Twitter and the News

Tonight I was interviewed on WHSV's 6 o'clock news about how Twitter is changing the way people experience news. As it increases how quickly information flows, it can be a positive way to learn breaking news but it can also lead to inaccurate claims being spread. The video of segment is not online, but they did post a short piece on their website here. And you can follow me on Twitter here.

Santorum Vomits

Yesterday, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum attacked John F. Kennedy's famous speech on religion and politics (the photo is one I took of Santorum in Iowa last year). Santorum several times said the speech made him want to "throw up," mainly because Kennedy advocated his support for separation of church and state. This line of attack in becoming common in our age of confessional politics, which has dramatically changed the relationship between religion and politics from the time of Kennedy. Here are a few excerpts from Santorum's comments:

I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. ... This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate. Go on and read the speech. I will have nothing to do with faith. I won't consult with people of faith. It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960. And I went down to Houston, Texas 50 years almost to the day, and gave a speech and talked about how important it is for everybody to feel welcome in the public square. ... Well, yes, absolutely, to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up.

Santorum makes several mistakes in his vomitous remarks. First, he is absolutely wrong to say Kennedy's 1960 speech was seen as "abhorrent at the time." Kennedy only won the election because he articulated exactly what people at the time wanted to hear. Had he given the speech Santorum wants, Kennedy would have been easily defeated by Richard Nixon. Second, Santorum misrepresents the First Amendment because he only cites one of the two religion clauses. To do so gives an incomplete picture and therefore leads to inaccurate conclusions. Third, Kennedy's speech did not express a new vision "for the first time." In fact, Kennedy's perspective resonated quite well with the religious-political philosophy of presidents like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Fourth, Kennedy did not say people of faith have no role in the public square. As Santorum said, "Go on and read the speech" (you can right here). With these remarks, Santorum is demonstrating himself to be a poor historian, a poor politician, and a poor theologian. Santorum apparently likes to throw up because he keeps reminding himself of Kennedy's speech (see posts here and here on other times he inaccurately attacked Kennedy's speech). I have studied and written about Kennedy's speech in several pieces, including my book on confessional politics, an academic study in the journal Communication Studies, and a column in the Houston Chronicle. Hopefully Santorum will think before vomiting out additional inaccurate attacks on Kennedy's speech. And hopefully his remarks will inspire more people to actually read and seriously consider what Kennedy actually said.

An Interfaith Statement of Principles

Last week, several religious groups released a document entitled "Religion in Political Campaigns - An Interfaith Statement of Principles." Organized by the Interfaith Alliance, 14 groups committed to religious liberty endorsed it. Among the groups endorsing the statement were: Anti-Defamation League, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Islamic Society of North America, Hindu American Foundation, National Council of Churches USA, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Union for Reform Judaism, General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, and Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ. Here are a few highlights from the timely statement:

Freedom of religion is one of our nation's most cherished liberties. It is at the very foundation of America. Our nation's Constitution protects religious freedom for all, prohibits religious tests for public office, and mandates separation of church and state. These are essential American ideals and values, which candidates for public office should respect. ... There is a point, however, where an emphasis on religion in a political campaign becomes inappropriate and even unsettling in a religiously diverse society such as ours. Appealing to voters along religious lines is divisive. It is contrary to the American ideal of including all Americans in the political process, regardless of whether they are members of large and powerful religious groups, religious minorities, or subscribe to no faith tradition. Voters should be encouraged to make their decisions based upon their assessment of the qualifications, integrity, and political positions of candidates. A candidate’s religious beliefs – or lack thereof – should never be used by voters, nor suggested by political candidates, as a test for public office or as a shorthand summary of a candidate's qualifications. Candidates for office bear the primary responsibility for setting the proper tone for elections. Anyone who legitimately aspires to public office must be prepared to set an example and to be a leader for all Americans, of all faiths or of no faith.

Amen! The statement also offers four suggestions for politicians. It is good to see these leaders speak out against confessional politics. Hopefully some politicians will heed the advice.

Friday Photo

Here is a photo I took of the Virginia State Capitol, looking up at it from downhill. I took this last month at the lobby day of the Virginia Center for Public Policy (see post here).

Santorum's "Phony Theology"

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum sparked controversy last Saturday as he attacked President Barack Obama's theology as unbiblical (the photo is one I took of him last August in Iowa). Speaking at an event hosted by the Ohio Christian Alliance, Santorum went theological as he attacked Obama's agenda:

It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.

Asked after the event what he meant by the comment, Santorum added that Obama had operated with a different theology that "you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it's a different moral values." Asked if he was questioning if Obama was a Christian, Santorum quickly insisted that he was not:

I'm suggesting, obviously we all know in the Christian church there are a lot of different stripes of Christianity. I'm just saying he's imposing his values on the church and I think that's wrong ... If the president says he's a Christian he's a Christian.”

With the last line Santorum at least avoided the type of confessional politics attack that his supporter Franklin Graham leveled (see post here). However, even though Santorum does not express doubts about if Obama is a Christian, he does still utilize confessional politics to attack Obama's theology and agenda as unchristian. Both types of attacks--doubting if a politician is actually a Christian and attacking a politician's public policy positions on theological grounds--are tactics used in our age of confessional politics, but Santorum's argument is much less problematic than Graham's because he focuses on the policies and not the person. Santorum often uses theological terms to attack Obama and other Democrats. Republican John Danforth, a former U.S. Senator from Missouri and an Episcopalian priest, criticized Santorum's use of theological terms to frame political arguments:

I think historically, religion has been divisive when it’s gotten connected with politics. ... I think Republicans are better if they stick with the big issues and the economic issues and the power of government and don’t frame it in religious terms.

Amen! Once again, Danforth offers a voice of sanity (as he previously did in his book Faith and Politics).

On Sunday, Santorum defended his "phony theology" remarks and provided more context for why he believes that about Obama. He declared on CBS's "Face the Nation" that he was attacking Obama's environmental policies

I wasn't suggesting that President's not a Christian. I accept the fact that the President is a Christian. I just said that when you have a worldview that elevates the Earth above man and says that, you know, we can't take those resources because we're going to harm the Earth by things that are that frankly are just not scientifically proven, for example, that politicization of the whole global warming debate, I mean, this is just all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government. And it's not questioning the President's beliefs in Christianity. I'm talking about, you know, his the belief that man is should be in charge of the earth and should have dominion over it and should be good stewards of it.

Santorum believes that Obama's policies to care for the Earth are a "phony theology" even though the Bible is quite clear that we are supposed to care for Creation (a point I made in an article about religion and environmental debates a few years ago). The comment by Santorum makes his initial answer to questions on Saturday interesting since he contrasted Obama's "secular values" with the theology of the Catholic Church. Yet, the Catholic Church is very clear about the importance of caring for Creation and Pope Benedict XVI has even called for more efforts to fight global warming. Reverend Mitch Hescox, who leads the Evangelical Environmental Network, argued about Santorum's "phony theology" comments:

What he doesn't understand is how we treat God's creation is how we care about people. He says he is a devout Roman Catholic. I hope he will start listening to the teachings of his own tradition. Look at the writings of Pope Benedict; he is the greenest pope ever. ... God created a sustainable planet for people to live on and it is our sin that has caused pollution and public-health effects. ... Pro-life is [addressing] whole life, not just in the uterus.

Amen! Considering how Santorum's environmental rhetoric clashes with the teachings of the Catholic Church, perhaps he might want to leave the theological comments out of the environmental debate.

Ash Wednesday on the Streets

During Advent last year, I highlighted several efforts to taking Advent to the streets to make it a more meaningful season (see posts here, here, here, here, and here). Today, more than 70 Episcopalian priests in 18 states similarly took Ash Wednesday to the streets to minister to people who did not attend church services on this first day of Lent. They stood on public streets to smudge ashes on the foreheads of people passing by who wanted the religious sign. Reverend Emily Mellott of Calvary Church in Lombard, Illinois, explained the effort:

The ashes are an invitation, opening the door for us to the practices of Lent, a first step, a reminder of our mortality and God's creative power. We take that invitation and that core truth out into places where people really need that. ... People who come to church already get the forgiveness thing. ... But people at the train station going into a full day, to all the places where we fail and realize we are not perfect. Now they can start the day with a reminder that that is not the last word.

Amen! This interesting effort comes with some deep theological implications.

Graham's Double Standard

Reverend Franklin Graham, son of the renowned evangelist Billy Graham, went on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" this morning and cast doubts on whether President Barack Obama is really a Christian. I am not sure if Graham was too caffeinated or had not had enough to wake him up and help him think clearly, but he quickly got caught mixing politics and spiritual assessments in a dangerous and hypocritical manner. When asked on the eve of the season of Lent if he thought Obama was a Christian, Graham attempted to weasel out of answering:

Well, I think you'll have to ask President Obama. You can ask me 'Do I believe you're a Christian?' I think the best thing for a person is to ask you directly, so I think people have to ask Barack Obama. He's come out saying that he's a Christian, so I think the question is 'What is a Christian?'

Graham's remark clearly suggests he doubts Obama's frequent declarations of faith. After all, he acknowledges that Obama claims to be a Christian, and yet Graham refuses to say Obama is one. And then Graham says Obama's claims raise the question of 'what is a Christian,' which suggests he thinks Obama does not even know what it means to be a Christian and therefore is not one. Pressed a couple of times to basically say 'yes' or 'no' to the question (isn't there a Bible verse or two about that?), Graham still refused to call Obama a Christian. Later in the interview, Graham even refused to say that Obama was "categorically not a Muslim." Both of these comments--doubting Obama is a Christian and suggesting he might be a Muslim--are symptoms of our age of confessional politics.

Graham's comments about Obama quickly became even worse when he was asked about various Republican presidential candidates. Rather than keep his same standard of urging the interviewers to ask the candidates themselves, Graham instead quickly asserted that both Santorum and Gingrich were Christians. When asked if Santorum was a Christian, Graham simply replied, "I think so." No waffling or attempts to beat around the bush as he done with Obama. Graham was rightly pressed by the MSNBC interviewers about this double standard, but continued to reaffirm Santorum's Christianity and cast doubts on Obama's. He declared about Santorum, who he said was the candidate who most closely matched his moral beliefs:

I think he is, no question, I believe he's a man of faith.

Graham literally poses questions about Obama's faith but accepts Santorum's with "no question." Graham similarly replied, without being asked, that he thought Gingrich was a Christian:

And I think Newt is a Christian. At least he told me he is.

Graham accepts Gingrich at his word but refuses to accept Obama at his word. Why does he treat Obama differently than two Republican presidential hopefuls? His answers suggest Graham is using partisan labels to help decide who is a Christian or not. Using politics to decide who is a truly a Christian is a dangerous and unbiblical standard. It is sad that Graham has cast aside biblical teachings to create a new standard and anoint himself as the judge of people's souls. Sadly, his double standard hurts his ministry work. The politicization of religion is one of the negative consequences of confessional politics.

This is not Graham's first time to make spurious remarks about Obama. Last Easter, he espoused debunked "birther" claims. One would have thought he would have learned from that interview--and the ensuing controversy--to be more careful with his words. Sadly, that was not the case. Hopefully Graham will quickly apologize and quit using a partisan double standard to judge who is a Christian or not. Hopefully Graham will quit putting politics ahead of spiritual priorities. Ironically, Graham's father was criticized by some conservative Christians for showing grace to people on both sides of the political aisle. As I noted in my first book (For God's Sake, Shut Up!) Billy Graham's critics were wrong to put politics ahead of spirituality. Sadly, Franklin Graham is following the poor example of his father's critics (and thus also needs to take the title of my book to heart).

UPDATE [2-22-12]: Graham has backed away somewhat from his remarks, but did not apologize. He claimed on CNN today that he "misspoke. "It is hard to see how he misspoke since the MSNBC interviewers repeatedly pointed out his double standard and gave him opportunities to clarify his claims (but he just "misspoke" over and over!). Perhaps Graham should consider a career in politics because his response today was quite political: he did not apologize, claimed he merely "misspoke," and then quickly changed the subject to attack Obama on abortion.