Sarah Palin - what you ought to know

I was totally surprised by McCain's VP pick over the weekend. I've been thinking about over the weekend, talking to friends, and gathering information. I will devote exactly one post to Sarah Palin, partly because I've already spent too much time worrying about it, and partly because I think that's all this political stunt of McCain deserves.

I think it's fairly obvious that had Sarah Palin been born with a Y chromosome, she would not be on McCain's ticket. I think McCain did it to 1) steal some of Obama's historical thunder last week, 2) try to appeal to disgruntled Hillary supporters, 3) shore up the evangelical base, 4) dominate the weekend news cycle and take attention away from Obama's fantastic and historic speech, 5) try to co-opt Obama's "change" theme and 5) shore up his "maverick" image.

I think it will be offensive to many women who see right through it. I think that many will be turned off by McCain's choice as soon as they learn about her. To that end, I have compiled a list of thing you ought to know about Sarah Palin.

1. She's OK with creationism being taught in science classes.

2. She thinks that the founding fathers wrote the Pledge of Alleigance (they didn't, and "under God wasn't added until 1951).

3. She is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest. She opposes it under any condition. I think this puts her squarely out mainstream opinion on abortion, and into the extreme camp.

4. She does not believe that global warming is due to human activity.

5. Less than two years ago, she was mayor of a town with less than 10,000 residents, and she has served as the governor of Alaska ever since.

6. She had no idea what the VP does and showed very little interest in it.

7. She has no foreign policy experience or even foreign policy opinion.

8. She's suing the federal government over the classification of the polar bear as an endangered species.

9. She came off as immature and unprofessional during a recent radio interview.

10. Finally, she's in the middle of an ethics probe by the Alaskan legislature.

Yet, there are some dangers. Obama and Biden need to be careful to go after McCain for this reckless and arrogant choice, by which he's essentially saying that he doesn't need a qualified and prepared VP to run with and to have as a "back-up" in case of illness or death should he be elected. They need to stick to Palin's policy views and experience. Don't make it personal. Biden will need to focus on McCain and not Palin when they debate.

Here's a really good reaction from an Alaskan blogger with some knowledge of Palin and how Alaskans are reacting.

A historic moment and a reason to hope

At one point while watching the convention the other night I joked to my wife that Obama is going to find a cure for cancer and end world hunger. She joked right back and predicted that he'll achieve world peace, too. That's what you'd think from listening to speaker after speaker praise the Senator from Illinois. Hopes - and expectations - are sky high. But Obama's speech last night gives us a reason to hope, and a reason to work.

I was so proud last night. And so fired up. Obama's speech was fantastic. It had grand moments of beautiful and moving rhetoric, but for the most part it was down-to-earth and simple. And it was fiesty! He went after McCain hard, stripping away the "maverick" image and tying him to Bush policies and our current economic and foreign struggles. He got specific on his policy proposals, too, laying out what he would do to turn these around.

He reminded us that all this isn't about him. It's about us. I think that Obama is kind of a symbol of our hopes for this nation. I think last night he expressed our anger and frustration over growing inequality, a damaged international reputation, failed and short-sighted energy policy, and inattention to things like education, the environment, and more. For whatever reason, he has come along at the right moment and spoken to those frustrations and to those hopes. I think that's why he has generated the level of excitement that we're seeing.

Obama fashioned himself last night as the pragmatic progressive. He tackled tough issues like abortion, gay rights, guns, and immigration insisting that we have some common ground as Americans.

It was just fantastic and I'm still on a bit of a high from the whole thing. We have a chance to maybe turn things around a little bit in this country. But we need to elect Barack Obama.

One more thing. Minutes after the speech, I got an email from my older brother who likes Obama but had his concerns. All it said was "That was exactly what I needed to hear. He's got my vote." A bit later, he emailed again and just wrote "honest, real, and worthy."

Here's his speech:



Here's the little video that preceded his speech:

Election and convention thoughts (with video)

I watched most of night 3 of the Democratic convention last night. On C-SPAN, of course, so that I can actually hear what the convention speakers have to say. It was a great night. Bill Clinton gave a tremendous speech and a powerful endorsement of Obama. When he was President, I was just too young to care about politics and both my parents are Republican-leaning, so I never cared much for him. But his speech last night was powerful and intelligent. He linked the past twenty-some years of Republican ideology to the problems we've faced in the last eight years since Republicans have been in power. He spoke about the challenges we now face and why Obama is the best man for the job.

Similarly, John Kerry gave a surprisingly powerful speech that clearly laid out why McCain is not what we need right now, and how the candidate McCain is different from the Senator McCain on key issues. Yes, flip-flop would be the right word for it.

Biden's speech wasn't as eloquent or as tight, but it was still authentic and passionate. He also speaks from a unique place when he criticizes McCain - apparently they're friends.

Meanwhile, McCain continues to run the kind of campaign he said he wouldn't. He's amping up the fear mongering with a new ad accusing Obama of not taking Iran seriously enough. Problem is, he takes Obama's words horribly out of context. He also recently accused Obama displaying too much confidence in himself and not enough in his country during his speech in Germany. Problem is, when you actually read what Obama said, you just can't reach that kind of conclusion unless you're into "hyper-nationalistic chest-thumping" like McCain. This is GOP fear mongering at its worst, trying to portray a sane, intelligent Democrat as a weak, unpatriotic elitist. I hope people see right through it.

He also continues to release silly new ads almost daily. The funny thing is that he's not paying for them to air - he just relies on the major news networks to run them all day and talk about them. Speaking of the media, Eric Alterman has been tracking how crazy they get at convention time, and how viewers pay the price.

Just one more thing that's been bugging me. A new poll shows that 53 percent of Americans think Obama will raise their taxes. This is incredibly frustrating. First, it shows how effective Republicans have been at convincing people over the years that Democrats only want your money. Second, maybe McCain's misleading ads have been working. Most importantly, it's flat out wrong!! Obama's plan would put taxes back to Clinton-era levels for the most wealthy, and everyone else would get pretty big tax cuts. McCain, on the other hand, would cut taxes the most for the wealthy and barely help out everybody else. See for yourself.

Here are last night's speeches. Clinton:



Kerry:



Biden:

Thoughts on day 1 of the convention

I started watching the Democratic convention last night right before the video tribute to Senator Kennedy and his speech that followed. My wife and I had it on the background while we were doing some cleaning. Later, I stopped to watch Michelle Obama's speech. Wow. It was moving. I know that last night was all warm fuzzies and party unity and all that, but I still felt moved. And proud to be a Democrat.

Along the bottom of the screen CNN had these running facts about the delegates and about the convention. I remember seeing that about a quarter of the delegates are African American. About 6 percent are gay or lesbian. About 10 percent are Hispanic. I realized that this party reflects America's diversity in a way that I think the other party does not.

I think in the next few days we'll see speakers get tough on McCain and tough on what Republican rule has done in the last 8 years. But last night was a chance to remember the kind of dream many of us have for this great nation, and how much is riding on November's election.

Here's Michelle Obama's speech:


And here's Kennedy's speech:

Unitarian Universalism and weak boundaries

It seems like nearly every week that I see a new face at my local UU congregation. More often than not, especially if it's someone somewhat close to my age, I will introduce myself and try to make them feel welcome. I like to listen to them tell why they decided to visit a UU church that day. I like to hear about their religious journeys.

But, more often than not, these newcomers don't stick around. They may come one time, or a few times, or even for a few months, but usually not any longer than that. It's a bummer.

Why is this the case? Where is there so much movement in and out of our congregation? Why do people not stick around? It may have something to do with our congregation, but I suspect that it has to do more with liberal religion, and I'll tell you why.

Unitarian Universalism, like other liberal faiths, has weak boundaries. The "cost" of attending, and even joining, is very low, as is the "cost" of leaving. Mormonism, on the other hand, has high joining and exiting costs. In all my many years of attending Mormon churches, I found that there were relatively few newcomers. But those that do make that big step in coming for the first time are much more likely to join and stick around than those that casually attend a UU church.

What is a boundary? A boundary is something that draws a line between insiders and outsiders. Something that makes a distinction. Strictness is another word that sociologists of religion use. Mormonism has strong boundaries and is strict - prospective members take six lessons from full-time missionaries, promise to obey certain commandments, and must get baptized and confirmed. And then there are all the cultural boundaries, like the dress, the unique vocabulary, and so on. Unitarian Universalism, on the other hand, has very little boundaries. Some congregations encourage visitors and prospective members to take short classes on Unitarian Universalism, but there is little else.

As a result, there is a lot more movement in and out of Unitarian Universalism than there is in Mormonism. (Obviously, I mean at a typical congregation, not denomination-wide. There are way more people that check out and join Mormon congregations than UU ones.)

Are weak boundaries inherent to Unitarian Universalism? Is it just something we have to accept? I see attempts now and then at strengthening those boundaries, or increasing "strictness." My congregation eliminated a status called "friend" for those that wanted to be affiliated with the congregation but not a member of it. Also, during this year's pledge drive, representatives from the congregation met one on one with members to talk to them about their experiences at the congregation and to encourage them to pledge generously.

I'm definitely interested in exploring ways to strengthen the boundaries, so to speak, while not being exclusive or demanding uniformity. I am too bummed when I see excited new faces at church, only to never see them again.

Obama-Biden '08!!

Obama announced his VP pick early this morning. Our next Vice President will be Joe Biden, Senator from Delaware. It's been suspected for a little while now that he would pick Biden, and in general, Obama supporters and Democrats are happy with the choice. He has some obvious appeal on the ticket - he's older, white, Catholic, and has a lot of experience, especially with foreign policy. Here's some good quick analysis from the Nation and from TPM.

Obama-Biden. I like the sound of that.

I must speak out

In some ways, I still consider myself a Mormon, despite my inactivity in the church and my commitment to my local Unitarian Universalist congregation. Mormonism gets into you deep, and it still affects how I see religion and even the world. On this blog I have discussed my decision to leave, and my decision to remain a friend and even defender of the church.

So it pains me to be critical of the church, but on one issue I feel compelled to speak out loud and strong. I have followed the church's involvement in the California gay marriage debate ever since it announced that it's disapproval of the recent California Supreme Court decision, vowed to back and interfaith effort to ban gay marriage on the state constitution, and urged its members to get behind this effort with their time and money.

I've watched with sadness and frustration. I think the church is well-meaning and sincere, but also dead wrong and totally misguided on this.

Anyway, the church has recently released a statement with the intent to "reduce misunderstanding and ill will." Whether it will accomplish that, I know not. It's a pretty thorough summary of both the church's unique viewpoints on the issue, as well as your standard religious right kind of stuff. It's somewhat long, but very much worth a read. Needless to say, I think it's flat out wrong, and I just wanted to mention a few things about it. Make no mistake - I agree with the church that families are sacred and deserve our greatest attention and care, but I disagree strongly and wholeheartedly with the claims the church makes about the potential impact of gay marriage on society.

First, on the theological stuff that starts off the statement. This is valuable for Mormons and to some extent other conservative Christians, but it just does work in a public debate on an issue like this. A certain senator from Illinois back had something wise to say about this a couple years ago:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.

Of course, the church knows this and what follows is their attempt to bring the debate into the realms of law, sociology, and psychology. The first main contention stems from this:

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.

They then argue that because of that fact, same-sex couples are just not fit to be parents, and so they shouldn't be allowed to marry. They acknowledge that some heterosexual couples choose to not or cannot have children, but state that:

the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders.

Whatever that means. So, even though these couples aren't having kids, they're still upholding the model or something. They also acknowledge that some same-sex couples adopt, but conclude that "the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children," without offering any evidence. I hope that there will be more research on this. But the gay and lesbian friends I have would make great parents, and some of them in fact are parents. I think what makes a family successful is trust, love, patience, discipline, commitment, and communication. I believe that families can come in all shapes, sizes, and colors and be successful.

The statement also recognizes that families headed by straight parents have a lot of work to do:

High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society.

In my opinion, this is what the statement should be about. This is what the church should be spending its time and energy on, not keeping a handful of people from entering into legally recognized, committed, responsible relationships that only uphold and confirm the importance and significance of marriage!! In a sense, this is why I think it is so misguided to oppose gay marriage. It is hurting, broken, or breaking families that make life tough for kids. It's abuse, and poverty, and inequality, and divorce. Not a handful of gays and lesbians.

They then argue that it has only been those pesky activist judges that have been overturning the will of the people, as "there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is." I would really beg to differ. On the 2006 General Social Survey, just barely over 50% of Americans oppose gay marriage! Some agreement, huh? Also, of those under 30, more people are in favor of it then are against it. That is the future of America.

The organized effort that the church is backing, Protect Marriage, would have you think that everything in our country should be based on and ruled by majority opinion. According to them, four "activist judges" "wrongly overturned" the will of the people of California. They did it "without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision." So, why even have judges, then? Let's not worry about protecting racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities! Let's just put everything to a vote! Were all those judges that have advanced racial equality in the last century just crazy "activist" judges?

This one is perhaps the most frustrating for me:

The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

So, basically, that small number of gay and lesbian couples that want to have their committed relationships recognized as legitimate will make us just like Europe! Blaming a hypothetical European-like moral decline of society on a married gay and lesbian minority is completely and utterly ridiculous. Like, so ridiculous that I have to stop talking about it. But fear of becoming like Europe runs deep with conservatives sometimes.

There's a lot more to say about the statement, but I'll stop there. I think our energy should be on solving the problems that families face, not passing hateful constitutional amendments. I strongly believe that allowing same-sex marriage would actually be a sign of our society's commitment to marriage and family, and our ability to stand on the side of love and equality.

Finally, I want to point out a couple great sites created by Mormons who are concerned about the church's position on gay marriage and who oppose Proposition 8 in California. Their arguments are worth reading: Mormons for Marriage and Signing for Something.

Most hopeful, exciting description of atheism I've ever read

I participate in a private Internet forum where religion is the main topic. Atheism was a topic of conversation recently, and reactions varied widely. They ranged from respect and admiration to accusations that atheism is "easy and simple and immature." I put in my two cents, and noted that I'm more comfortable with the label "agnostic" for myself. But in some situations I may feel comfortable calling myself an atheist.

Someone provided a link to a fantastic essay from NPR's This I Believe series. It is written by Penn Jillette, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, comedian, magician, and lecturer. When I read it I was blown away. It is a great description of the best parts of disbelief. It's a bright, hopeful description of what exactly atheism is all about. And it sums up how I feel. A couple excerpts:

But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

And:

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

The whole thing is fantastic. I don't think he ever criticizes or belittles believers. Nor do I. But this point is interesting:

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power.

I agree with this to some point. But humans generally aren't big on "objective evidence" when it comes to religion, and I think that most people are sort of socialized into belief in God, so they never have a chance to start with no belief in God.

Again, my purpose here is not to attack or belittle those that believe in God, but just to point out the wonderful worldview that Jillette is describing.

Why is it so close?

National polls have Obama and McCain even now, and state polls have McCain gaining ground in key states. I marvel at how close things are, and the fact that apparently half of our nation's voters are thinking about voting for McCain. Maybe it's because I'm liberal (well, probably). Maybe it's because I actually pay attention to the campaign. But I just don't see what makes McCain so appealing. I worry that it has less to do with what's appealing about McCain and more to do with apprehension about Obama, his race, his name, and the post-9/11 world we live in, where McCain's hawkishness, his POW background, and his otherwise unpopular party might somehow make people feel secure.

Eric Alterman wonders, too:

Republicans are running a presidential campaign at a moment of historic unpopularity for their party and with a candidate who has a panoply of potentially negative associations for voters. In the first place, John McCain's stances on the issues, while consistent with the desires of his party's base, are at odds with the professed wishes of the American people. Second, while he bills himself as a man of principle, he has in fact changed his position--"flip-flopped"--repeatedly on fundamental issues such as immigration, taxes, campaign finance, reproductive choice, etc. (See "Loving McCain," July 7.)

His opponent has no such liabilities. His party is on an upswing. His positions are popular. He has never been associated with personal scandal; has earned, together with his wife, all of his family's money himself; is young, vivacious and without McCain's mean streak. But Barack Obama is black, and burdened with a Muslim-sounding name, in a country that has yet to transcend the racial horrors of its past or the reflexive parochialism and xenophobia of much of its populace. McCain must depend on these two factors to remain competitive in an election year when all indications suggest that a conservative Republican would have little to no chance of victory.

Frank Rich wonders, too, noting that the media has been pretty soft on McCain, preserving his "maverick" image:

What is widely known is the skin-deep, out-of-date McCain image. As this fairy tale has it, the hero who survived the Hanoi Hilton has stood up as rebelliously in Washington as he did to his Vietnamese captors. He strenuously opposed the execution of the Iraq war; he slammed the president’s response to Katrina; he fought the “agents of intolerance” of the religious right; he crusaded against the G.O.P. House leader Tom DeLay, the criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff and their coterie of influence-peddlers.

With the exception of McCain’s imprisonment in Vietnam, every aspect of this profile in courage is inaccurate or defunct.

McCain never called for Donald Rumsfeld to be fired and didn’t start criticizing the war plan until late August 2003, nearly four months after “Mission Accomplished.” By then the growing insurgency was undeniable. On the day Hurricane Katrina hit, McCain laughed it up with the oblivious president at a birthday photo-op in Arizona. McCain didn’t get to New Orleans for another six months and didn’t sharply express public criticism of the Bush response to the calamity until this April, when he traveled to the Gulf Coast in desperate search of election-year pageantry surrounding him with black extras.

McCain long ago embraced the right’s agents of intolerance, even spending months courting the Rev. John Hagee, whose fringe views about Roman Catholics and the Holocaust were known to anyone who can use the Internet. (Once the McCain campaign discovered YouTube, it ditched Hagee.)

He continues to basically accuse Obama of treason, suggesting that he'd rather "lose" in Iraq than do the right thing - out of sheer "ambition." It's the classic attempt at turning your opponent's strength into a weakness. Obama has been right about Iraq from the beginning.

A recent NY Times article shows a startling hawkishness and poor judgment from McCain leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

What will it take? People watching the parties' conventions, seeing the candidates, and realizing that McCain offers no real change? Obama getting tougher and meaner (I doubt it - he walks a fine line, I think, because of his age and race)? People just listening to McCain? I don't know. I still think Obama will win, but I'm starting to worry.

Thank goodness for helmets!

Mom, if you're reading this, stop right here.

Last night I crashed while on a bike ride. I was going down a fairly steep hill, maybe a little faster than usual, and somehow I lost control. The next thing I knew I was on my side and my helmet visor was dangling. My bike was several feet in front of me. Dirt was rubbed into my shirt sleeve and my forearm pretty well, and my head started to hurt. I did a thorough check of myself, and then more importantly, my bike, and concluded that we were both OK (but I did have to straighten the handlebars). I called my wife to see if she thought I should cut my ride short. I had a headache and a bump, but I didn't feel drowsy, nauseated, or strange at all. I ended up continuing my ride for another half hour or so before coming home. When I got home, the helmet-shaped bruise on my forehead and temple kind of freaked me out.

There's a nice dent in my helmet. I'm just glad I was wearing one. I never thought I'd need it.

Conservative Christian organizations don't even want federal money

Last week I wrote about Obama's plans to continue and expand federal funding to faith-based organizations for the purpose of administering social services. I wrote about the strong opposition to this among some liberals. I suspect that at least part of this opposition is based on the concern that funds could go to organizations for whom proselytizing is a central aim.

I came across an article a couple days ago that suggests that this should not be a concern. A 2006 article published in the Review of Religious Research found that liberals' fears about this may be unfounded. The study was based on a survey of over 600 faith-based social service coalitions from all over the country. Their conclusion:

In short, more religiously expressive and evangelically influenced coalitions have considerably more negative views about government as a source of funding than their less religiously oriented counterparts.

And:

Those that have ever received government funding are less evangelically influenced and have less religiously expressive policies and practices than those that have not.

The reason:

Some coalition directors and clergy, especially those in more conservative agencies and affiliated congregations, report that they are reluctant to accept government funds for fear of compromising the religious nature and goals of the organization.

It's actually quite ironic, as the authors point out:

In public discussion, religious and political liberals generally oppose policies that would provide government monies to religious groups that offer social services, while conservatives support such policies. However, recent research demonstrates that the opposite occurs in terms of both commitment to the delivery of social service programs and willingness to accept government funding to support them on the part of conservative and liberal clergy and religious organizations.

Unfortunately, many liberals will continue to be paranoid about the prospect of evangelical organizations getting funded to bring souls to Christ. In reality, however, it appears that service organizations with that as their main goal want nothing to do with federal money. I think that's great, and probably how it should work. I think there are still legitimate concerns about the whole thing, and we should all definitely keep a close eye on it, but this study should allay some of our fears.

UUA wants to run a new ad: please consider donating!

I just received an email from the UUA announcing a new ad it wants to run in the New York Times, USA Today, and the Knoxville News Sentinel. It's about the church shooting in Knoxville a couple weeks ago. The heading reads "Our doors and our hearts remain open." You can see the ad here.

It's partly a public statement of sympathy and support for the victims, partly an expression of pride in how Knoxville UUs have responded, and partly a reaffirmation of UU principles and values. From the end of the ad:

Unitarian Universalists know that our congregations are places where our spirits can be nurtured and we will be lovingly supported on our spiritual journeys. But we are not content to leave our faith in our sanctuaries when Sunday worship has ended. We are called by our faith to help heal our world. And we thank people of all faiths who have reached out with support.

On August 3rd, just one week after the joy and innocence of their Sunday service was defiled by gunfire, the TVUUC congregation rededicated their sanctuary to peace. Inspired by the Unitarian Universalists of Knoxville, Unitarian Universalists everywhere have rededicated themselves to our religious mission: to welcome the stranger, to love our neighbor, to work or justice, to nurture the spirits of all who seek a liberal religious home, and to help heal this wounded world.

We will not give in to fear. We will meet hatred with love. We will continue to work for justice. Our hearts, and the doors of our more than 1,000 Unitarian Universalist congregations nationwide, remain open. Unitarian Universalists stand on the side of love. We invite you to stand with us.

It's a wonderful message and a wonderful response to the tragedy. But it will not be cheap to run the ad, and the UUA is looking for help to make sure they can do it. PLEASE consider donating to make sure this message gets out there.

I'd just add one thing: I'd love to see this ad online, too. I keep hearing the newspaper readership is down, and I wonder whether some of the most responsive people might be more likely to catch this if it were online. Note to the UUA, I guess.

Liberal opposition to Obama's faith-based initiative: "liberal silliness" or legitimate concern?

In a speech in Zanesville, OH on July 1, Barack Obama announced his plan to continue, reform, and expand Bush's faith-based initiatives. I've been meaning to say a few words here about this for a while, but I've wanted to continue thinking and reading about it. When I initially heard about it, I had mixed feelings. Like many, I interpreted the move as partly an effort to attract some moderate evangelicals and other religious voters that may be on the fence when it comes to Obama. But as I've thought about it, I've begun to realize that this is no mere ploy to get voters. There's no doubt that Obama would like to pick up some of the "religious vote," but I think that this is also a reflection of his years as a community organizer and member of a African American congregation, and a real reflection of his confidence in religious institutions to make a difference.

He plans to call it the "President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships." He insists that with proper oversight government money can go to religious organizations without going to religious purposes. He promises that churches wouldn't be able to discriminate in hiring or provide services only to their own. Yet, he even admits that there are issues to work out, and challenges inherent in it, and that he doesn't "have them all worked out."

Reactions from liberal bloggers and the media have been mixed. My question is this: is liberal opposition to his plan merely "liberal silliness" or should we be really concerned? Clearly, some reactions have been totally ridiculous and paranoid, like a HuffPo blog post in which Allison Kilkenny accuses Obama of "entrust(ing) a brothel of fairy tales with the safety of the people instead of a responsible, secular government." You've really got to read the whole thing to see how silly it is. Reactions like that one make me think of something Obama said in his speech on religion a couple years ago. He noted the challenge for some Democrats to appreciate the role of religion in America:

At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Anyway, one of the concerns at the time of his announcement was that he was moving to the center and abandoning his progressive base. Articles like this and this discussed his efforts to "court" evangelicals and the risks involved. But some have offered some praise for the idea, like WaPo columnist and author E.J. Dionne:

His latest foray is on a subject dear to my heart: the effort to find constitutional ways to build partnerships between government and faith-based groups doing essential work for the poor and the marginalized.

The outline Obama offered Tuesday suggests that he wants to learn from President Bush's failures in this area, not simply reject an idea because it has Bush's name on it.

He points out that cooperation between religion and government is not new:

The truth is that government and religious groups have long cooperated on social ventures that posed no threat to religious freedom. Students should be able to get government loans whether they go to Fresno State, Notre Dame or Yeshiva. Religious hospitals get Medicare and Medicaid money.

Moreover, the government has had partnerships for many years with Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services, the Jewish Federations and other religious groups. And why not? If the religious charities disappeared, both the poor and the taxpayers would be in a lot of trouble.

Yet, the association between Bush and the generally criticized and underfunded faith-based initiatives is still strong in people's minds, and many are not convinced that Obama is doing the right thing here. Nation writer Katha Pollitt had some pretty harsh words about it recently, for example.

I found a great, really thoughtful blog post at TPM a while back about this whole thing. The author notes the role that religion has played in some of the great civil rights and social justice advancements we've made as a society. He points out that the ACLU is even OK with the idea of government-religion cooperation, as long as it's done right. Yes, that ACLU! From their website:

Supporting the good work of faith-based social service providers should not mean abandoning basic American ideals. We must not allow the vital services of faith-based groups to become co-opted by the administration as mere government-funded religion.

The government already can and does work collaboratively with faith-based organizations. It has long granted tax dollars to religious social service providers that agree not to discriminate in hiring or providing services, and that operate their social services in a secular manner. These types of religiously affiliated charities do not deny people employment based on faith, nor do they mix religious activity in with their government-funded services.

Wow! The beacon of civil rights activism and defender of the First Amendment actually said that!

As I said at the beginning of this post, I think Obama is sincere about this. His own experiences suggest to him that it's something that can work. He's a liberal that "gets it" when it comes to religion. He's said that our problems are too big for government to solve alone. He says that churches are uniquely poised to help those they're close to. He may be right, and his program could end up being a big success.

For now, I'm not sure what I think about it. I don't think Obama intends for it to take the place of the government fulfilling its responsibilities. I genuinely don't believe that he intends for it to be any kind of proselytizing tool. I think he sees it as a partnership between government and caring, active, local religious organizations.

That all sounds great, but it's what I'm afraid could happen that bothers me. I worry that it won't be as fair and impartial as he says it will be. I'm concerned that money will go disproportionately to white conservative Protestant churches. So, I'll keep an eye on it, and hope he's right.

I love Boston!

I got back from Boston last night. I was there a few days for the American Sociological Association's annual meeting. I drove there with a colleague on Friday. The first night we took the subway in to explore and have dinner. We walked along the harbor, ate dinner at an "Irish" pub, and wandered through the shops and buildings on the east side of downtown. We made our way farther and farther north and suddenly found that all the restaurants were Italian. We'd made our way to North End, Boston's "Little Italy." There happened to be a Saint Agrippina festival underway. It was really fun to watch and see what was going on. I think what made it special was that it wasn't a tourist thing; there were local families out having a good time. There was live music and games, a Madonna shrine where you could donate money, and tons of food. We stopped by a beautiful Catholic church, too, with these wonderful reliefs depicting Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. They appeared to be wood carvings.

The next day when we were done with the conference, we took the subway to Fenway Park and walked around as a game was getting underway before eating dinner at a taqueria across the street. I was sorely tempted to buy a ticket to the game from a scalper, but they were really, really expensive.

Sunday morning I attended a service at the Arlington Street Church. The church has gorgeous stained glass windows and was built in the mid-19th century. However, the congregation itself dates back to the early 18th century. After the service, I walked around in the west end of Boston Common, called my mom to say hi, and then took the train across the river to Cambridge. I had lunch at the Cambridge Brewing Company and then headed back. It was a little too far to walk to Harvard from where I was and I had to get back. But I did see MIT.

Yesterday morning before we left I rode the subway to east end of Boston Common and visited the UUA headquarters. I met Philocrites, a.k.a. Chris Walton, who is editor of UU World. We chatted for an hour or so and he showed me around the building. It was fantastic. He grew up Mormon like me, and left it in college like me, so we had lots to talk about. I'm happy we got to meet.

I loved Boston! I could see myself working there or living there. I love the diversity, I love the excitement about sports (though I'm not real big on the Boston teams), I love the history. I think it's cool that there are so many universities and so many UU churches. It was a good trip.