today say that they are becoming more uncomfortable with it.

In contrast, the survey finds 72 percent of Americans agree with the president having strong religious beliefs.

Thirty percent of college graduates agree it is important for the president to have strong religious beliefs while 27 percent disagree, and only 21 percent of young adults between the ages of 18 and 29 agree and 38 percent disagree.

There are a little over 300 million people in the United States with 14,911 living in Oxford. About 11,526 of the Oxford population are 18 years and older and of voting age.

The survey also reveals that most of the increased opposition has come mostly from those who identify themselves as Republicans rather than Democrats. The percentage of Republicans who say churches should keep out of politics has jumped from 37 percent in 2004 to 51 percent in 2008.

The latest national survey also finds social issues still continue to be greatly overshadowed by both domestic issues and the war on Iraq.

Labels: Alison Wing, church-state, politics, religion, The Pew Research Center

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, September 04, 2008

America's paradox: We want religion in, but out, of politics

By Sharon Schmickle | Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2008

"Keep religion out of politics," said a mega sign cruising St. Paul's streets on the back of a truck on Monday, the opening day of the Republican National Convention.

But a few blocks away, dozens of anti-war demonstrators marched with placards declaring: "Blessed Are the Peacemakers, For They Will Be Called Sons of God."

And Steve Ahlgren's sign said, simply: "1st John 4:7-21."

It was a biblical reference to loving God and loving one another, too. And Ahlgren, a lawyer from Lauderdale, insisted that religion expressed like that has a place in politics as a powerful force for good.

Religion in politics? Religion out of politics?

Both positions, paradoxically, express the view of America, one of the most devout nations in the Western world.

"Religion plays a crucial role, and it has throughout the history of the Republic," said Dan Hofrenning, a political science professor at St. Olaf College in Northfield.

It was a factor in the moral justification of FDR's New Deal, he said, and it was debated intensely when John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, ran for president. Religion provided moral authority for the civil-rights movement in the 20th century, and it played a role in women's drive for suffrage.

Indeed, religion trumps the issues for many Americans. And voters who perceive a candidate as sharing their own faith and a related set of values will forgive the candidate on a range of issues.

Religious and political differences

Putting together a religious and secular coalition is very difficult for a party and a candidate, Hofrenning said. Voters who pray often and rarely miss church are looking for expressions of faith, and candidates must respond. But many secular voters revolt at any hint of encroachment of the separation of church and state.

Hence, we have seen both McCain and Obama stumble in trying to have it both ways.

More vigilant about separation

A major quirk in America's political culture is that while we mix religion and politics, we are more vigilant than many other countries about separating church from state.

The religion-out-of-politics sign cruising St. Paul this week is sponsored by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which identifies itself on its website as "the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics)." Saying it is "critical to defend the separation between government and religion," the foundation also sent the sign to Denver last month for the Democratic National Convention.

Americans agree in theory with the ideal of drawing a line between church and state. But it isn't clear where they want it. In an August 2007 poll by the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, a large majority (69 percent) of Americans agreed that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs. However, a sizable majority (63 percent) opposed churches endorsing candidates during election campaigns. Just 28 percent said churches should come out in favor of candidates.

The voters' desire for faith in their leaders is reflected in media coverage of campaigns, according to another Pew project.

A relatively prominent topic

Researchers for Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism analyzed coverage of religion in the campaign through 16 months of the primary season, from January 2007 to April 2008. They found that when coverage of the "horse-race" aspects of the campaign was excluded, religion emerged as a relatively prominent topic. Religion garnered nearly as much coverage (10 percent of the stories) as race and gender combined (11 percent), even though the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination were a black man and a woman.

"So despite the attention paid to Obama's former pastor, questions about McCain's relationship with his party's conservative religious base, interest in Mitt Romney's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the surprisingly strong campaign of former Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee, only 2 percent of all the campaign stories directly focused on religion," said the Pew report.

Candidates readily affirm faith

In other words, reporters may be a bit squeamish about focusing directly on a candidate's religion. The same is not true for the candidates themselves. We heard affirmations of faith at the Democrat's convention in Denver. We can expect more of the same this week at the GOP convention and in the campaigns afterward.

Marching through St. Paul on Sunday, Rick Robinson from Cedar Rapids said his line on where religion is appropriate in politics is drawn "at using God to push your own agenda forward." The use of force to put down other people and other religions "misses the whole point of belief in God," he said.

Labels: church-state, Dan Hofrenning, faith, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, politics, Sharon Schmickle

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Should Churches Mix God And Politics?

Posted on Thursday, 28 of August , 2008

INSIDE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
By Charles C. Haynes

First Amendment Center

Like red, white and blue bunting, pastors and prayers have been prominently displayed in Denver at the Democratic National Convention – as they will be in St. Paul for the GOP.

Much of the appeal to God from political podiums is no doubt sincere. After all, most Americans are religious people who expect political gatherings to have invocations, benedictions and a fair amount of God-talk in between.

But beyond the benign rituals of civil religion, the mixture of God and politics in America can be a volatile brew, often poisoning the body politic with charges and counter-charges about which party is religion-friendly – and which candidate is a true Christian.

From Mitt Romney’s church to Barack Obama’s pastor, this year’s presidential race has been marked by some of the ugliest debates about religion in living memory. And all of the leading candidates have scrambled to reassure the so-called “values voters” that they are on God’s side.

It’s no accident that the first joint appearance of Obama and John McCain was held in a megachurch and moderated by an evangelical pastor asking questions about what it means to be a Christian.

Until now, at least, most Americans have voiced support for mixing God and politics. According to polls taken over the past 10 years by the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans have favored the idea of churches’ speaking out on social and political issues.

Now the pendulum is moving the other way. In a survey released by Pew last week, a majority (52 percent) now want churches to keep out of politics.

Here’s the surprising part: The greatest shift in opinion has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago a mere 30 percent of conservatives said churches should stay out of politics. Today, fully half of conservatives feel that way.

It’s not just conservatives generally, but social conservatives in particular who are re-thinking the role of churches in the political arena. In 2004, for example, only 25 percent of people who rated gay marriage as a top voting issue said churches should stay out of politics. Today, that percentage has risen to 50 percent.

While the causes of this discontent may be hard to pin down, I suspect that much of the shift in opinion is rooted in disillusionment with the political process. The strategy of some evangelical leaders to ally churches with the Republican Party hasn’t paid off. The same might be said of African-American churches aligned with the Democratic Party.

For some Americans, of course, any involvement of churches in politics is too much. On a billboard near the Denver convention, the Freedom From Religion Foundation proclaims: “Keep Religion Out of Politics.”

But for most Christians and for many others, faith by definition requires political involvement of some kind. Contrary to the freedom-from-religion crowd, the First Amendment doesn’t bar religion from politics. It protects the right of houses of worship to speak out on the public-policy issues of the day.

Pollsters may be asking the wrong question. It isn’t “Should churches keep out of politics?” but rather, “How should churches engage in politics?”

The “how” question is best answered when churches keep an arm’s length from political parties and partisan rhetoric – and instead focus on proclaiming a prophetic vision of the kind of society they believe God requires.

As Martin Luther King put it: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, never its tool.” 8-28-08

Labels: Charles C. Haynes, church, First Amendment Center, politics, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Poll: Most want church out of politics

By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 8/21/08 2:46 PM EST

Page one of two - please click on "external source" for complete article

For the first time in a dozen years, a majority of Americans believe that churches and religious institutions should “keep out” of politics, according to the annual Pew Religion and Public Life Survey.

It’s the highest level of public concern with faith’s effect on politics since Pew began asking the question in 1996.

The rise in Americans’ desire to separate religion and politics — from 44 percent in 2004 to 52 percent today — appears due to a surprising increase in conservative distaste for mingling the institutions — from 30 percent in 2004 to half of conservatives expressing the view today.

Among white evangelicals, 36 percent want religious groups to stay out of politics, a dramatic rise from 16 percent four years ago.

The findings come in the wake of the Saddleback Civil Forum on Saturday, when, in unprecedented fashion, both presidential candidates — Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama — joined popular evangelical leader Rick Warren at his megachurch for their first back-to-back campaign appearance.

But the study, the most authoritative national survey of politics and religion, was conducted prior to event, July 31 to Aug. 10. Conducted on mobile and land line phones, the survey had a large national sample of 2,905 adults, with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

In the survey, released Thursday, about half of Americans who view gay marriage and abortion as “very important” voting issues say churches should not be involved in politics. In 2004, only one in four voters who saw gay marriage as a top issue said the same, while a third of those who saw abortion as a top issue agreed.

Overall, 48 percent of Americans believe that social conservatives wield “too much” influence in the GOP.

Yet older adults appeared most irked by the mingling of religion and politics. Only 18 percent of Americans age 65 and older said churches should endorse candidates, while roughly a third of voters under age 50 believed a church support for a candidate was appropriate.

The public is also increasingly split over whether they feel “discomfort” when politicians discuss religion in the sphere of public policy, as both Obama and McCain did at length Saturday.

Yet more Americans — half in fact — still say it does not bother them “when politicians talk about how religious they are.” Forty-six percent said they were offended.

American religiosity, however, remains no less prevalent. The public appears to continue to support expressions of faith by public figures while feeling increasingly uncomfortable when that faith falls into the sphere of politics.

The public believes that a president should have “strong religious beliefs.” Fully 72 percent say so today, a modest uptick since 2004 — including 85 percent of voters who attend church at least once a week and 66 percent of independent voters. Equally, only 29 percent of the public believes there is “too much” expression of religious faith by political leaders.

At the same time, the public’s perception of Democrats' unfriendliness to people of faith has significantly improved, though the issue persists.

Labels: abortion, Americans, Barack Obama, David Paul Kuhn, gay rights, John McCain, Pew Religion and Public Life Survey, politics, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, August 15, 2008

New Barna Group Survey on Religion and the Presidential Election

August 12, 2008, 10:27 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny

Senator Obama seems to be ahead of Senator McCain among most faith groups.

Among Catholics, he leads 39 percent to 29 percent. But he has slipped since June.

What’s interesting to me about polling, although I know nothing about it, is the formulation of categories. Here is what the article says about categorizing evangelicals. Anybody know if they have as complicated an approach to categorizing Catholics?

Understanding Evangelicals

One of the most frequently reported on groups of voters is evangelicals. Most media polls use a simplistic approach to defining evangelicals, asking survey respondents if they consider themselves to be evangelical. Barna Group surveys, on the other hand, ask a series of nine questions about a person’s religious beliefs in order to determine if they are an evangelical. The differences between the two approaches are staggering.

Using the common approach of allowing people to self-identify as evangelicals, 40% of adults classify themselves as such. Among them, 83% are likely to vote in November. Among the self-reported evangelicals who are likely to vote, John McCain holds a narrow 39% to 37% lead over Sen. Obama. Nearly one-quarter of this segment (23%) is still undecided about who they will vote for.

Using the Barna approach of studying people’s core religious beliefs produces a very different outcome. Just 8% of the adult population qualifies as evangelical based on their answers to the nine belief questions. Among that segment, a significantly higher proportion (90%) is likely to vote in November, and Sen. McCain holds a huge lead (61%-17%) over the Democratic nominee. Overall, just 14% of this group remains undecided regarding their candidate of choice.

Labels: Barack Obama, Cathleen Kaveny, election, evangelicals, John McCain, politics

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, August 08, 2008

Religion, the Election, and the Media

By: Welton Gaddy
Thursday August 7, 2008

The Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life have published a report that confirms my suspicions about the use of religion on the campaign trail. The study found that we are in the midst of an election for a Pastor-in-Chief rather than a Commander-in-Chief.

An analysis of over 13,000 news stories from January 2007 through April 2008 revealed that religion is playing a disproportionate role in this election. Religion accounted for roughly ten percent of all stories that did not focus on political strategy or tactics. By comparison, foreign policy issues garnered 14 percent of these stories, and stories about race and gender only made up 11 percent.

The United States is in the midst of two wars, one of which is costing our taxpayers $6 billion every month. Terrorism represents the greatest foreign policy crisis of our generation. At the same time, American society is being transformed as Senators Clinton and Obama challenged traditional stereotypes of who is best fit to be president. And despite these profound changes and challenges, religion is receiving almost as attention in the media as foreign policy and race/gender issues. And the scary thing is that George W. Bush, who revolutionized using religion for partisan gain, isn't even on the ballot.

There is much blame to go around that explains this troubling trend. The presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle were more willing than ever to seek the endorsement of religious leaders, incorporate religious rhetoric into their speeches, and promote their religious affiliation as a misguided proxy for sound judgment and clear vision.

Both Senators McCain and Obama had some buyer's remorse after seeking the support of controversial clergy. But candidates cannot have it both ways. They cannot continue to use clergy for political gain and then discard them when it no longer fits their agenda.

The media deserve much of the blame as well. Last summer, CNN's Soledad O'Brien asked Senator John Edwards to name his biggest sin. Multiple debate moderators asked various candidates to name their favorite Bible story.

These types of questions have no bearing over a candidate's ability to serve as president. The media are the staunchest supporters of the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and press, yet it appears they have not read Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits imposing a religious test for public office.

The problem is not that religion is being incorporated into the presidential campaign. Rather the problem is that religion is being used as a divisive tool instead of a unifying power. The candidates need be less concerned with appearing "holier than thou" and focus instead on explaining the role their values play in their political worldview. The media needs to stop asking irrelevant (and irreverent) questions about the candidates' religion and start asking the candidates to outline their views on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

If we can nurture a more positive relationship between religion and politics, a survey result like this one would be encouraging rather than lamentable.

Labels: America, Barack Obama, John McCain, Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, politics, religion, Welton Gaddy

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Poll probes Americans' belief in UFOs, life on other planets

07/15/2008

Most Americans say it is very likely or somewhat likely that humans are not alone in the universe and that intelligent life exists on other planets.

Only a third of adults, however, believe it's either very likely or somewhat likely that intelligent aliens from space have visited our planet, according to a survey of 1,003 adults conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University.

The poll revealed that one in every 12 Americans has seen a mysterious object in the sky that might have been a visitor from another world, while nearly one in every five personally knows someone who has seen an unidentified flying object.

America's fascination with UFO sightings has been robust, dating at least back to 1947 with the discovery of unusual objects near Roswell, N.M., that many claimed were the remnants of an extraterrestrial craft that crashed.

Among the ranks who have seen something strange in the sky are former President Jimmy Carter, the late Beatle John Lennon and the late comedian Jackie Gleason.

One of the largest mass sightings on record -- the so-called "Phoenix Lights" that hovered for several hours over two or three Southwestern states on March 13, 1997 -- was even seen by then-Arizona Gov. Fife Symington. The governor at first made jokes about the incident, but later apologized for making light of something that thousands of people saw.

At least one of the participants in the poll saw the strange, slowly floating lights over Phoenix.

"Maybe it was a military thing; I don't know," said Fran Chodacki, 62, of Page, Ariz. "Everything is mysterious in this world. It's a possibility."

She is among the 56 percent of adults in the poll who believe it is very likely or somewhat likely that intelligent life exists on other worlds. The survey found that 35 percent said extraterrestrials are unlikely and 9 percent are uncertain.

Men, young adults and college-educated Americans are more likely than most to believe that humans are not alone in the universe.

Men are almost twice as likely to have seen something peculiar in the sky than are women. Older Americans are much more likely than younger people to have seen something, as are residents of rural areas or suburbs rather than those living in major cities. People living in Western states are three times more likely to have seen a UFO than are residents of the Northeast, Midwest or South.

UFO experts agree that these trends all make sense. Men are more likely than women to be outdoors on a dark night. Older Americans have had more opportunities simply by virtue of a longer life to see something unusual in the sky.

It is also logical, they say, for people in Western states to have seen more UFOs than people in other regions. Most of the nation's largest and most expensive observatories are located in the West, which provides optimal views of the sky.

But the experts were quite surprised by other trends found among the UFO witnesses.

People who have attended church recently and who identify themselves as born-again Evangelical Protestants are much less likely to have seen UFOs or to believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence than people with little or no involvement with organized religion.

People with strong political and ideological convictions -- self-identified "strong Republicans" and "very conservative" people as well as "strong Democrats" and "very liberal" persons -- are much less likely to report having seen a UFO than are politically moderate persons.

But why are people with strong political beliefs less likely to see UFOs?

"They are more attuned to the establishment," said Rodeghier. "People who are in the establishment are more likely to have distain for the whole UFO issue. That's something those of us in the field of UFO study have seen over and over again. But people who are independent are more open to the issue."

The survey was conducted by telephone at Ohio University's Scripps Survey Research Center from May 11-28. The poll was funded through a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation.

The overall survey has a margin of error of about 3 percentage points.

(Thomas Hargrove is a reporter for Scripps Howard News Service. Guido H. Stempel III is a professor emeritus at Ohio University's Scripps School of Journalism. Scripps Howard reporter Daniel Collins contributed to this story.)

Labels: Guido H. Stempel III, Phoenix, politics, religion, Scripps Howard News Service., Thomas Hargrove, UFO

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, June 26, 2008

World Peace Forum opens in Indonesia focusing on eliminating violence

2008-06-25 00:26:46

JAKARTA, June 24 (Xinhua) -- About 200 leaders in religion, politics and business all over the world including Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono attended the 2nd World Peace Forum opening ceremony here on Tuesday night, to discuss how to achieve global peace.

"Indonesia has demonstrated its democracy with diversified culture and religion in recent years. Though we know how impossible it is to realize true peace in the world, we have to socialize the culture of mutual respect, tolerance, peace, harmony and anti-violence to the younger generation, because they are the leaders of tomorrow," said Susilo in his speech.

The prime ministers of Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, foreign minister of the UK and other politicians conveyed their written messages for the forum by representatives or through video.

The three-day forum, co-hosted by Muhammadiyah (Indonesia's second largest Islamic organization), the Center for Dialogue and Cooperation among Civilizations (CDCC) and the Cheng Ho Multi Culture Trust, is aiming to find solutions to address facets of religious violence at national and global levels.

The conference was founded in 2006 by Muhammadiyah to involve religious and political leaders in addressing world problems.

Editor: Mu Xuequan

Labels: CDCC, Cheng Ho Multi Culture Trust, Indonesia, Mu Xuequan, Muhammadiyah, peace, politics, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, June 23, 2008

Part II of U.S. Religious Landscape Survey

WASHINGTON, June 23

Part II of U.S. Religious Landscape Survey details Americans' religious
beliefs and behaviors as well as their social and political attitudes

WASHINGTON, June 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life today released its second report on the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, which finds that while many Americans are highly religious, most are not dogmatic in their approach to faith. This new analysis examines the diversity of Americans' religious beliefs and practices as well as their social and political attitudes. It follows the first report of the Landscape Survey, which was published in February 2008 and detailed the size, internal changes and demographic characteristics of major religions in the United States.

"The fact that most Americans are not exclusive or dogmatic about their religion is a fascinating finding," said Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum. "Most people will be surprised that a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including a majority of evangelical Protestants, say that there isn't just one way to salvation or to interpret the teachings of their own faith."

Based on interviews conducted in English and Spanish with a nationally representative sample of more than 35,000 adults, part two of the Landscape Survey includes a wealth of information on the religious beliefs and practices of the American public. It also explores the social and political attitudes of religious groups, including members of many small religious traditions - such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics - not typically analyzed in public opinion surveys.

"This report illustrates, chapter and verse, the amazing diversity and dynamism both between and within religious traditions in America," noted John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum. "And this diversity of affiliation, belief and practice matters when it comes to social and political questions."

The second report of the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey finds:

* Although many Americans are highly religious, they are not dogmatic in their faith. Seventy percent of Americans with a religious affiliation say that many religions - not just their own - can lead to eternal life. Most also think there is more than one correct way to interpret the teachings of their own faith.

* This does not mean, however, that Americans take religious matters lightly. Most, in fact, say they rank the importance of religion very highly in their lives, and a plurality wants to preserve the traditional beliefs and practices of their faith, while only a small minority wants to accommodate their religion to modern culture.

* There is tremendous diversity of religious beliefs and practices in the U.S. Important religious differences exist between the major religious traditions, but there are also important differences within religious traditions.

* While more than nine-in-ten Americans (92%) believe in the existence of God or a universal spirit, there are considerable differences in the nature of this belief. Six-in-ten adults believe that God is a person with whom people can have a relationship; but one-in-four - including about half of Jews and Hindus - see God as an impersonal force. Similarly, seven-in-ten Americans say that they are absolutely certain of God's existence, while roughly one-in-five (22%) are less certain in their belief.

* Three-quarters of Americans report praying at least once a week, with large majorities among most religious traditions saying they pray on at least a weekly basis. Even among the unaffiliated, roughly one-in-three pray on a weekly basis. At the same time, however, there are those among all faith groups who pray much less frequently; overall, one quarter of the public says they pray a few times a month or less often.

* Almost two-fifths of Americans report meditating at least once a week. This practice is particularly common among Buddhists, but nearly half of evangelical Protestants and Muslims say they meditate at least weekly. About one-quarter of the unaffiliated report weekly meditation. These patterns may incorporate elements of both Christian and non-Christian traditions.

* Politics and religion in the United States are intertwined, and religion is highly relevant to understanding politics in the U.S. Yet while the diversity of religious affiliation, belief and practice translates into important differences on many social and political issues, differences on other issues are less pronounced.

* Religion is closely linked to political ideology. The survey shows that Mormons are among the most politically conservative groups in the population. Jews, Buddhists and Hindus, by contrast, are among the most likely to describe their ideology as liberal.

* People who regularly attend worship services and say religion is important in their lives are much more likely to identify as conservative, and this pattern extends to many religious traditions. For example, within the evangelical, mainline Protestant, historically black Protestant, Catholic, Mormon and Orthodox Christian traditions, those who attend church weekly are significantly more likely than those who attend less often to describe themselves as political conservatives. And among Jews, those who say religion is very important to them or pray every day are more likely than others to be politically conservative.

* The connection between religious engagement and political attitudes appears to be especially strong when it comes to hot button social issues such as abortion or homosexuality. For instance, about six-in-ten Americans who attend religious services at least once a week say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, while only three-in-ten who attend less often share this view. This pattern holds across several religious traditions.

* On other topics covered in the survey, such as views on the role and size of government and foreign policy attitudes, the role of religion is less clear and there appears to be greater consensus across and within religious traditions. For instance, a majority of nearly every religious group supports stricter environmental regulations and believes the government should do more to help Americans in need. Similarly, most Americans, including majorities of most faiths, say it is more important to focus on problems here at home than to be active in world affairs.

In conjunction with the release of this report, the Pew Forum is updating its online presentation of the findings at religions.pewforum.org. Updated features include interactive mapping by state, dynamic charts and a variety of other tools that allow users to explore the beliefs and practices as well as social and political views of major religions in the United States.

Subsequent releases will include a re-contact survey that delves deeper into the relationship between religious and political identity, issues related to conversion and attitudes toward religious pluralism in America.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life delivers timely, impartial information on issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs. The Forum is a nonpartisan, non-advocacy organization and does not take positions on policy debates. Based in Washington, D.C., the Forum is a project of the Pew Research Center, which is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

SOURCE Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

Labels: beliefs. practices, God, meditation, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, politics, prayer, religion, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Poll: Revealing New Look at Religious Voters

By Deal W. Hudson
6/18/2008

The volatility of the Catholic vote created by the Iraq War was confirmed by the study's findings.

WASHINGTON, DC (Inside Catholic) - A new survey on religion and politics provides important background on the dynamics at work among religious voters in 2008.

The "National Survey on Religion and Public Life" published by the Paul B. Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College was based on a large sample of 3,002 interviews, nearly three times the sample size of most political polls.

Analyzed by director Corin E. Smidt, the survey data yielded the following major conclusions:

Mainline Protestants are now firmly identified with the Democratic Party, 46 percent to 37 percent. Smidt calls this "an historical turning point," but the shift has been in the making for over a decade. Taking their place in the Republican Party are, of course, the Evangelical voters -- 54 percent to 25 percent, slightly down from 2004.

White Catholic loyalties lean slightly toward the Democrats, 41 percent to 38 percent, reflecting the 30-year migration of Catholics into the GOP. Democrats used to own the Catholic vote in years gone by.

The White Catholic vote is "up for grabs in the 2008 presidential election." Because of the instability created by the unpopularity of the Iraq War, and the Vatican's criticism of it, I agree with him.

The news about Latino Catholics is not good for the GOP. Only 15 percent call themselves Republican, compared to 57 percent for the Democrats. The number of independents among these voters is growing (28 percent).

Individual religious beliefs and practices are more important than denominational affiliation in predicting political views. When you distinguish between traditionalists, centrists, and modernists within each denomination, each group's politics will resemble the others across the denominations. Modernist Catholics will think politically like modernists belonging to other denominations, and so on.

Traditional believers of all denominations are more likely to be Republican, and modernists are more likely to be Democrats -- with the odd exception of modernist Evangelicals, who lean toward the GOP.

The survey numbers on abortion and gay rights bear the importance of looking beyond denominational affiliation. Catholics overall agreed, 51 percent to 43 percent, that "abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide." Among traditionalist Catholics, the number changes dramatically, with 71 percent disagreeing. Modernists, not surprisingly, agree 80 percent with a woman's "right to chose."

Gay marriage is not supported as strongly as abortion among religious voters, but comparing 2004 with 2008, support appears to be growing: 9 percent among Evangelicals, 5 percent among mainline Protestants, but only 2 percent among Catholics, who have heard Benedict XVI quite outspoken in opposition to gay marriage.

The volatility of the Catholic vote created by the Iraq War was confirmed by the study's findings. Non-Hispanic Catholics did not agree that the United States rightly took action against Iraq, 52 percent to 42 percent, while traditionalist Catholics supported the war 56 percent to 36 percent.

Centrist and modernist Catholics overwhelmingly oppose the war: 54 percent to 34 percent, and 68 percent to 29 percent, respectively. Latino Catholics disapprove by a margin of 69 percent to 25 percent.

The Calvin College poll asked its respondents whether they would vote for McCain or the Democratic nominee (Obama was not yet the clear victor) for president in 2008. White Catholics favored McCain 43 percent to 39 percent, but Latino Catholics supported the Democratic nominee 63 percent to 19 percent. Evangelicals picked McCain 59 percent to 24 percent, and mainline Protestants slightly favored McCain over the Democrat; 19 percent were still undecided at the time of the survey.

The methodology of the survey suggests that an innovative way for political candidates to organize their religious outreach may be in the offing. Instead of a Catholic or Evangelical outreach, future campaigns may focus on the newer categories of "traditionalists" and "modernists," regardless of denomination.

Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster, 2008).

Labels: abortion, Catholic, Deal W. Hudson, Democrat, gay rights, Iraq, National Survey on Religion and Public Life, politics, protestants, Republican

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Institute Poll Shows Americans Oppose Pulpit Partisanship

June 9th 2008

Faith will continue to play a significant role in the political landscape through this year’s election.

Today the Paul B. Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics released its National Survey on Religion and Public Life. The poll gauged the attitudes of 3,002 Americans, belonging to 18 different religious groupings, about their political attitudes, affiliations and preferences.

The conclusions of the national survey were largely unsurprising. Faith will continue to play a significant role in the political landscape through this year’s election, and congregants have a tendency to vote in a similar fashion to other traditionalists, centrists or modernists, regardless of denomination.

According to the study, mainline Protestants in 2008 have moved away from the GOP and are now more likely to self-identify as Democrats (46 percent) as opposed to Republicans (37 percent). Evangelical Protestants, however, have been moving in the opposite direction. They favored the Republican Party over the Democratic Party 48 percent to 32 percent in 1992, but now lean Republican 54 percent to 25 percent.

While the statistics, similar to those from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life U.S. Religious Landscape Survey of 2007, seem to be generally indicative of 2008 voting patterns like those of 2004, one question raised an issue of particular importance to advocates of church-state separation.

The Henry Institute asked survey participants whether clergy should endorse political candidates from the pulpit. A majority of Americans, across the board, found the practice to be inappropriate.

Fifty-seven percent said clergy should not “be permitted to endorse political candidates during worship services.” Only 28 percent said they should (with 15 percent offering no opinion).

Among Evangelicals, 55 percent opposed pulpit partisanship, while only 29 supported it. Among Catholics, the figures were even farther apart, with 66 percent taking a stand against church electioneering and only 23 percent supporting it.

With the Alliance Defense Fund and other Religious Right groups pressing clergy to violate federal tax law and endorse candidates from the pulpit, it’s good to know the American public won’t say amen to that reckless scheme.

By Ilana Stern

Labels: Ilana Stern, Paul B. Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics, politics, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, May 16, 2008

Christians in Politics: Too Much or Too Little?

By Richard Land
Christian Post Guest Columnist

Over the past few weeks, a national polling firm for LifeWay Research and the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission conducted a survey asking Americans to respond to this statement: “I am concerned that at times Christians are too involved in politics.”

The results were quite informative. The majority of Americans (52%) either “strongly disagree” (32%) or “somewhat disagree” (20%) with the statement. Even larger majorities of faith-affiliated Americans disagreed with the statement. When researchers asked Americans who attended religious services of any faith at least once a week, disagreement with the statement was even higher, with 65% indicating they were comfortable with Christians being involved in politics, and only 21% expressing varying discomfort with Christians’ political activity.

Those who self-identify themselves as “born-again,” “evangelical,” or “fundamentalist” expressed the highest level of disagreement (72%) with the assertion that “at times Christians are too involved in politics” with only 27% telling pollsters they agreed (“strongly” or “somewhat”) with the statement.

These results do not surprise me at all. They underscore and reinforce the feedback I receive on a consistent basis from grassroots Christians of all perspectives, particularly conservative Christians – Catholic and Protestant.

These polling results suggest that those pundits, analysts, and religious leaders that tell us that people of faith are disillusioned with politics and public policy need to get out more and talk with the people who actually go to churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples. If they did, they would find that the people who most often attended religious services disagree with their assessment by an almost two to one margin, 65 percent to 31 percent. On a more personal note, among Southern Baptist pastors who were asked the question of whether “at times, Christians are too involved in politics”, two thirds of them either “strongly disagreed” (41%) or “somewhat disagreed” (26%).

When people of faith enter the political process they should always understand that their ultimate allegiance is to the Almighty, not any ideology or party. People of faith have an obligation to be involved as “salt” and “light” in the world, and that includes “politics.” They should be voting their values, beliefs, and convictions, based on their understanding of the imperatives of their faith.

This column originally published at Casting Stones, a blog hosted by Beliefnet.com.

Labels: Americans, Christian, LifeWay Research, politics

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Group of evangelical Christians writes manifesto urging separation of religious beliefs and politics

By politicizing faith, Christians become 'useful idiots' for one party or another, the group warns

By Rebecca Trounson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 10, 2008

A group of prominent U.S. evangelical Christians is urging other evangelicals to step back from partisan politics and avoid becoming "useful idiots" for any political party.

In an often strongly worded statement released this week, more than 70 pastors, scholars and business leaders said faith and politics have become too closely intertwined and that evangelicals err when they use their religious beliefs for political purposes.

Three years in the making, the manifesto was signed by many high-profile, mostly centrist evangelicals, including Leith Anderson, president of the National Assn. of Evangelicals; Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners magazine; and Frank Wright, president of National Religious Broadcasters.

Many of the most prominent conservative evangelicals did not sign. A spokesman for James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, said Dobson had concerns about the document and decided not to add his name.

One of the statement's drafters said one purpose was to reclaim the word "evangelical" from its political association.

"This is not primarily a political movement," said the Rev. John Huffman Jr., senior pastor of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach and board chairman of the evangelical magazine Christianity Today. "Evangelicalism is a theological understanding that we are called to be followers of Jesus Christ, and that's not captive to a culture, society or nation."

Analyst Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said he expected the statement to have limited political impact.

"It's mainly a warning to people not to confuse their personal faith with political convictions," he said.

Labels: Christianity, evangelicals, faith, politics, Rebecca Trounson

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Keeping faith with the American voter

Saturday April 19, 2008
FOO YEE PING

The Catholic vote has become the focus of both Democrat presidential hopefuls with Pope Benedict XVI visiting the United States.

THERE is a mantra going around that the best way to know how Americans vote is to find out where they are on Sunday.

Over the past five decades, the Gallup Poll frequently surveyed Americans on the role of religion in their lives. Very often, at least 55% indicated that their faith was “very important” to them.

Women, Southerners, senior citizens, non-whites and lower income people were more inclined to say that religion was huge for them.

This week’s first official trip by Pope Benedict XVI to the United States has led to discussions about the Catholic vote; and how the Democratic presidential candidates are chasing it.

In the critical Pennsylvania round this Tuesday, an estimated 36% of the voters are Catholics.

According to news reports, Obama have tried to connect to this group of people by speaking about his time attending a Catholic school during the four years he spent in Indonesia as a child.

Clinton, a Methodist, has been reported as saying that she had felt the presence of God in her life ever since she was a little girl. “And it has been a gift of grace that has been, for me, incredibly sustaining.”

Back in 1960, there had been concerns about John F. Kennedy being a Roman Catholic. But he was a young candidate who offered a different kind of fresh politics to voters, who were also assured that faith would not interfere with any state decisions.

So, what role does religion play in secular America?

“Some people say the United States is the most religious nation in a secular set-up. With the state having no role in promoting religion, the state, too, has an obligation of not interfering in the private lives of its citizens,” Wang said.

“Thus, religion outside of the state flourishes. It plays an important role in America in determining political decisions. No where in the western world would the focus of an election include matters such as abortion.”

But how religious are Americans? USA Today reporting on a survey last year, noted that 60% of Americans could not even recall five of the Ten Commandments.

“Being religious does not mean being ritualistic or having a strong sense of religiosity,” Wang said. “It’s not about taking a quiz to determine a person’s faith.”

He explained that the changes in western society in the past 30 years included individuals trying to be more spiritual than ritualistic.

“At the same time, the tendency to equate religion with morality is prevalent in America,” he added.

In that sense, Americans would never vote for an atheist.

“As religion equals morality, atheism is seen as the end of morality, turning society into chaos,” Wang said.

“Americans, although firm believers in individual freedom and a free market, can accept protectionism or even a soft socialist as their president, but they will never accept an atheist.”

Jimmy Carter, for example, was left leaning but voters liked his strong Christian beliefs, he said.

Republican Mitt Romney failed in his bid for his party presidential nomination because Americans were mostly uneasy about his Mormon faith.

“He also did not succeed because he tried to pretend to be someone he isn’t, He tried to be more conservative than he actually is,” Wang pointed out.

Both Clinton and Obama have employed Catholic officials to speak on their behalf in their clamour to win over the faithful. A vast majority of the earlier arrivals among working class Hispanics are professed Catholics, too.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found in a recent survey that one in four Americans aged 18 to 29 declared they were not affiliated with any religion.

Be that as it may be, a person’s personal faith and religious views is a weighty factor in determining the choice of political candidacy in the United States.

Labels: Barack Obama, faith, Foo Yee Ping, Hillary Clinton, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, politics, religion