WASHINGTON (ABP) — A new study described as the first of its kind suggests Americans believe the United States is both especially blessed by God and especially responsible to use its power wisely.

Echoing the results of another recent poll, the survey also found that younger evangelicals are to the left of their elders on most major social issues except abortion.

Results from the survey, titled "Religion and America's Role in the World" and sponsored by the U.N. Foundation and the PBS show "Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly," were released in a Washington press conference Oct. 22. The poll of 1,000 adults — plus an oversample of 400 evangelicals ages 18-29 — found that majorities of the public believe that God has "uniquely blessed" America (61 percent) and that the United States should serve as a Christian example to the rest of the world (59 percent).

A similar majority — 60 percent — said the U.S. has a "moral obligation to have a role in world affairs."

However, other survey questions revealed what pollster Anna Greenberg called "a real ambivalence" about whether U.S. actions comport with the nation's blessings and responsibilities.

For instance, 79 percent of respondents agreed that U.S. involvement in foreign affairs sometimes causes more harm than good. And two-thirds (67 percent) said America's foreign relations "have gotten pretty seriously off track," versus only 25 percent who said they were headed "in the right direction."

Greenberg, vice president of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research , which conducted the study, and other analysts found remarkable similarities in many areas across political and religious groups. Evangelicals were more likely to believe America was blessed by God and had a special moral obligation, more likely to be interventionist and more positive about the current state of U.S. foreign policy. But their numbers didn't depart dramatically from those of the public at large on most questions.

"We find very strong majorities favor the U.S. having a very active role in the world," Greenberg said. "Frankly, this was a surprise to me."

Timothy Shah

Timothy Shah, an expert on religion and foreign policy for the Council on Foreign Relations, said the results suggested to him that the American public has an almost Calvinist view of itself with regard to its international engagement.

"I think Americans, like Calvin and Calvinists, tend to have a sense that they are in a kind of covenant, a special relationship with God," he said. However, along with that covenant is a Calvinist "special vocation or sense of calling" and "an element of criticism" when policy decisions go awry.

"What the survey strikingly shows is that America and Americans, evangelical and non-evangelical, hold these things" — that the U.S. is both blessed by God and responsible to be introspective in foreign-policy choices — "in a remarkable tension," Shah said. "In other words, many Americans believe that they have this special relationship with God. But they also believe that America in fact falls short, and falls short pretty drastically."

Younger evangelicals were more liberal than their elders on a number of key diplomacy-related subjects. For instance, 58 percent of 18-29-year-old evangelicals considered combating global warming an extremely or very important foreign-policy issue, while only 47 percent of older evangelicals did.

Young evangelicals also were far more likely to consider global warming a challenge that required "immediate action." Their elders were more likely to say it was "a long-term threat" that required further study "before taking drastic action."

Younger evangelicals were slightly less likely than their elders to say the United States should set a Christian example to the rest of the world (77 percent of younger evangelicals versus 87 percent of older ones).

But, on abortion, younger evangelicals closely mirrored their elders, with significant majorities opposing legal abortion in most or all cases.

And young evangelicals were even more conservative than their elders in one area where views on abortion intersect with U.S. foreign policy: Approval for the so-called "Mexico City Policy," sometimes called the "Global Gag Rule" by abortion-rights supports.

The policy is an executive order, in effect from 1984 to 1993 and again from 2001 until now, that prevents non-governmental organizations from receiving federal funds unless they promise not to perform or promote abortion services in other countries. In the survey, 53 percent of white evangelicals 30 and over supported the policy — but 70 percent of younger evangelicals did.

The survey, conducted Sept. 4-21, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.

Read more

"Religion and America's Role in the World" survey results

Young evangelicals differ from elders on gays, similar on abortion rights (10/3)

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (ABP) — John McCain and Barack Obama differed sharply over the legality of abortion in their third and final presidential debate Oct.15 at Hofstra University, in one of the only mentions in this year’s presidential debates of a divisive cultural issue.

While both candidates said they oppose using abortion as a litmus test when appointing federal judges, each made it clear that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a woman's right to choose an abortion, would weigh heavily in determining whom they would nominate to fill any vacancies on the Supreme Court.

McCain, the Republican candidate, said Roe v. Wade was a “bad decision” and that as president he would find judges with a record of “strict adherence to the Constitution” and not “legislating from the bench.”

The Arizona senator repeatedly said he would base nominations on qualifications and not any “litmus test,” but he added that he did not believe anyone supporting Roe v. Wade would meet those qualifications.

No litmus test

Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, also said he opposes applying a “strict litmus test” for judges, but agreed that Roe v. Wade probably hangs in the balance during the next presidency.

“I am somebody who believes that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided,” Obama said.

“I think that abortion is a very difficult issue, and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on,” Obama said. “But what ultimately I believe is that women — in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers — are in the best position to make this decision.

“And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn’t be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote.”

Obama sought to stake out some common ground between the two sides of the abortion debate.

Common ground

“This is an issue that — look, it divides us,” he said. “And in some ways, it may be difficult to reconcile the two views.”

“But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.’

“Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that’s where we can find some common ground, because nobody’s pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation.”

It was the first time in three presidential debates for the abortion issue to surface. Americans United for Life praised moderator Bob Schieffer for asking the question.

“In many ways, this is one of the most significant issues for our country that has received the least amount of attention in this campaign,” AUL Action said in a prepared statement.

Judicial appointments

“Sen. Obama made it clear that his approach to judicial appointments — which goes beyond the Supreme Court — involves a pro-Roe, pro-abortion litmus test,” the statement said. The pro-life group also accused Obama of twisting the facts about his abortion policy.

NARAL Pro-Choice America applauded Obama’s “long-standing commitment to women’s reproductive freedom and privacy” and “common-sense” approach to reducing unintended pregnancies.

“McCain, on the other hand, restated his call for the overturn of Roe v. Wade,” said NARAL president Nancy Keenan. “That’s no secret: McCain has voted against a woman’s right to choose for more than 25 years, and he has even voted against birth control, which is one of the best ways to reduce the need for abortion. McCain’s hypocrisy represents the divisive political attacks that Americans are tired of.”

McCain criticized Obama for opposing a bill in the Illinois senate to provide immediate medical care to an infant “born alive” as the result of a failed abortion and voting against a ban on a late-term procedure that opponents call “partial-birth” abortion.

Obama said he opposed the Illinois legislation because there was already a law on the books requiring lifesaving treatment and the new bill would have undermined Roe v. Wade. He said he supports a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortion, but only if it includes exceptions for the mother's life and health. Abortion-rights opponents have repeatedly attempted to pass bans that did not include health exceptions.

McCain dismissed the necessity of health exceptions, saying the “health of the mother” has been “stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything.”

“That's the extreme pro-abortion position, ‘health,’” McCain said.

HARTFORD, Conn. (ABP) — The Connecticut Supreme Court Oct. 10 made that state the latest in the union to offer full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The state's justices ruled 4-3 that the equal-protection and due-process provisions of the Connecticut Constitution require marriage be extended to gay men and lesbians. It becomes the third state in the United States — after Massachusetts and California — to legalize same-sex marriage.

When the ruling takes effect Oct. 28, it will mainly change terminology, since Connecticut has allowed gay couples to enter into "civil unions" — with rights and responsibilities virtually identical to marriage — since 2005. When the state's legislators passed that bill and Gov. Jodi Rell (R) signed it, Connecticut became the first state to approve civil unions without being under judicial pressure to do so.

Civil unions not enough 

But the latest decision said civil unions aren't enough. While not specifically enumerated in the state’s charter, Justice Richard Palmer said in the majority opinion, marriage "has long been deemed a basic civil right."

"We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm," Palmer wrote.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal-protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise-qualified same-sex partner of their choice," he added. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."

While acknowledging that marriage has been traditionally viewed as between a man and woman, the court said history teaches that society's prevailing views and practices often mask unfairness and discrimination not recognized by those not directly harmed. They cited previous bans on interracial marriage, exclusion of women in occupations and official duties and relegating minorities to "separate but equal" institutions.

"Like these once-prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection," the decision said.

Dissenting opinions 

In one of three separate dissenting opinions, however, Justice Peter Zarella said decisions on same-sex marriage should be left up to the democratic process rather than a judicial one.

"The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry," Zarella wrote. "If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."

The majority said the state’s main rationale for denying marriage to same-sex couples was to preserve the institution of marriage exclusively for heterosexuals. That reason alone, they ruled, is insufficient to justify a ban on same-sex marriage.

The majority also said recognizing the right of gays to wed does not jeopardize religious freedom, because religious organizations will not be required to perform same-sex marriages.

"Because, however, marriage is a state-sanctioned and state-regulated institution, religious objections to same sex marriage cannot play a role in our determination of whether constitutional principles of equal protection mandate same-sex marriage," the court ruled.

Rell's office quickly released a statement saying that, while she disagreed with the ruling, she would enforce it.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling."

Predictably, gay-rights groups hailed the ruling while conservative religious groups pointed to it as another example of why they believe a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is necessary.

However, the decision — unlike a comparable Massachusetts court ruling on gay marriage prior to the 2004 presidential election — may have little effect on the upcoming contest. Unlike in 2004, same-sex marriage bans are on the ballot in only a handful of states this year.

Additionally, recent polls suggest that issues such as the economy and the war in Iraq are far more important — even to conservative religious voters — than gay marriage or other divisive social issues in determining their voting decisions.

The ruling came about when a group of eight same-sex couples were rejected for marriage licenses by Connecticut officials in 2004. The case is Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, No. 17716.

Read more

Connecticut Supreme Court decision in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health

Gay-union proponents get two wins, one loss (4/18/2005)

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Father may know best, but when it comes to this year’s election, fewer young evangelical voters are taking Dad’s advice into the voting booth, according to a new survey.

While Sen. John McCain maintains a winning margin among white evangelical Christians of all ages, young white evangelical voters are less supportive of McCain than evangelical voters over the age of 30, according to the poll conducted for the PBS program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.

McCain has the support of 71 percent of white evangelicals, but only 62 percent of white evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 29.

Wide-ranging implications 

“Evangelical voters have been so solidly Republican in the last 20 years, so if this signals a shift, it could have wide-ranging political implications,” said Kim Lawton, the managing editor of Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly.

Some differences on social issues were highlighted in the survey. A majority of younger white evangelicals support some form of legal recognition for civil unions or marriage for same-sex couples. Older evangelicals are strongly opposed.

Both age groups remain solidly opposed to abortion.

"I think younger evangelicals are less reflexively loyal to the Republican Party and its candidates," said David Gushee, professor of Christian ethics at Mercer Univer-sity's McAfee School of Theology who has studied the political thought of the next generation of ev-angelicals. "They are also now drawing a distinction between the life is-sues like abortion and violence over against the issue of homosexuality. Or perhaps they are properly seeing that the treatment of all people as sacred in the sight of God does require deep concern about abortion but also requires the humane treatment of homosexuals."

A different path 

Jeff Fralick, a student at Baylor University, may offer more confirmation of a generational shift. Fralick has been actively involved in campaigning for Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama on the Baylor campus. “It is a different story” for his parents, he said.

“In the past, I feel that they (older evangelicals) have been swayed by the thought that a responsible and religious person voted one way—conservative,” Fralick said of his parents. “They may not agree with it, but they can accept that I am following a good path, though it is different than theirs.”

The nationwide survey included 1,400 adults, including 400 young evangelical Christians, and was conducted Sept. 4-21.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Top leaders from several faiths have asked Congress to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to all U.S.-held detainees, including those held at secret overseas prisons.

A letter signed by 25 senior faith leaders calls on Congress to support legislation that gives the International Committee of the Red Cross the right to use information from the Central Intelligence Agency to access the U.S.-held detainees.

“The ICRC has a mandate to visit detention facilities around the world to ensure that prisoners of war and other detainees are treated humanely as required by international law,” they said.

While the United States officially has supported Red Cross access and opposed holding detainees incommunicado, the letter claims the United States has engaged in secret detentions over the past seven years.

“It is of the utmost importance that our country immediately implements all measures needed to guarantee the humane treatment of all detainees,” they said.

Providing the Red Cross access to the U.S.-held detainees would end secret detentions, giving the United States greater credibility to advocate humane treatment of American detainees, they said. They also believe it will restore U.S. integrity on the issue of torture.

“Torture and inhumane treatment are unequivocally antithetical to all of our faiths,” they said. “We all believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all human life.”

Leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the Islamic Society of North America signed the letter.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (ABP) — Economic woes and national security dominated a second presidential debate that offered little new information for undecided voters, including those looking for a values-based hook on which to hang their presidential choice.

Democratic candidate Barack Obama hammered for reform on Capitol Hill, while Republican John McCain emphasized his record throughout the town hall-style debate, held at Belmont University Oct. 7.

The questions posed, drawn from the group of 80 undecided voters assembled for the live debate and from thousands of queries submitted via the Internet, provided few opportunities to offer faith-influenced responses. Of the two candidates, Obama more frequently framed his responses in moral terminology.

When asked if health care should be treated as a commodity, Obama emphasized the federal government’s “moral” responsibility. “Health care is breaking budgets,” he said. “We have a moral commitment and economic imperative to repair” the current system.

If elected, the Illinois senator has proposed to work with employers to cut workers’ health-care costs by 25 percent. He insisted that individuals would be able to keep their plans or buy the plan they wish. Part of his plan would allow the government to act as the “group” to make it easier for those without health insurance to get lower rates on private plans.

McCain said Obama’s proposal amounts to “government mandates,” setting limits on the insurance plan individuals could choose and taxing employers who do not provide health coverage for employees.

The Arizona senator’s plan calls for a $5,000 tax credit that McCain said will provide increased funds for 95 percent of Americans to “shop for the best plan,” including shopping across state lines.

The two differed sharply on health care’s place in the economy. Health care is a “responsibility,” McCain said, while Obama declared it a “right” for all American citizens.

McCain said Americans should have affordable, available health care. A federal tax credit would give them the economic power to make responsible insurance decisions, he said.

Obama declared that in a country as wealthy as the United States, individuals should not face bankruptcy because of rising health-care costs. “There are no mandates” in his proposal, he said. “But it’s true that you are going to have to make sure your child has insurance. It’s true that I think it’s important for the government to crack down on insurance companies.”

The call for morality also surfaced when questions turned to defense and military issues. “We have moral issues at stake,” Obama responded when asked whether the United States should step into foreign conflicts that do not directly affect U.S. security.

“If genocide and ethnic cleansing is happening and we stand idly by, that diminishes us,” he said. “But there is a lot of cruelty in the world.”

Calling America the “greatest force for good in the world,” McCain — like Obama — acknowledged that the nation doesn’t have the capacity to right every international wrong. U.S. leaders need the ability to determine where resources would make the most impact on improving human-rights conditions, he said.

“It’s best to know when we can make a difference,” he said. “We must do whatever we can … but we must recognize our limits.”

Both senators agreed that the United States should halt Iran’s effort to develop nuclear weapons. They also agreed that, should Iran attack Israel, they would deploy U.S. troops to the region without first securing U.N. Security Council approval.

The televised debate focused a national spotlight on Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn. With 4,800 students, it is one of America's fastest-growing Christian institutions of higher learning. For 56 years the university was affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Convention, but that relationship ended last November with settlement of a lawsuit over who gets to elect Belmont's board of trustees.

(ABP) — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's answer during her Oct. 2 vice-presidential debate expressing support for a “two-state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is drawing criticism from some of her strongest supporters — pro-Israel conservative Christians.

"A two-state solution is the solution," the GOP vice-presidential candidate said, expressing support for President Bush’s plan.

That answer put her at odds with some Christian Zionists like San Antonio-based pastor and evangelist John Hagee, who is on record as opposing the Bush administration's proposed "roadmap for peace" or any other solution that causes Israel to cede land. Based on his reading of Bible prophecy, Hagee has predicted that God would punish the United States for asking Israel to exchange land for peace. Such punishment, Hagee has asserted, would come through terrorist attacks.

Hagee was one of the first Religious Right supporters of Palin’s running mate, Sen. John McCain, in his presidential bid. McCain later rejected Hagee's endorsement after controversy erupted over previous references the TV preacher had made to Hitler and the Holocaust. Before that, however, the Arizona senator appeared in at Hagee's Christians United for Israel gathering in 2007 to declare himself a Christian and "proudly pro-Israel."

Top-of-an-agenda item

Palin, an evangelical Christian who reportedly displays an Israeli flag in her governor's office in Juneau — even though she has never been to the country — said during the debate that brokering peace in Israel would be a "top-of-an-agenda item" under a McCain-Palin administration.

While largely overlooked by the mainstream media, that comment jumped out for Christian Zionist blogs. The Amerisrael blog called Palin’s words "deeply troubling and disturbing" and said they "could cost McCain valuable votes."

Another blog — Jerusalem Watchman — called Palin's proposal "nothing less than a total betrayal of Israel" and predicted that, "unless they are repented from," following through with those views "will fundamentally and detrimentally affect the national history of the United States."

Blog Amy J’s Worldview, which describes itself as coming “from a conservative Christian point of view,” said, "The land that the Palestinians want as their state is the land that God gave to the Israelites several thousands of years ago.”

The post continued, “Sarah Palin should know this and she should know the consequences of taking away the God-given lands from Israel."

Nuanced response

Not all pro-Israel Christians responded so harshly, however.

Michael Hines, the U.S. media director for International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, called Palin's answer "a very nuanced response" that suggested "a lot of knowledge on the issue."

Hines, who lived in Israel five years, said "everyone arrives in Israel as an expert," but when they leave they aren't so sure about easy answers. He noted that a two-state solution is also the position advocated by Israel's government.

"If you say you love Israel, you've got to give it the right to make its own sovereign decisions," he said in an interview. "You can't love Israel more than Israelis."

Embassy in Jerusalem 

Hines also gave Palin high marks for repeating an earlier pledge by McCain to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv, where it has been since the creation of Israel, to Jerusalem — a move that would likely inflame Palestinians. 

A 1980 United Nations Security Council resolution called on all nations to withdraw their embassies from Jerusalem in a censure of Israel's acquisition of territory by force.

Congress enacted legislation in 1995 calling for the United States to move its embassy to Jerusalem, but the president can postpone the move every six months based on national security interests. President Bush last exercised the waiver June 4.

Churches for Middle East Peace, a mainline group of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant U.S. religious bodies, says Jerusalem should remain a "final-status issue" to be determined in future negotiations between Israel and Palestine. Unilaterally moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem now, they said, would pre-empt those talks.

Hines said recent candidates in both parties have promised, while running for president, to move the embassy — but continued to postpone the move after taking office. Based on McCain's voting record as a senator, Hines said that might change.

"I think he might actually be the president who would make a difference on that."

"Overly informed by Christian apocalyptic theology"

Howard Bess, a retired progressive American Baptist pastor in Palmer, Alaska, who has known Palin for years and battled against her churches in local culture-war issues like women's access to abortion and selection of library books, noted with interest that Palin described having an embassy in Jerusalem as a top priority.

"I suspect that her thinking is overly informed by Christian apocalyptic theology," Bess said in an e-mail interview. "Jerusalem is not the center of the world."

Bess, who has been interviewed about his clashes with Palin's forces by Salon.com and ABC News, said he has encouraged the media to "take a hard look" at Palin's churches and how their end-times theology might influence her thinking on foreign policy.

Asked during the debate whether a nuclear Pakistan or Iran posed a greater threat, Palin said both are "extremely dangerous."

"An armed — nuclear-armed, especially — Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider," she said. "They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period. Israel is in jeopardy, of course, when we're dealing with [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran. Iran claiming that Israel [is] as he termed it, a ‘stinking corpse,’ a country that should be wiped off the face of the earth."

Some evangelicals believe a nuclear war involving Israel and Iran is prophesied in the Old Testament book of Ezekiel.

Christian Broadcasting Network founder and former presidential candidate Pat Robertson says in a new letter on his Web site, PatRobertson.com, that he believes between 75 and 120 days remain before the Middle East "starts spinning out of control."

He called on supporters to pray that God would "change the hearts of the leaders of Russia and Iran" to save Israel. "Hopefully, our Lord will intervene and head off the disaster that seems to be approaching," Robertson wrote.

Hines, of the International Christian Embassy, said Palin's debate opponent, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), is "probably the most knowledgeable and experienced senator on international affairs," but "knowledge isn't everything." He said he is more interested in a candidate's "worldview" and "moral/philosophical understanding" in determining U.S. Mideast policy.

Hines’ organization — a non-governmental group — recently delivered a petition signed by 55,000 Christians from around the world asking the U.N. to indict Iranian leaders for incitement to genocide against Israel.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution supporting the petition, but it is being held up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Biden chairs.

Hines said that while his organization is a tax-exempt non-profit agency that doesn't endorse candidates, "I take some issues with [Biden's] claim that he's Israel's best friend in the Senate."

Read more

VP debate explores little on hot-button social issues (10/3)

WASHINGTON (ABP)—While only 33 churches signed up to participate in a conservative Christian group’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday Sept. 28, planners viewed it as a success.

That is, organizers said, because its stated purpose was not to inject politics into the pulpit, but rather civil disobedience aimed at prompting a legal battle over an Internal Revenue Service restriction against churches endorsing candidates as a condition of their tax exemption.

However, new polls show that Americans are increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of injecting partisan politics into the pulpit.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund said they are prepared to defend any pastor targeted by the IRS for endorsing a candidate based on the First Amendment guarantee of the right to free speech.

Meanwhile, Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed complaints with the IRS against six churches for violating federal law by endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

“These pastors flagrantly violated the law and now must deal with the consequences,” said Americans United Executive Director Barry Lynn.
“Houses of worship exist to enrich people’s spiritual lives, not act like political machines that issue marching orders to voters. They are tax-exempt because their work is religious and charitable, not political.”

At Bethlehem Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Ga., Pastor Jody Hice endorsed John McCain for president, telling worshipers the Republican candidate has a more biblical worldview than Obama when it comes to issues of abortion and gay marriage.

“These are not political issues,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution quoted the Southern Baptist pastor and local talk-radio host as saying. “These are moral issues.”

“According to my Bible and in my opinion, there is no way in the world a Christian can vote for Barack Hussein Obama,” said Wiley Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif. He used Obama’s middle name, which is a common Arabic name. Allusions to it have fed unfounded rumors that Obama is a Muslim. He is a practicing Christian.

But instead of endorsing McCain, according to the Los Angeles Times, Drake suggested his parishioners vote for a different presidential candidate—himself. A past vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Drake is on the ballot in California as running mate of American Independent Party presidential candidate Alan Keyes.

The pulpit initiative comes at a time when many Americans are growing increasingly wary of politics in the pulpit.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press found that for the first time since the question was first included in their poll 10 years ago, a majority of Americans said churches should stay out of politics instead of expressing their views on social and political concerns.

Another poll, conducted by the Southern Baptist Convention’s publishing arm, found that 59 percent of Americans disagreed with the statement: “I believe it is appropriate for churches to publicly endorse candidates for public office.”

“We saw a very strong response that Americans don’t want churches to be actively campaigning for political candidates,” commented Ed Stetzer, president of the research arm of LifeWay Christian Resources.

Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said that’s because the ADF initiative was “misguided” and a “brazen attempt to blend the worship of God with electoral politics.”

“This initiative certainly will politicize churches more than it will Christianize politics,” Walker wrote in an opinion article prior to the event. “It will assuredly turn our pulpit prophets into political puppets. It will, no doubt, convert our churches into virtual political action committees—where candidates will line up at the church door to seek endorsement, especially those that are on television.”

ST. LOUIS, Mo. (ABP) — Voters hoping to know more about the vice-presidential candidates’ faith-influenced views on contentious policy issues probably learned little from the Oct. 2 debate between Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Sarah Palin.

Only one question posed by moderator Gwen Ifill, host of PBS’s Washington Week in Review, in the debate dealt directly with a religiously contentious social question — same-sex marriage. Instead, the only scheduled debate between the Democratic senator from Delaware and the Republican governor of Alaska focused mostly on the economy and foreign policy.

Same-sex couples 

When asked about benefits for same-sex couples, both candidates seemed to agree that couples, regardless of sexual orientation, should be granted the same civil benefits.

Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin

Biden emphasized that same-sex couples should not be discriminated against for insurance and other benefits. He also said gay partners should enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts in areas such as hospital visitation and jointly arranged legal contracts.

“In an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple,” Biden said, referring to running mate Barack Obama.

Claiming she has not discriminated against same-sex couples as Alaska’s governor, Palin said she is “tolerant of choices adults make in their relationships.”

But, she added, “in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose — not in a McCain-Palin administration — to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated, between parties.” Her running mate is John McCain.

“But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman,” she added, “and I think through nuances we can go ’round and ’round about what that actually means.”

He, too, opposes the use of the term “marriage” for same-sex couples, Biden said. “And I take the governor at her word that she wouldn’t discriminate” in civil matters.

Gay-rights issues 

However, the two have differing records on gay-rights issues. Although Biden did vote in favor of a 1996 federal law that defines marriage in exclusively heterosexual terms, Obama has vowed to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Biden has also voted in favor of other gay-rights measures.

Palin’s record has suggested she is more opposed to gay rights. As an Alaska gubernatorial candidate in 2006, she listed "preserving the definition of marriage as defined in our constitution" as one of her top three legislative priorities. She supported Alaska's decision to amend its charter to ban same-sex marriage.

She also said, during her gubernatorial campaign, that she disapproved of a recent Alaska Supreme Court ruling that the state had to provide spousal benefits to same-sex partners of government employees. While Palin later signed legislation that enforced the decision, she said at the time that she would support a ballot initiative that would effectively overturn the court ruling by banning gay spouses from state benefits.

She vetoed a legislative attempt to overturn the ruling, but said at the time she was doing so only because attorneys informed her the law would have been unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, gay supporters of Palin have noted, she has devoted very little political capital to opposing gay-rights measures during her term as governor.

Support of Israel 

Voters looking to the candidates’ stand on Israel would have learned that both Biden and Palin seek to protect that nation through diplomatic means, if possible. However, they were sharply divided on the primary threat to peace and stability in the world.

Palin focused on McCain’s insistence that the United States must win the war in Iraq, and that a timeline to withdraw American troops could not be established. Withdrawal, she said, must be based on Iraq’s ability to assume its own protection.

Although she did not specify what a McCain-Palin administration would do about it, she insisted that a nuclear threat from Iran, particularly against Israel, must be stopped.

“Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East,” Palin said. “We have got to assure them that we will never allow a second Holocaust, despite, again, warnings from Iran and any other country that would seek to destroy Israel — that that is what they would like to see.”

War in Iraq 

McCain is “wrong” in his insistence that Iraq is the primary threat, Biden responded, emphasizing his “passion” for Israel.

“John continues to tell us that the central war in the front on terror is in Iraq,” Biden said. “I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it's going to come as our security services have said, it is going to come from al Qaeda planning in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Throughout the debate, Biden hammered at Bush administration policies, suggesting that a McCain-Palin ticket would simply perpetuate Bush’s mistakes. He emphasized the Obama-Biden ticket as the true agents of change.

Palin repeatedly alleged that Biden “only looked backward” to criticize the Bush administration, rather than being “forward-looking” to move into the future, and called the McCain-Palin ticket the true “team of mavericks.”

— Robert Marus contributed to this story.

Read more

Palin terms sexuality ‘choice,’ sidesteps abortion in interview (10/1)

Social conservatives express delight at McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin (8/29)

WASHINGTON (RNS)—There may never be a female pastor leading Tony Perkins’ Southern Baptist congregation in Louisiana, but there could be a woman taking over the vice president’s mansion in Washington. And as Perkins sees it, there’s no contradiction there whatsoever.

“It’s not a spiritual role,” said Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who calls Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a “brilliant pick” for the Republican ticket. “An elected official is not a spiritual leader—and that’s what the Scripture speaks to.”

That view—that female politicians are fine, but female pastors are not—has sparked debate about the role of women inside and outside of the home and the church.

“Even though the Bible reserves final authority in the church for men, this does not apply in the kingdom of this world,” said David Kotter, executive director of the Louisville, Ky.-based Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which believes men and women have separate and distinct roles in the home and the church, in a column on his organization’s “Gender Blog.”

But some evangelical leaders, including women at the helm of prominent conservative Christian organizations, chafe at such viewpoints, arguing women should be considered for leadership both in and out of the pulpit.

Jane Hansen Hoyt leads Aglow International. Hoyt, an ordained minister in a Pentecostal denomination, is “disappointed” by fellow religious conservatives who affirm women in politics but not in the pulpit.

“I personally believe that from the beginning—and I’m going back to the third chapter of Genesis … the role of the woman was very strong because that’s when God said he would send a help to the man,” Hoyt said. “Well, it wasn’t just a help to cook his meals. It was a help to walk alongside him, even as we see John McCain and Sarah Palin walking side by side.”

These views appear to be a change for some evangelicals. As recently as March 2007, the Pew Research Center found 56 percent of white evangelicals viewed the idea of mothers with young children working outside the home as a “bad thing” rather than a good one.

But Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said such polling numbers may be a “rather stark” look at situations that vary from family to family, including Palin’s.

“What people have seen as they’ve watched Gov. Palin is that she has integrated her family and her work,” she said. “There are situations where people are able to bring their children to work.”

Palin—who now attends a nondenominational Bible church—has religious roots in the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination that ordains women but where female clergy still have difficulty getting prominent pastoral roles, said Margaret Poloma, research professor at the University of Akron.

She calls the views of evangelicals who support women politicians but not women pastors a matter of “selective interpretation” of the Bible.

“The whole thing is contorted, but they really believe that,” she said. “That’s their interpretation.”

The Southern Baptist Conven-tion declares in the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message statement that “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture” and a wife should “submit herself graciously” to her husband’s leadership.

But those beliefs, based on New Testament teachings, do not apply to women in secular leadership, said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

“Where the New Testament is silent, we’re silent,” he said. “Where the New Testament speaks, we’re under its authority. …

“The only thing that would disqualify Gov. Palin from being governor or vice president, in my opinion, would be if her husband didn’t want her to do it.”

Janice Shaw Crouse, senior fellow at Concerned Women of America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, said she’s appeared on Christian radio talk shows since Palin’s nomination, and is shocked by callers who complain that the Alaska governor “has no business being in politics.”

Crouse, whose mother is an 85-year-old United Methodist minister, thinks those comments reflect a fear of women not only having a greater role in politics but a greater place in the nation’s pulpits.

“Quite frankly, it is threatening because the more you see Christian women out in the professions and doing things publicly, the more people get adjusted to that idea and the more acceptable it is,” she said.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Four in 10 Americans believe religious leaders should be permitted to endorse political candidates from the pulpit without risking their organization’s tax-exempt status, a new survey by the First Amendment Center shows.

Twenty-two percent of respondents “strongly” agreed and 18 percent “mildly” agreed that religious leaders should be able to make such endorsements, currently prohibited by IRS regulations. In comparison, 39 percent strongly disagreed, 15 percent mildly disagreed and 6 percent didn’t know or refused to answer.

The finding was based on a new question in the Washington-based center’s annual “State of the First Amendment” national survey.

When asked to name specific rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, just 15 percent mentioned religion—the lowest percentage to recall that topic since 2000.

Asked if Americans have too much or too little religious freedom, 6 percent said they had too much, 28 percent said they had too little and 62 percent said they had about the right amount.

Fifty-five percent strongly or mildly agreed people should be permitted to say things in public that could be offensive to religious groups. Forty-two percent mildly or strongly disagreed.

Asked about freedom of worship, 54 percent said the concept applies to all religious groups regardless of how extreme their beliefs may be. In comparison, 29 percent said it was never meant to apply to religious groups that the majority of people consider to be extreme.

The national telephone survey of 1,005 respondents was conducted this summer has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

ATLANTA—Retired high-ranking military officers and national security experts at a national summit on torture agreed—a policy that permits torture does not make the United States or its troops safer.

Speaking on the seventh anniversary of terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., Steve Xenakis, retired brigadier general in the U.S. Army, disputed the assertion that “9/11 changed everything”—including acceptable rules for the treatment of detainees.

Xenakis, a medical doctor, participated in the two-day summit on “Religious Faith, Torture and our National Soul” held on Mercer University’s Atlanta campus.

Violation of foundational principles

Torture violates at least four key principles, he insisted, labeling it as:

° Un-American. George Washington set the standard during the American Revolution by insisting on the humane treatment of prisoners during wartime.

° Ineffective. Information obtained through extreme coercive physical and mental abuse is unreliable.

° Unnecessary. Skilled interrogators know more effective ways to obtain reliable actionable intelligence.

° Damaging. “The person who is tortured in damaged. But so is the torturer, the nation and the military,” Xenakis concluded. Torture creates “increasing risk of retaliatory measures” that endangers military personnel on the front lines.

Karen Greenberg, executive director of the Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law, described to participants at the National Summit on Torture the events that led to shifts in national policy that permitted torture as a means of interrogation. (PHOTO/Stephen Jones)

Fear, anger and politics all contributed to the climate that allowed the torture of detainees to become national policy, said Don Guter, retired rear admiral and former Navy Judge Advocate General.

Shameful downfall for an exemplary nation

Coercive physical and mental abuse of prisoners occurred not just because of “a few bad apples,” but because “those higher up in the chain of command” authorized it, said Guter, dean of the Duquesne University School of Law.

“There is a marked difference between something that happens in spite of administrative policy and something that happens because of it,” he said.

Guter characterized that policy shift as a “shameful downfall” for a country that set the standard for the humane treatment of prisoners in World War II.

Groundbreaking shift in national policy

Karen Greenberg, executive director of the Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law, recounted the events that led to “groundbreaking” shifts in national policy, making torture an acceptable form of interrogation.

By the time the American public saw the first photos detailing the degradation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, at least a dozen reports had been commissioned—mostly by military personnel—following persistent allegations of detainee abuse, she noted.

The commander of Joint Task Force 7, the senior U.S. military official in Iraq, ordered a report prepared by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, specifically on alleged abuse of prisoners by members of the 800th Military Police Brigade at Abu Ghraib.

“Reading the Taguba report was like being transplanted to Mars,” Greenberg said.

Beyond the report itself—which detailed the way prisoners were stripped, hooded and subjected to sexual humiliation—more than 1,000 pages of documentation appended to the report revealed the detention and essentially unrestrained interrogation of suspected terrorists had become U.S. policy, she observed.

The Military Order of Nov. 13, 2001—an executive order issued by President George W. Bush—granted all authority regarding the detention, treatment and trial of non-citizens in the “war on terror” to the Secretary of Defense.

“America could do what it wanted with detainees,” Greenberg said.

Five lawyers from the White House, Pentagon and Justice Department—a “war council” convened by Bush and Cheney—developed the legal rationale for circumventing the military code of justice, federal courts and international treaties.

High-ranking military and national security officials initially were excluded from those discussions, she noted. And once they learned about the change in policy, they could not believe people they knew and trusted would implement it.

What torture produces

“I do not think that torture makes us safer as a country,” Greenberg said.

Information gained through interrogation is less reliable than data obtained by the established intelligence community, she said, pointing to the experience of Sen. John McCain as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. For the first three and half years of his captivity, when subjected to torture, McCain gave false information to deceive his captors.

Greenberg also noted McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has said his love for country, family and faith grew much deeper as a result of his brutal treatment by those who interrogated him.

She asked if the United States wants to support a policy that makes suspected terrorists more committed to their nations, tribes and religions.