WASHINGTON (RNS)—The Federal Communications Commission has decided to grant Google, Motorola, Dell and Microsoft permission to develop “white space” devices that some pastors worry will interfere with wireless microphones.

The “white space” devices would use the same radio frequency wireless microphones use, which means pastors who use wireless microphones could have their sermons interrupted. Companies like Google and Microsoft want to use the frequencies to send broadband Internet to remote areas of the country.

The FCC promised to “act promptly to remove from the market any equipment found to be causing harmful interference and will require the responsible parties to take appropriate actions to remedy any interference that may occur.”

More than 50 members of Congress, pastors and musicians have expressed concern, asking the FCC to protect their ability to communicate with their audiences. Shure Inc., an audio-visual company working with megachurches and other users, is backing its customers.

“In anticipation of this ruling, Shure has been working diligently on technologies and technical support programs that will enable wireless microphone operators to be successful in more complicated interference environments,” said Shure President Sandy LaMantia.

The FCC must test and certify all of the new devices to ensure they meet certain requirements, but Shure still is concerned the safeguards that will help protect wireless microphones use “un-proven technology.”

“I want to emphasize we are cautious. … A lot of broadcasters were let down and disappointed because there are so many unknown variables in this,” said Bob Powers of National Religious Broadcasters.

Barack Obama’s election as the first African-American president of the United States does not mean Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of racial justice has been fully realized—but it’s a lot closer to reality than ever before, some black religious leaders said.

Marvin Griffin, pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Austin, spoke of Obama’s election as “a manifestation of how far we have come.”

“I never dreamed I would live to see this day come to pass,” 85-year-old Griffin said.

As the first African-American graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he recalled the segregated schools, separate public accommodations and poll taxes of the last century.

President-elect Barack Obama

He pointed to the election of the nation’s first African-American president as evidence of “growth in every quarter—in religion, education, constitutional changes—that contributed toward making this possible.”

He particularly noted the sacrifices of civil rights leaders—some who gave their lives—so people of color in the United States could make their voices heard.

Frederick D. Haynes III, pastor of Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas, echoed the same refrain.

“It is a phenomenal sign of the progress we have made, thanks to the sacrifices of others who have gone before,” Haynes said. “Their shed blood fertilized the ground out of which this amazing—even miraculous—accomplishment has grown, and we are reaping the fruit of their labors.”

Griffin described America’s progress in race relations—and human relations—in terms of a journey.

“We have come a long way and taken great strides toward the humanizing of our society,” he said. “We still have a distance to travel, but we have come a long way.”

Obama’s election sends a positive message to young people of all races and backgrounds—but particularly children of color, Griffin added.

“The door is open. We can ascend to reach our highest aspirations,” he said.

Jeff Haggray, executive director of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, agreed. He described the message Obama’s election teaches his sons, ages 8 and 9, and his 4-year-old daughter.

“It means they can be anything they feel called to be, if they work hard enough,” Haggray said.

Obama’s election marks “a significant milestone in American history,” he said. “Of course, he is not the first person of color to achieve something great, but (his election) transcends every other achievement and surpasses all other milestones.”

Haynes recalled King’s dream of the Beloved Community, and he said the election of an African-American president signified “a huge step, if not a quantum leap, in that direction.”

Aidsand F. Wright-Riggins, executive director of American Baptist National Ministries, offered a more cautious appraisal. He called Obama’s election “a giant step toward the commencement of serious racial dialogue, rather than a graduation from America’s often-racist past.”

King’s vision of “the Beloved Community did not miraculously appear around midnight … as Obama moved past the magic 270 electoral college votes he needed,” Wright-Riggins noted.

“America proved itself capable of electing an African-American, Harvard-educated, Hyde Park resident, best-selling author as its 44th president. That is commendable and a tremendous cultural leap for this country and well worth applauding,” he said.

But he asked, “Is that same America capable of addressing a criminal justice system that incarcerated people of color at rates far out of proportion to their population in this country? That and similar questions remain on the conversational agenda.”

Obama’s freedom to succeed or fail on the basis of his character and vision rather than his race remains an open question, Wright-Riggins said.

Having cleared the hurdle of Election Day, Obama now faces the obstacle of winning over Americans who did not vote for him, Haggray noted.

“His challenge is to convince all those people he is their president, too,” he said.

And white Americans must learn a lesson African-Americans long have had to deal with regarding people in positions of authority—trusting a leader who is different.

“It’s a fundamental act of trust to say that even though he doesn’t look like us or share our personal history, we still trust him to be our president,” Haggray said.

Haynes believes the president-elect possesses the potential to win the allegiance of all Americans. Obama’s success as a campaigner took America far down the road toward racial justice, but his success in office can advance the cause even further, he observed.

“The success of an Obama administration will go a long way toward erasing the fears of those who still are trapped in the negativity of the past,” he said.

Griffin anticipates Obama facing special challenges as president because of his racial background—not only from whites, but also from some African-Americans “who say he’s not black enough.”

Expectations are high for Obama, and the pressures will be great, he noted. But “he is not the Messiah,” and nobody should expect all the nation’s ills—including its racial divisions—to be healed overnight.

“The kingdom has not come in its fullness,” Griffin said.

–With reporting by Bob Allen

WASHINGTON (RNS)—When a city permits a Ten Commandments monument in a public park, must it then permit other monuments with a different point of view? Or does it have the right to pick and choose?

The answer to those questions is what lawyers for Pleasant Grove City, Utah, and a little-known religious group called Summum will debate before the U.S. Supreme Court Nov. 12.

The case deals with Summum’s attempt to erect a monument to the group’s “Seven Aphorisms” alongside an already accepted Ten Commandments marker.

The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in Summum’s favor, saying the group had been the victim of viewpoint discrimination when the city rejected the monument.

If the Supreme Court upholds the 10th Circuit decision, Summum plans to place a stone monument similar to the Ten Commandments marker given to Pleasant Grove City by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in Pioneer Park, a city park that officials say recalls the city’s Mormon pioneer heritage and contributions of local civic organizations.

The park includes an artifact from the Mormon Temple in Nauvoo, Ill., as well as a Sept. 11 monument erected as a Boy Scouts project.

Summum is arguing its case based on free-speech rights.

The larger issue, however, rests on whether a city-approved monument—religious or otherwise—can be considered “government speech” and therefore subject to government regulation.

“Anyone who looks at it understands that what happened here is that the city decided to dub the Ten Commandments and the other monuments ‘government speech’ in order to keep this group out,” said Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington.

“Whether they can technically get away with that is the legal argument here. The 10th Circuit is saying, ‘No, you can’t.” But the Supreme Court could turn around and say, ‘Yes, you can.’”

The case has drawn significant interest from municipalities, the federal government and religious-liberty groups concerned about the precedent the high court could set.

“It really does impact every federal park, from the Mall in Washington to Gettysburg National Military Park in Gettysburg, Pa.,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing the city.

“The ramifications of this are very, very broad. … The idea that you can compel a government to do this would, in essence, require the U.S. government to accept the Statue of Tyranny next to the Statue of Liberty.”

In earlier cases when the 10th Circuit sided with Summum’s request for its monument to be placed near Ten Commandments monuments, other Utah municipalities have sold or removed the commandments instead of accepting Summum’s principles on public land.

Barnard said Summum did not wish for that kind of outcome but only wanted to share its beliefs as well.

Hollyn Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in Washington, D.C., joined with other church-state groups in a friend-of-the-court brief that suggests the courts still need to decide whether such monuments violate the constitutional prohibition against a government-established religion.

“I think it is an example of the practical problems that arise any time the government sponsors religious displays,” Hollman said of the Summum case.

MACON, Ga. (ABP)—President Jimmy Carter called upon the next president, whoever he is, to focus on restoring human rights as a primary objective in American foreign policy.

“Beginning in January, we need to set an unblemished example for the rest of the world to follow,” he said.

Carter spoke during the Mercer University President’s Lecture Series, on the Georgia Baptist school’s Macon campus.

Recounting a question recently posed to him by the British newspaper The Guardian, Carter said he was asked what the next president could do in his first 100 days in office to restore the United States’ standing abroad. Carter responded that the next administration could restore America’s standing in just 10 minutes.

“I outlined the inaugural address that could be given this coming January,” Carter said of his conversation with the reporter, saying the next president should declare: “‘While I am president, there will never be another person tortured (in U.S. custody). The United States will regain its position as the preeminent champion of human rights. We will abandon our policy of preemptive war. We will never attack another nation again unless our own security is threatened. That’s been our policy since George Washington—until six years ago.

“‘America will be at the forefront of combating global warming, and will lead in meeting all challenges to the world’s environment. Our tax policy will be designed to help the poor and working families, and not the few richest Americans.

“‘We will restore our recent rejection of every nuclear-arms-control agreement that has been negotiated since the time of Dwight Eisenhower. At this time, all those are in the waste can. And we will reduce our nuclear arsenal to zero. We will rebuild the Jefferson-ian wall between church and state,’” Carter said.

Two major Carter Center initiatives—establishment of a world criminal court and a U.N. high council on human rights—have been resisted by the United States, particularly since Sept. 11, 2001.

“Since then, the U.S. government has abandoned its role as a champion of human rights and has condoned or perpetrated terrible abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prison,” Carter lamented.

“Our government has sent prisoners secretly to other nations where they knew they could be tortured. They denied the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, which were designed to help protect American prisoners. And we have severely restricted personal privacy, which was a time-honored civil liberty in their own country.”

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.”