In 2004, George W. Bush won the presidency by assembling a coalition of White Evangelicals (78% of whom cast their vote for him), non-Latino Catholics and Mormons, among others. These so-called “values voters” were the “It” constituency of 2004. The punditry fawned over them. Their views became something of a congressional fashion. They were spotted at hipster bars in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, and so on.

But the idea that the road to the White House must go through Evangelical America is, I believe, about to go out of style. For starters, Evangelicals are becoming increasingly ideologically diverse. Issues other than abortion and Gay marriage are on their agenda. National security is a major concern. They are paying attention to global climate change. The AIDS crisis is on their minds. Nor have they forgotten that their gospels tell them to care for the poor.

Continue »

Arizona Senator John McCain is signaling--with the jerkiest semaphore strokes imaginable--that he wants to own the Conservative Christian wing of the Republican Party come primary time. In the past few weeks he has proclaimed himself a Baptist, declared that “the constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation,” and equivocated as to whether he thought a Muslim would make a good president.

The senator has made his move. These remarks have created the uproar that they were predictably supposed to create. He has officially said ta-ta to all those swing voters in the Blue States who just a few years back thought that the guy was kind of, you know, simpatico. There is no turning back.

While some argue that McCain has lost his bearings, I believe that his statements—regardless of how disturbing they might be—make good tactical sense. For starters this is most likely his last stab at high office. To use a football metaphor, John McCain is in the fourth quarter of his political career. His recent provocations, while not quite a desperation Hail Mary Pass, are tantamount to the brisk running of the two-minute drill with 14 minutes left in the game. Pick it up. Focus. Stop kidding around.

Continue »

The monk-led protests in Burma are about spiritual authority as much as they are about raw political power.

They are deeply rooted in Burma’s religious culture. Nothing illustrates this so well as the chants of the protesting monks and their overturned begging bowls. Everyone in Burma understands the message: the military rulers are evil spirits who have lost their authority.

The monks are chanting the Metta Sutta, a verse that embodies the Buddha’s counsel on the power and meaning of loving kindness. Part of it runs: “Let them be able and upright, straightforward and gentle in speech. Humble and not conceited… Peaceful and calm, and wise and skillful, not proud and demanding in nature.”

Continue »

On Thursday's Op/Ed page of The New York Times Dr. James Dobson relayed the minutes of a meeting of “pro-Family leaders” that took place in Salt Lake City the previous Saturday. Those assembled, according to Dobson, unanimously agreed that “if neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate.”

This bold declaration (aimed solely and squarely at one major political party) invites endless speculation. I will limit myself to four random observations.

First: Dobson's threat could be seen as a total, what-I've-actually-got-here-is-a-pair-of-Jacks bluff meant to wrench as many concessions as possible from the first-tier of Republican presidential contenders -- Rudy Giuliani in particular. Dobson, in this reading, is helpfully encouraging the candidates to ask themselves the following questions: 1) What might it be like running against Hillary Clinton without the support of a constituency that accounted for 40 percent of George W. Bush’s vote in 2004? and, 2) What steps might I take in order to avoid that scenario?

Continue »

Am I the only person in the United States who believes that a dialog between nonbelievers and evangelical Christians might help both sides identify some mutual concerns and even the occasional area of agreement?

In order for such a meeting to take place participants would have to submit to a few ground rules. The atheists, agnostics and anti-theists must promise to refrain from excessive smirking, snarky asides about an “imaginary friend,” and the use of profanities (whether expressed verbally or via manual gestures).

The evangelicals, for their part, would have to swear upon a Bible that they would not ask the nonbelievers if they experienced any traumas in childhood. Nor could they make any efforts at soul salvation (even perfunctory ones) or request that all join hands in prayer by meeting’s end.

As long as the leaders and polemicists of evangelical and secular America can agree to these simple and discourse-inducing protocols the possibilities of an enriching dialog -- OK. Bad idea. Forget it.

Continue »

As I prepared for Tuesday’s Republican debate I set out my Faith and Values Pundit’s Kit which consists of a Bible and a bowl of pretzels. While the snacks were groped repeatedly, the Bible remained unmolested. For this GOP event--unlike few others that I can recall--was virtually bereft of any scriptural citations, religious references, or God Talk.

A milestone in Party history? A sign of coming change? Maybe. Maybe not. The explicit purpose of the debate, after all, was to discuss economic issues. Much to their credit the candidates stuck to the script (also to be lauded were co-moderators Chris Matthews, Maria Bartiromo, Jerry Seiband and John Harwood) who asked intelligent, thoughtful, and occasionally quirky questions all the while making sure that the proceedings chugged along briskly).

Save Sam Brownback’s reference to the importance of nominating a pro-life candidate for president, none of the candidates seemed particularly interested in trotting out their religiously tinged applause–getters. Rudy Giuliani did not remind us about the influence that the Catholic Church has had on his life. Instead, he spent a good part of the evening attacking Hillary Clinton (a strategy which indicates that he has graciously accepted his party’s nomination).

Continue »

A whole bunch of things have gone awry for Republican White Evangelicals in the run-up to the 2008 election. First and foremost, they have been unable, inexplicably, to field an organic, homegrown, first-tier candidate of their own. This leads me to ask: why didn’t they just support (and bankroll) the affable, impeccably Evangelical (and underfunded) B-lister Mike Huckabee from the moment he threw his hat into the ring?

Second, conservative Christian leaders are clearly not all on the same page. Some have been oddly reluctant to identify their dog in this fight. Others have placed their bets on completely different contenders (e.g., Richard Land seems fond of Fred Thompson. James Dobson was reportedly enamored of Newt Gingrich. Gary Bauer backed McCain in 2000. After his victory in the Iowa straw poll Huckabee picked up a handful of endorsements from lower-level pulpit politicos).

This is related to a third problem: taking their cues from leadership the rank-and-file have been expressing their own rugged Protestant individualism. Refusing to unanimously line up behind one aspirant, they have dispersed their votes across the entire slate of GOP hopefuls. Catholics, Mormons, Episcopalians (or should I say Baptists?)—they’re open to it all! Let it never be said that these good Americans vote blindly for their own. Just ask Mike Huckabee.

Continue »

Consider this the first installment in my “Presidential Campaign Managers' Worst Faith and Values Nightmare” series. (Your applause and shouted words of encouragement are richly appreciated, though not entirely necessary). The purpose of these experimental posts is to ask what types of mishaps involving religious issues might lead a political handler to turn to The Bottle, non-prescription drugs, “spirituality,” what have you.

Starting with the Republicans--who are, quite frankly, offering up more possibilities for fictional adaptation this election season than their dramatically underperforming counterparts--I ask myself what sort of misadventures lie ahead for Rudy Giuliani. Were I to be running the campaign of the GOP frontrunner, a few scenarios would deprive me of deep, restful REM sleep.

Continue »

Yesterday I conjured up a hypothetical faith-based calamity that might strike the Giuliani campaign. Today, there is no need to conjure. The scenario I am about to describe has already happened. But I am getting ahead of myself.

In the winter of 2004 Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis had made it known that he would not grant Communion to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The demurral from the campaign of the pro-Choice senator from Massachusetts was polite (as all responses to the Church must be): "The archbishop has the right to deny Communion to whoever he wants, but Senator Kerry respectfully disagrees with him on the issue of choice."

Let’s call this a Communion-denial story. Political handlers hate Communion-denial stories. But here’s something they hate even more: journalists nationwide were so intrigued by this new angle that pretty soon the Kerry people had a Communion-denial story pandemic on their hands. The media started "what iffing"--writing stories about Eucharistic wafers that might be denied to Kerry were he to seek them on the campaign trail.

Continue »

It is difficult to draw conclusions about the extraordinarily unscientific straw poll conducted at this weekend’s so-called values voters summit. (In fact, the polling methods were so irregular that I wonder if an ombudsman at some major newspaper is questioning the propriety of publishing the numbers). In order to take the results seriously one must assume that the members of the group sponsoring the event, the Family Research Council, are representative of something, anything, beyond themselves.

Are they representative of Evangelical America? If so why did they shunt Giuliani into eighth place when all previous polling indicates that Evangelicals rank him at, or near, the top of the slate? Are they representative of America at large? If so how on earth did the iconoclastic congressman Ron Paul come in third?

Continue »

I consider it to be one of the most important campaign developments of 2008 that every major aspirant for the presidency must now submit a Faith and Values Portfolio to the American electorate.

These portfolios are usually crammed with the strangest things, the most variegated faith-based overgrowth (e.g., spiritual mentors, conversion experiences, family Bibles trotted out for inspection by journalists). But beneath this luxuriant vegetation all FVPs are rooted in a candidate’s: 1) personal narrative of faith, and, 2) vision of the place of religion in American public life.

For the first time in recent memory all the Democratic frontrunners have solid FVPs. This is unusual. Around primary time there has always been a John Kerry, or a Howard Dean, or a Jerry Brown, or a Paul Tsongas, or a Michael Dukakis on the ticket--secular ministers without portfolio. But with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, the Democrats are assured of nominating a candidate who can appeal effectively to religious constituencies.

Continue »

We atheists don’t believe in a divine being. We don’t believe in a soul that perdures beyond the mortal body. We don’t believe that anything in particular “happens” when one passes away. As far as we’re concerned, when one dies, one is dead. Bye bye. Move along.

All atheist ethical speculation, therefore, begins with the following question: “Insofar as human existence is incontrovertibly and brutally finite, how should I live?” The history of nonbelief features two classic responses. The first -- “Live Right!” -- is practiced by those who aspire to “leave the earth in better shape than they found it,” or some such thing.

The second response to human finitude -- “Live Large!” -- is the prerogative, mostly, of fictional characters. Some of the most memorable personages in literature, theater, opera and cinema are hellbent on enjoying their limited engagement to the fullest. After all, if there is no moral accounting in the world to come (and if there is no world to come) then why not overspend one’s passions in the present one?

Continue »