tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown/481 2008-05-09T16:56:09Z Movable Type Enterprise 1.53 tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.39145 2008-05-09T08:01:37Z 2008-05-09T16:56:09Z

The Evangelical Manifesto strikes me as much more a statement about the plight of contemporary Evangelicalism than a treatise on politics.

Jacques Berlinerblau Evangelical Manifesto” at the National Press Club. It is a thoughtful, ambitious, if somewhat uneven, treatise and I wonder if the decision to premiere the document in Washington D.C. was necessarily a wise one. It might have received a more serious reading (which it deserved) had it been unveiled at Wheaton or Taylor, or some other Evangelical college of distinction. After all, a doctrinally freighted statement like, “All too often we have been seduced by the shaping power of the modern world, exchanging a costly grace for convenience,” is not the type of claim that most journalists are equipped to assess without calling their contacts at the local seminary. It is perhaps for this reason that media coverage of the text focused on the desire of the group to “depoliticize” faith or “take religion out of politics.” I think it’s a bit more complex than that. In fact, it’s a lot more complex than that and the lesson to theologians and intellectuals should be clear: if you willfully insert your message into the meat grinder of the national media it will come out unappetizingly reprocessed. The Manifesto strikes me as much more a statement about the plight of contemporary Evangelicalism than a treatise on politics. In the following short and brutally incomplete contribution (which I hope to continue in my next post), I want to identify some of the themes I see in this text with special attention to how they interface with what we are encountering this election season. ******* ]]> Many are forthrightly acknowledging that others may justifiably view their political initiatives with great suspicion. Now, one of the ticks of Evangelical theology is an all-pervading sense of sinfulness. This has interacted with the aforementioned image concerns in a most interesting (and helpful) way. For, the Manifesto recognizes that mistakes have been made and must be rectified (may New Atheists follow their self-critical example). Does this mean that the Manifesto counsels the full-scale evacuation of Evangelicals from politics? I think the answer here is no. Rather it wants to disassociate Evangelicalism from political partisanship. The document it is not endorsing the type of flight from this world which Fundamentalists famously (and perhaps disastrously) executed in the aftermath of the Scopes Trial. Instead, it advises the maintenance of a cautious, independent and critical attitude towards American party politics. For these reasons it decries the tendency of Evangelicals to become “useful idiots” for either the Republicans or Democrats. In its own words: “we are fully engaged in public affairs, but never completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, class, tribe, or national identity.” The reference to national identity is fascinating as the document takes pains to view Evangelicalism as a global movement. “We are therefore a small part,” it opines, “of a far greater worldwide movement that is both forward looking and outward reaching.” This explicit embrace of the international dimensions of Evangelicalism stands in stark contrast to the America-First, ultra-patriotism of the Religious Right. This leads me to another important point. The authors of the Manifesto clearly want to give Fundamentalists the old heave-ho. They write: “Fundamentalism has become an overlay on the Christian faith and developed into an essentially modern reaction to the modern world. As a reaction to the modern world, it tends to romanticize the past, some now-lost moment in time, and to radicalize the present, with styles of reaction that are personally and publicly militant to the point where they are sub-Christian.” It follows that a strong internal reaction against the rhetoric, tactics and policies of these sub-Christians is discernible (though the text is a bit muddled as to whether Conservative Evangelicals deserve sub-Christian status as well). As such, it is not surprising to find that many Evangelicals want to diversify the “issues palette” beyond abortion and gays. (This does not mean, however, that they are necessarily pro-Choice or affirming of gay people). I noticed this tendency at last month’s Compassion Forum. In a similar vein the Manifesto refers to the environment, poverty, the ills of materialism and consumerism, racism, disease, illiteracy, the importance of science, the importance of the arts, and so on. In sum, its marching orders are not “turn your back on D.C./Babylon!” but “approach D.C./Babylon as a follower of Jesus Christ, not as a Republican or Democrat.” Politics, argues the Manifesto, is a necessary, but not sufficient, vehicle for the improvement of the Evangelical soul. (For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs.) ]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.39141 2008-05-08T20:10:06Z 2008-05-08T20:14:20Z

Their church connections give them practical grounding and a wealth of information. They have keen antennae about where the crisis will strike next and the means to use them.

David Waters The global food crisis came like a tsunami, with amazing speed and stealth. Development institutions everywhere are scrambling to face the urgent problems and questions that come in its wake. There’s the immediate problem: How to find funds to buy enough food to meet steep increases in demand to feed hungry people here and now. my post on March 20 observed, in soup kitchens, food stamp centers, and food for work programs, across the world, the lines got longer, drawing people who had not needed help before. Now these organizations are passionately advocating for urgent action, to fund programs and lift bottlenecks that stop food reaching those in need. They are, at the same time, shifting gears to the development implications: how to increase production and fix obviously distorted global food markets. Earlier this week, I spoke to Jim Cornelius, executive director of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. The history of his program, which is in the thick of the policy debate up north, tells part of this faith food story. Mennonites were among the first in Canada to provide food aid. In the 1920s, North American Russian farmers sent food aid to people in Eastern European who were hungry as the result of the Russian Revolution. They were practical farmers, so when they heard that members of their church were starving in Ukraine, they loaded surplus grain into containers and shipped it off. This was in the 1970s, and with successive crises the programs grew and became an integral part of Canada’s government food aid programs. In 1976, amid growing world food needs and a bountiful harvest, the Mennonite Central Committee launched a pilot project that eventually drew in other church agencies, and became the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. In 2007, it provided almost a million tons of food in more than 80 countries around the world. Today, 15 church agencies, representing over 9,000 congregations, are Canadian Foodgrains Bank members. Three things struck me about discussions with these pragmatic Canadians. First, they are proud that Canada’s food aid program is progressive, and completely untied. That means that the food aid, including the Foodgrains Bank, buys food on the market where they can get it fastest and cheapest. They can buy anywhere except in countries that do not have untied aid (that means the United States above all). There seems to be little argument about this up north. Second, their church connections give them practical grounding and a wealth of information. They have keen antennae about where the crisis will strike next and the means to use them. Third, the here and now is grafted to their policy thinking: soup kitchens now, better drip irrigation tomorrow; food stamps now, farmer cooperatives tomorrow; containers loaded on ships today, better drought proofing for crops down the road. In the space of a few hours last week, Cornelius shifted gears from the global food crisis to the horrific situation in Burma. The passion and compassion that faith institutions bring has never been more urgently needed.]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.39138 2008-05-08T16:21:50Z 2008-05-09T14:22:27Z

Throughout the Middle East, the most radical forces are praying that reconciliation will never happen. And that is one good reason why any new administration should explore every reasonable opportunity to build a different relationship with Iran.

David Waters "What do the American people think of Ayatollah Khomeini?” an Iranian TV reporter asked me on my first visit to Tehran in 1999. For a moment I was stumped. If I answered truthfully, I would have to say that the vast majority of Americans had never heard of Khomeini. But Iranian hardliners might easily exploit this observation. And so I simply suggested that most Americans didn’t follow international politics—this was the task of a foreign policy elite whose opinions on Iran were as divided as ever. complex legacy. And that is why in 2007 Iranian hardliners launched a campaign against former President Rafsanjani. The titular leader of the “Pragmatic Conservatives,” Rafsanjani tried to bolster support for an opening to the U.S. by claiming that Khomeini himself had proposed giving up the ritual chant “Death to America” during Friday Prayers. Although Supreme Leader Khamane’i subsequently stated he might support “having relations with America,” if it were “useful for the [Iranian] nation,” Iranian advocates of reconciliation still face formidable obstacles and even dangers. These barriers were on everyone’s mind during a series of Iranian-American “track two” meetings that I attended in 2003-04. While both sides highlighted the divisions in their foreign policy establishments, we appreciated that our Iranian interlocutors had to tread especially carefully, lest they be accused of “selling out” Iranian interests. Despite the odds, the talks not only continued, but also helped to spawn a fair-minded plan to resolve the standoff over Iran’s efforts to create an independent nuclear fuel capacity. The problem is that there still is no political will for taking the risk of backing this or other similar proposals. Indeed, events in Iraq have only encouraged President Ahmadinejad and his allies to persist with their bombastic rhetoric, thus undermining advocates of rapprochement in Washington and Tehran. What can (or should) be done? One idea that emerged out of our track two talks was for Washington and Tehran to issue a statement akin to the “Shanghai Communiqué” that helped break the ice between the U.S. and China in 1972. Of course, it took those countries another 7 years to sign on the bottom line. But by setting out their basic differences and areas of potential agreement, the communiqué gave each side the “symbolic incentive” for starting down the long road of reconciliation. Is there a President Nixon or a Premier Zhou Enlai waiting in the wings to make a similarly audacious move? Perhaps. The issue is not merely one of leadership but of context: after all, the U.S. and Iran have no common rival similar to the Soviet bear that brought Washington and Beijing to the table in 1972. Yet bold leadership could certainly help. Milton Berle once said that “If opportunity doesn’t knock, build a door.” In Iran – and elsewhere – many are now wondering if the arrival in Tehran of a young, charismatic black American President would inspire both sides to discover (or build) that door. What Iranians want most, they say, is “respect.” Perhaps the Senator from Illinois could speak to this most intangible but important need. However, many Americans may require something rather different: a tough negotiator (perhaps a former military man?) who can convince our own hardliners that rapprochement with the Islamic Republic could well serve U.S. security interests. I am not in a position here to indicate my own preference. But I am sure of one thing: throughout the Middle East, the most radical forces are praying that reconciliation will never happen. And that is one good reason why any new administration should explore every reasonable opportunity to build a different relationship with Iran.]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.39126 2008-05-07T03:41:26Z 2008-05-07T13:54:32Z

I would like to make a few observations about last night’s primaries, in particular the themes and images struck by the candidates in their respective victory speeches. But first, permit me one unsolicited--and unoriginal--observation: Oh Good Lord what a friggin'...

Jacques Berlinerblau Oh Good Lord what a friggin' mess the Democrat nominating process is! Between pledged delegates and Super Delegates and the popular vote and secretive caucuses and Florida and Michigan, I confess to being utterly dumbfounded as to: a) whom the totality of Democratic voters (as opposed to, for example, Republican voters who gleefully participated in primary day festivities) actually favor, and, b) whether the whole convoluted process can in any way, shape, or form yield the most electable candidate. But let’s get to the imagery and oratory, shall we? ]]> Remembrance of Things Past is meant to give off certain messages. With less eloquence, the same is true about the human bouquets created by the handlers. The placing of Madeleine Albright behind Hillary Clinton in Iowa, as is well known, did not give off the right message. The same might be said about the McCain team’s perplexing strategy of surrounding the Maverick with folks who look like they are upper-administrators at your local DMV. (I have no strong opinions on the Romney boys standing behind their father). Obama’s human’s bouquet during his speech in Raleigh, North Carolina, last night was rather conspicuous. He was situated in front of an arrangement of middle-aged white women. These women seemed enthused. The Senator delivered his remarks with élan—more élan than has been seen from him in a while. The good people at CNN dubbed Obama’s address an “acceptance speech.” Plausible, but let me add that he “accepted” in another sense of the term. Namely, he accepted that he had endured a pretty brutal springtime and that he must now confront his difficulties forcefully. To this end, he referred to himself as “an imperfect messenger.” This would seem to have been a tacit acknowledgment of the bitterness caused by his self-inflicted wounds. Using a don’t-believe-the-hype tactic, he mentioned those who “pounce” on every “gaffe,” “association” and “controversy.” He seems also to finally accept that Americans desire garish displays of love for the Stars 'N Stripes. Cracking out his Sousaphone of Patriotism, Obama um-pahed Red, White and Blue themes, pausing to mention “the flag draped over my father’s coffin” ( I guess, but can't be sure, that he is referring to Old Glory, here). **** Later on, in Indiana, Senator Clinton comes out swinging and suggests she is going to fight on. This is metaphorically implied, I would surmise, by the guy standing behind her holding bright red boxing gloves. The other flowers in her bouquet include a bearded guy named Ned. A two-year-old boy being held by his Daddy (at least I hope it’s his daddy). A few middle-aged white women (take that Barack!), and some union-looking guys. Yet as the speech wears on it starts to drag. I notice that when Hillary is experiencing turbulence she lapses into a rhetorical style similar to that of John McCain’s: a sing-song rhythm in which every sentence is delivered with the exact same cadence and ends on the same predictable beat. Her remarks do not lend credence to the theory that she is about to unleash a desperate scorch-the-earth policy (a theory much discussed in Washington). She does, however, allude to Florida and Michigan. “It would be a little strange,” she opines, “to have a nominee chosen by 48 states.” Yet by the end of the evening, even the state of Indiana is no longer safely in her column as we learn more about the dysfunctional process through which Democrats elect their presidential nominees. Later this week, I'll look at the “Evangelical Manifesto” that will be discussed later this morning at the National Press Club. (For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs.)]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.39103 2008-05-05T20:19:04Z 2008-05-05T20:34:21Z

This effusion of love, spirituality, and beauty is a far cry from Morocco’s desperate young men who cling to the bottom of trucks in hopes of reaching Europe and a job, or those who end up in Iraq in terror cells.

David Waters Music is a well known path for crossing wide cultural divides. Music speaks without words. It can epitomize a mood as well as a culture. And it can stir up emotions and preconceptions. There’s a fascinating venture afoot in Fes, Morocco, to use those very qualities to bridge divides between the Muslim world and western cultures and faiths. The idea is that people can, through their love of music, explore new realms and appreciate the world’s wonderful diversity. But even more, the hope is that with emotions roused through music and art, people will open their minds as well as their hearts to new ideas. The Festival of Sufi Culture is an eight-day event, now in its second year, that combines musical performances with poetry recitations, discussions on global challenges, and workshops on topics as diverse as music therapy and calligraphy. The music is fabulous and extraordinary in its range. At one extreme, the “classic” Sufi cultures (and there are at least 1,000 different groups in Morocco alone) are presented with Samaa groups. (Samaa, an Arabic word whose exact translation was hotly debated, essentially means hearing, and suggests hearing not with the ear but with the soul.) The Samaa groups shuffle on stage in groups of up to 30 and slowly start the music. Their songs are about God and love. The rhythms are powerful and repetitive and the tempo steadily mounts until both singers and audience are in a trance, heads and upper bodies swaying back and forth. At another extreme is Abd el Malik, a hiphop star rapidly rising in popularity across Europe. One of his hit songs, "Soldier of Lead," gives a glimpse of his story: I was 12 years old, pockets full of money, already seen too much blood. His family is from Congo (Brazzaville), he grew up in a tough neighborhood in Strasbourg, France. His core followers are the disaffected young people in the outskirts of French cities. His path through delinquency, violence, and borderline extremism was interrupted by his discovery of Sufi traditions in Fes. Sufi rap? It works. His music blasts out his messages that faith and politics must stay apart, that love is supreme. Then there is Said Hassan Hafid Idriss, praise singer from Upper Egypt. Tall, with a large girth, unseeing eyes behind dark glasses, he depends on others to move from place to place. At the least encouragement, he belts out a song, his mouth wide, his voice penetrating far and near and his listeners joining in. A Moroccan businessman, Mohammed Benis, says he discovered him in a small Upper Egyptian community, singing praise songs, the long revered tradition of Madia. Now he is an international sensation. And the Rabi’a Ensemble sings the same words but with a totally different flavor. This group is made up of French women, proud of their multicultural and ethnic composition. These musical performances (up to six concerts a day) stand in sharp contrast to serious three-hour discussions each morning where the audience is almost as large. The topics this year included economics and spirituality, Sufism and care of the earth, and traditions of chivalry in Andalusia. During a discussion of women and Islam, a poet, a businessman, a social activist, and an international civil servant all said forcefully that current discrimination against women in the Muslim world is a product of history and culture, not of the core tenets of the faith. However, they left hanging the question of what to do about it. At the business panel, Kamil Benjelloun wore his commercial success lightly, arguing that Sufi values should infuse 21st century business culture. The Sufi Festival’s creator and director, and its heart and soul, is Faouzi Skali, Moroccan anthropologist and social entrepreneur who created the Fes Festival of Global Sacred Music 14 years ago. Sufi culture, he says, represents a vast and little explored “spiritual continent”, rich and diverse in its heritage and deeply intertwined in daily life in large parts of the Muslim world. Its values include, he says, an openness to different cultures, an obligation to share and serve, deep love of knowledge, and a joy in beauty. Love is at the core of Sufi traditions: an Ibn Arabi poem sung at the Festival by Aicha Redouane, a Moroccan Berber living in France, says: “Love is my religion and my faith” – echoing the ancient desert wisdom that love of God must guide the caravans as they cross the deserts. This effusion of love, spirituality, and beauty is a far cry from Morocco’s desperate young men who cling to the bottom of trucks in hopes of reaching Europe and a job, or those who end up in Iraq in terror cells. The contrast was barely discussed but it was a constant undercurrent during the Festival. A partial answer to the question was suggested in comments about the high stakes in the ongoing, live struggles within Islam between its disaffected, absolute tendencies and its potential for peace and learning are a constant undercurrent. The diversity of ideas and cultures at Fes are seen as either a partial answer and as a vision of what could emerge if the better angels can prevail. Faouzi Skali remarked that the exploration of the “spiritual continent” of Sufi cultures is really just beginning. It has thousands of faces and languages of its own. It is a part of the vast world of Islam that is so poorly understood in much of the world. And it has immense potential for good. Let the exploration continue! tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.39083 2008-05-02T01:50:52Z 2008-05-03T17:18:18Z

The agony in the Obama camp will be prolonged for there is no telling when Wright might pop up again to opine that the American government wishes to murder its own citizens.

Jacques Berlinerblau But-Black-Folks- Do-It-Like-This!” routine is being looped endlessly. As is the image of a tense Obama standing on a runway and looking like his head is about to explode. And then, almost as an afterthought, the major news divisions all feel obliged to show a clip of Hillary Clinton. It has a dreamlike quality to it.]]> effortlessly with white Blue Collar voters. Those would be the same voters that Reverend Wright did his best to drive into the arms of Senator Obama’s opponent. Faith and Values politicking, I have been arguing, has its agonies and ecstasies. The agony in the Obama camp will be prolonged. For there is no telling when Reverend Wright might pop up again to helpfully mock the diction of the Kennedy family or to opine that the American government wishes to murder its own citizens. Guys like Ned hate that sort of stuff. As the good senator pointed out in Philadelphia they too have their gripes and grievances. In the coming few days Obama will have to spend valuable time and energy proving to them (all over again) that he does not share his pastor's vision. (For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs.)]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.39059 2008-04-29T03:36:46Z 2008-04-29T12:44:27Z

Like America's foreign policy options in Iran, the Senator’s alternatives in this crisis can be described as “bad” and “worse”:

Jacques Berlinerblau He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign.” True enough. But how exactly should the Senator speak in the aftermath of the Reverend’s recent attempts to McGovernize and Mondaleize his candidacy? Permit me to rehearse some possible responses to the existential threat posed by Wright. But please recall that none of the forthcoming proposals is particularly good. Like America's foreign policy options in Iran, the Senator’s alternatives in this crisis can be described as “bad” and “worse”: ]]> Response One: Tactical, Lawyerly Silence: One course of action suggests that Obama, cognizant of his still substantial lead, ignore the Reverend and his orations. Ergo, he does not dignify with a response. In so doing, he assumes that his connection to Wright has already cost him dearly with white Blue-Collar voters and independents. Trying to salvage what he can, the Senator devotes all efforts to articulating clear, concrete, policy initiatives that will win over voters less appalled by symbolic pyrotechnics. The downside: It strains credulity to think that the McCain camp won’t rehash old YouTube clips of Reverend Wright speaking truth to power. In fact, it strains credulity to think that the McCain campaign won’t have a lot of new YouTube clips of Reverend Wright speaking truth to power on hand. Those will require anything but tactical, lawyerly silence. Response Two: Give the Good Reverend a Tutorial on Politics: In his interview with Bill Moyers (who has developed an allergy to asking probing follow-up questions) Wright lingered on a distinction that he would repeat for days: he was a pastor, but Obama was a (mere) politician. The Senator should concede the point. Then he should explain why politicians who seek High Office cannot and should not act like Pastor Wright. Politics is about building coalitions. Politics is about compromise. Politics is about picking your battles carefully. Politics is about us, not you. Taking a page from Hillary Clinton he might explain the difference between fighting the Power and being the Power—with especial emphasis on how being the Power correlates with bettering the lives of one’s constituents. In short, Obama should explain why a “Vice President Wright” is an utter impossibility. The downside: In this race Obama has so aggressively entwined his politics with his faith and his faith with his pastor, that it may be hard to convincingly disentangle it all. So maybe he should . . . . Response Three: Go Secular: Have an epiphany. Acknowledge that while your faith sustains you and this nation, religion’s role in public life can be divisive and destructive. Claim that the whole Reverend Wright flap made you “Come to the Constitution” and that you are reconsidering how you should talk about religion in politics. The downside: Aside from the fact that going secular will look like flipfloppery, “secular” is still a taboo word in the American political lexicon. Too, it is not in the least bit clear--in fact, it seems unlikely--that a coalition of believing and non-believing secularists is sufficiently organized for mass electoral mobilization. Response Four: Reclaim the Black Church: Reverend’s Wright attempt to associate his plight with that of the Black Church in its entirety stood as one of his most memorable and vainglorious initiatives. Obama should vigorously challenge the legitimacy of this assertion. He must point to the diversity of the African-American religious heritage. He must demonstrate that the mere politician who gave that sophisticated, thoughtful and un-hateful speech about race in Philadelphia better embodies its complex spirit than the pastor who grandstanded at the National Press Club. He should repeat like a mantra: “He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign.” And to this Obama must add: “and he does not speak for the Black Church either!” (For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs.)]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.39042 2008-04-27T18:52:24Z 2008-04-27T22:03:36Z

If democracy is to have any chance in the Middle East, the majority must respect the desires, hopes and fears of minorities (or pluralities).

Dan Brumberg In recent weeks I have given a lot of thought to the flap over Barack Obama’s assertion that economic frustration inclines people to “cling to guns or religion.” Beyond the domestic debate, the hullabaloo provoked by the Senator’s remarks offers a useful point of departure to probe the complex motivations that animate Islamist movements and ideologies. William Kristol!) joined Hillary Clinton in arguing that Obama subscribes to an “elitist” view that faith does not reflect deeply held religious values. Rather, it is a tool the alienated consciously or unconsciously use to cope with economic or social misfortune. This “opiate of the masses” view of religion is obviously simplistic. But we do no justice to the multiple forces that animate faith by asserting the equally crude notion that religiosity is born strictly of religious conviction. No self-respecting evangelist would deny that people cling to faith most intensely when floating in a sea of crisis. Back on dry land, the distressed sometimes look to faith for deeper, more enduring answers; faith becomes a beacon of light that gives life meaning, or a transcendent moral compass that cannot (or should not) be subject to the everyday vicissitudes of political or social conflict. The notion that religion exercises its most positive influence when it remains at a safe distance from politics is hardly news to most Americans. What is new is that this quasi-secular vision has been gaining ground in the Muslim world, in a way that is inspiring an important, if often confused, debate. Noah Feldman’s article “Why Shariah?” stakes out one position in this debate. Feldman holds that the revival of Shariah (Islamic law) is not driven by an “obscurantist” urge to cure the supposed moral ills of rampant Westernization. This “reactionary Islamism,” typical of the Khomeini era, is giving way to a new Islamism, one that retrieves Shariah’s “core” idea, namely that “all governments…are subject to justice under the law.” Today’s Islamists advocate Shariah to confront autocracies with a religiously based demand for the rule of law. To advance this goal, some Islamists propose that a form of “Islamic judicial review” be used to insure that the laws passed by elected assemblies reflect the spirit of Islam. But this idea, which Feldman endorses, is problematic: far from subjecting the whims of fallible politicians to a higher authority, empowering religious experts to decide what is and what is not Islamic could invite the abuse, rather than the rule, of law. Of course, politicization of the highest courts can also occur in Western democracies. But this is precisely why we do not conflate the professional duties of judges with the religious mission of clerics. And this is also why, according to one of Feldman’s most passionate critics, the demand for the rule of law has not been framed in Shariah terms. Thus Indonesia’s two mass-based Islamic associations, Mohamadiyya and Nahdatul Ulema, oppose reinserting the Shariah into the Constitution. One reason they maintain this position is that millions of Indonesians favor a secular order. More to the point, Muslim leaders fear that any Islamic high court will impose some other group’s Islamic agenda, thus exacerbating conflicts between Muslims. In Indonesia, an implicit secularism is widely accepted as the basis for social peace. In the Middle East, a similarly pragmatic set of concerns has inclined a new generation of Islamists to question the utility of any Shariah-based project. But these leaders face a dilemma. Driven by escalating social and cultural frustration and—dare I say?—a growing bitterness with the status quo, many of their followers look to Shariah for answers. Yet beyond their immediate audience, their societies boast a myriad of groups and parties whose interests hardly coincide with a born-again Islamic moralism. How to articulate the alienation of their most ardent supporters while embracing a moderate agenda acceptable to the wider society is the great task these new Islamists must confront. Sound familiar? If walking this fine line is difficult for a certain charismatic Senator from Illinois, imagine how tricky it is for Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (PJD). Squeezed between an activist base of True Believers, and a larger and more disparate electorate—many of whom expect that the PJD will deliver economic development and liberal democracy—the PJD is struggling to demonstrate that it can fulfill the hopes and dreams of all its followers. Whether this is possible remains to be seen. In the meantime, we should resist Feldman’s suggestion that there are clear “majorities” or even “super-majorities” that favor a shared vision of a Shariah-based constitutionalism. Such a view downplays the diverse social and political motivations that shape the Islamic faith. Moreover, it flies in the face of a basic truth that many secular and Islamist democrats now understand: if democracy is to have any chance in the Middle East, the majority must respect the desires, hopes and fears of minorities (or pluralities). Such respect comes from a genuine dialogue that cuts across the ideological divide, from wise leaders who inspire cooperation, and from institutions that protect the rule of law.]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.39039 2008-04-27T02:21:59Z 2008-04-27T18:50:55Z

Ms. Obaid reels off heart-rending statistics about what women suffer – how many still die each day in childbirth, how many girls are taken out of school, or married without a say before they are 14, and on and on. She also exudes confidence that things can change.

Mary Hadar For guts combined with grace, Thoraya Obaid has few rivals. A proud Saudi Muslim, she leads what is probably the United Nations' most controversial agency, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) – which addresses women's reproductive health. Recently she was the speaker at the Washington National Cathedral's Sunday Forum, arguing that religious leaders must address the sorry state of women in much of the developing world. She even dared utter the words "unsafe abortion." She wanted this issue, usually avoided in polite discussion, front and center because the suffering and loss of life it causes women the world over need to be addressed forthrightly. The Cathedral's dean (who moderated her talk), she said, told her as they moved towards the podium that those words had probably never been uttered before inside the Cathedral's hallowed walls. Ms. Obaid reels off heart-rending statistics about what women suffer – how many still die each day in childbirth, how many girls are taken out of school, or married without a say before they are 14, and on and on. She also exudes confidence that things can change. Her experience convinces her that it can be done. Speaking in the grand nave of the Cathedral, her core message was that these stories belong at the very heart of religious discourse and action. Religious leaders can and sometimes do stand in the way of action. But they also can galvanize leaders and communities to act. Ms. Obaid is often at the center of the tempests that surround women's reproductive health issues, like sex education, condom distribution, and abortion. UNFPA comes under fire for some programs it supports but much more, and unjustly, for ones it does not – in particular, it is sometimes blamed for the coercive elements of China's one-child policy, including abortion. In fact, UNFPA's role in China is small and largely technical. She made clear her conviction that religious leaders must play a central part in improving girls' lives. She knows that culture is at the heart of the problem. And no one has more insight and influence on the culture than religious leaders. Ms. Obaid has thus led UNFPA to reach out to religious communities, at the community level but also globally. She is convinced that it is possible to respect the values and beliefs that each faith tradition holds but at the same time to value and respect common principles. She has a slew of stories about creative cooperation, in Honduras, Kenya, the Philippines, and Iran. In all these cases initial hesitation about UNFPA programs from religious communities has been overcome. Groups found common concerns in their desire to better the lot of women and families and found ways to make it happen. Ms. Obaid's speech was a grand beginning to the two-day "Breakthrough Summit" at the Cathedral. She exemplifies what it will take to break through the preconceptions, bitterness, and anger that have turned women's reproductive health into a dangerous third rail in development policy. If anyone can do it, she can. tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.39021 2008-04-24T11:41:46Z 2008-04-26T01:36:54Z

Obama fares poorly among Catholics for the same reason Huckabee did. These Americans are put off by Protestant candidates who go too heavy on the Faith and Values stuff.

Jacques Berlinerblau a political infomercial directed exclusively at pundits in hopes of getting these clueless dimwits to tow a presidential aspirant’s party line in their forthcoming blogs, columns, radio shows, web videos, mixed media installations, etc. In an effort to quell the inveterate suspicions of aforesaid pundits, a Spreemail will often, but not always, contain references to credible journalistic and scholarly sources.]]> Direct Invitation From A Campaign Operative “to go out someday and have a beer.” I bet I could order some ‘wings too, if I asked politely. But I am divigating. As much as I adore receiving talking points to work into my bi-weekly posts, I am usually impervious to their desired effects. Case in point: On a Saturday in March I was sent a Spreemail from the Obama folks about a speech (or more appropriately, a sermon) that the Senator had just given at the University of Texas Brownsville. The tranquility of my Sabbath non-observance having been interrupted by this most fascinating and unsolicited transmission, I proceeded to write my “Huckobama” column (now translated into 16 languages including SwitzerDeutsch). Not only did that post make me 268 new admirers (see my comments section) but it also rendered me vulnerable to the charge of having made the whole thing up! For the address I was citing was posted nowhere on the internet, just in the Spreemail. That’s what so great about Spreemails! Over the past few weeks my inbox has received its fair share of messages from the Clinton and Obama campaigns with subject headings like: “Catholic League--Kudos to Hillary Clinton: Bush Should Boycott Olympic Opening”: “Beliefnet: Democratic Battle for Catholics Intensifies”: “Catholics for Obama Launch National Advisory Council”: “Obama Statement Pending the Arrival of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI”. I read these carefully because the Spreemails never lie. Check that: they always lie in the sense of giving one a full and balanced picture. But they tell the truth about a campaign’s hopes and fears. In retrospect it is clear that both had identified Catholics as a battleground constituency weeks before the Pennsylvania primary. Watching the returns on Tuesday night I was privy to a slice of Spreemail life that I regret having witnessed. At 8:24 pm the Obama people sent out: “BREAKING: Obama Overperforms Among Catholics and Wins Protestants.” That claim was somewhat difficult to reconcile with the note I received at 9:28 from the opposing camp: “FYI: PA Religious Exit Polling - Clinton wins Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Voters.” This was followed at 10:38 by the rather un-Christian “FYI: Dallas Morning News Religion Blog: "Hillary Clinton whups [Barack Obama in the Largest Categories]" Leaving the claims about Protestants aside for now, let me confirm that Clinton did in fact carry Catholics by a bruising 68% to 32%. This statistic is lending credence to a growing chorus of analysts who say Obama has a problem with this constituency. We will, undoubtedly, be discussing this at length in coming weeks. Permit me to briefly float one explanation for this state of affairs. I wish to claim--and I stress this is a first-go hypothesis--that Obama fares poorly among Catholics for the same reason that Huckabee did. Namely, these Americans are put off by Protestant presidential candidates who go too heavy on the Faith and Values stuff. Admittedly, my hypothesis runs into difficulties when we recall that Catholics gave the majority of their votes to George W. Bush in 2004. Then again, strange as it may sound, Bush’s rhetoric was rarely as relentlessly Christ-y as that of Huck and Obama. Only with the help of continued study and further Spreemails will I be able to refine this theory in the next few posts. For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs.]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.38976 2008-04-22T07:10:55Z 2008-04-22T20:15:20Z

Obama's 'bitter' comments were not a critique of religion, but religion as practiced by conservative white evangelicals. Video: Jacques and Sally discuss the PA primary.

Jacques Berlinerblau It seems like an eternity since Senator Barack Obama’s winter of ascent. Remember the 12 consecutive triumphs? Remember Ted Kennedy and American University levitating off their moorings in Washington? Remember the 45-minute (!) victory speech on February 19th in front of nearly 20,000 delirious Texans? But spring, as the jazz singers remind us, can really hang you up the most. March and April have brought with them some bad energy for the Obama camp. Was I the only one who saw an ominous portent in that cringe-inducing footage of some imbecile in Philadelphia hounding the Senator to pose for a picture and autograph his Cheese Steak? (Note to the Secret Service: the threat of being tasered is an exceedingly effective deterrent). This has been the season of Rezko and Samantha Power and typical white persons and Reverend Wright and so much bitterness. As for the latter, the words are now well known. At a fund-raiser in San Francisco, Obama spoke of rural folks “cling[ing] to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations" but religion as practiced by conservative White Evangelicals. Now, it could be countered that this group wouldn’t vote for Obama anyway. Ergo, his comments in San Francisco may have been a foul, but caused no harm. But as I have been pointing out for months, a Democrat can’t lose nearly 80% of the White Evangelical vote (as did John Kerry in 2004) and expect to win the presidency. If Obama could reduce this number by, let’s say, 10% in battleground states he would have an excellent chance of defeating McCain. Obama’s recent troubles may have dimmed that possibility. Tonight’s Pennsylvania primary may shed some light on what non-affluent whites (be they Protestant or Catholic) think of the Senator from Illinois. As for working class whites, they comprise 27% of the population of the Keystone State. Hillary, let it be noted, has carried this group in every contest save Wisconsin. And she accomplished this before the Wright and bitter flare-ups. If the pattern holds in Pennsylvania the Clinton people will resourcefully equate electability with the capacity to garner working-class white votes. They will insist not only that Obama can’t win a battleground state, but that he is a McCain-Democrat monger. And if this reading prevails--which is not presently likely-- then the winter of Obama’s ascent could turn into the spring of his fall. Watch Sally Quinn and I discuss the Pennsylvania primary on The God Vote This Week. For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs.]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.38997 2008-04-21T04:03:58Z 2008-04-22T20:15:37Z

The determination of Israel’s young people to engage on global challenges is a key driver. So was a resounding sense that the true Jewish identity – the identity that links religious and secular, Israeli and diaspora Jews--is built on a value structure that calls for active responsibility for global neighbors.

Mary Hadar Sloshing through Hezekiah’s tunnel near the City of David in Jerusalem brings home what fear and faith can do. The 530-meter-long tunnel was chiseled out of rock over 2500 years ago, deep underground, by men without flashlights or scientific instruments to guide them. They knew that if they were attacked they could survive only if they were sure of their water source. To this day water flows through the tunnel from a spring to a reservoir. Both faith and anxiety were in evidence at a conference last month in Israel, organized by the University of Tel Aviv. It brought together a diverse group of scholars, human rights activists, philanthropists, NGOs hoping for ideas and financing, and rabbis. The topic was faith and international development and how Israelis and Jews could and should engage, through private charity and public development programs, on programs ranging from HIV/AIDS to global warming and water desalination. The theme woven through two days of discussion was Tikkun Olam. Generally translated (from the Hebrew) as “repairing the world”, it is a call both to charity and to social activism, going far beyond the family and immediate community. The challenge for this diverse group from many parts of the world was what Tikkun Olam should mean today. Some of the oldest and wisest teachings about charity and development come from Jewish traditions. Take Maimonides, for example, whose eight stages of charity, set out in the 12th century, are widely quoted today – the “lowest” rung of the ladder is giving publicly and grudgingly when asked, the “highest” is giving anonymously without being asked in a way that sets someone on a path to independence. Jewish charities are active across the globe and Jewish leaders are part of the finest traditions of philanthropy. They have been leaders in development work in many countries, especially in Africa. But Israel’s development programs have a low profile. A survey presented at the conference suggested that 77 percent of Israelis have never heard of Mashav, Israel’s development agency. Mashav’s programs have shrunk in recent decades, and Knesset support for development work is at best tepid. Israel’s active civil society is not engaged, a message that came through in blunt terms. Yet the conference heard many positive stories. Aya Navon is deputy director of Tevel b”Tzedek, a nongovernmental organization that offers young Israelis the chance to volunteer in Nepal, especially in health clinics. Her infectious enthusiasm spoke to a new generation infused with a modern spirit of Tikkun Olam. And Anne Heyman, described by her panel chair as a “South African softie” with unshakable determination, is the force behind a youth village for genocide victims in Rwanda. Inon Schenker’s Jerusalem AIDS project is training South Africans how to perform adult male circumcision, a key tool in containing the spread of AIDS in Southern Africa. Ruth Messinger of American Jewish World Service is a powerful voice both for youth service and for taking action on the genocide in Darfur. The workshop both signaled and called for change. The determination of Israel’s young people to engage on global challenges is a key driver. So was a resounding sense that the true Jewish identity – the identity that links religious and secular, Israeli and diaspora Jews--is built on a value structure that calls for active responsibility for global neighbors. Looking to these values is the way to bring religious wisdom and teaching – the spirit of Tikkum Olam – together with the rich experience and creative vigor of Jewish development specialists and philanthropists. There is plenty to be afraid about in today’s world, terrorism, environmental catastrophe and hunger among them. But there is ample space for faith and hope as well. It was inspiring to see hutzpah and high hopes, skepticism and questioning of stale jargon, blending of traditions of wisdom and very modern doubts, and the willingness to look both fear and faith in the face. That’s a good way to grapple with the question of how ancient charitable ideals fit in with the demands of the 21st century. tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.38905 2008-04-14T13:02:24Z 2008-04-15T18:11:01Z

Clinton and Obama spoke intelligently and maturely about faith in public life, as if they weren't running for office.Video: Quinn and Berlinerblau discuss 'Bittergate.'

Jacques Berlinerblau There were many winners at Sunday night’s Compassion Forum at Messiah College and no discernible losers as far as I could tell. For starters, the sponsoring and organizing group, Faith in Public Life, handled logistics superbly. FPL is setting an agenda and it is doing so with a “Big Tent” philosophy of letting different religious Americans bring their concerns to the fore. Last night a theologically diverse group of pre-selected clergy asked questions about euthanasia, environmental concerns, poverty, AIDS, the relation between science and faith, and so on. In so doing, they broadened the issue palette pertaining to religious politicking considerably. This is where Faith in Public Life is making a major contribution to national discourse. without castigating or excluding secular Americans. The moderators Campbell Brown and Jon Meacham--let me thank them in advance-- asked both candidates to comment on the assertion that “religion already has way too much influence in political life and public life.” Senator Clinton responded: "I understand why some people, even religious people, even people of faith might say, why are you having this forum? And why are you exploring these issues from two people who are vying to be president of the United States? And I think that's a fair question to ask. I am here because I think it's also fair for us to have this conversation. But I'm very conscious of how thoughtful we must proceed." Senator Obama offered a somewhat different answer. He contrasted the Democratic Party of old (read the folks who had militantly expurgated faith from public life) with the Republican Party of today (read the folks who have abused religion in politics). Riffing on themes from his Audacity of Hope and arguing that a happy medium could be found, Obama closed by saying: “We are a Jewish nation; we are a Buddhist nation; we are a Muslim nation; Hindu nation; and we are a nation of atheists and nonbelievers.” (Factor in that “On Faith” columnist Eboo Patel asked a question of Senator Clinton in which he observed that “Americans of all faith and no faith at all believe in compassion,” and it becomes clear that nonbelievers in America had their best night in the public square since Carl Sagan’s Cosmos debuted on PBS). The candidates, for their part, scored no knock-out punches. This is not surprising since the tone and format of the evening did not encourage pugilism. When pressed Senator Clinton referred to Senator Obama’s remarks about “bitter" Americans as “elitist, out of touch and patronizing”—thus trying to turn Obama’s headiness and professorial bearing back on him. (In an earlier column I noted that John Edwards too was also rolling out an “Obama-Is-Too-Academic” product line. I wonder if the McCain people are buying). Clinton, for her part, was astonishingly serene and deliberate in her responses. It was as if she walked in with the strategy of slowing down the pace of the game (to better contrast herself with the up-tempo Obama who has been a bit careless with the rhetorical ball of late?). Her “Four Corners Offense” did have the drawback of striking some as a bit dull and rambling. Though in response to a question about why suffering is permitted by a loving God she offered one of the best responses of the night: “Its very existence is a call to action.” As for Senator Obama, he was very much in his element. His suggestion that an Office of Faith-Based Initiatives in his administration would specifically target poverty was extraordinarily interesting as were his remarks on the compatibility between evolutionary theory and religion. Obama’s handlers probably wish that he weren’t so relentlessly interesting; his recent missteps can be attributed to his willingness to speak with the freedom and candor of a college lecturer. In all, it was about as serious a conversation on religion and politics that could be had with presidential aspirants in tow. Sally Quinn and I will be discussing all this in greater detail in our upcoming God Vote video. As for me, I had a great time. My only regret is that I didn’t carve out more time to chat with the students of Messiah College whose administrators rendered an important service to the nation by hosting the forum. For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs Video: Quinn and Berlinerblau discuss "Bittergate.]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.38864 2008-04-11T03:20:26Z 2008-04-13T15:59:53Z

McCain declined to attend Sunday's 'Compassion Forum,' which means Clinton and Obama will be attacking him and not each other for a change.

Jacques Berlinerblau Sunday’s Compassion Forum, I keep repeating to myself the French maxim: “Les absents ont toujours tort” (Who said that? La Rochefoucauld? When in doubt always say La Rochefoucauld). The proverb translates as “those who are not present are always wrong” and my guess is that senators Obama and Clinton will discuss at length what they view as the wrongfulness of (the absent) John McCain’s policies, not to mention those of the party that he represents. This raises the question as to why the Senator from Arizona declined the invitation to participate from the sponsoring group, Faith in Public Life.]]> Congressional Black Caucus Institute Debate with its parrying, pugilism and perfect ill-will are likely to be disappointed. On the contrary, the senators will be doing the discursive equivalent of wearing their Sunday Best. After all, the headlines coming out of the event can’t very well be CLINTON JACKS UP OBAMA AT COMPASSION FORUM!: MCCAIN:"I FELT BAD FOR BARACK." or, BARACK SMACKS DOWN HILLARY AT RELIGIOUS COLLEGE DEBATE!: MCCAIN:"I FELT BAD FOR CLINTON>" In short, the candidates will be taking the high road—the road less traveled. This is not to say that the evening will be dull or lacking substance. I do expect less spectacle, less rancor and less "dialogue" between the belligerents. But given the format--which seems immune to sound-biting and provides us with skilled moderators--we may hear some well-rehearsed monologues and impromptu asides that afford glimpses into what the candidates truly believe about the proper role of religion in American politics. On their website Faith in Public Life notes that a variety of issues will be addressed such as global AIDS, climate change, poverty and human rights. I would be surprised if abortion and gay rights did not come up as well. “Men,” as La Rochefoucauld pointed out “give away nothing so liberally as their advice.” So I meekly submit that it would be swell if the candidates shared their views on Church/State separation too. As I have noted elsewhere, this topic has been strategically expunged from Democratic Party rhetoric in 2008. All I can say is that its continuing absence in national debate may be leading more and more to assume that everything about secularism is plain wrong. For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs ]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/onfaith/georgetown//481.38820 2008-04-08T12:07:40Z 2008-04-08T20:55:24Z

Save us from the Cult of Baseball, that quasi-religious sport that tries our patience and souls. »»The God Vote: Clinton, Obama and Benedict

Jacques Berlinerblau Canterbury Tales: with relief, weary gratitude and ebullience. As the month of March expires I praise the sky and salute the sun. I smile toothily at forlorn pansies that cross my path. Yet there is one rite of spring which leaves me decidedly glum. I refer to the start of baseball season. Compounding my despair is the veritable Cult of Baseball that predominates in the newsrooms of America. Question: How do you know it’s Opening Day? Answer: When half the (often secular) pundits nationwide are writing columns about baseball being like religion. Like their religion. ******************************* Why credible opinion makers lack any modicum of objectivity when addressing this subject is beyond me. But it has not escaped my attention that nearly every psalmist of The Diamond lets slip something to the effect of “My dad used to take me to the ballpark.” The infection sets in early. ]]> The game is slow--a dance of stasis. With the exception of the pitcher and catcher, most of the players on the field scarcely move. In terms of the ground they cover baseball players are not that different from chess pieces, albeit ones that that spit and scratch their unmentionables. If teamwork is defined as “individuals making sacrifices for their team,” then there is very little teamwork in baseball. Aside from a sacrifice bunt or purposefully sticking one’s head into the path of an oncoming fastball, little in the sport demands that the individual suffer for the greater good. (One wonders what a “Wedge Buster” in the NFL—the concussion-addled chap instructed during kickoffs to hurl himself at top speed into a wall of four very large men who also happen to be running at top speed—would make of baseball’s liberal conception of “sacrifice.”) The season is pointlessly long, stretching from Grapefruit Leagues of February to the final out of the World Series in November. This has never once prevented a journalist from declaiming on New Year’s Day: “only a few more weeks until pitchers and catchers!” The ball is actually in play for about three minutes of a tortuous five-hour ordeal. Indeed, few sports do so much to prevent their players from displaying their wares as this one does. Why would an athlete--and I don’t doubt that many baseball players are phenomenal athletes-- who is neither a pitcher nor a catcher want to participate in a sport where his talents are activated for about the length of a commercial break? Perhaps, the tedium accounts for the curiosity that baseball players often consume snacks during the game. Peanuts, sunflower seeds, beer, popcorn, Osso Bucco, Flan--few other sports provide so much time and space for culinary explorations. Which brings us to a major embarrassment: First- and Third-Bases Coaches who are part of the "action". No strangers to Osso Bucco and beer, these men actually instruct players to do something that most athletes know instinctually: when and when not to run. One could forgive the game's allergy to movement and physical exertion. One could ignore that recurring visual trope of the spectacle: the center field camera gazing lovingly on the pitcher’s immobile backside. But the unspeakable truth is that baseball is a threat to homeland security. The sport is still inexplicably popular among the nation’s youth. As such, it becomes something of a feeder program for advanced careers in sloth and obesity. Compare, if you will, the post-game rituals of seven-year old soccer and baseball players. The footballers are spent. Some are sprawled out like Marmaduke. Others are voraciously inhaling pre-sliced tangerines. The little leaguers, by contrast, are numbed. After an afternoon of standing around in the sun and consuming SlimJims some ponder the possibility of going home to do some exercise. **************************** Let me conclude by returning to our religious metaphor. It was one of the greatest insights of the sociologist Emile Durkheim to recognize that people don’t usually know the real reasons motivating their thought and action. Baseball, I submit, is the prooftext for this “theory of misrecognition.” Few games could be duller than this one. Few deserve the devotion of their supporters less than the national pastime. But the quasi-religious awe for the game remains. I submit that this awe is inspired by motivations which agents rarely understand. “My dad used to take me to the ballpark”—therein lies the best explanation I know of for the Cult of Baseball. For that bond is sacred. And for the health of the nation, we can only hope that today’s families forge that bond through different sports. (For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs) The God Vote: Clinton, Obama and Benedict]]>