Faith progressive democrats expressed apprehension recently that the party may be missing the boat by giving less emphasis to their faith outreach—more so with democratic control of Congress at stake in this fall’s general elections, the Washington Post reported.

The Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) faith staff of six has now dwindled to one part-time slot–a huge difference from the 2008 elections when the democrats hired faith consultants, advertised regularly on Christian radio and featured candidates, including President Obama, who spoke openly about their relationship with God, the Washington Post said.

Faith progressives are apprehensive after high-profile losses in the November Virginia gubernatorial race, and in a special election to fill the US Senate seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy in Massachusetts in January.  In last week’s Democratic Senate primaries, there was little visible new faith outreach, to the dismay of party religious activists, the Washington Post reported.

New strategy

When Obama took office he expanded the faith office that was established by President George W. Bush, which includes branches in a dozen federal agencies and a core staff that communicates with faith leaders about policy issues, according to the Washington Post.

Office director Joshua DuBois declined to comment on Democratic political outreach, but did say the White House is in frequent contact with faith leaders.

However, Timothy M. Kaine, chair of the DNC, and other party leaders attribute the decrease in paid faith staff to a new strategy in how the party does outreach, the Washington Post said.

The White House has opted to expand its network of grass-roots volunteers and shrink its national staff of organizers who were in the past broken down by race and religion, the Washington Post reported.

Patrick McKenna, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, said that the current economic climate has led to more focus on issues of recession rather than on faith based issues such as abortion, according to the Washington Post.

Faith vote

In the past many major democratic wins were credited in part to spending by national democratic organizations on faith outreach and by recruiting candidates who framed policy positions in terms of religious morality, the Washington Post said.

Notable among these were the 2005 victory of Kaine as governor of Virginia in 2005, a number of anti-abortion congressional Democrats in 2006, and Obama, who won more churchgoing voters in 2008 than any other Democratic presidential candidate in a decade, the Washington Post reported.

The Republican Party has a far more extensive infrastructure to connect with religious voters, especially evangelical Christians.  It has databases filled with tens of millions of e-mail addresses as well as long-standing ties to religious broadcasters and conservative religious groups such as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, according to the Washington Post.

According to Kaine, a staff mem

Are Democrats bungling their faith outreach?

ber who also does African American outreach has been assigned to oversee faith as well, but had been on medical leave.  Kaine said the party will be hiring more faith staff and crafting a faith outreach plan as the fall election season gets close, the Washington Post said.

Brian Jones, a strategist and former communications director for the Republican National Committee said, “It’s not done in one or two or three political cycles.”  The Republican party’s faith outreach dates as far back as the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the Washington Post reported.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Despite a judge’s ruling that declared the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional, special observations were held across the nation and in several places in the capital city including the Pentagon, the Cannon House Office Building and the steps of the US Capitol, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Rev. Franklin Graham, who had been disinvited to the Pentagon because of comments he had made regarding the Islamic faith after 911 nonetheless prayed on a sidewalk outside the building.  Graham is honorary chairman of the private National Day of Prayer Task Force.

However, President Brack Obama, whose administration on April 22 appealed the judge’s ruling and issued a National Day of Prayer proclamation, did not hold an interfaith observance at the White House, according to the SunGazette.

On April 15, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment.  However in her decision, Crabb said ceremonies could still be held pending appeals.

In observances at Williamsport-Lycoming County, Pennsylvania keynote speaker state Superior Court Judge Cheryl Allen challenged Crabb’s argument centered on the separation of church and state, and alleged violation of the First Amendment, the SunGazette said.

Allen said, “I couldn’t find separation of church and state in the Constitution.” Regarding the First Amendment she cited the first part which says, “Congress shall make no laws establishing a religion” and said the founding fathers came to America to escape England, which had established a church and persecuted those who would not attend.  Allen then noted the second portion of the First Amendment clause which states: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

James Dobson, who founded Focus on the Family and whose wife chairs the National Day of Prayer said the event puts a prayer covering over the nation and noted that since 1775 the first Continental Congress called for a national day of prayer.

Dobson noted that 34 out of 44 Presidents have called for a national day of prayer including George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, George Herbert Walker Bush and George W. Bush, the New York News Today reported.

Dobson said, “How can something be unconstitutional when it was passed by both houses of Congress unanimously and signed by Ronald Reagan and Harry Truman and implemented by all those Presidents back through the years?”

Charles Haynes, a First Amendment scholar who specializes in religious liberty expects President Obama to succeed with his appeal.  He said a  judge could possibly cite a 1983 Supreme Court decision that upheld the right to legislative prayer on grounds that “the offering of prayer is a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

The U.S. Commision on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) noted in its recent 2010 annual report that President Obama has fallen short of doing what he can to lobby for the protection of religious freedom in the world.

The report noted that until now, President Obama has failed to appoint an Ambassador-At-Large for International Religious Freedom, a request that was made to him last month in a petition signed by lawmakers, scholars and human rights groups.

The same petition requested that the position be given equal level to other Ambassadors-At-Large who report directly to the Secretary of State, according to The Christian Post.

The USCIRF also noted that under Obama’s watch, no countries have been rated CPC, or “countries of particular concern” for having the worst religious violations.

Such a rating can prompt government action including trade restrictions, sanctions, embargoes, and withholding of military or financial aid, among others, The Christian Post said.

The same report said that the USCIRF, an independent US government commission, made these observations even as it said that with every year the issue becomes less and less important to the White House and the State Department.

The position of Ambassador-At-Large for International Religious Freedom, for example, was created in 1998, but it had only been filled in its initial year, and has remained vacant since 1999.

The commission warned Obama that failure to fill the position sent a message to the international community that religious freedom is not an important issue to the American government, the Christian Post said.

The same report noted that USCIRF took issue with the fact that Obama rarely mentioned religious freedom when he visited Ankara and Cairo last year.

Furthermore, Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton replaced the words religious freedom with “freedom of worship.”

The commission said authoritarian governments could skirt the issue by noting that faiths that are okay with them can freely worship.

Credit:svilen001/sxc.hu

They could also permit only token houses of worship for minority faiths.

According to CNN, the USCIRF also reported that:

* Over 24 countries are religious freedom offenders and practice religious persecution.

* Forms of religious persecution may include imprisonment, murder, being fired from jobs, and being kicked out of universities; being forbidden to have bank accounts, driver’s licenses and even birth certificates, among others.

* 13 countries should be rated CPC or “countries of particular concern” because they have the worst religious violations. These countries include Myanmar (Burma), China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Suda, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Vietnam.

* 12 countries on the watch list are Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey and Venezuela.

* The report has five more countries under CPC rating than does the State Department’s 2009 report, which did not include Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkmenistan or Vietnam.

* 3 countries, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka, should be closely monitored.

Specific Countries

* Egypt. Members of the Baha’I faith and minority Muslim sects are imprisoned, fired from jobs, kicked out of universities, and barred from having bank accounts, birth certificates and driver’s licenses.

* Nigeria. A decade of violence between Muslims and Christians in the Jos state recently culminated in 500 men, women and children hacked to death with machetes and dumped into wells.

* China. Cracked down on Uyghur Muslims in the west.

* Iran. Labeled domestic political opponents “enemies of God” which is a capital offense and can merit severing of the head.

* Eritrea. Harassment of Orthodox Church members and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

* Vietnam. Imprisonment of Buddhists and Protestants.

The USCIRF report urged the government to double its efforts to protect international religious freedom and to raise issues of abuse to the highest levels of the world community, the Christian Post said.

“Anything less betrays our history and values, and fails to leverage the extraordinary capacity we have as a nation to promote religious freedom and related human rights for all,” the report said.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Church leaders complained about Arizona’s newest immigration law recently, which grants greater power to local police to question and arrest suspected illegal immigrants, saying it is ineffective and will promote discrimination.

Because of the passage of Arizona's new "immigration" policy, people who look Hispanic may be subject to racial profiling/Credit: Garrison Photography

Rev. James Flaaten, executive director of Arizona Ecumenical council, issued a statement saying, this law “will demonize anyone who looks suspiciously like an undocumented person, leading to inevitable racial profiling,” according to The Christian Post.

Flaaten added, “Our religious traditions ask us to treat people with dignity and respect, and we look for a more enlightened and hopeful way of working with the undocumented people who live alongside us.”

The law, which was signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents with them at all times, and gives police the power to question someone’s legal residency and arrest anyone who cannot prove that they are legal residents.

The law also cracks down on those who hire illegal residents or knowingly transport them.

Penalties for illegal immigrants under the law include arrest, jail for up to six months and a $2,500 fine. It includes other provisions for lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws.

Religious leaders are urging federal lawmakers to pass comprehensive immigration reform, denouncing the current federal system as broken and the new Arizona law as “mean-spirited.”

“It is not only mean-spirited – it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe,” said the Rev. Jim Wallis, president and CEO of Sojourners.

“Enforcement without reform of the system is merely cruel. Enforcement without compassion is immoral. Enforcement that breaks up families is unacceptable.”

“This law will make it illegal to love your neighbor in Arizona, and will force us to disobey Jesus and his gospel,” the progressive evangelical leader contended. “We will not comply.”

Critics say the bill fails to address border security concerns and called the bill divisive as it encourages racial profiling.

They note police officers may more frequently suspect Hispanics to be illegal immigrants.

Some support the bill but worry that it may hurt Arizona’s economy which has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.  Should they leave the state, they would no longer be spending money there.

Prior to the bill’s passage President Obama, said it was misguided and directed the Justice Department to see if it is legal.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. appealed for Obama’s continued support against the bill and called instead for reform.

Gutierrez has loudly called for comprehensive immigration reform creating citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants now in the United States.

Rev. Al Sharpton in New York said he would organize “freedom walkers” to challenge the Arizona bill.

“We will go to Arizona when this bill goes into effect and walk the streets with people who refuse to give identification and force arrest,” Sharpton said, according to the Associated Press.

“It divides our whole community,” said Mary Hoffmann, 54, a landscape architect in Phoenix. “If people are divided they make decisions on fear and anger,” she was quoted as saying by the Associated Press.

Arizona congressman Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, urged the Obama administration not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police.

Under the new law, Arizona officers who arrest undocumented people will turn them over to federal immigration officers.  Opponents said the federal government can block the law by refusing to accept them.

Brewer, in defense of the law, said she wouldn’t tolerate racial profiling.  She called on the state’s law enforcement licensing agency to create a training course so that police can enforce the law without discriminating against any race, color or ethnicity.

Brewer also ordered a reallocation of state National Guard and law enforcement resources, and called on the federal government to deploy National Guard troops.

Brewer, who signed the new law, is facing re-election amid growing anger in the state over illegal immigrants.  She blamed federal lawmakers’ inaction and misguided policy for forcing Arizona to pass the new bill.

The bill, sponsored by state Republican Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, passed the House 35-21 and the Senate 17-11.

Arizona’s border with Mexico is the nation’s busiest stretch for illegal border crossings.

Supporters of the bill blame illegal immigrants as partly responsible for the state’s high crime rate.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

The National Day of Prayer has been recognized and observed by every U.S. President since 1775.

The American Humanist Association (AHA) is at it again. The group recently embarked on a mission to replace the word “God” in the national motto “In God We Trust” with “Good” (see The Underground’s article Humanist Group Unveils “In Good We Trust” Billboards). Now they have set their sights on the National Day of Prayer, arguing instead for a “National Day of Reason,” according to CNS News.

The group’s movement started on the heels of last week’s federal court ruling that the National Day of Prayer was indeed unconstitutional because it violates the separation of church and state. U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb wrote of the 1952 statute creating the National Day of Prayer that its “sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function,” according to the official AHA web site.

White House spokespersons have reported that President Obama will still recognize the traditional observance of the National Day of Prayer on May 6, as the court’s appeals process will not yet be exhausted by that time.

AHA Director Roy Speckhardt disagrees with the president’s decision.

“The government should not be directing citizens to pray,” he said. “In addition to being unconstitutional, it’s also specifically offensive to people who don’t believe in a god and are made to feel excluded by the observance.”

Historically, there have been several recorded National Days of Prayer, even before the 1952 ruling establishing the observance we now recognize as a nation. In 1775, the Continental Congress marked a day to designate “a time of prayer in forming a new nation.”

Former U.S. President John Adams would later declare May 9, 1798 “a day of solemn humiliation, fasting and prayer.” He asked Americans to pray “that our country may be protected from all the dangers which threaten it.”

The National Day of Prayer became a requirement of U.S. presidents’ recognition when, on April 17, 1952, former President Harry S. Truman signed a bill declaring that all subsequent presidents observe the day.

In recent years, the National Day of Prayer was reintroduced to the nation due, in part, to the efforts of the Reverend Billy Graham and certain members of both the House and the Senate. Together, these men implemented a joint resolution to mark an annual National Day of Prayer, “on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.”

Peter Spriggs, senior fellow for policy studies at Family Research Council told CNSNews.com, “The American Humanist Association and their allied groups have every right to promote a new celebration if they want to – and if they can persuade people to participate voluntarily, that’s fine, but I don’t think they have a right to do away with a long-standing tradition that is deeply rooted in our nation’s history – which is calling the people to prayer.”

Spriggs also added, “[The National Day of Prayer] is inclusive of the vast majority of Americans who believe in a Supreme Being and who do pray, and it is inclusive of the vast majority of Americans throughout the history of our country –and the vast majority of the leaders of our country through our history.”

Of Judge Barabra Crabb, Spriggs concluded, “Judge Crabb was inferring that she found something in the Constitution that every president and Congress since 1775 has not.”

The case is expected to have its day in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Attorneys with the Christian legal firm Alliance Defense Fund urged President Barack Obama to appeal the decision of a federal judge’s ruling that National Prayer Day is unconstitutional recently.

Before thousands of guests, including a dozen foreign leaders, President Barack Obama called for greater understanding and cooperation among people of all faiths at the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 5, 2008.

The ADF lawyers made their plea after U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb struck down a federal statute creating the “National Day of Prayer.” According to Crabb, the statute connotes endorsement and encouragement of a particular religious exercise.

But ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster argues that the national prayer day is “America’s heritage” and “belongs to Americans.”  He added, “The National Day of Prayer provides an opportunity for all Americans to pray voluntarily according to their own faith – and does not promote any particular religion or form of religious observance.”

National Prayer Day (NPD) was created in 1952 by a joint resolution of the United States Congress and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman.  Although it has been celebrated yearly since then, a lawsuit against NPD was filed in October 2008 by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).

The FFRF is a Madison, Wisconsin group that was founded in 1976.  They are pledged to promote separation of church and state, and to educate the public on “nontheism”.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State,  praised Judge Crabb’s ruling saying, “This decision is a tremendous victory for religious liberty.  Congress has no business telling Americans when or how to pray.”

Lynn added, “The Constitution forbids the government to meddle in religious matters. Decisions about worship should be made by individuals without direction from elected officials. That’s what freedom is all about.”

Ever since 1952, US presidents have always set an annual National Day of Prayer.  Since 1988, the presidents have always designated the first Thursday of May as the National Day of Prayer.

Last year, President Obama issued a proclamation designating the first Thursday of May as the National Day of Prayer, and prayed privately.  Despite the present ruling, Obama still intends to recognize the day this year on May 6.

Shirley Dobson, chair of the National Day of Prayer Task Force said it is imperative “now more than ever before” to pray.  Dobson has organized thousands of local prayer events throughout the country, including gatherings in Washington, D.C., with government leaders.

Sources:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100416/ts_csm/294988;_ylt=AkZQP7YV39sLuNafx7pe2jg7Xs8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJldDE4NGhjBGFzc2V0A2NzbS8yMDEwMDQxNi8yOTQ5ODgEcG9zAzE2BHNlYwN5bl9wYWdpbmF0ZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA2ZlZGVyYWxqdWRnZQ–

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100416/obama-urged-to-appeal-nat-l-prayer-day-ruling/index.html

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

In March, President Obama signed Executive Order No. 13535 to prevent federal funding of abortions in the new health care bill (properly titled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

U.S. President Barack Obama signs an executive order as Vice President Joe Biden looks on.

The executive order replaces acceptance of the Stupak Amendment, which was keeping some members of Congress from signing the health care legislation.

According to the text of this executive order, the newly passed health care legislation is supposed to protect the previously existing conscience clause against abortion and prohibits discrimination against health care facilities or providers who are unwilling to participate in funding or providing abortions.

Exceptions allowing federal abortion funding will be rape, incest and “health of the mother.”

Though questioning executive orders is nothing new (Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and many presidents before them had their executive orders challenged), for some, the “health of the mother” clause of this executive order is problematic.

“Health of the mother,” according to Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade signing legal abortion into law, defines “health of the mother” as any factors decided by the woman and her doctor “that affect physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age.”

This definition is still used today and means that some physicians may recommend abortions for some women because the “health of the mother” is at stake.

Since 1996, at least 500 physicians and surgeons, including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, have been writing to newspapers and even testifying before Congress that abortion, especially late term, should never be used as a preferred method to terminate a pregnancy if a mother’s life is in danger.

A Wall Street Journal letter by the physician group called PHACT (Physicians’ Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth) stated that instead of protecting the mother, certain methods of abortion “pose a significant and immediate threat to both the pregnant woman’s health and fertility.”

The fact that this executive order was over the controversial issue of federal abortion funding has called attention to the entitlement of presidents to sign executive orders as an executive order is a legally binding document giving a certain direction to administration agencies within the government.

An executive order can: (1) Direct an agency in carrying out their legislative mission, or (2) interpret a declaration of policy for the public.

Each U.S. President has the “executive privilege” to initiate new executive orders, or sign executive orders overturning or amending those of a previous president.

Since the early 1900’s, records of Executive Orders have been kept. Today, the National Archives has online records, listing the executive orders by each President since the recording began.

The term “executive order” traces its origin back to President Abraham Lincoln in 1862, although presidents have been signing them as “directives” since 1789.

Be Sociable, Share!

•