RezaAslansoutrage

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Wednesday, 7 November 2012

Catholics to bishops: never mind our souls

Posted on 13:29 by Unknown
American Catholic bishops attempted to exert their influence on the electorate, but to little effect.

Looking at the Catholic vote the day after the election doesn't reveal any significant shifts or surprises, but the results do indicate the political impotency of a Catholic hierarchy that has become very strongly identified with politics.

The American bishops didn't appear to hesitate in picking political sides in this last election. That has not always been the case, but this time the church's hierarchy leaned heavily on Catholic parishioners, making strong pronouncements about the morality of voting one way or another, clearly indication how good Catholics should cast their ballots if they cared about their souls. Picking up issues such as abortion and mandated coverage of contraception, the church's leaders issued strongly worded statements that, ostensibly, left little room for differences of opinion among the faithful.

And yet they were ignored by significant portions of the church.

One poll in the final days of the campaign put Catholic support of Barack Obama's reelection at 52 percent. An exit poll widely cited had half of self-identified Catholics saying they'd voted for Obama, and only 48 percent saying they'd supported Mitt Romney.

The bishops were spurned by sizable portions of Catholic voters, nationally and locally.

In Illinois, for example, Bishop Thomas John Paprocki wrote that voting for candidates who supported the Democratic Party platform -- which, in contrast to the Republican platform, has planks that "explicitly endorse intrinsic evils" -- puts one's soul in danger. But many, many Illinois Catholics voters just didn't seem to care.

Paprocki's message:
"I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy."
Nearly half of the Catholic voters in Illinois disagreed with or disregarded the bishop's warning. The CNN exit poll shows that 48 percent of the state's Catholic voters cast their ballot for Obama on Tuesday.

This is true other places as well: The bishops simply do not have significant influence over their supposed flocks.

In Colorado, some lay Catholics paid for a full-page newspaper ad carrying the political message of Denver's Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila. Aquila urged Catholics to do their "moral duty" in opposing Obama's health care plan, and the Heath and Human Services mandate that insurance coverage, including that offered by Catholic charities, include coverage of contraceptives.

Colorado opted to re-elect the president by about 110,000 votes, though, and many of those were the state's more than 700,000 Catholics.

There is some minor variation from state to state in the break-down of the Catholic vote, but it doesn't seem to have anything in particular to do with the efforts of statements or activism of the region's respective bishops.

In the five states with the largest percentage of Catholics, Obama actually won, and CNN's exit polls show that the Catholic voters were split between the parties:
  • In Rhode Island, 59 percent of the population is Catholic, and Obama won by 29 percentage points.
  • In Massachusetts, where 43 percent of the population is Catholic, only 21 percent of voters identify as conservative, and more than a quarter of those calling themselves conservative reported they voted for Obama.
  • In New Jersey, 41 percent of the population is Catholic, and 45 percent of Catholics voters said they voted for Obama. The number of Catholics in New Jersey is about six times the number of votes that made up Obama's margin of victory.
  • In Connecticut, 36.6 percent of the population is Catholic, and 49 percent of Catholic voters cast their ballots for Obama. The state went for the Democrats by 17 percent.
  • In New York, where 37 percent of the population is Catholic, 47 percent of Catholic voters went for Obama. 
The 47 percent of New York Catholics who voted for Obama presumably did not include Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who went on television in the Spring to describe Obama's policies as "dramatic, radical intrusion of a government bureaucracy into the internal life of the church," and an attempt to silence people of faith, saying: "I think the public square is impoverished when people might be coerced to put a piece of duct tape over their mouth keeping them from bringing their deepest held convictions to the conversation."

And, presumably, the 47 percent of New York Catholics who voted for the president don't feel that they've been violently gagged by the policies of the man they voted for.

There will likely be arguments that those Catholics who didn't vote in accordance with the wishes of the hierarchy are, in some way, not really Catholic. It is true that Catholics who attend weekly mass -- the one measure of religiosity in election polls -- were more likely to vote for Romney. FOX's exit poll shows 57 percent of weekly mass-goers voted Republican, nationally. Of those who attend less than once per week, 57 percent voted for Obama.

The much more sharp division, though, seems to be between white Catholics and non-white Catholics, not the devout and the irregular church-goers.

According to a Pew poll done in October, 71 percent of Latino Catholics identified as Democrats, and 73 percent were planning on voting for Obama. They were nearly 20 percent more likely to support Obama than non-Latino Catholics. That overwhelming support didn't disappear when one measured for religiosity, either: among Latinos who attended mass weekly, more than 60 percent said they would vote for Obama. Where the so-called "God gap" is in effect with whites, it seems minimal at best with Latinos.

This support came despite what they heard in church when they were there every week, too, further demonstrating the church's lack of authority on these matters. Nearly one third of the church-going Latinos told pollsters they had heard sermons on candidates and elections, and more than half said they'd heard priests speak from the pulpit about abortion. It's not that they're not paying attention when, for example, a church includes a weekly prayer that "the federal government will be restored to its founding principles and allow religious liberty," it's just that they disagree.

Latino Catholics express a clear political preference, a preference which is not represented in their church's leadership.

As Eduardo Peñalver wrote in Common Weal today,
"the hierarchy finds itself identified more closely than ever with a single party in the United States, a party that is on the wrong side of inexorable demographic change. The result will be diminished influence for the Church in American politics and greater hostility towards requests for accommodation from the Democrats in power."
This divide isn't new, actually, as the numbers in this election more or less match those of the last few presidential races. Increasingly, though, the clash within the Catholic church is aggravated, as "Catholic leaders and Catholic voters can’t agree on what they think these Catholic teachings actually mean. Nor can they agree on how, or whether, those teachings might apply to the public square," as exemplified, quite publicly, in the vice presidential debate.

The election results raise very real questions about what it even means to talk about a "Catholic vote," given these divisions, and it undercuts the claims of conservatives who want to speak unilaterally about what "the church" supports or doesn't. It also especially demonstrates the hierarchy of the American Catholic church, try as they might, don't carry that much weight when it comes to the country's voting Catholics. 
Read More
Posted in American religion, Catholicism, election, Mitt Romney, Obama, religion and politics | No comments

Monday, 29 October 2012

A political 'evolution' on social conservative issues

Posted on 08:33 by Unknown
Has Mitt Romney evolved?

According to the conservative Christian group Family Research Council, Romney has changed positions on five key issues between the Republican primaries and the general election. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that says candidates tack to the center during general elections, and become more moderate to appeal to independents and swing voters, Romney has apparently strengthened his case with social conservatives since winning the Republican party nomination.

Where once he was squishy, apparently, on the issues the FRC cared about, now he's firm. Where once the FRC judged the Mass. governor to be only 50 percent in line with the positions of "values voters," he now has a perfect score.

Of course it's possible it's not Romney who has changed.

As noted by Christianity Today in a piece on Christian voter guides last week, the FRC guide released during the primaries highlighted significant areas of disagreement with Romney: stem cell research, cloning, the estate tax, employee non-discrimination, and "strict constitutionalist" judges. On half the issues held to be important by the conservative group started by evangelical child-rearing guru James Dobson, Romney was represented as being on the wrong side.

That voting guide showed him to be a less desirable candidate than Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Rick Perry. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul didn't have perfect scores -- both differing from the FRC on the question of a federal ban on human cloning -- but they still were more in line with the group's position than Romney.

Correction: than Romney was.

According to the FRC voting guide being distributed right now as church bulletin inserts, Romney has changed his position on all five of these issues, and is now in complete agreement with the conservative Christian positions on everything that's politically important.

In at least one case, though, Romney has managed this remarkable transformation without actually changing his position. The FRC footnotes their sources for the statements about candidates' positions, and though the earlier guide and the later guide represent Romney as having different positions on stem cell research, the sources cited say the same thing in both cases. He's for stem cell research, but opposed to embryos created specifically for such studies, and opposed to federal funding of these studies.

As Romney himself explained the position in 2007, "There are different levels of stem cell research."

That nuanced position was presented by the FRC as having a "mixed" record on the issue. It is now being presented as opposing the federal funding of stem cell research, which is true, but has actually always been Romney's position. His statements on the issue, cited by the FRC, are consistent from 2005 to today. It's the FRC's representation of that position has changed.

So perhaps it's the Family Research Council that has evolved?

In another case, the records cited by the FRC show Romney has in fact changed his position, but that change happened long before either voting guide was published. Romney's current position on federal protection of gays and lesbians against employer discrimination has been represented in two diametrically opposite ways.

It's true that in 1994 Romney pledged his support for EDNA, the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" that the FRC calls "SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS BASED ON SEXUAL BEHAVIOR." Romney instituted a non-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation as one of the protected classes when he was organizing the hosting of the 2002 Olympics. In 2007, though, Romney announced that he'd adjusted his position, and now felt that protecting people from discrimination was the states' job, not the federal government's. He told Tim Russert, "I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this .... I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level."

During the primaries, that 2007 position was characterized by the FRC as support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act." That same position is now characterized by the FRC as opposition.

The word for this is duplicitous.

Much has been made of Romney's inconsistencies and how his only guiding principle seems to be his own desire for power. Especially when it comes to the social issues that concern conservative Christians. That, it turns out, may not be a problem for those who claim to represent these Christians, but rather a key a point of commonality.

The FRC voting guides show that Romney has strengthened his position with at least some conservative Christian groups -- but only because they too are more committed to political victories than anything else.
Read More
Posted in abortion, ambition, American religion, bad faith, evangelicalism, Family Research Council, Mitt Romney, modern conservatism, political debate, politics, religion and politics, Tony Perkins, voting guides | No comments

Friday, 12 October 2012

Did Billy Graham just try to convert Mitt Romney?

Posted on 02:48 by Unknown
Billy Graham has been challenged, many times, on his relationship to power. The famed evangelist has "met with every sitting American president from Harry Truman to President Obama," as the Washington Post puts it, and has, at least on some occasions, been used politically by powerful figures, made into a  religious fig leaf for presidents without much faith of their own.

His relationship to Nixon, especially, has been criticized. It was said his presence as Nixon's spiritual adviser served to lend tacit if not explicit approval of the administration. His presence implied his blessing.

Graham has, in recent years, admitted he made some mistakes in this regard. He's said if he could do it again, he'd do it differently. Yet, his argument has always been and continues to be that he would go anywhere, talk to anyone, accept any audience, as long as he could preach the gospel.

He told Christianity Today in 1974:
"I have said for many years that I will go anywhere to preach the Gospel, whether to the Vatican, the Kremlin, or the White House, if there are no strings attached on what I am to say. I have never had to submit the manuscript to the White House or get anybody's approval. I have never informed any President of what I was going to say ahead of time. They all know that when I come to preach, I intend to preach the Gospel."
A year ago, he reiterated this, telling the magazine that he was "grateful for the opportunities God gave me to minister to people in high places; people in power have spiritual and personal needs like everyone else, and often they have no one to talk to."

This context of "no strings attached" might inform how one views yesterday's closed-door meeting between the now 93-year-old Graham and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  Of course there are many reasons Graham might have wanted the 30-minute meeting to be private, allowing only for a few pictures at the end, but one also has to wonder: Did Graham preach the gospel to the Mormon Mitt Romney?

Did Graham ask Romney if he'd been born again, or tell Romeny he needed Jesus in his life, to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior?

And what did Romney say?

L-R: Romney, Billy Graham, Franklin Graham.

Reporters were given an official statement at the meeting, a statement that said nothing about Jesus or the cross or Graham's position on the Church of Jesus Christ of the Later-day Saints, and whether or not Mormons are, from his Baptist perspective, saved. Rather, as reported by the Washington Post, "Mitt Romney asked the Rev. Billy Graham for his prayers Thursday and the ailing evangelist came through by praying with the Republican presidential candidate and offering his support."

Politically, the point of the meeting was to get Graham's support for Romney and hopefully sway leery religious right voters, assuaging any lingering fears they have about Romney's religion, and his soft and shifting commitment to religious right issues such as abortion. The meeting came, after all, only a day after Romney told the Des Moines (Iowa) Register that his administration would not make banning abortion a priority. If one believers, as many conservative evangelical Christians do, that babies are being slaughtered wholesale across America, and that this is the crucial moral struggle of the age, Romney's inconsistent and lackadaisical stance on the issue is not confidence-inspiring. Getting a public statement of support from a conservative evangelical as respected as Graham, then, could be important.

And Graham gave the benediction the Romney camp was looking for. Campaign staff told the press that Graham said, "I'll do all I can to help you. And you can quote me on that." Graham's organization released a statement in his name after the meeting that said as much. As CNN reported it, the statement read:
"What impresses me even more than Governor Romney's successful career are his values and strong moral convictions. I appreciate his faithful commitment to his impressive family, particularly his wife Ann of 43 years and his five married sons .... It was a privilege to pray with Governor Romney—for his family and our country. I will turn 94 the day after the upcoming election, and I believe America is at a crossroads. I hope millions of Americans will join me in praying for our nation and to vote for candidates who will support the biblical definition of marriage, protect the sanctity of life and defend our religious freedoms."
The politics of the meeting were pretty much the focus of the news reports, along with some things Romney said at the end of the meeting as pictures were being taken about his father's death. The idea is that "The 30-minute meeting between the world-renowned Christian leader and Romney could provide the former governor with a major boost among evangelical Christians skeptical of supporting the first Mormon nominated for president."

Perhaps Graham's meeting and endorsement will work to encourage evangelical support.

I suspect, though, even if it does that, it will also raise this issue: Did Graham present the gospel to Romney?

The religious right has always had very strong utilitarian tendencies in their voting patterns. From the beginning, when they formed as a bloc to support the ambiguously religious Ronald Reagen over Jimmy Carter, the very first self-declared evangelical in the White House, policies have mattered more than a candidate's personal faith. I don't see that changing just because Romney's Mormon. His bigger weakness with this voting bloc is that he hasn't convincingly demonstrated a deep commitment to the things that are important to the religious conservatives. His personal ballast seems to be political expediency. That has little to do directly with whether he's been "born again," in evangelical terminology.

Franklin Graham -- Billy Graham's son and successor -- made this point during the Republican primaries, when he supported Rick Santorum. The younger Graham said he wasn't opposed to Romney, and thought that "He would be a good president if he won the nomination because I think he’s got the strength, business-wise, politics-wise. He’s sharp guy. And he's proven himself."

That comment, though, came in the context of Franklin Graham saying that Romney was not a Christian, but a Mormon. Pressed on whether Mormonism wasn't part of the broader, "Judeo-Christian faith," Franklin Graham said "Most Christians would not recognize Mormons as part of the Christian faith."

The Billy Graham Evangelical Association, for the record, lists Mormonism as a cult.

For the Grahams, as for evangelicals generally, this question of Christianity is the most important question. While it may not be necessary to be a good president that one have accepted Jesus, prayed the prayer, asked for sins to be forgiven, it is the most important thing, eternally. It is the most important thing for an individual. Which is why Billy Graham dedicated so much of his life to exactly that message. As much as the Grahams really do care deeply about these other issues, personal salvation and internal transformation are more important.

So one wonders about those 30 minutes, and those closed doors.
Read More
Posted in American religion, belief, Billy Graham, conversation, evangelicalism, Mitt Romney, modern conservatism, Mormonism, politics, religion and politics | No comments

Wednesday, 26 September 2012

How the religious right really thinks?

Posted on 07:55 by Unknown

In some quarters this Ralph Reed questionnaire is being reported as evidence of the true Religious Right zeitgeist. How things really are. This is how Reed frames the issue, the "Obama question" and this coming election, and that's supposed to mean that's how it really is for those Reed supposedly can get out to vote.

Reed is, after all, "Romney's best hope for rallying evangelical voters."

Or not.

I'm not much impressed by the Freudian-slip school of interpretation.


See this document that way, as accidental-true-secret-revealed, you miss the way this is also an argument being made specifically because there's some sizable group of the target audience that doesn't think this election is a big deal.

And you miss the way this is Reed trying to position himself as a relevant operative who should always get Republican money thrown at him.

How do we know this isn't just Reed mau-mauing, as much as it's anything?

As Tom Wolfe described the practice, when a different sort of "militant minority" was shaking down pols for contracts, it sure sounds a lot like Reed and this questionnaire of his:
"Going downtown to mau-mau the bureaucrats got to be the routine practice [...]. There was one genius in the art of confrontation who had mau-mauing down to what you could term a laboratory science. He had it figured out so he didn't even have to bring his boys downtown in person. He would just show up with a crocus sack full of revolvers, ice picks, fish knives, switchblades, hatchets, blackjacks, gravity knives, straight razors, hand grenades, blow guns, bazookas, Molotov cocktails, tank rippers, unbelievable stuff, and he'd dump it all out on somebody's shiny walnut conference table. He'd say 'These are some of the things I took off my boys last night ... I don't know, man ... [...] And they would lay money on this man's ghetto youth patrol like it was now or never ... [and] the bureaucrats felt like it was all real [...] like they were reaching all those hard-to-reach hard-to-hold hardcore hardrock blackrage badass furious funky ghetto youth.

Replace those furious funky ghetto youth with "the Religious Right" and the crocus sack of weapons with a reference to people thinking Obama is worse than Nazis, and Reed's your "one genius" at the Romney offices. Which must have worked OK, since this is a $10 million campaign.
Read More
Posted in American religion, Mitt Romney, modern conservatism, Nazis, Obama, politics, politics of distraction, Ralph Reed | No comments

Thursday, 23 August 2012

The new irrelevance of Rick Warren

Posted on 05:00 by Unknown
There's something really about odd Rick Warren's explanation for why he's cancelled the planned Obama-Romeny forum. The megachurch pastor and best-selling author had announced he would reprise his role as presidential job interviewer, but now he won't.

Because:
"We created the civil forums to promote civility and personal respect between people with major differences .... The forums are meant to be a place where people of goodwill can seriously disagree on significant issues without being disagreeable or resorting to personal attack and name-calling. But that is not the climate of today's campaign."
Isn't this completely backwards, though? There's a lack of civility, so the forum is supposed to promote civility, but there isn't civility, so the forum is cancelled. But if what the forum was intended to accomplish were a fiat accompli, then what would be the point?

It's a strange argument.

One suspects something else must be going on.
Perhaps it's the politics of a Warren interview event for the respective campaigns. There was a report the campaigns nixed the thing, not Warren, and he's announcing he's cancelling it as a way to save face.

One could see how the whole thing would be just problematic for Obama and Romney. Neither of them really stood to gain. Obama would likely face hostile questions on same-sex marriage, which came up last time, when Obama's position was much more amenable to Warren than it is now. And abortion again too. These aren't the issues Obama is campaigning on, and his answers are not likely to swing any voters or motivate any of those in Warren's audience in his direction. At best, I guess, Obama could placate social conservatives, though it's hard to see how that happens. For Romney, too, the possible pitfalls seem much more serious than the potential gains. He could face hostile questions about his Mormonism. He could get attacked on his inconsistent record on social conservative issues, or even the current positions he espouses such as abortion being acceptable in cases of rape. It's hard to see how Warren steers the conversation towards the topics Romney wants to talk about.

It seems that the sense is that this campaign will not be won on the kinds of issues Warren cares about. But it could be lost on those issues.

Another way to think about what's going on here is that Warren just has failed to make himself a plausible public gate keeper. A certain amount of neutrality is necessary for one to be a respectable, acceptable host of a forum. When Warren was positioning himself as a "post-culture war" kind of evangelical, who took a more liberal position on issues such as the environment or AIDs in Africa, there was at least an argument he'd be even-handed in his criticism of the candidates. As someone more publicly associated with opposition to California's Proposition 8 and saying that Obama administration's policies amount to a "crumbling of our constitution's first guaranteed freedom: the freedom of religion," he doesn't seem like someone who's going to be good at facilitating a conversation. He doesn't seem to be moving past the culture war in any meaningful way.

The loser here is Warren, given that he still seems to want to be a power player, a power broker and king maker. His position as religious authority on the public square has evaporated in the last four years. Whether it's the politics that have changed or Warren himself, his ability to exert an influence here is gone.

Maybe he's not the only loser, though. I thought that, in the last election, the respective candidates' answers to Warren's question about evil were maybe the most interesting and really the clearest things said about underlying, governing philosophies.

While it's ridiculous and ahistorical to think this campaign is somehow dirtier or more aggressive than others, or more that way than ever, that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. It would have been nice to hear the candidates try to thoughtfully answer some big, fundamental questions. If Warren could have done that, it could have been a good thing.
Read More
Posted in America, cultural relevance, election, evangelicalism, Mitt Romney, Obama, political debate, politics, Rick Warren, Saddleback, secularity | No comments

Tuesday, 10 July 2012

Andrew Sullivan's anti-Mormon biogtry, ctd

Posted on 01:12 by Unknown
Andrew Sullivan has -- kind of amazingly -- now discovered that Mormon theology of America is -- OH MY GOD! -- complicated.

A Sunday afternoon post, citing an actual news piece with actual scholars actually quoted: "it turns out Mormon patriotism has a more complex past than you might think."

Unless, of course, "you" thought about it.

Or, like, googled.

These scholars quoted in the piece, Kathleen Flake and Quin Monson, aren't exactly difficult to find. They're not hiding from the press. Flake has been on PBS. Monson on NPR. Both have been quoted in the Washington Post.

A few minutes of due diligence would have answered some of Sullivan's questions about the policy implications of Mormon beliefs about America's part in the divine plan, if those questions hadn't been just rhetorical cloaks for anti-Mormonism.

Besides, even the most rudimentary knowledge of Mormon history -- e.g., what happened to Joseph Smith, and why the Mormons ended up in Utah anyway -- would, if reflected on a little, show that Mormon patriotism is of course tempered by critiques of America.

This is how it is with "refined" and "classy" bigotry. The "scrim of rhetorical finesse" covers up sloppy, sloppy thinking, and stupid, stupid research.

And just as a general point, a good rule of thumb: theology is always complicated.
Read More
Posted in American religion, Andrew Sullivan, Anti-Mormonism, Mitt Romney, religious journalism, thinking | No comments
Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • The Derrida point
    "I was wondering myself where I am going. So I would answer you by saying, first, that I am trying, precisely, to put myself at a point...
  • How New Atheists are like Victorian-era bishops
    The secularization thesis -- the most traditional version, rather crude, which predicted religion would disappear from the modern world -- i...
  • On exorcism
  • Happy birthday Billy Graham
    Billy Graham turns 94 today. One of the odder moments of Graham's very public career -- though there are many, and many more than one ...
  • The courts' disagreement over corporations having religion
    Can corporations practice religion? The courts disagree. In two different federal courts, in two different cases where for-profit companies ...
  • The religious shape of capitalism
    A new study published in Management Science is making a very Max Weber-like claim about the essential differences of religions affecting eng...
  • 'Christianity is not a religion'
    Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com I don't know whether it's really possible to have a meaningful, reasonable debate about ...
  • Reza Aslan's outrage
    Among scholars of religion, there's no consensus on the relevance of scholar's personal religious beliefs and practices to their sch...
  • Teaching: History of American Atheism
    I'm in the process of preparing a class on the history of American Atheism, which, as far as I can tell, is more or less uncharted terri...
  • Snake handlers embrace media attention
    The National Geographic channel is planning a show on two Tennessee men and their communities struggling to keep the snake-handling faith. T...

Categories

  • "sacred steel" (1)
  • #PrayforBoston (1)
  • 1848 (1)
  • 1916 (1)
  • 2012 (4)
  • 2013 (1)
  • 4th of July (1)
  • 9/11 (1)
  • A Christian Manifesto (1)
  • AAR (1)
  • Aaron Schock (1)
  • abolitionists (1)
  • abortion (6)
  • Abraham Kuyper (2)
  • Abraham Lincoln (1)
  • abuse (4)
  • academia (22)
  • academica (1)
  • Acton Institute (1)
  • aesthetics (2)
  • African-American religion (3)
  • Al Mohler (1)
  • Albert J. Raboteau (1)
  • Alex Grenier (1)
  • aliens (1)
  • Alton Lemon (1)
  • Amazon (1)
  • ambition (1)
  • ambivalence (1)
  • America (21)
  • America’s Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone (1)
  • American (1)
  • American religion (128)
  • American Revolution (1)
  • Amish (1)
  • anabaptists (1)
  • Andrew Hamblin (1)
  • Andrew Sullivan (1)
  • Angela Zimmann (1)
  • animation (1)
  • Ann Taves (1)
  • Anti-Catholicism (1)
  • Anti-Mormonism (1)
  • apocalyptic (3)
  • apocalypticsm (2)
  • apologetics (1)
  • Appalachian (1)
  • Archdiocese of Philadelphia (1)
  • arguments (5)
  • Arizona Republic (1)
  • ark (1)
  • art (12)
  • Art Gish (1)
  • Art Young (1)
  • astrophysics (1)
  • asylum (4)
  • Aten Reign (1)
  • atheism (28)
  • audience (1)
  • authors (1)
  • Baby Doe (1)
  • bad faith (2)
  • baptism (1)
  • Baptists (2)
  • Baron d'Holbach (1)
  • Barry Hankins (1)
  • bars (1)
  • baseball (1)
  • bear market in God (2)
  • beer (1)
  • belief (13)
  • Ben-Hur (1)
  • Benedict XVI (4)
  • bible (4)
  • Big Mountain Jesus (1)
  • big Other (1)
  • Bill O'Reilly (1)
  • Billy Graham (4)
  • Billy Sunday (1)
  • birds (1)
  • birth control (10)
  • bishops (1)
  • Black Mountain Poets (1)
  • blasphemy (2)
  • blues (1)
  • Bob Dylan (2)
  • Bob Grenier (1)
  • book (4)
  • book culture (6)
  • book review (1)
  • bookshelf (1)
  • bookstore (3)
  • Boston (2)
  • Boz Tchividjian (1)
  • Brennan Manning (2)
  • Brethern (1)
  • Broderick Rice (1)
  • buddhism (1)
  • Bulldogs (1)
  • Calvary Chapel (2)
  • calvinism (12)
  • Canada (1)
  • capitalism (9)
  • cardinals (1)
  • Cardus (1)
  • Carl F. H. Henry (1)
  • Catholic hierarchy (1)
  • Catholicism (19)
  • Chance The Rapper (1)
  • charity (2)
  • Charlemagne (1)
  • Charles Chaput (1)
  • Charles Darwin (1)
  • Charles Fox Parham (1)
  • Charles Olson (2)
  • Charles Taylor (3)
  • Chicago (2)
  • child molestation (1)
  • children (2)
  • Children's literature (1)
  • Chris Rock (1)
  • Chris Stedman (1)
  • Chris Sullivan (1)
  • christian fiction (14)
  • Christian Hedonism (1)
  • Christian music (5)
  • Christian publishing (7)
  • Christian Reconstructionism (2)
  • Christianity (15)
  • Christianity Today (1)
  • Christmas (7)
  • Chuck Colson (2)
  • Chuck Smith (1)
  • church (7)
  • church suppers (1)
  • churches (6)
  • churches in bars (1)
  • citations (1)
  • civil religion (7)
  • Civil War (4)
  • Clarence Darrow (1)
  • clergy (2)
  • Cloud Ten (2)
  • cognitive minorities (1)
  • Col. Sanders (1)
  • comedians (1)
  • comedy (1)
  • commodification (1)
  • Conestoga Wood Specialties vs. Sebelius (1)
  • congress (1)
  • Constantin Volney (1)
  • Consuming Spirits (1)
  • conversation (3)
  • conversion (4)
  • Cotton Mather (1)
  • Courageous (1)
  • cover-up (2)
  • creationism (2)
  • creativity (1)
  • creeds and confessions (1)
  • crime fiction (2)
  • crime writing (1)
  • criticism (5)
  • crucifixion (2)
  • cubicle (1)
  • culpability (1)
  • cultural relevance (3)
  • cultural studies (10)
  • culture war (8)
  • D.G. Hart (1)
  • D.T. Max (3)
  • Dale McGowan (1)
  • Dan Fincke (1)
  • Daniel Dennett (2)
  • Darwin (1)
  • David Foster Wallace (3)
  • David Lipsky (1)
  • David Silverman (3)
  • David Tamayo (1)
  • de (1)
  • death (5)
  • Declaration of Independence (1)
  • definition of religion (3)
  • demons (6)
  • denominations (2)
  • depression (1)
  • Derrida (2)
  • Descartes (1)
  • Detroit (1)
  • digital humanities (1)
  • discourse analysis (1)
  • documentary (3)
  • dominionism (1)
  • Doomsday Preppers (1)
  • Dorothy Day (1)
  • doubt (2)
  • Dutch Calvinist (3)
  • e-books (2)
  • e-readers (1)
  • Eastern Orthodox (3)
  • economics (6)
  • ecstatic prayer (4)
  • Ed Gass-Donnelly (1)
  • Edith Schaeffer (1)
  • election (4)
  • Elmbrook v. Doe (1)
  • end times (4)
  • Episcopal Church (3)
  • epistemology (1)
  • Erasmus (1)
  • Eric Hobsbawm (1)
  • Errorl Morris (1)
  • ethics (5)
  • ethics of writing (1)
  • evangelicalism (38)
  • Every Love Story is a Ghost Story (2)
  • evil (2)
  • evolution (5)
  • exorcism (1)
  • experimental fiction (2)
  • faith (4)
  • Family Life Faith and Freedom v. Lynda Serrano (1)
  • Family Research Council (1)
  • fasnet (1)
  • Faulkner (1)
  • Fenway (1)
  • fiction (6)
  • film (8)
  • financial crisis (1)
  • fireworks (1)
  • First Amendment (26)
  • First Things (4)
  • folk art (1)
  • forgiveness (1)
  • fortune telling (1)
  • FOX news (1)
  • France (1)
  • Francis Schaeffer (4)
  • Frank Peretti (1)
  • Freedom From Religion Foundation (1)
  • freedom of religion (14)
  • French Revolution (1)
  • Front Porch Republic (1)
  • Fundamentalist-Modernist (4)
  • funerals (2)
  • gender (1)
  • George Beverly Shea (1)
  • George McGovern (1)
  • German (1)
  • German Reformed Church (1)
  • Germany (9)
  • giving (2)
  • Good Friday (1)
  • gospel (4)
  • gothic (1)
  • government (1)
  • grace (1)
  • Grammys (1)
  • Gravity (1)
  • Greece v. Galloway (1)
  • Greg Abbott (1)
  • Greg Brown (1)
  • Gruppe 91 (1)
  • Habermas (2)
  • Hagee (1)
  • Halakha (1)
  • Halloween (1)
  • Harry Crews (1)
  • HCA (4)
  • health care (3)
  • Heidelberg (2)
  • Heidelberg Catechism (1)
  • hell (3)
  • Henry Luce (1)
  • Herbert Rösler (1)
  • Herman Miller (1)
  • hermeneutics (1)
  • Hinduism (1)
  • Hispanic (1)
  • history (24)
  • Hitchcock (1)
  • Hobby Lobby Inc. vs. Sebelius (7)
  • Hobby Lobby Inc. vs. Sebillius (1)
  • holiness (1)
  • Hollingsworth v. Perry (1)
  • holy roller (1)
  • homemaking (1)
  • homeschooling (4)
  • homosexuality (2)
  • horseshoe (1)
  • Hosanna-Tabor (2)
  • hospitality (1)
  • Houndmouth (1)
  • houses of worship (2)
  • How's that working out for you -- being clever? (1)
  • Howard Phillips (1)
  • HR 1627 (1)
  • HSLDA (4)
  • humanism (2)
  • Hume (1)
  • icon (1)
  • icons (3)
  • ideology (1)
  • immigration (4)
  • In God We Trust (1)
  • In the Year of Dreaming Dangerously (1)
  • incarnation (1)
  • Including Atheists (1)
  • infanticide (1)
  • Intelligent Design (3)
  • Ira Glass (1)
  • Iraq (1)
  • Islam (3)
  • J. Gresham Machen (1)
  • Jack Chick (1)
  • James D. Bratt (1)
  • James Turner (2)
  • James Turrell (1)
  • James W.C. Pennington (1)
  • Jamie Coots (1)
  • Jason Molina (1)
  • Jehovah's Witnesses (1)
  • Jerry Jenkins (2)
  • Jesus (3)
  • Jesus People (1)
  • Jim Bakker (1)
  • Jodi Arias (1)
  • Joe Biden (1)
  • Joel Barlow (1)
  • Joel Osteen (1)
  • John Bunyan (1)
  • John Jay Institute (1)
  • John Piper (1)
  • John Reist (1)
  • John Roberts (2)
  • John Weiners (1)
  • John Wesley (1)
  • John XXIII (1)
  • Jonathan Cahn (1)
  • Jonathan Edwards (3)
  • Jonathan Smith (1)
  • Joseph M. Bauman (1)
  • journalism (4)
  • Juan Mendez (1)
  • Judaism (1)
  • Judge Carol E. Jackson (1)
  • Judge Sarah Evans Barker (1)
  • Justin Taylor (2)
  • Justin Townes Earle (1)
  • Kathryn Jean Lopez (1)
  • Kathryn Lofton (1)
  • Kenneth D. Royal (1)
  • kerfuffle (1)
  • language theory (1)
  • Lauren Green (1)
  • law (12)
  • Lawrence Krauss (3)
  • Lecrae (2)
  • Lee Braver (1)
  • Left Behind (2)
  • Lemon Test (1)
  • let's be serious (1)
  • Lew Wallace (1)
  • liberal (5)
  • liberalism (1)
  • life in Germany (2)
  • Linda Rios Brooks (1)
  • links (1)
  • literary studies (2)
  • living in Germany (15)
  • Local Religious Beliefs and Mutual Fund Risk-Taking Behaviors (1)
  • logic (1)
  • Logical Positivism (1)
  • luck (1)
  • M.S. Simkin (1)
  • maps (1)
  • Marc Ouellet (1)
  • marijuana (1)
  • Mark Driscoll (1)
  • Mark Hatfield (1)
  • marriage (2)
  • married life (1)
  • Martin Luther King Jr. (1)
  • Marx (4)
  • Marxism (3)
  • material conditions (3)
  • Matthew S. Hedstrom (1)
  • Matthew Sutton (1)
  • Max Weber (1)
  • Mayan calendar (1)
  • megachurch (3)
  • Megan Phelps-Roper (1)
  • Mennonites (1)
  • metafiction (2)
  • metaphysics (3)
  • Methodists (1)
  • Metropolitan Jonah (2)
  • Michael Farris (4)
  • Michael W. Cuneo (1)
  • Michele Bachmann (1)
  • Michio Kaku (1)
  • Mike Huckabee (2)
  • minimalism (1)
  • misreading (1)
  • Mitt Romney (6)
  • modern conservatism (13)
  • monasticism (1)
  • Mormonism (2)
  • mural (1)
  • music (1)
  • my life (28)
  • names (1)
  • narratives (5)
  • Nate Silver (1)
  • Nathan Hitchen (1)
  • Natural Law (1)
  • natural theology (1)
  • Nazis (3)
  • Neil Carter (1)
  • Neil DeGrasse Tyson (1)
  • Neo-Calvinism (1)
  • networks (1)
  • New Atheists (4)
  • New New Atheists (1)
  • new religious movements (1)
  • ngrams (1)
  • Nibiru (1)
  • Nicolas Cage (1)
  • Nikolaevsk (1)
  • Nils Frahm (1)
  • Noah (1)
  • non-denominational (1)
  • non-profit (1)
  • nones (11)
  • not fiction (18)
  • notes on reading (4)
  • novel (2)
  • Obama (13)
  • obit (8)
  • obits (1)
  • OCA (2)
  • Old Believers (1)
  • Old North Church (1)
  • ontology (1)
  • P.T. Anderson (1)
  • pacifism (1)
  • patriots (1)
  • Paul Ryan (1)
  • peace activists (1)
  • Peggy Gish (1)
  • pentecostal (14)
  • pet funerals (1)
  • Peter Lalonde (1)
  • Peter Stormare (1)
  • phenomenology (1)
  • philosophy (11)
  • photographs (41)
  • photography (1)
  • Pilgrim's Progress (1)
  • platform (1)
  • pluralism (4)
  • poetry (4)
  • political debate (11)
  • politics (37)
  • politics of distraction (3)
  • poll (1)
  • Pope (6)
  • poverty (1)
  • practice (2)
  • prayer (8)
  • preaching (3)
  • priests (1)
  • printing (2)
  • pro-life movement (1)
  • processing (1)
  • proselytization (1)
  • Protestantism (3)
  • Psalm (1)
  • public service announcement (1)
  • public square (4)
  • publishing (3)
  • pulpit freedom (1)
  • Puritans (4)
  • Quakers (1)
  • quote (2)
  • quotes (1)
  • race (2)
  • racing (1)
  • Ragamuffin Gospel (2)
  • Ralph Reed (1)
  • rap (3)
  • Raymond Burke (1)
  • Reformed theology (3)
  • religion (11)
  • religion and politics (20)
  • religion and science (8)
  • Religion and the marketplace (27)
  • Religion for Atheists (1)
  • Religions in America survey (1)
  • religious data (19)
  • religious experience (1)
  • religious journalism (12)
  • religious marketplace (5)
  • religious practice (27)
  • religious right (6)
  • Religious Studies Project (1)
  • repost (1)
  • Republican Party (2)
  • Rev. Peyton's Big Damn Band (1)
  • revolutions (1)
  • Reza Aslan (1)
  • Rich Mullins (1)
  • Richard Buel Jr. (1)
  • Richard Dawkins (2)
  • Rick Warren (1)
  • rites (2)
  • ritual (4)
  • Rob Bell (2)
  • Robert Bellah (3)
  • Robert D. Putnam (1)
  • Robert Ingersoll (4)
  • Robert Randolph (1)
  • Rodney Stark (2)
  • Roe vs. Wade (2)
  • Romeike (4)
  • Ron Hansen (1)
  • Rosa Parks (1)
  • Ryan Hunter (1)
  • Saddleback (1)
  • saints (3)
  • Salmon Chase (1)
  • same-sex marriage (2)
  • Sandy Hook Elementary (1)
  • satanic panic (1)
  • scandal (4)
  • scholarship (3)
  • scientisim (2)
  • Scientology (1)
  • Scopes trial (2)
  • Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus (1)
  • secularism (19)
  • secularity (15)
  • secularization (8)
  • self-publishing (1)
  • separatism (1)
  • Shane Claiborne (1)
  • sharia (1)
  • sketch (1)
  • Skewby (1)
  • slavery (1)
  • Slovoj Zizek (3)
  • Small Town Murder Songs (1)
  • snake handling (2)
  • Social Gospel (1)
  • social imaginaries (1)
  • social justice (1)
  • socialism (1)
  • sociology (1)
  • solidarity with the oppressed (1)
  • Sovereign Grace Ministries (3)
  • Spirit of Capitalism (1)
  • spirit phography (1)
  • spiritual warfare (2)
  • spirituality (2)
  • sports (1)
  • St. Francis (1)
  • statistics (6)
  • Stephen C. Meyer (1)
  • Stephen King (1)
  • student life (1)
  • Suess (1)
  • supernatural (1)
  • Supreme Court (5)
  • Susan Jacoby (2)
  • suspension of disbelief (4)
  • T.D. Jakes (1)
  • taxes (2)
  • teaching (8)
  • Ted Cruz (2)
  • televangelists (3)
  • Ten Commandments (1)
  • Terry Gross (1)
  • testimony (1)
  • Texas (1)
  • Thanksgiving (1)
  • The Birds (1)
  • The Color of Christ (1)
  • The Columbiad (1)
  • The Conjuring (1)
  • The Exorcist (1)
  • The Harbinger (1)
  • The Pale King (1)
  • the secular (5)
  • the South (2)
  • the work we do (3)
  • theodicy (1)
  • theology (3)
  • theory (1)
  • thinking (16)
  • This American Life (2)
  • Thomas Kincade (1)
  • Thomas Nagel (1)
  • Tim LaHaye (1)
  • Timothy Dolan (2)
  • Tony Perkins (1)
  • Tosca Lee (2)
  • tracts (1)
  • transatlantic (1)
  • travel (1)
  • Travis Alexander (1)
  • Treaty of Tripoli (1)
  • Tübingen (3)
  • Tulsi Gabbard (1)
  • TV (3)
  • Tyndale House (1)
  • Tyndale House vs. Sebelius (2)
  • UFOs (1)
  • UK (1)
  • unbelief (3)
  • Unitarians (1)
  • United Church of Christ (2)
  • United States v. Windsor (1)
  • USA Today (1)
  • utopia (1)
  • V.P. Roychowdhury (1)
  • Valerie Weaver-Zercher (1)
  • Van Orden v. Perry (1)
  • Vatican II (1)
  • violence (3)
  • Virgin of Guadalupe (1)
  • voting guides (1)
  • Walter Owens (1)
  • war (2)
  • weekend music (7)
  • welfare (1)
  • Westboro Baptist (1)
  • why philosophy? (4)
  • William F. Buckley (1)
  • William J. Lynn (1)
  • William James (1)
  • William Jennings Bryan (1)
  • Willow Creek (1)
  • women (1)
  • worldview (1)
  • worship (4)
  • WPA (1)
  • writing (4)
  • Zealot (1)
  • Zurich (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (147)
    • ▼  August (5)
      • Snake handlers embrace media attention
      • Robert Bellah and the 'religious turn'
      • Religious art's religious (?) evocations
      • No title
      • Robert Bellah, 1927 - 2013
    • ►  July (21)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (21)
    • ►  April (18)
    • ►  March (23)
    • ►  February (20)
    • ►  January (24)
  • ►  2012 (153)
    • ►  December (33)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (21)
    • ►  September (29)
    • ►  August (29)
    • ►  July (22)
    • ►  June (2)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile