In Paraguay's recent presidential election Fernando Lugo, an ordained Bishop, wrested power from the heretofore immutable Colorado Party. Lugo campaigned as a champion of the poor and disenfranchised, and abandoned his bishopric in order to do so; the Vatican opposes clergy in political office.

From Reuters:

Lugo abandoned his role as a Catholic bishop three years ago saying he felt powerless to help Paraguay's poor. He asked the Vatican to accept his resignation. The Vatican responded last year by suspending him from his priestly duties, like saying Mass. But it argued he remains a bishop because his ordination was a lifelong sacrament.

Now faced with the prospect of a bishop in the presidency upon inauguration in August, the Vatican says Lugo's unique case is under review. The personal situation of Monsignor (Fernando) Lugo will be examined, calmly," Father Federico Lombardi, chief Vatican spokesman, told one Italian newspaper this week. The head of Paraguay's bishops' conference said the decision may ultimately fall to Pope Benedict.

At a time when people lament both religion's influence over politics and the lack of morality in their politicians, Lugo presents an interesting case – in Paraguay, the religious/political alloy isn't pushing a conservative agenda (see sharia law, evangelicals in the US). Instead, Lugo is a product of liberation theology, a revolutionary. In our fucked up world, that means advocating on behalf of the poor and excluded.

There are justified reasons to be apprehensive about a former bishop as president, but, for Paraguay, this is a step in the right direction.

Cokie Roberts rode along with President Bush yesterday as the president and his family went to personally greet the Pope at Andrews Air Force Base.  (By the way, I find it odd that the president chose to give special treatment to the Pope by greeting him in this way).  Roberts reported, with no apparent sense of irony, and no further comment, that "The thing [President Bush] likes about the pope is that he speaks with moral clarity about certain truths and that he does not believe in moral relativism."

This is risible, simply put, it is a joke.  Bush likes to invoke "moral clarity", and apparently believes he shares this quality with the pope, but reality says otherwise.  A real reporter might note some of the facts that contradict Bush's assertion, or might even confront the president with these facts, though that is surely hard to do when you're cozily sitting in the presidential limousine.  I'll highlight just a few examples of Bush's moral relativism –there are many, many more:

Progressive religious leaders have a unique role to play as citizen diplomats.

At a time when many religious people around the world perceive our country as a locus of intolerance and aggression, progressive religious leaders can show another face of America.

Recently I had the opportunity to sit down with Sister Simone Campbell, Executive Director of the Catholic anti-war lobby group NETWORK. Sister Campbell is a person who embodies the concept of citizen diplomacy, in her case guided by a faith perspective. From her bio, we read about her years of progressive activism as an attorney, lobbyist, and citizen:

Prior to coming to NETWORK, Simone served as the Executive Director of JERICHO, the California interfaith public policy organization that work s like NETWORK to protect the intere st s of people who are poor. Simone also participated in a delegation of religiou s leader s to Iraq in December 2002, just prior to the war. Since returning, she has spoken and written extensively on her experience.

Before JERICHO, Simone served as the general director of her religious community, the Sisters of Social Service. She was the leader of her sisters in the United States, Mexico, Taiwan and the Philippines. In this capacity, she negotiated with government and religious leaders in each of these countries.

In 1978, Simone founded and served for 18 years as the lead attorney for the Community Law Center in Oakland, California. She served the family law and probate needs of the working poor of her county.

Since joining NETWORK, Sister Campbell has taken pride in a number of accomplishments. She cites the lobby's involvement in the Living Wage, SCHIP, the Low Income Housing Trust Fund, and the inclusion of economic development funding for Iraq in the last supplemental bill as major milestones. NETWORK has also laid out a progressive plan for Iraq which Jason reviewed here. They have opposed the war since before the invasion in 2003.

In addition to these efforts, Sister Campbell has also actively chartered a course of citizen diplomacy toward Iraq, visiting the country and its neighbors several times in recent years. These trips, she said, have given her a personal connection with the region and its people. They have also helped her pierce through the Bush administration's propaganda. For example, she told me that "Syria is nothing like our government wants us to believe: Syria is a multi-religious, secular society."

(originally published at MWC News)

Chris Hedges recently published an article called "The Dangerous Atheism of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris," ( http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449 ) but he failed to include in it any indication of what he thinks is dangerous about their atheism. He thinks they have horrible political opinions, but does not explain how those relate to atheism.

He thinks they have a fetish for science and technology, but does not explain how that relates to atheism. He thinks they cherish a simplistic utopian vision of progress, but he himself traces that to Christianity. He thinks they are fanatics willing to kill for their magical belief in human progress, but that would just mean they had something in common with a lot of theists.

There is good and bad to be found in our religious heritage, and our world is full of noble and ignoble acts by theists and atheists alike. For every admirable or offensive trait in an atheist, we can find one in a theist. For every Martin Luther King Jr., there's a Pat Robertson. But does theism or atheism, on the whole, tend to encourage more, or less, desirable behavior?

Hedges concludes his article by remarking that his new book is "a call to reject simplistic and utopian visions. It is a call to accept the severe limitations of being human. It is a call to face reality, a reality which in the coming decades is going to be bleak and difficult. Those who are blinded by utopian visions inevitably turn to force to make their impossible dreams and their noble ideals real. They believe the ends, no matter how barbaric, justify the means. Utopian ideologues, armed with the technology and mechanisms of industrial slaughter, have killed tens of millions of people over the last century. They ask us to inflict suffering and death in the name of virtue and truth."

Following on lgs's post, news from the Vatican:

The Vatican has brought up to date the traditional seven deadly sins by adding seven modern mortal sins it claims are becoming prevalent in what it calls an era of "unstoppable globalisation"…The new mortal sins were listed by Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti at the end of a week-long training seminar in Rome for priests, aimed at encouraging a revival of the practice of confession - or the Sacrament of Penance in Church jargon.

That's right. In addition to wrath, sloth, pride, greed, lust, envy, and that ol' bubble-burster, gluttony, the Vatican has decided to raise the total number of eternally punishable no-no's to a whopping fourteen. Here are the latest additions:

• Environmental pollution
• Genetic manipulation
• Accumulating excessive wealth
• Inflicting poverty
• Drug trafficking and consumption
• Morally debatable experiments
• Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

Apparently, abortion and pedophilia only narrowly missed the list. (Good move on the pedophilia, guys…)

The Seminal welcomes your comments, criticisms, and most importantly, your confessions. In fact, if any of you have "morally debatable experiments" to discuss, we beg you to do it here.

I wrote this article in response to two diaries on Street Prophets, one by Pastor Dan and one by Gurn Blanston. I'd like to make it clear at the beginning that I am not really disagreeing with either; I think both bring up valid points. I am simply trying to complement their arguments.

Pastor Dan cites trends toward greater conservatism among white Christians, and adds that secular progressive critiques of religious progressives, namely that we have not effectively countered the Religious Right, may have some merit. He writes:

In a hyper-partisan political environment, a movement that can't deliver money, votes, and grassroots pressure (roughly in that order) isn't much of an ally. To be fair, religious progressives have [been] playing on an un-level field for the past few years. We've been held back by a media tilted against anything like liberalism, the reorganization of the mainline churches, their undermining by conservative political activists, even our own willingness to allow our kids to choose their own spiritual path - even if it's none at all.

Still, even with all of that factored in, the religious left has gotten its pants beat off by the conservative Christians. As partisan activists, we suck.

Gurn answers:

It’s illogical for…secular liberals to say that reaching out to Christians is a waste of time, because Christianity is shrinking, and then say in the next breath that Democrats should reach out to libertarians or people in the rural West. After all, even with the reduced numbers many Christian churches are reporting, there are still many, many more people who call themselves Christians than there are people living in the Mountain West states, or people who even know what the word "libertarian" means (let alone apply it to themselves)…Given all this, it’s dubious to say that the religious left always owes the secular left proof of its worth.

Again, I think both of these perspectives have merit. But I think the question is less, "What does the religious left owe the secular left?" than it is, "what do religious progressives owe themselves?" After all, many religious progressives want to be effective partisan activists not to prove something to secular activists, but because they want change in our country and believe that the Democratic party, or various other left-wing movements, can bring about that change. So we owe it to ourselves to organize effectively. And if we haven't seen the successes we want to see, then we need to ask ourselves how we can step up our leadership at the individual, group, movement, and national levels. Because it seems to me that now is not the time for extended soul-searching, but rather a time for action.

From time to time my contacts working from within the Conservative movement pass me information they think I'll find useful / entertaining. Here's the latest; an email that, in tracing the thread, I could see had been sent to over a thousand others, who in turn probably forwarded it to all their conservative acquaintances.

The following is the content of that email, which they claim as "real and verified." Their stated method of verification is snopes.com, an urban legend website that refutes the slander, and offers rebuttals to the claims. A strange verification indeed.

What does a commitment to religious pluralism mean in political life?

Scholars of religion sometimes talk about exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist positions. In this framework, exclusivists believe that only their path or faith has validity. Inclusivists see other perspectives as partial or even total reflections of their own; some Hindus, for example, claim Jesus and Buddha as avatars of Vishnu. Pluralists, on the other hand, see validity in other perspectives without seeking to incorporate or co-opt those perspectives into their own.

Being pluralist means accepting some contradiction and paradox. It also means balancing respect and acceptance. Can a pluralist Christian treat both Hinduism and atheism as valid? Can a pluralist atheist treat Islam as valid without being condescending? Can a pluralist Muslim relate to a Buddhist as an equal? The answer to all these questions, I believe, is yes - but difficulties arise when we attempt to live out our pluralism in real life.

It's easy to call ourselves pluralists when we only deal with other pluralists. The real challenge comes when pluralism confronts other "isms": fundamentalism, sectarianism, exclusivism.

Certainly, pluralism has limits. Like the First Amendment, a commitment to pluralism does not mean accepting rhetoric that incites violence. But also like the First Amendment, the boundaries of genuine pluralism are unclear.

Some will wring their hands over the new Huckabee ad and how the public mention of Jesus threatens our separation of church and state.

But religious expressions aren't necessarily a bad thing. I personally take inspiration from the public activism of religious figures like Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. We cannot object to Huckabee's messaging strictly on the grounds that it is "divisive," because Martin and Malcolm's messages divided America as well.

Rather, we must fight - and win - the battle of ideas by attacking Huckabee at his core. How do we do that? By proving that he has no credibility either as a Christian leader or as a politician.

Many Americans are Christians who try to live their lives according to the example set by Jesus Christ. On the surface, Huckabee might seem reassuring to Christians: a preacher, a family man, a good guy. His ad evokes the fuzzy feelings of Christmas and family. His soft tone of voice might remind us of our own fathers, leading us to believe that Huckabee could protect, teach, and help us.

But if religious values are taught in the home, then we can judge self-proclaimed religious leaders by their own conduct, and the conduct of their families. The fact is, Huckabee failed miserably as a father.

As Mike Huckabee gains in the polls, the former Arkansas governor is finding that his record in office is getting more scrutiny. One issue likely to get attention is his handling of a sensitive family matter: allegations that one of his sons was involved in the hanging of a stray dog at a Boy Scout camp in 1998. The incident led to the dismissal of David Huckabee, then 17, from his job as a counselor at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, Ark. It also prompted the local prosecuting attorney— bombarded with complaints generated by a national animal-rights group—to write a letter to the Arkansas state police seeking help investigating whether David and another teenager had violated state animal-cruelty laws. The state police never granted the request, and no charges were ever filed.

If a man cannot teach his son not to harm - indeed, torture - helpless animals, his fatherhood must be questioned. If, moreover, he uses his political power to obstruct the fulfillment of justice and shield his delinquent children, teaching the lesson that the powerful can trample on the less fortunate without consequence, he is neither a good father nor a leader with integrity.

With the image of Huckabee as our new father-figure shattered, we can see what he is really trying to do: distract us from Bush's failures. Bush is the elephant in the Republicans' room, and though all of the candidates wish we would forget about Bush's pathetic record as president, Huckabee seems to be the most successful at lulling us into amnesia. In the soft warmth of Huckabee's living room, we could almost forget that the Republican Party under George Bush has utterly failed our country, betraying its Constitution, bankrupting our treasury, and stubbornly committing our young men and women to the occupation of a foreign country that posed no threat to the United States. But Republicans are still Republicans, Bush is still president, and America will not accept Huckabee's invitation to hide under a rock with him and pretend the last seven years did not happen.

Poor, poor Huck.

Republican Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is finally getting to talk about his fundamentalist Christian beliefs with the establishment media, and, apparently, it’s hell.

Appearing Monday on ABC’s Nightline, the former Arkansas governor told John Donvan that his recent “surge” in popularity (as I’m afraid everyone is calling it) could only be attributed to “divine providence,” comparing his increased poll numbers to Christ’s miracle of the loaves and fish:

[Huckabee] believe[s] that faith has had a lot to do with his recent success. In a speech at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Huckabee said his recent surge in the polls was partly attributed to "divine providence."

Elaborating, he said, "I felt like that because of these prayers, our little had become much. It was like the two fish and the five loaves. And I don't have an explanation for that, other than what we have had people have prayed for it to be effective, and it has been."

However, like Jesus, Huckabee, to hear him tell it, must suffer for his faith. Though one of Huck’s opponents, Mitt Romney, has been dogged by questions about his Mormonism (so much so that he will give a speech later in the week to “explain” his religion), Huckabee thinks his own road is harder:

“I don't think Mitt's been called upon to talk about his faith nearly as much as I have about mine," the former minister said. "I keep hearing about you know, 'Mitt's faith, Mitt's faith.' I'm the one that they always ask the religious questions to on the debates. I'm the one that in every interview someone says, 'OK let's talk about your belief.' My faith has been put through a great deal more scrutiny than anybody else, including Mitt Romney's.”

It seems that Huckabee, who is running as a Christian conservative, who makes constant references to his beliefs and his background as Baptist minister, and who once interrupted a speech to take a phone call from God, is upset that reporters ask him about his religion.

And with that, Huckabee went on to speak more about his religion. . . .