Quality, affordable health care for all, especially vulnerable ones, should be a pledge Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, spiritualists and believers in a higher power can embrace, endorse and work for. We who are campaigning for affordable health care for all ask, "Which side are you on, people of faith and goodwill? Which side are you on, large and small businesses in the Treasure Valley? Which side are you on, everyday working folk? Which side are you on, health care professionals? Which side are you on, health insurance industry? Which side are you on, state and local legislators, Mr. Governor, and community movers and shakers?"

I couldn't agree more. Health care is at its core a moral issue.  

When our founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, they laid out the moral foundation of our nation. Their wording, codifying an inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was deliberate. Life was placed first, above the other immovable rights, as life is the most basic right we have. Without access to quality, affordable health care, the right to life becomes meaningless.

Health care is a moral issue, and health care is a right. It was codified by our founding fathers at the birth of our nation. The right to life doesn't depend on how much you can pay, whether your job provides decent benefits, or whether you have pre-existing conditions. The right to life is inalienable. It is available to all. It is at the center of our nation's moral code, and as Ed Keener points out, the center of religious faith as well.

Health care is a fundamental right, and a fundamental value. 

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

In 2006, however, only seven such initiatives passed, and their drawing power was minimized as the Democrats took back both houses of Congress. This year, in what is shaping up to be a strong Democratic election, only three states are trying anti-gay initiatives, and the movement for a Constitutional amendment has sputtered. In addition, the state of California legalized same-sex marriage in June and other states are sure to follow suit. It seems that in the political arena, the tide has turned and that the struggle for gay rights is headed for victory - even though there is still much work to be done.

Things couldn't be more different on the religious side of things. Last month, the national governing body of the Presbyterian Church (USA) passed two controversial resolutions - one that overturned the ban on ordaining active homosexuals, and the other that rescinded the official policy that homosexuality is a sin. That sounds encouraging, except that the resolutions are not binding until a majority of lower governing bodies approve them - a turn of events which is not likely to happen. What we can expect is a bloody conflict over the course of the next year and the departure from the denomination of even more conservative congregations.

It's huge news for us Presbyterians, who are starting to brace for schism, but very few people outside the denomination seem to have even noticed. Major media outlets have failed to pick up the story. In the past, mainline Protestants tearing each other apart over gay rights has been welcome fodder for the front page. What has changed? Why is the religious side of the struggle going so poorly as the civil side goes so well? And why does the public suddenly seem disinterested in the whole affair?

Here are some quick theories:

1) There is a fixed shelf life for scandals and controversies. The public can only stay interested in a story line for so long. Churches bashing gays and ripping themselves in two is yesterday's news.

2) It's quiet. Almost too quiet. The anti-gay forces have retreated somewhat on the political and media fronts, realizing that there are too many other issues in play this year to make their move. They also realize that McCain is a probable loser and is not really committed to their cause. They are rebuilding their forces for an all-out assault on the Constitution in a couple of years. Meanwhile, they're keeping the heat turned up on the ecclesiastical front.

3) (This is one I think is most likely) The church is simply becoming more and more irrelevant in society and in politics. The fact that the majority of churches still condemn homosexuality is of less consequence in the public arena than it was in the past. No longer the backbone and the basis of our society, the Christian church is now just one among many demographic segments. Just look at our popular culture with its tacit acceptance of homosexuality, and its clear that the church and its conflicts are being pushed to the margins.

How important are gay rights issues to you in this election? Do you think they will affect the presidential race at all?

"I'm not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular non-profits.  I'm not saying that they're somehow better at lifting people up. What I'm saying is that we all have to work together — Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike — to meet the challenges of the 21st Century."

Naturally, the secular left is not happy about this development.  But neither are many on the spiritual left.  Speaking as a progressive, as an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA), and as someone who has successfully organized a church-based food pantry, I have a message for Obama and any other politician who is making the sacred task of outreach ministry a tool of political pandering:

"Get your hands off my faith-based initiative!  We don't want any of your government money getting in the way of our work."  

It's a bad idea for a number of reasons:

1) Over-Regulation.  The government never just gives you money.  There are always rules and regulations, mountains of paperwork, and any number of hoops to jump through - sometimes they make sense, sometimes they don't.  This extra work always seems to stand in the way of doing the real work at hand.

2) The Fickle Nature of Politics.  Government funding can get turned on and off like a faucet, depending on the political climate .  Entire agencies can get the ax simply because a new administration comes in with different priorities.  Charities need to depend on consistent money sources that are not politicized.

3) Strings Attached.  There really is no such thing as a free lunch.  Government funding equals a government agenda, and the political issues of the day will certainly affect where the funding goes.  Instead of the meeting the greatest needs of the people, the money will tend to go where it makes the elected officials look best.

4) Separation of Church and State.  This is one area where I agree with atheists.  Looking back through history, it's clear that when government and religion are in cahoots, bad things tend to happen.  They need to be a check on one another's power, and the line between them needs to stay crystal clear.  This program blurs that line.

5) A Higher Calling.  Feeding the poor, tending the lame, caring for the widow and the orphan.  These are some of the most sacred tasks for Christians and for other religions.  Using government money to do these tasks is not acceptable.  Individuals are called to give of their time and money because giving is a central part of what we believe.  It is part of building a community that takes care of one another.  Being funded with government money raised through taxation cheapens this noble task.   The government certainly has its role in meeting the needs of the people, but this does not come through doing for the faithful what they should be doing themselves. 

So thanks, Barack, but no thanks.  Our charities are not another pawn in the chess game of this election.

Polls showing Americans see that we are on the wrong track are encouraging. Today, a poll showing tolerance for other religions, despite all the anti-'islamofascist' cant by the wingers, shows that we are on an upward path from the past two presidential terms of divisive propaganda.

Most Americans say they are absolutely sure about standards of right and wrong – and are just as sure that no one religion holds an exclusive franchise on the truth.
(snip)
The researchers also said the results indicate that it's wrong to assume that Americans can be pigeonholed on the basis of religion. There is a wide diversity of beliefs and behaviors, even among people who say they belong to the same religious group, said John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum with a long history of studying faith-related polls.

"I was stunned by just how diverse it was," he said. "The diversity goes all the way down."
(snip)
Depending on the question, from a third to half of those who said they belong to Evangelical churches took religious and political positions generally associated with the religious right. If those results are accurate, 10 to 15 percent of voting-age Americans would be in that group.

Other questions indicated potential majorities for some Democratic policy positions, the researchers said. Large majorities of most religious traditions said that the government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means going deeper into debt, that stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost, and that diplomacy rather than military strength is the best way to ensure peace.

Hot-button issues that have strong Republican support did not fare as well. A slim majority, 51 percent, said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 50 percent said that homosexuality should be accepted by society. (Emphasis added.)

Having up close and personal ties with a psychotic who chooses prolife stances over family and reason, I tend to associate religion with that element. I commented to that effect while introducing the article cited above, this morning at Eschaton. The following conversation was produced:

"Ruth: me, I have a lot of trouble with abortion. I never, even as a ten year old, well before Roe v Wade, saw that as an easy one. And part of that emerges from a life lived mostly making love to people I care a lot about, where a child conceived therein would be of deep significance to me. I wind up in favor of choice precisely, rather than in spite of, the fact that I find the issue complex in a way that some do not; I conclude, every time I think of it, that the only possible stance is to allow the complexities to be resolved, as best as possible, by a woman acting as an autonomous agent, doing the best she can as the owner of the uterus in question.

I have no problem with people who want to live 'pro life'. I do have a problem when they arrogate to themselves the right to assume that their answer should be universally applied to lives they have no relationship to or knowledge of whatever. And abortion will continue whether or not it's legal. Ban it, and the rich and well-connected will go back to getting therapeutic D&Cs for dysmenorrhoea, and the poor will get coat hangers shoved up their uteri, and sometimes die, horribly, as a consequence.
ProfWombat | 06.24.08 - 9:11 am | "

From me (Ruth): That prolife stance taken as a political position is the one I encounter, and it is totally twisted against the actual woman facing the actual decision, which includes me and most women at one time or another.

A real prolife feeling would have to include a respect for actual life, which can be a pretty rotten prospect for a fetus in a wrong place at a wrong time for a wrong reason.

ProfW followed with a reminder that real prolife belief would include rejection of killing.

There is a positive appeal of goodness that has for much of mankind's history been associated with religion, and the false ones that depend on hate try to latch onto the goodness and turn it to the ends of evil. We see that in the dark side of the right wing, and especially in the Cheney appeal to the worst nature in their followers.

There is a commandment that anticipated that: 7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. That's from Exodus 20. A lot of Sunday Schools teach that as 'not taking the name of the Lord in vain', and apply it to cussing to keep those little fellas from using rough language, but it means much, much more. It refers to kinds of manipulation that seek power from the misuse of language that should help and benefit us all.

Eventually, lies disprove themselves. It's happening now, like dawn after a storm, and the discrediting of such mantras as that - our society is damaged by tolerance, diversity is undermining our strength, war is right as a way to impose our ideals on others, individual rights are in the way of peace through war, and that the rich will take care of us all if we just take all the laws out of their way - is being done by the takeovers those evils have produced. Seeing the idols of the right topple is satisfying, but it isn't an end, with the pre-eminence of reason tied up forever.

We relaxed after Nixon left, but the evil didn't. They kept working and won power which they've used to take us into the hideous hole they've dug. We have to fill in the hole, and that will take some time. Then we have to take away their shovels - the powers of high office.

Who defends his own 2nd Amendment rights, but is also alarmed about all the violence on television? 

Who is against gay marriage, but wants to help fight AIDS? 

Who is suspicious of evolution, but believes wholeheartedly in the dangers of global warming?

Who believes that Jesus is the only way to salvation, but also wants to see more religious tolerance? 

Who believes in small government, but thinks that corporate power needs to be reigned in? 

Who is an advocate for the free market, but is tired of seeing so many jobs go overseas?  

Who voted for George Bush twice,  but is now harboring a good deal of resentment toward him? 

Who has voted Republican her entire life, but is starting to believe that the GOP is not what it used to be?

Answer:

Roughly three quarters of my church in small-town South Carolina, as well as millions of others across the South and Midwest.  They have long been considered a solid part of the Republican base, but I'm sensing something different from them this year.  Could this be one of the pivotal voting blocks in this year's election? 

If so, allow me to offer the Democrats some friendly advice from the field.  These folks value their faith above all else.  For right or wrong, they believe that the problems we are having in our culture are a direct result of the declining influence of the church.  At the same time, they are losing faith in their government.

Properly recruited, these moderate Christian conservatives could jump across and vote for Obama, and many states that have been red for decades might suddenly be in play.  For this to happen, there will have to be some agreeing to disagree on issues like abortion and gay marriage. 

One thing that will chase them back to the Republicans, however, is if they feel like their faith is being devalued or looked down upon.  There is an element on the progressive side of things that harbors a distaste for Christianity and religion in general.  Here's hoping that all progressives can welcome and embrace these "Obama Republicans," and that an unstoppable coalition can be formed.   

McCain is trying to pretend that he denounced these radicals as soon as he found out how extreme they are, but the reality is that Parsley and Hagee's outrageous views have been public knowledge for months, if not years.  But McCain has an even bigger problem–he cannot distance himself from radical religious extremism so easily because religious extremists like Hagee and Parsley have a comfortable home in the very heart of the Republican party and McCain's campaign.

As Michelle Goldberg has documented, Christian nationalists are an important part of the Republican party.  Goldberg defines "Christian nationalism" as "a political ideology that posits a Christian right to rule".  Christian nationalists believe, contrary to the clear evidence, that the founders of the U.S. were devout Christians bent on creating a non-secular nation.  Christian nationalists seek to restore this mythical Christian nation that never was.  Since, in this view, Christians would ultimately have "dominion" over others in the United States, including in civil structures and "every other aspect of life and godliness," such extremists are also known as Christian dominionists. 

Christian nationalism or dominionism sounds like a fringe position, something only a few extremists would support.  Well, it is an extreme world view, but it has found a home within John McCain's Republican party and McCain's presidential campaign. 

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a prominent McCain supporter and one-time presidential candidate himself, is a Christian dominionist.  McCain turns to Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who Goldberg discusses in her book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism,  for advice on sexual health matters.  Coburn has called for the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions.  Mike Huckabee, who says he would like to be McCain's running mate, declares that the Constitution should be amended in order to align with "God's standards"–in other words, he has called for a theocracy.

Extremists like James Dobson and Pat Robertson have a home in the Republican party.  Dobson endorsed George W. Bush in 2004, worked to get out the vote, and has had the administration's ear on key issues.  As Chris Hedges observes, Dobson has compared supporters of gay marriage to Nazis, and called embryonic stem-cell research "state-funded cannibalism".  Chris Hedges further notes that Dobson has warned the Republican party that it must implement his radical agenda if it wants his continued support.  Republican presidential candidates eagerly sought Robertson's endorsement (it went to Giuliani).  McCain once denounced Robertson as an "agent of intolerance", but now says that the Christian right has a "major role" to play in the Republican party.  The McCain of 2008 has also adopted the Christian right's extreme rhetoric, falsely asserting that the Constitution created a Christian nation.

McCain acknowledges, as he must, that the Christian right has played an active role in the Republican party.  He wants and needs their support (it will be a problem for him if Dobson really stays on the standlines, as he has threatened to do), he welcomes extreme religious radicals as his supporters, and he is trying to speak their language.  McCain jettisoned Hagee and Parsley because he had to, but he cannot divorce himself from religious radicals who have set up shop within the Republican party.   

On the one hand, John McCain finally "denounced and rejected" the religious extremists who's endorsements he sought. First, McCain gave back pastor John Hagee's endorsement - the same endorsement he sought for over a year - saying:

"Obviously, I find these remarks [about Hitler doing God's work] and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well."

Hagee, in classic "you can't fire me, I quit" form, retracted his endorsement of McCain a short time later.

Immediately afterwards, McCain rejected pastor Rod Parsley's endorsement - a man known for saying things like, "America was founded with the intention of seeing [Islam] destroyed.” McCain once called this man his "spiritual advisor" and "moral compass."

Then, on the other side of the world, Pakistan signed a peace agreement with the Taliban and Israel admits it has been negotiating with Syria for over a year, bringing hopes of a resolution to these two religiously infused conflicts.

What do these events have in common?

Religious extremism in the modern world is a large issue - though not the clash of civilizations neocons make it out to be. Religious extremism can indeed lead to violence and suffering, but it needs to be dealt with using more care than George Bush and those that prosecute the "war on terror" give it.

In short, the rule of thumb might be, "Marginalize when you can, co-opt when you can't."

In America, with a long tradition of the separation of church and state, a (sometimes) watchful press, and citizens (generally) sensitive to issues of race, religious freedom, and oppression, religious extremists can be easily marginalized. This doesn't mean they should be forced to stop preaching - free speech goes both ways - but it does mean you can make a pretty good argument for their expulsion from politics and public life. One simply has to listen to the words people like John Hagee and Rod Parsley use to clearly understand how out of touch with American values they are.

On the other hand, some religious movements are too big, too powerful, and too attractive to be marginalized. Take as an example the religious extremism that feeds into terrorism. Terrorists recruit those already oppressed and marginalized - they routinely provide social services the government isn't providing - so marginalizing them further will do no good. Attempts to cut off terrorist-breeding religious institutions from public and political life will only fuel more extremism and more terrorism. The whole war on terror can be seen as an exercise in this failed strategy.

Instead, as Pakistan and Israel are showing, religious extremism of this type must be co-opted.

Despite its power, these extreme forms of Islam remain the minority view in Muslim societies. Bringing these elements into society - letting them contest elections and build their institutions within the bounds of a lawful state - will moderate their views. As these groups push for increased power and influence, they will have to contend with the larger Muslim majority (and the larger world) that is less extreme in their ways. As the example of the IRA in Ireland shows, religious extremists can be successfully co-opted into society and convinced to leave behind their violent past.

The events of this week should prove heartening to those working tactfully against religious extremism, just as it gives warning to those who attempt to stamp out extremism in dangerous, blunt ways. This fight has many fronts: Those who fight for acceptance of atheism, against cults like Scientology or fundamentalist Christian sects, and those who work for a responsible end to the war on terror have won a victory this week.

I hope the world slowly learns how to combat extremism effectively.

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.

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:

• Bush has allied the U.S. with Uzbekistan, a nation that actually boils people alive.  This is  textbook moral relativism: Bush dismisses the absolute truth that torture is wrong and concludes that it is ok to condone torture (or even to do torture–see below) when it helps our interests.
• The Bush administration has sent prisoners to countries with abysmal human rights records, knowing that the prisoners would almost certainly be tortured.  He has also allied the U.S. with many such countries (see also Uzbekistan, above).  Of course, Bush probably doesn't see this as that big a deal as he has approved torture himself.
• Many people see the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as moral absolutes.  In fact, Bush swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.  But he believes he has the right to violate the Constitution and other laws under certain circumstances.

The reality is that it is difficult to come up with moral absolutes that always, under all circumstances, trump other considerations.  One might say life is an absolute principle (Bush said as much to Cokie Roberts).  But what if you have to take a life to save a life?  In Bush's world, there are, of course, plenty of exceptions to the moral absolute of human life: the death penalty is one example, the invasion of Iraq is another.  Bush likes to describe the world in black and white terms when he makes speeches, but his own actions recognize the world, even as he sees it, is more complicated.

Bush's prim, sanctimonious invocation of moral absolutes is laughable.  It's like being lectured on accounting ethics by Ken Lay (were he alive to do so).  When a journalist passes along Bush's ridiculous, and easily contradicted, statements in this area without comment, as Roberts did, she comes off looking like a mouthpiece or stenographer, not a journalist. 

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."

Her most recent trip, where she lead a delegation of Catholic Sisters to Lebanon and Syria in January of this year, focused on learning about the situation of Iraqi refugees in these countries. She told me that the situation of refugees in each country is complex, and complicated by the competing demands of religious constituencies in each country. Moreover, the population influx is putting strain on these societies, contributing to social and economic tension. She calls for attention to these problems, and along with NETWORK supports increased efforts to resettle refugees in this country and increased funding for refugee services.

Faith, Sister Campbell said, shapes her work. Faith allows her to relate to people in Iraq or in our own government in a unique way, recognizing their humanity and speaking to them at the level of their values. As a progressive, Sister Campbell feels that faith helps her avoid a trap many progressives fall into: the arrogance of just wanting to be right. If progressives only focus on tactics and victories, they risk losing sight of what's important, and what's human, about our values.

"We have to keep letting our hearts be broken," she says. "There is a juncture of heartbreak and policy that is required."

A faith perspective, moreover, could prove helpful in healing our country once the war finally ends. She noted that not only refugees, but also veterans, will return home carrying a great deal of pain. "We have to be 'in relationship' with returning soldiers," she says. "We have to hear their stories and be respectful."

At home and abroad, we need more citizen diplomats. The terrible toll of the last seven years of war and corruption cannot be overcome simply by electing new leaders - our country needs a new sense of civic participation and outreach in order to forge new connections with the world and with each other. Progressive religious activists like Sister Campbell and the rest of the NETWORK staff are making an important contribution to that effort.