April 2008 Archives

David Gibson attempts to stop the argument between Steven Waldman and me about Catholic voters. He says, in effect, there aren't very many Catholic voters. Why? The number of Catholics who consider their faith important to their political decisions is lower than other religious groups, or so said the 2004 Pew survey he cites. Gibson gives as the reason for this disinterest, or shall we say lack of integration, that Catholics are "political orphans" because neither political party represents "Catholic teaching . . . to a consistent degree."

The same survey, by the way, asks "whether it is important that the president have strong religious beliefs." Catholics come in at 70%, two points higher than the entire sample. This is not the only example from the Pew survey manifesting a positive Catholic attitude toward the importance of religion in public life. Yet, that's not quite what David is arguing, so I push on.

All serious analysis of the Catholic vote pays close attention to the differences between self-identified Catholics and active Catholics, those who report attending Mass at least once a week (the canonical requirement). Exit polling after elections always includes cross tabs on religious activism as a way of refining our understanding of the role religion plays in politics. That a candidate gets a strong majority of religiously active, say, Catholics, versus a majority of self-identified Catholics is evidence of a deeper appeal to Catholic voters. I'd bet some serious money that the number of religiously-active Catholics is significantly higher. If so, it would suggest David look for other data to support his argument. The percentage of the nation's 68,000,000 Catholics who attend Mass regularly has been estimated as low as 20% to as high as 40%. My guess is it's around 35%. That 35% cares a great deal about applying their faith to politics, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.

In the Pew survey, cited by David, the Catholic answer to the question about "the importance of religion to political thinking" is broken into three groups -- traditional or conservative Catholics, centrist Catholics, and modernist Catholics. Guess what? The conservative Catholics, precisely those Catholics who identify with the GOP, score 50%, well above the centrist 22%, and the modernist 12%. There are no cross-tabs in the Pew survey on the religious activism of those surveyed (or perhaps I missed them).

On the question of the bishop's document Faithful Citizenship as a voter guide, I couldn't agree with David more -- it should not be treated that way and was never intended to be. It's a topography of moral and social principles for Catholics to apply to their political action. David doesn't mention the topography that distinguishes a Catholic's prudential decisions based upon underlying principles from obligatory and non-negotiable decisions made about life issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cells, etc.).

If someone complains that the Church's teaching on life provides a partisan advantage to the GOP, then the answer is that Democrats can remove the advantage by embracing the same teaching. Church teaching will not change and has not changed in the face of four decades of dissenting theologians and philosophers who tried to define the Catholic conscience without consideration of how it should be "informed."

Catholics in the GOP may be step children, but not orphans.

Steven makes a bold statement that Catholicism has nothing to do with the Catholic Vote in Democratic primaries. That's a bit extreme, although with the non-negotiable life issues of the Catholic church taken off the table among Democrats they do often seem Catholic-lite.

Let's remember, however, that Catholicism is a worldview before it is a list of moral teachings or policy positions. If a candidate can create in the Catholic voter an awareness that "he sees the world the way I do," he doesn't have to be "right" on every issue. I think that kind of awareness, call it a common vision, is at play when you raise the question about Obama having the same policy positions as Clinton on health care, children, and families. That being the case, you ask why Obama wouldn't be able to attract the Catholic vote "over time." In our January article on Obama and the Catholic vote, Steve Wagner and I argued that Obama, unlike Clinton, had yet to create a social justice persona in the eyes of Catholic voters, and would be unlikely to get it done before November.

But, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say Obama will succeed in creating a visible social justice message in time for the general election. Then he has a different problem, that problem is the above-mentioned worldview -- he will have a hard time making his social justice package into a family issue, as the Clintons have done so successfully. Obama, especially with Rev. Wright's shadow hanging over him, will continue to appear more interested in appealing to political classes, in the McGovern tradition, than to American families worried about the problems of raising children and grandchildren in a hostile culture.

The core of the Catholic vote does not share the political left's principle concern for repairing inequities suffered by the poor, minorities, homosexuals, and women. What primarily concerns them are those institutions influencing family well-being and accepted norms of public morality -- schools, media, entertainment, the impact of the Internet. The central finding of the Crisis Catholic Voter Project (1998-2000) remains a key factor -- active Catholic voters want political leaders who oppose moral decay and seek social renewal.

Allow me to make one qualification. In this election cycle, it remains to be seen how the Iraq War will affect the Catholic vote. Many Catholics view the Vatican as "opposed" to the war; some think there is an official Catholic position that the war is unjust. Benedict XVI could have given a big gift to the Democrats by emphasizing his disagreement with President Bush and the GOP on this issue. He didn't, and I think that was deliberate; he did not want to undercut a president who often expresses his concern for building a "culture of life."

If McCain does not make his case on the war to Catholics in terms they understand, it could be the deciding factor of the election.

For weeks there has been a national debate about the appropriateness of sermons preached by Rev. Jeremiah Wright from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Many preachers, both black and white, believed that Wright must have been misquoted, misrepresented, or demonized by the press - especially Fox News.

On Monday morning, Rev. Jeremiah Wright confirmed to the world that concerns about his theology and worldview were justified. Wright seemed to be grasping for attention and for his own place in the national limelight. He may envision himself as a modern day Martin Luther King, Jr. or even a “Christian” Malcolm X. Unfortunately, he came across as an arrogant intellectual with unresolved bitterness. Although Wright is articulate and bright, he lacks the largess of spirit and Christian warmth that characterized the speech and demeanor of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Most importantly for me, any careful listener would question whether Rev. Wright is preaching “another gospel” as the apostle Paul termed divisive heresies of his day.

As I watched Wright and the Monday Press Conference, I saw a sharp contrast to the way he presented himself on Friday’s Bill Moyer’s program. I also thought that he was selfishly putting his career goals and reputation above the needs of his long time church member, Barack Obama.

So what do Bible believing Christians do about the problem of race in America? How do we end this dance with death and division? Something happened last week that gives me a lot of hope.

I was privileged to be interviewed on a Christian television program by Rev. Bernice King, the only living daughter of civil rights icon, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She was greatly encouraged that over 400 pastors and thousands of lay Christians had signed a document called the “Reconciliation Referendum.” This document was drafted by a black man and a white man who want to see America changed. We strongly believe that the Church can be desegregated in the next decade. The visible unity of the Church on Sunday morning will be an amazing step in healing the racial divide in the entire nation. Tony Perkins and I believe that St. John 17 requires the Church to walk in unity. Further, we think that the Church is the only agency that can solve the race problem in America.

The following is an excerpt from that referendum:

“While politicians like Barack Obama and the national media wring their hands over a problem that has persisted in this country for nearly 400 years, they offer no solutions to the problem…

“The failure of good Christian people to provide a clear and convincing example of racial unity within the Church has contributed to the divide between the races in the nation and it only appears to be widening.

“We must recognize that racism is not just a social problem in America; it is also a spiritual problem. It is a matter of the heart. Healing racism in the nation is, therefore, a challenge facing our country that must first be addressed in and by the Church. We believe that contrary to what Americans have seen in the last few weeks, the Church can and must help lead the nation toward reconciliation among the races. …

“A racially reconciled Church can eventually unite the nation. Evangelical churches are especially prepared to seize this strategic moment in American history because of their shared theology and value system.”

If we do not act now, there may be dire consequences. The referendum addresses the concern as follows:

“Just 16 years ago on April 29, 1992, a major race riot sent shock waves from Los Angeles around the world. Seven hundred million dollars of property damage, 13,212 arrests, 2,383 human injuries, and 54 deaths lay in the wake of an initial lower court verdict concerning the beating of Rodney King by four LA policemen.

“We believe that a repeat of that riot is possible today. The protagonists may be black, white, or Hispanic but the danger of unresolved race based anger deserves a national “intervention” by the Church. . “There is no time to waste. “

If you agree with this referendum, I ask you to do three simple tasks:

1. Join the leaders and pastors who have already signed this document by signing it yourself at www.thetruthinblackandwhite.com
2. Pass this article on to your friends and ask them to sign the referendum as well.
3. Send a copy of this article to your pastor so that he/she may unite with us by signing the referendum.

In our book, Personal Faith, Public Policy, we give a visionary game plan for a racially reconciled Church to serve the entire nation. As the Church unifies, there are many specific public policy initiatives we can introduce in order to create a greater atmosphere of biblical justice in our land. Together we can seal racism’s fate!

Harry R. Jackson, Jr. is Senior Pastor of Hope Christian Church and author, with Tony Perkins, of Personal Faith, Public Policy.

Steven Waldman suggests I take another look at my argument that Obama will not do well among Catholics if he is the nominee in November. If, as I argue, Obama turns off socially conservative Catholics, in part, because of his abortion extremism then Clinton should have the same problem. Fair enough, good question.

It's important to remember that the present battle between Clinton and Obama is for Catholic Democrats. These are Catholic voters who have resisted the steady migration of Catholics out of the Democratic Party into the GOP. The life issues and their symbolism, mentioned in my last post, are going to play an even bigger role in the general election. Either Obama or Clinton will be facing those Catholics who have made the move, however tentatively, to the GOP.

Given that Clinton, as Waldman says, is just as pro-abortion as Obama what makes her more appealing to Catholic voters and thus a more formidable foe to John McCain in November? (I agree with Waldman that the Catholic nun argument is laughable.)

Part of the answer is that Hillary inherits much of the Catholic goodwill bestowed upon her husband who for two presidential elections brought Catholic voters back toward the Democratic Party. Notice the interview on Beliefnet with former Vatican Ambassador Ray Flynn. Flynn's vote for Hillary Clinton in the Massachusetts Primary made national news, in part because he had snubbed the candidacy of John Kerry. Flynn's interview is revealing; it reveals the attraction ethnic Catholics like Amb. Flynn have for the Clintons in spite of their pro-abortion stance. Note especially that Flynn underscores Hillary Clinton's support for traditional marriage, a very touchy point among Catholic voters. This comment from Flynn summarizes Clinton's appeal to Catholic voters: "On the issues that are really important to Catholics—health care, children, and families—Clinton has a long record of experience."

This approach won Bill Clinton 44% of the Catholic vote in 1992, but was qualified by the fact that in 1992 Perot won 21% of Catholics. George H. W. Bush got a paltry 35%. Three million Catholics switched parties in 1992 creating the swing vote that all presidential candidates have aimed at ever since. In 1996, Dole would repeat most of Bush's mistakes and receive only 37% of Catholic voting, though he did much better among religiously active Catholics. Clinton took 54% and Perot 7% in 1996.

Both as a campaigner and as president, Bill Clinton had an effective Catholic strategy, as Waldman mentions. He targeted "Reagan Democrats" in areas hit by economic troubles. He reframed the social justice approach as a family issue. Just as important, Clinton courted Catholic voters. He couldn't win hardcore social conservatives, but he surrounded himself with popular Catholic politicians like Irish Flynn and the Italian Cuomo who still had appeal among ethnic Catholics.

I completely agree with Waldman that Obama's only hope is to build some kind of bridge to social conservatives. I made that suggestion in an unsolicited memo I wrote to the Obama campaign. I suggested if he can't find common ground with pro-life, pro-family Catholic voters he should, at least, show respect for their position. He could also talk about the contribution of Catholic social service institutions and the principle of subsidiarity they represent. I specifically suggested he announce support for continued funding of the White House faith-based initiative. Now THAT would get some attention!

Finally, as Waldman notes, Steve Wagner and I did underestimate Obama's appeal to "the small religious sect called Protestants." This, I think, is due to our lack of appreciation of Obama's basic appeal, a set of qualities which the Wright controversy has seriously tarnished. Obama's attractiveness, in my opinion, is not merely his call for "change" but for a change of tone in American politics. Americans are tired of polemics, although we are invariably drawn to them in the age of 24-hour cable news and blogs. Obama's freshness, his affability, his promises of bringing people together, all had great magnetism at the beginning of his campaign. I disagree with those who advise him to "go negative" -- it makes him sound too much like the pastor whose sermons he heard for twenty years.

There's a reason Oprah Winfrey helped to ignite his campaign; she has tremendous and well-deserved respect around the country. Oprah needs to replace Rev. Wright as the person the public most associates with Barack Obama.

David Gibson suggests that the lack of support for Barack Obama among Catholic voters may be due to an "African-American problem" in the Catholic Church.

Six weeks ago I got a call from someone advising the Obama campaign on the Catholic vote. In spite of a targeted effort toward Catholics, Obama was doing poorly and some negative press was beginning to show up. An article at Politico.com elicited angry phone calls from the Obama campaign resulting in a change of the headline from "Obama support soft among Catholics" to "Obama slow to gain among Catholics."

This Obama advisor was worried that Catholic voters were going to be tagged as "racist" unless the candidate could figure out a way to garner more support. Obama and his campaign haven't figured it out in spite of the high profile endorsement of Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA). Now the issue of racism and the Catholic voter is hanging in the air. Gibson's post doesn't really make that charge -- he raises a larger question about the American Church -- but the issue is now surely on the table.

Gibson links to a Q & A with Pew's John Green about Obama's "uphill battle with white Catholics." Green's analysis of the exit polls provides no clear evidence of Catholic voters having a race problem with Barack Obama. Green's only comment is this: "And frankly, Obama’s race may also have been an issue for some voters." In support of this, Green offers no evidence and does not pretend to.

Gibson and Green don't even raise the possibility that Catholic voters are turned off by Obama's positions on the issues. Again and again he has reminded them of his pro-abortion position, saying on a televised debate with Hillary Clinton that the only act as a Senator he regretted was voting for Teri Schaivo's parents to have their day in court over the treatment of their daughter. Democrats will say this is a "single-issue" kind of comment, but they don't understand that issues like partial-birth abortion and Teri Schiavo have powerful symbolic value among socially-conservative Catholic voters. When hear, for example, Sen. Obama justifies partial-birth abortion, many Catholic voters, particularly those who voted for George W. Bush in the last two elections (47% and 52%), will find it difficult to view him as a candidate who will benefit their families. Catholics, by the way, tend to be very patriotic so Rev. Wright's angry denunciations of our nation underscore Obama as being out of touch with ordinary American families.

In my opinion, race is only a small factor in the lack of Catholic support for Obama. If he had the positions of former Maryland Lt. Gov. MIchael Steele (black and Catholic) he would be pulling Catholic voters away from the GOP in droves. (McCain would do well to pick Steele as a running mate.)

Regarding the larger issue raised by Gibson, I think that white Catholics have the same problem understanding "black Christian rhetoric" as they do "Southern white Evangelical rhetoric." It's not a sign of racism but regionalism.

I am intrigued, however, by Gibson's argument that the failure of Catholic bishops to condemn slavery led to the relatively small number of African-American Catholics. The Church has undoubtedly served the African-American community through their inner city schools. I am familiar with the effort of lay Catholics and dioceses to keep urban Catholic schools open for minority children, mostly African-American. I have been told about many subsequent conversions to the Catholic faith by these students, but I have no idea if anyone keeps statistics about this or tracks these students after graduation.

As a guest blogger, I've been asked by Dan Gilgoff to write some posts concerning my new book on politics and religion and its relevance to the present election cycle. I welcome the opportunity, and I thank Dan and the...

Serious and important studies such as Why Marriage Matters, Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences (2002) and Hardwired to Connect (2003) have documented the ravages of divorce and single parenthood on children as well as their mothers and fathers. The...

Most living Americans look upon television as a natural home appliance and think no more about its implications than they would electrical lamps or a washing machine. In fact, more American homes have TVs than have washing machines. Indeed, American...

A couple of days after the 2004 presidential election I received a phone call from a reporter from a national publication. She wanted to know about those “moral values” voters, the 25 percent of Americans who stated in exit polls...

Eboo Patel is founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core. This is his reflection on the answer Senator Clinton gave to his question at Sunday night's Compassion Forum for the presidential candidates. The full exchange between Patel and...

As anyone interested in the American electoral process knows that on April 6 at a supposedly private fundraiser of extremely affluent, latte-sipping, cheese-tasting, wine-quaffing, limousine liberals at the ground zero of elitism—San Francisco—Sen. Barack Obama uttered these now infamous words:...

Steve Gutow is executive director of The Jewish Council for Public Affairs. This is his reflection on the answer Senator Clinton gave to his question at Sunday night's Compassion Forum for the presidential candidates. The full exchange between Gutow...

Dr. Frank Page is President of the Southern Baptist Convention. This is his reflection on the answer Senator Obama gave to his question at Sunday night's Compassion Forum for the presidential candidates. The full exchange between Dr. Page and...

Dr. David P. Gushee is Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University and author of The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center . This is his reflection on the answer Senator...

Lisa Sharon Harper is cofounder and executive director of NY Faith & Justice in New York City. This is her reflection on the answer Senator Clinton gave to her question at Sunday night's Compassion Forum for the presidential candidates. The...

Dr. Joel C. Hunter, is senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, outside of Orlando, Florida. This is his reflection on the answer Senator Clinton gave to his question at Sunday night's Compassion Forum for the presidential candidates. The full...

The Barack Obama moment is happening at a time when the church I pastor is finding new unity amidst diversity. Our congregation might not vote in unison this November, but we can testify that a unifying message like Obama’s is...

If all goes according to plan, on or about May 7, a group of evangelical leaders--including the Rev. Rick Warren (of Saddleback Church and “Purpose Driven Life” fame) and Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals--will publish...

In his book, Who Really Cares: the surprising truth about compassionate Conservatives (Basic Books 2006), Syracuse University Professor Arthur C. Brooks demonstrates that "conservatives" give considerably more money and time to charitable causes than do liberals, thus proving that "compassionate...

Do "conservatives" give more to charitable causes than "liberals"? According to Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks, they do. Dr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, was quite astounded with the...

Researchers at the University of British Columbia have made a discovery that they found most startling. Mark Holder, professor of psychology at UBC, and his graduate assistant, Judi Wallace, confessed that they were quite surprised when their research revealed that...

April 4, 2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Anyone who had reached the age of consciousness by that date remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard...