Tonight on Hardball, Chris Matthews vocally pounded support for abortion reduction as a public policy goal and as a means of moving past the culture wars, agreeing with Slate columnist Wiliam Saletan and chastising conservative guest Ken Blackwell for not embracing this middle ground approach.

The abortion reduction movement continues to gain steam. Watch the segment below.

M25’s efforts at changing the national conversation on Christianity and politics has received notice outside the United States. In a recent speech to the UK’s Institute for Pubic Policy Research, Labour Party MP Stephen Timms discusses the role of faith in building a hope-based politics on the left (pdf). In the speech, he discusses the continuing strong influence of faith in the political values of the British, despite the perception of a rapidly secularizing state. He also discusses at length the accomplishments of the Obama campaign on this front and gives a shout-out to M25:

The Matthew 25 Network was a Federal Political Action Committee on behalf of the Obama campaign.  Its name is from Jesus’s remark about people who feed the hungry, visit the sick, give hospitality to strangers and visit people in prison: “as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me”.  They point out that “Christians across the country are answering the Gospel call to care for our neighbour, especially the most vulnerable”.  They argued that those involved should vote for candidates who share their values, and their website presents Obama campaign points on Faith; Poverty and Economic Justice; Valuing Families; Creation Care – on environmental issues; and Moral Leadership in the World.  This is a new and important channel for political communication that we need to develop, as we have been in the Labour Party Churches Updates in the past 18 months.

Overall, his remarks offer a slightly different perspective on the faith/progressive politics links and are worth a read over. It’s humbling to be reminded that the M25 community is part of a global movement, and that sovereign borders make no real difference  in the realm of faith and hope.

Our friends over at FPL have organized a letter of Christian leaders supporting the nomination of Gov. Sebelius for HHS Secretary (similar to the letter of support from Catholic leaders organized by Catholics United). The latest letter of support is posted below.

As Christians dedicated to finding common ground solutions to reduce the number of abortions in America, we welcome President Obama’s nomination of Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Under Governor Sebelius’ leadership, abortions have decreased in Kansas by 10 percent, adoption funding and incentives have increased, healthcare access for women and families has expanded, prenatal care has become more widely available, and legislation protecting the unborn from crime has become law. Such a record demonstrates a commitment to results rather than rhetoric on life issues.

She is a Democratic Governor who has been elected by wide margins in a state where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats two to one. Her nomination has already won not only the support of Democrats, but also praise from Republican pro-life senators such as Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts and governors such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia. Her record and her relationships with leaders in both parties are proof that pro-choice and pro-life leaders can work together to advance a pro-family agenda.

The governor, who is by all accounts a person of deep faith, deserves a fair hearing in Congress and in the public square. Efforts to discredit her will no doubt arise, but we hope that such tactics will not succeed in taking focus off of her record of reducing abortions and supporting women and families in Kansas – and the task that lies ahead of us all: working together to improve health care and reduce the number of abortions in America.

The list of signatures is listed after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Religious Right community has declared war against the nomination of Gov. Sebelius for the HHS Secretary. The reasoning? Ostensibly, abortion.

Let’s address this head on. Gov. Sebelius, as a Catholic, has repeatedly stated her pro-life convictions. What she opposes, as do many who hold pro-life values, is the criminalization of abortion for the patient or doctor. Instead, she has advocated for the common ground, real-results approach of reducing the number of abortions through reducing unwanted pregnancies and promoting adoptions.

Here is Gov. Sebelius’s record during her tenure as governor:

• Abortion has dropped 8.5% from 2002 to 2007 in Kansas (see reports here)
• Teen pregnancy has dropped 7% from 2002 to 2006 (see reports here)
• Funding for adoption support increased by $2.1 million
• She signed law doubling the adoption tax credit
• She signed law aiding in the adoption process

In addition, Gov Sebelius signed into law Alexa’s Law, legally protecting the unborn child in the case of a crime against the mother — a law which goes well beyond even the similar Mosaic law found in Exodus 21:22. And this Dr. George Tiller you keep hearing about? It so happens that Gov.-Sebelius-appointed state attorney general is prosecuting him for violating late-term abortion state laws.

The personal smears need to stop. For those who relish the culture wars (and for those entrenched political interests whose very fuel is the culture wars), the “criminalize abortion” ideology will always matter more than any actual progress on reducing the number of abortions in this country. For the rest of us who desire a constructive political debate where substantive policy goals (such as health care!) and practical solutions drive the conversation, I suggest ignoring the Right’s character assassination attempt on Gov. Sebelius.

ALSO: Fellow Kansan and Catholic Sen. Brownback is supporting the nomination. If even Sen. Brownback, whose office allowed his name to be used in the recent fundraising letter that hit a new low by attacking the faith of his own Congressional colleagues, is supporting her, I think that is a good indication of how misguided (and pointless) of a battle this is for the Right.

ALSO: Did anyone else notice the overtly shoddy reporting done by the The Hill in the article i linked to up top? Not only does it just take the Religious Right’s opposition dump largely at its word while giving very little voice to the larger, more reasonable pro-life community not represented by the voices of the likes of Tony Perkins, but it even seems to state — or at least strongly imply — that Catholics United is a “pro-abortion rights” group. That is simply not true and is very poor reporting.

In a move symbolic of the changing of the guard happening in the Evangelical world, James Dobson announced today that he is stepping down as chairperson of the board of Focus on the Family. In a move symbolic of the challenges the old guard is having to take the hint, he will be continuing his radio show for the foreseeable future.

Dobson stepping down could be a step in the right direction for Focus on the Family. This is a powerful opportunity for the organization. Depending on who they choose on his replacement, it can continue its stance of political divisiveness which has increasingly relegated it to the fringes of irrelevancy, or it can choose to take a constructive new step forward and seek the higher ground of civility and the public policies for the common good.

Let’s hope they choose the latter.

For those of you who have missed this storm, Sen. Sam Brownback’s signature is on a fundraising letter directly questioning the authenticity of the faith of six of his fellow Senators as well as that of Speaker Pelosi. This is a new low in the Christian Right’s politicking — while such an accusation has often been implied, one Senator directly challenging the faith of his fellow colleagues for the purpose of raising funds for an outside group is a low that I hope is not replicated anytime soon.

Sen. Brownback’s office is not surprisingly backing off of the statements and has asked that the group quit using his signature. Catholic Advocate, the group whose fundraising letter has set off the whole firestorm, is refusing to back down and claims the language was properly approved by the Senator’s office.

Faithful America and Catholics United are running a petition drive to ask Sen. Brownback to clarify his statements to those who have received the letter and for Catholic Advocate to donate the funds raised off of this letter to be given to charity. I encourage you all to sign it here.

UPDATE: Faithful America is reporting that 3000+ and counting have so far called for accountability from Sen. Brownback.

In the media narrative, often progressive Christian political stances equates with liberal or non-orthodox theology. While that is undoubtedly sometimes true, the flip side, that somehow traditional, orthodox Christian faith is at odds with progressive political values, is a troublesome part of the political media narrative.

In view of this, I came across a real gem looking over John C. Green’s piece in First Things breaking down religious voters between the 2004 presidential race and the 2008 presidential race. The data split the White Catholic vote into three categories: modernist, centrist, and traditionalist. In what is not a major surprise, Obama slightly underperformed Kerry amongst the modernist and centrist Catholics — after all, Kerry himself fell somewhere in those two categories. Obama’s modernist vote dropped from Kerry’s level of 74 to 66, and his centrist vote from 41 to 34.

Here is where it gets interesting though: Among the White traditionalist Catholics, Obama had a 17 point gain over Kerry, jumping from Kerry’s 22 points to 39. Just as interesting, that also means that Obama did better in the traditionalist vote than the centrist vote.

Confused? Well, according to religion and politics CW you should be. That is not supposed to happen.

I think there could be a number of factors at play here. One that is less exciting but deserves mention is that Kerry’s abortion views may have received more play and done more damage to him among the traditionalists precisely because he was Catholic. However, a lot more than an intra-Catholic backlash is at play here. A 17 point swing like that means that something serious is afoot here.

John Greene noticed the same jump, and suggests a main factor was the deepening unpopularity of the Iraq War, which the Vatican has always been critical of. I agree, but I think this “traditionalist awakening” owes itself to two broader dual movements.

First, this shift follows the re-prioritizing of social justice in the Catholic dialogue. This includes anti-war sentiment, but it also means the renewed focus on economic justice and health care rights in an election where the economy and health care were front and center.

Second, this shift was made possible due to the subduing of the culture wars. These traditionalists are staunchly pro-life, yet 39% voted for Obama. How is this possible? One reason is that, as mentioned above, in the rising tide of other social justice areas, abortion lost its right to its one-issue pedestal. The other reason, however, is that Obama, unlike Kerry, actually reached out across this battle line to push for abortion reduction programs.

For all those critics of abortion reduction from the Left (most vocal amongst them perhaps Street Prophets’ pastordan), this is why abortion reduction matters from a political standpoint (which is not even to bring up the issue’s obvious moral and policy importance). To bring in these traditionalist votes, Obama did not need to agree with them on abortion; he just had to make it an issue they could move beyond. Once that bridge was built, many traditionalists noticed that the political grass did look greener on the other side.

And this is the real finding: Theologically “traditionalist” need not equal politically “conservative.” If this traditionalist awakening could be cultivated over the next few years and widened to the Protestant circles, the implications for the political landscape could be seismic.

After the jump I posted the full polling data chart.

Read the rest of this entry »

In a possibly new low in the “What does being conservative have anything to do with Jesus?” category, a new third party anti-stimulus ad attempts to continue to milk further the benefits of that unholy alliance that is the “religious” and the “right” by reminding voters that, um, Jesus, lived 2000 years ago, and that, um, 2000 x 365 x a million which, NO JOKE, is < 787 billion. Go figure. Literally.

What does this have to do with Jesus, you may ask? About as much as His teachings support an unjustifiable War in Iraq, or about as much as His teachings support the politics of fear, or about as much as His teachings support immigration raids of terror, or torture, or top-down economics, or deregulation…you get the idea. Oh right, I forgot. It has to do with the fact that he lived 2000 years ago, and we all know what 2000 times a million equals…

What this ad has to do with Jesus is that it reminds us just how far away from the actually “Christian” the “Right” actually is and how far it has to stretch to keep this unholy alliance together. Not to mention that this ad just highlights how ignorant and manipulable the Right’s power elite think Christians actually are.

I have an idea. A new ad: Jesus said to care for the least of these. The least of these right now: the laid off, the foreclosed homeless, those sick and uninsured for whom a bad situation just got worse. The stimulus plan: helps these neighbors in need. The end.

And wasn’t there something about not taking His name in vain?

UPDATE: Original post had 2000 x one million (left out the days part…). What does that have to do with Jesus? Oh, right. Still nothing.

I always find it insightful when dealing with social movements today to take a look back at the historical beginnings of these social movements. Over time issues that arose as fluid constructions eventually solidify and become dogmatized. New social coalitions that powered change naturally over time splinter and then re-group. Failure to understand these historical movements up to the present is to fail to really understand any social movement as it currently stands.

In seeking the elusive end (or at least subduing) of the “culture wars,” one needs to look back to the 70’s to remember when the Christian Right really arose in all its (non-)glory. Abortion is one (if not THE) issue that deserves a close look. Our President is pro-choice. Yet his administration has made it clear that abortion reduction is one of his agenda items. Some have wondered whether it is possible for elements of the pro-life movement to lay down its ideological arms to join a pro-choice administration to embrace constructive societal progress on this front.

The numbers tell us it can. About a quarter of Obama’s vote came from pro-lifers, and about a third of his young vote identified themselves as pro-life.

And a look at history tells us it can too. The extreme polarization of this issue was never an inevitability. There is an interesting piece up today on the historical beginnings of the modern pro-life movement. It is worth a look through (FYI: it is written from a decidedly pro-choice angle). Here’s a snippet:

Few Texas Baptists were more influential during the 1970s and 1980s than Foy Valentine. A graduate of Baylor University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he served as director of the Christian Life Commission for Southern Baptists from 1968 to 1980. During his tenure, he pushed the denomination toward a liberal stance on issues of race and poverty and opposed Farwell’s near-exclusive focus on opposing abortion rights. From his perch of leadership in the national convention, Valentine articulated an alternative Christian vision of reproductive issues.

Read the rest of this entry »

Okay, so this one brings up some mixed feelings. I’ll start with the good. It is great to see the Christian community coming together in any degree whatsoever to fight collectively for the poor.

The bad?

The Family Research Council’s Donovan, who says FRC is likely to oppose some of the coalition’s antipoverty recommendations when they’re released, says this is the first time his group has partnered with liberals since working on welfare reform in the 1990s.

“The lure for conservatives was access to an administration that has started off by sharply limiting our access,” says Donovan. “It was a chance to get some unity but also to work with people who could get the White House on the phone. I’ve spent a fair amount of time on it.”

We get a group of Christians answering their call to address (even if in rather untransformative policy suggestions) the poverty of their neighbors, and the Religious Right (who, in cased you missed it, no longer wishes to be called by that name now that Americans have rejected its type of politics…case in point?) says that they might not actually support the antipoverty proposals. In fact, they say, we were not (read between the lines) actually doing this because of any desire to help the poor, but rather because we missed our access to power and wanted it back.

…To end back on a good note, I do applaud conservative Michael Gerson for joining with Jim Wallis on this and at least attempting to rally his fellow conservatives behind fighting poverty. The proposals are a far cry from the action that needs to be taken, but the first step is getting the Church’s understanding that it really must help the poor (and that, no, private charities can not be the answer to the public policy questions).

The tide has been shifting and most Christians now recognize this social justice calling in our nation’s public policy. The Family Research Councils of the world still have their base, but this base is thankfully shrinking.