Christian Right vs. The Mormons

It was just a matter of time before the religious supremacism of the Christian Right began to fracture the coalition which made it possible to ever describe the movement as "the religious right."

The Boston Globe's Nina Easton has a must-read article about how key elements of the Christian Right could never bring themselves to support the candidacy of Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts for no other reason than that he is a Mormon. Here is an excerpt:

"The Southern Baptist Convention website categorizes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a 'cult' that is 'radically' different from historic, biblical Christianity."

"A faith guide issued by the influential Christian right group Focus on the Family declares that 'God cannot be identified.... with the Mormon religion's notion of god.' And each year, evangelical organizers behind the National Day of Prayer bar Mormons from speaking at their proceedings."

"As Governor Mitt Romney mulls a race for president in 2008, his strategists expect their 'family values' candidate -- who opposes gay marriage, abortion, and some forms of embryonic stem cell research -- to find a natural base of support among religious conservatives. 'As Mitt's traveled the country and tested the waters, he's gotten very strong responses, including from religious conservatives,' said Michael Murphy, a political consultant who advises Romney."

"But an examination of the views of powerful Christian right groups suggests that, even as some of these voters might appreciate Romney's lifelong commitment to his church, the governor's Mormon faith could become an obstacle for others among this same group, who make up a large and vocal segment of Republican primary voters...."

"Dobson's Focus on the Family website features a guide for teaching Christianity to children that lumps Mormons in with pagan worship. 'God cannot be identified with an object, such as a metal or wooden idol, or with some aspect of nature, such as a star or tree, or with a person, such as Japan's Emperor Hirohito in World War II or the Mormon religion's notion of god,' the guide declares."

Three Winners in MA State Senate Special Election Primary

There were three winners in the Democratic primary for a state senate seat from the 2nd Middlesex District. Rep. Pat Jehlen, (D-Somerville) who won the primary; the organized democratic progressive movement in the state, and the growing network of MA political bloggers who covered the race and helped generate interest in a special election in the dog days of August.

Voter turnout was higher than expected. This is partly attributable to the coordinated get out the vote efforts of allied organizations backing Jehlen. Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts (PDM) along with a long list of progressive and labor organizations in the state endorsed Jehlen, as well as numerous current and former state legislators, and former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich. PDM organized fundraisers and deployed activists into the district to help in this important, and likely-to-be-low-turnout summer special election.

Turnout may also have been stimulated by the growing coverage of electoral campaigns and candidates by the growing network of MA political blogs -- notably, .08 Acres (and a Donkey), Blue Mass Group and Left in Lowell -- helping to create a spirited democratic political culture in which people become more knowledgeable; have access to more sources of information -- such as being able to easily find candidate web sites and relevant newspaper articles and editorials. Blue Mass Group even issued a candidate questionnaire, to which Jehlen and former state Rep. Joe Mackey (who came in second) responded. In this race, Blue Mass Group provided comprehensive coverage. They and the others will undoubtedly will have great postmortems, with links to the best of the blog and media coverage.

The special election is to replace the late Sen. Charlie Shannon. Jehlen will face the Republican candidate Somerville Alderman Bill White on September 27 in this heavily Democratic district.

UPDATE & Correction! Commenter Ron Newman reports "Pat Jehlen will face Bill White in the September 27 special election - NOT in November....(as I had previously reported. that error is now corrected.) "Adding to the confusion," he reports, "there is a Somerville city election on November 8, and a Somerville Ward 3-only preliminary election on September 13."

Thanks, Ron. Its important to get this stuff right!

Emergency Katrina Relief

Church World Service doesn't get the national press of the American Red Cross, but is an effective agency and an important part of the coalition of relief agencies that traditionally respond to domestic and international disasters. CWS is the relief arm of the National Council Churches, the ecumenical organization of the mainstream protestant churches.

Contributions may be made by credit card by calling: (800) 297-1516, ext. 222, or online at Church World Service.

Church World Service
Hurricane Katrina Response -- #6280
P.O. Box 968
Elkhart, IN 46515

Here are excerpts from the CWS emergency appeal:

"As Hurricane Katrina moves through coastal Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and northward, humanitarian agency Church World Service (CWS) says it is prepared to respond with material resources and support for community-based, long-range recovery groups...."

"Of particular concern are those who lacked the resources to leave New Orleans, as was urged by the city’s mayor as well as President Bush. "With 28 percent of New Orleans' residents living below poverty level," says CWS Associate Director for Domestic Emergency Response Linda Reed Brown, "CWS is mobilizing to help the most vulnerable with long-term recovery."

CWS's Domestic Response and Recovery Liaison (DRRL) network is at the ready to assist vulnerable communities in assessing immediate and long-term needs once the storm has passed. "Our assigned disaster response liaisons will work with the faith community, support forming recovery groups, and request material resources," reports Brown. CWS Gift of the Heart Health Kits are positioned for shipment, as are blankets.... "

"Church World Service was instrumental in building recovery capacity among vulnerable and under-served populations in Florida last year after the busy 2004 hurricane season. FIND, or Florida Interfaith Networking in Disasters, is continuing to respond to emergencies and sustaining recovery efforts, based on skills and procedures presented in CWS Interfaith Trauma and Response Trainings."

"One of the first agencies called by FEMA along with the Red Cross in times of national disaster, New York-headquartered CWS responds to natural and human-caused disasters internationally and domestically. In the U.S., CWS provides emergency aid domestically but also specializes in long-term recovery, working with local faith communities, social service agencies and emergency management partners to assist vulnerable populations."

Reilly's Rose Garden vs. Deval's Dymanic Campaign

Incumbent U.S. presidents facing a challenger sometimes don't do much campaigning, but instead make a bigger show of doing the job of president. This is known to reporters as campaigning from "the rose garden." Unlike the White House, the office of Massachusetts Attorney General does not, as far as I know, come with a rose garden. But Tom Reilly's campaign for governor seems to be all about the rose garden.

On August 18th, I wondered what had happened to Tom Reilly, who seemed not to be campaigning. He didn't show for a big annual political fest, the Sheriff Ashe picnic in Agawam. I noticed at the time, that at least according to his campaign web site, there hadn't been a public campaign event since July 23rd. Indeed, visitors can still, as of this writing, sign-up for the July 23rd event. (Hey, sign up today so you can enter Tom's Time Machine to take you back to Pittsfield where you can "learn about how you can impact the race for the Corner Office in 2006!")

Reilly's campaign so far mostly comprises fundraising events and press generated from his work as Attorney General. As a matter of fact, the last update on the campaign web site shows "Tom relaxing in Martha's Vineyard" before a fundraiser in Edgartown.

But the media have begun to wake up and smell the roses. The Boston Herald reports, "As Attorney General Tom Reilly ramps up his run for governor, he is packing his public payroll with a team of political advisers and strategists -- most of whom are paid more than his top attorneys."

"In fact, one of Reilly's top operatives, Stephen Bilafer, is listed on state payroll records as filling the $100,000 taxpayer-funded position of "senior counsel" to the AG -- even though he is not a lawyer."

"Also in Reilly's inner circle at a taxpayer cost of $100,000-a-year each are chief of staff Stephen Kerrigan and 'bureau director' Brian Delaney, a public relations guru and former press secretary to U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Pay for assistant attorneys general, who prosecute court cases for the state, ranges from $30,000 to $79,000. Aside from Bilafer, Delaney and Kerrigan, Reilly's taxpayer-funded PR team consists of six employees making a total of $313,700 annually.... While the AG's public payroll is stacked with PR pay, campaign finance records show that Reilly's campaign is paying just $35,000 a year to spokeswoman Kendra Medville and $22,000 a year to another staffer. He also paid $16,900 in July to The Campaign Group, a Philadelphia-based campaign consultant."

The article notes that "The line between state duties and the campaign has been further blurred recently with appearances by a Reilly press assistant taking notes at press conferences by Reilly's potential opponent, Gov. Mitt Romney. And Bilafer, who insiders speculate will head Reilly's 2006 gubernatorial bid, has been quoted in news stories on campaign-related issues. State ethics rules ban state employees from doing campaign work on the job."

The article quotes an office spokesman who insists that there is a "bright line" between the AG's office and the campaign. Yes, and thats not surprising, since so far Reilly's activities are almost all office and almost no campaign.

Boston Globe columnist Scott Lehigh looked at the matter from a different angle recently. "As attorney general, Thomas Reilly has had two and a half years to put together a campaign kitty of $3 million. Not so Deval Patrick, the only other serious candidate currently in the race. Unlike Reilly, Patrick, a former assistant US attorney general, doesn't have a public post to lend him prominence -- or to provide staffers who can double as after-hours troops for his campaign. While Reilly gets by with a three-person paid political team, Patrick is paying a staff of 14, plus several consultants."

And that campaign staff has not been inactive.

The Reilly web site shows a campaign lazing its way through the summer, and raising ever-more money. But Patrick's campaign web site shows a regular schedule of campaign events -- and I have seen signs of a growing grassroots campaign infrastructure in all parts of the state. I see an active and inspiring candidate that is turning many a skeptic into a believer. Not only does this pragmatic progressive candidate inspire, but he convinces people of his viability wherever he goes.

Its a relatively quiet time in politics. Its the week before Labor Day. People are on vacation, and thinking about the start of the school year. The primary for the Democratic nomination for governor is a year away. But its worth noting that since Patrick announced his candidacy a few months ago, his big public speeches -- to the MA Democratic State Convention, and to the New Democracy Coalition on the occasion of the 40th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act -- have been home runs, bringing people to their feet and flocking to his campaign. Patrick campaign manager John Walsh said, recently, "give me a couple thousand volunteers and I can beat the money."

I have no doubt Walsh will get his volunteers.

The Silence You Hear

Pat Robertson's incendiary call for the assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez certainly has backfired -- and ignited a firestorm of criticism that is engulfing the Republican televangelist from Virginia Beach.

Mr. Robertson has in three days called for the murder of president Chavez; claimed he didn't; and then admitted that he did and kind of apologized. The back-pedaling is covered in Thursday's New York Times. Will the story die there, on the fourth day? Not likely.

We have yet to hear from any major Christian right or Republican leader -- with two significant exceptions. Robertson, a former Baptist minister who resigned his ministry in the 1980s to run for the GOP nomination for president, was denounced by two top leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote that Robertson "brought shame to the cause of Christ.... Our witness to the Gospel is inevitably and deeply harmed when a recognized Christian leader casually recommends the assassination of a world leader."

And Bobby Welsh, president of the Southern Baptist Convention said: "The Southern Baptist Convention does not support or endorse public statements concerning assassinations of persons, even if they are despicable despots of foreign countries, and neither do I."

Meanwhile, The Washington Post editorialized:

"...some of Mr. Robertson's fellow travelers have not been able to locate their tongues over this latest Robertson-inspired international disturbance. The Family Research Council and Traditional Values Coalition spare no moments in rushing forth to denounce irresponsibility on the part of those they dislike. Not so with Mr. Robertson, who only called for the United States to murder a foreign head of state. Even the Bush administration can't bring itself to censure a fellow conservative who publicly calls for his country to break the law. 'Inappropriate,' the State Department managed to say. The White House, embarrassed by Mr. Robertson yet again but too afraid to mix it up with his narrow but loyal base of support, simply averts its gaze."

Mr. Robertson may think that his apology for making a bloodthirsty call for the murder of president Chavez will end the matter. If he does, I think he is wrong. Not only does his written statement appear to be more damage control than an act of contrition, but Pat Robertson is one of the best known religious and political figures in the United States. He is far better known than any mainline protestant or Catholic leader; far better known than many top elected officials and members of the president's cabinet; far better known than any other leader of the Christian Right, with the possible exception of James Dobson. As of this evening, the Robertson imbroglio is one of the top news stories in the world.

But for all the media buzz and moral outrage from many quarters around the world -- we have yet to hear from any of the leaders of the Republican Party or the Christian Right. There is a reason for that. Pat Robertson epitomizes the corrupt relationship between the Christian Right and the Republican Party.

The silence you hear is the corruption talking.

Robertson Apologizes. Sorta.

Pat Robertson, having been hoist by his own petard, is now apologizing for calling for the assasination of president Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Earlier today, Robertson claimed on his 700 Club television program that he never called for Chavez' assassination. He also claimed that the Associated Press had "misinterpreted" his remarks. A few hours later he issued a statement apologizing for calling for the asssasination of Hugo Chavez.

Here is what the Associated Press is reporting today:

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' Robertson said on his show. "Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.'"

"He later issued the apology on his Web site."

"When the AP had called Robertson on Tuesday for elaboration, spokeswoman Angell Watts said Robertson would not do interviews and had no statement about his remarks. He also declined several interview requests Wednesday."

Here is the arc of the story so far. Robertson calls for murder. Then he denies it, and tries to blame the media. When the lie is exposed, a perfuctory statement of apology is issued on his behalf, and he refuses further comment.

Robertson Claims He Didn't Say What He Said. Let's Go to Tape:

Pat Robertson, who is being condemned internationally for calling for the assassination of president Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, now says he didn't say what he said.

CNN reports, "I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time," Robertson said on "The 700 Club" program."

Two paragraphs later in the story, CNN quotes Roberston's actual words and links to the video of the original broadcast:

"'If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it,'" said Robertson on Monday's program. "'It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.'"

Robertson seems to have forgotten about the video. But CNN didn't. Neither did Media Matters for America which posted the assassination comment video in the first place.

CNN didn't say it; but Media Matters put it in their headline: "Robertson lies....".

Pat Robertson & the Silence of the Christian Right

The New York Times has a story today, devastating in its understatement, about reaction to Pat Robertson's internationally televised call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela. The story is devastating, not so much for Pat Robertson who is being denounced worldwide anyway -- but for the wider Christian Right, who are unable to distance themselves from Robertson's demagogic call for a domestic and international crime. This could be a bellwether moment in the fortunes of the Christian Right if domestic and international interest in the ideas and influence of Robertson and his political, religious and broadcasting empire can be sustained for a little longer than the emotional bandwidth of the current outrage.

But let's begin with Day Two of the assassination story and then broaden it a little.

Bernardo Álvarez, the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington, said: "Mr. Robertson has been one of the president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House." That hasn't happened of course. Although, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the state department spokesman distanced themselves from Robertson's comments at their daily news briefings. The official line is a disingenuous claim that he is just one private citizen. The State Department called Robertson's remarks "inappropriate" but would not otherwise condemn them. Still, thats fairly strong stuff considering that Pat Robertson is one of the most prominent leaders of the Republican Party and one of the top televangelists in the world. Anyway, lost amidst the tumult is the truly devastating point. Veteran religion reporter Laurie Goodstein had a hard time finding prominent conservative Christian leaders to comment.

"Some of Mr. Robertson's allies distanced themselves from his comments" Goodstein wrote. "The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, released a statement saying Mr. Robertson should "immediately apologize, retract his statement and clarify what the Bible and Christianity teaches about the permissibility of taking human life outside of law."

(The National Clergy Council is a small outfit, and Schenk is best known for his militant antiabortion activism.)

The Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals told the Times that he and 'most evangelical leaders' would disassociate themselves from such 'unfortunate and particularly irresponsible' comments...."

"But other conservative Christian organizations remained silent, with leaders at the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition saying they were too busy to comment."

"Mr. Robertson has a history of getting attention for inflammatory remarks," Goodstein continued, "In May he said the threat to the United States from activist judges was "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." In 1998, he warned that hurricanes and other natural disasters would sweep down on Orlando, Fla., because gay men and lesbians were flocking to Disney World on special "gay days." And he has often denounced the United Nations as a first step toward a dangerous "one world government."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State noted that Robertson has been urging his '700 Club' audience to pray for more vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court so that current justices can be replaced by President Bush with 'righteous' judges: "During the same Aug. 22 broadcast where Robertson called for the assassination of Chavez, Robertson prayed that God 'take control of the court, that you would take control of the confirmation process for Judge Roberts, that you bring about other vacancies on the court....'.

While Robertson's reckless comments, and the international outrage they have provoked may turn him into a pariah, Robertson's politics run far deeper than his high profile outrageous public statements. His 1989 book The New World Order is a hair raising testament to the depth and breadth of his ideology and why he is a dangerous and destablizing influence in American constitutional democracy. This book was sent to every new member of Robertson's Christian Coalition for the first several years of it's existence and it was on the New York Times on the best seller list. Millions of copies were and undoubtedly still are, in circulation. The New World Order is was one of the most influential books in the history of the Christian Right.

I wrote a great deal about this book and its significance in Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Here is a short excerpt:

"Robertson made it clear in The New World Order that anyone who is not Christian or Jewish is not fit to hold public office. he specifically names Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists, atheists and 'new age' adherents. He details his wistfulness for the colonial theocracies [of early America] where, he claims 'almost all were committed to the biblical worldview,' and that 'They all shared the same language traditions, and political concepts about the nature of man and the will of God.' This nostalgia for a cultural homogeneity which never was tells us much about Robertson's contemporary bigotry and political ideals. He longs for the time 'when this country started,' when voting rights were restricted to 'property owners' because 'People had to have a stake in society, before they were allowed to determine its laws.' His implicit endorsement of these policies suggests that he too believes that only people who own property have a stake in society, and thus would deny voting rights to renters and tenants of public housing, along with the religiously incorrect, if he and his movement ever gain sufficient political power."

Due to the current focus on the future of the Supreme Court, much is being written and said about consevative notions of "original intent," and the interpretation of the Constitution. The Christian Right makes noises about this, but what when you hear phrases like "biblical worldview," "biblical principles" and "biblical law," the vision for society is mostly preconstitutional. The nostalgia for the colonial era when conservative Christian minorities held sway; when voting rights were determined on the basis of race, religion, gender, and property ownership -- says much about Robertson and other leaders of the Christian Right. It is this era that the framers of the Constitution sought to forever put to an end in founding and defining a new nation. Although the Constitution as written did not perfect the equality of citizens, it took some bold first steps, and set the stage for every advance we have made in these areas since.

Fastforwarding back to the present, as we look at the views of Pat Robertson, I want to underscore again, the news is not that Pat Robertson makes extreme or nutty sounding statements once in awhile. It is the profound religious supremacism, and the twisted historical revisionism, and the anti-constitutional political agenda that marks Pat Robertson's career in public life; views that are imbued in all of the institutions under his control and influence to varying degrees. The current bruhaha may provide an opening to talk about the depth and breadth of Pat Robertson's views and their influence in society.

Finally, lets hear the devastating silence of fellow leaders of the Christian Right and the entire leadership of the Republican Party in response to Robertson's latest outrage. Ths silence underscores just how important Pat Robertson is in the Christian Right and in GOP. Any examination of Pat Robertson's views beyond the quote du jour, will be a disaster for them. And they all know it.

Pat Robertson: GOP Statesman

Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition, called for the government of the United States to murder the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, the Associated Press reports. The AP story is being picked up by major media all over the U.S. and the world.

"We have the ability to take him (Chavez) out," Robertson declared on his television program The 700 Club, "and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,' In apparent reference to the war in Iraq, he also said he considers assassination by covert operatives to be "cheaper" than a "$200 billion war" and "I don't think any oil shipments will stop." Robertson claims that Chavez "has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent."

Media Matters for America has the video and transcript.

Some people will be tempted to say that Robertson is nuts and should not be taken seriously. But in fact, Robertson is one of the leading religious broadcasters in the world and one of the top leaders of the Republican Party, and has been for a generation. Pat Robertson is so much part of the Republican mainstream, and associating with him is so considered so respectable, that even former Attorney General John Ashcroft now teaches at Robertson's Regent University, a graduate school in Virginia Beach.

I wonder if his fellow televangelists and Republican members of Congress will follow Robertson's lead in calling for the assassination of democratically elected foreign leaders?

Political Cortex

The group blog site Political Strategy is evolving. Tom Ball who is leading the change writes, "the time is fast approaching when 'evolution' and 'intelligent design' join forces to create the newest incarnation of progressive political community blogging.... Political Cortex."

I was honored to be asked to join a number of stand-out writers Tom has assembled to write regularly for the front page. We are a diverse lot, so visitors can count on a lively read and robust discussion.

You can sign up here to be notified of the exact launch date, sometime in September.

The Importance of Just Showing-Up: A Short Rant on Politics, Blogging, and Journalism

Its an old maxim that politics is pretty much run by those who bother to show up.

Anyone who thinks there is no truth to that, needs to visit Walk In Brain, the blogger from Cincinnati who recently showed-up in North Adams, MA.

Walk In Brain is being welcomed by MA political bloggers, as is our custom when we discover new a progressive political blog. Well, if in less than a year anything can be called a custom. Anyway, its something we do in MA as the political blogosphere steadily becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

Wes Flinn, the man behind the blog, moved to North Adams to take a job as Assistant Professor of Music at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. Turns out that he was in town less than three weeks and he had already attended a city council meeting; been asked to run for council (he declined. Way too soon to even think about it); met Ted Kennedy, and was profiled by the North Adams Transcript!

"What's happened is that those of us who are interested in politics have started to discover what the real possibilities are of blogging on a political level," [he told the Transcript.] "It's not just about raising funds for candidates, it's almost an open-source think tank. There's the free flow of ideas, the interchange and, hopefully, lively and robust discussion."

"While the mainstream media has a tendency to present political bloggers as wild cards spouting biased lunacy, Flinn believes they might be missing the big picture by focusing so intently on specific bloggers."

"'Democracy is not always clean and discussion is not always clean,'" said Flinn. "'I think it's important that these discussions take place and people get passionate about it. I would be distrustful of people who weren't passionate about something.'"

From what I have seen so far, Wes epitomizes the kind of passionate civic engagement that the political blogosphere has been all about. Meanwhile, from what I've heard, the main concern the mainstream media has about bloggers is not biased luncacy, so much as that people are tuning them out -- and tuning us in.

(Biased lunacy? Fox News anyone?)

I love newspapers, and I want them not just to survive but to become robust engines of a revival of the spirit of constitutional democracy in America -- instead of trending toward being tepid toadies to power, filled with celebrity profiles and entertainment news. I hope that newspapers will seize the opportunity to play a vital role in informing and revitalizing democracy -- fearlessly and fairly holding government, and candidates, and corporations accountable.

I would hate to see the further demise of newspaper journalism because people decide that if they want entertainment news they can do better on TV, and for information about politics and government, they can turn to the internet.

Time was, TV and cable were the main competition for newspapers. As much as I think that blogs and the internet are helping to bring a renewed vitality to American democracy, I don't want to see newspapers lose the competition. A vigorous independent press in America -- operating based on the highest standards of journalism -- is something we need to value, and to demand. It is just too important

Whatever newspapers finally decide to do, I am celebrating the continuing dawn of the political blogosphere. Citizens of all sorts are writing and publishing like never before. The authors of the First Amendment would be amazed and thrilled.

Banned Books Week

Censorship is alive and well in America. And the fight against it has many fronts.

Led by the Christian Right, public school boards, teachers, public libraries, and public colleges and universities are all too often pressured to eliminate books from curricula, reading and recommended reading lists, and public library shelves.

Fortunately, The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) the American Library Association and other major organizations sponsor the annual Banned Books Week, "the only national celebration of the freedom to read." Thousands of libraries and bookstores will sponsor events and exhibits during Banned Books Week, September 24 -- October 1, -- speaking-out against attempts to censor books and celebrating the freedom to read.

The American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom received 547 reports of challenges -- or attempts to remove books from schools and libraries -- in 2004. Robert Cormier's "The Chocolate War" was the most challenged book of last year. They also maintain a list of the 100 most censored titles.

Other sponsors of Banned Books Week include the Association of American Publishers, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the National Association of College Stores. Banned Books Week is also endorsed by the Center for the Book of the Library of Congress.

This year, the ABSFFE has a Banned Books Week Handbook, and the American Library Association has a Banned Books Week Kit. Both have lots of resources, many of them, free.

There are Banned Books Week posters available to download. And of course, there are Banned Books Week tee-shirts, buttons and bumperstickers.

The American Library Association kit goes for $35 and includes three posters, a list of titles that have been challenged over the last year, 100 bookmarks and a Banned Books Week pin.

One suggested activity is to hand out the Campaign for Reader Privacy bookmarks and petition urging Congress to restore the safeguards for bookstore and library privacy that were eliminated by the PATRIOT Act. The bookmarks can be ordered free from the American Booksellers Association by calling ABA at (800) 637-0037, ext. 6635. The petition can be downloaded.

The American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom has a host of resources for Banned Books Week, including a discussion of book burning in history.

In one episode this year, a Colorado newspaper reported on February 3:

".... a book that was being used as part of an English assignment was confiscated from freshmen at Norwood [Colorado] High School due to references of paganism and an alleged magnitude of profanity.

"Here in Norwood, a small group of parents sent letters to Superintendent Bob Conder, expressing their concern over, "Bless Me, Ultima," a book being used in the classroom as a literature book. Conder said the books, about 2 dozen in total costing $6.99 each, were pulled from the classroom, and designated to be destroyed. The parents approached the superintendent and asked that they be able to burn the books instead of the school janitor destroying them.

"Conder granted them their request.... "

Mark your calendars!

Banned Books Week:
September 24 -- October 1, 2005


[Crossposted from Talk to Action]

LeftyBlogs Aggregates One More

Maybe you were wondering about the growth of the progressive blogosphere? Maybe you were wondering how to keep track of all the terrific political blogs in your state? Well, there is a way. LeftyBlogs is an aggregator, organized by state. Its simple; nicely designed. Very well done.

Here is what they say about themselves: "LeftyBlogs is the place to find out what's happening in the progressive blogosphere across the country, in every state. Our goal? To help progressives get organized and take back America coast to coast."

If you have a progressive oriented blog, all you have to do is sign up. I just did, joining a number of my fellow MA political bloggers who were way ahead of me on this. I seem to be the 821st in the nation to sign up.

Here is the aggregator for Massachusetts.

Where were Romney and Reilly?

The biggest event for political hobnobbery in western Massachusetts is Hampden County Sheriff Michael Ashe's annual picnic at Six Flags amusement park in Agawam. Its a must-attend-event for local and regional candidates of both main parties -- and for candidates for statewide office. When prominent candidates don't show, it can raise interesting questions.

This year, over 2,500 people attended, with several hundred present at any one time for the all-day hot dog, clams & beer fest. The event is so big that guests have to take a shuttle bus from the parking lot, and the arrival of dignitaries is announced over a p.a. system.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick and his campaign were out in force. Lt. Governor Kerry Healey was there. Governor's Councilor Peter Vickery and his campaign manager Leo Maley were there. Springfield Mayor Charlie Ryan and his mayoral challenger, School Committee Vice Chairman Thomas Ashe were there -- so was U.S. Rep. John Olver and state Secretary of Public Safety Edward Flynn. Scores of local elected officials and candidates for offices at all levels -- such as Pat Duffy, who is running for an at large city council seat in Holyoke -- were there. The Springfield Republican, and other area media were there. Even Republican State Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees of East Longmeadow was there.

Blogger Kristen @ The Fray has picnic pics of Patrick, Healey and other pols. But Governor Mitt Romney is not in any of the pictures, most likely because he wasn't there -- nor were any stand-ins, activists or staff for his, ahem, reelection campaign. Bloggers Sco and Beyond 495 are discussing Romney's desire to spend a lot more time in New Hampshire, since he is evidently not running for reelection and is cranking up an increasingly improbable run for president. Sco writes: "The thing is, Romney's already announced his intentions in dozens of small ways without actual words, and we've seen him become more and more irrelevant to state government." But Kerry Healey who wants Romney's job if he runs for president -- and publicly said so -- was a very visible presence at Sheriff Ashe's picnic.

Romney's priorities seem clear. But what about Tom Reilly, the supposed front-runner for the Democratic nomination for governor? The Springfield Republican reports that Reilly was ill. But isn't it odd that the Reilly campaign was invisible -- if they were present at all? No one I talked to spotted them and there is no mention of the campaign in the Republican's account. Stranger still, the Reilly campaign website shows little campaign activity. If you click on Attend an Event on the menu, you can sign up to attend a meeting of the Democratic State Committee in Pittsfield on July 23rd. Yup, thats right. The last Reilly public event was on July 23rd.

I wonder what's up with the Reilly campaign?

News of the MA Blogosphere, Cont.

Please welcome Writer's Voice to the MA blogosphere!

While Writer's Voice is not exactly a political blog of the sort that I customarily highlight here, it does feature Massachusetts' authors, including some who write on political subjects. But the main reason I want to highlight Writer's Voice is that in an age of corporatization of all forms of media, publishing and distribution, it is essential that we progressives support our not only our writers, but the institutions related to independent publishing -- such as independent book publishers, independent bookstores, and independent broadcasters.

"Writer's Voice is a show about writers & writing in Western New England. We interview authors from the region and others who are just passing through, as well as folks who can tell listeners about the business of writing. Join us every Friday at 5:30 pm on WMUA 91.1 FM in Amherst and on the Web at www.wmua.org."

The Peace Movement Grows

Here in Northampton, MA, organizers counted 510 participants in the vigil for Cindy Sheehan, stretched out along Main Street on either side of City Hall. Most people had candles; some held signs. Turnout far exceeded expectations. Lots of friendly toots, and people waving and making peace signs out the windows of thier vehicles.

For minireports from around the country, check out this report on The Daily Kos, including at this writing, briefs from Brimfield, Easton, Lowell, Quincy, Orleans, Groton, Beverly, Newton and Somerville, MA. Also see this thread on Kos.

Walk In Brain has a report from Williamstown. Lynne, who organized the vigil in Lowell, posted her account at Left in Lowell.

Progressive Publishing? Eh, So What?

One of the reasons why the Right, both religious and secular, has risen to power over the past few decades has been their recognition of the importance of waging what they call "the war of ideas." Part of their strategy in this war has been to systematically support their writers and thinkers through the research and writing of books and articles, and to provide funding and resources for promoting the author and the work once published.

Much emphasis has been given to answering the Right with progressive "think tanks." I think this is good, but just one part of a much larger puzzle. I am not going to lay out a manifesto on the entire subject today, but simply state that a program to support progressive publishing must include the following elements: Support writers by insisting on decent payment and fair treatment from publishers and publications; support progressive publications and insist that the foundation community help excellent but struggling non-profit publications and the institutions that sustain them; support independent bookstores that are not part of the big corporate chains; and finally, support independent publishers of progressive non-fiction. This latter point is the subject of a signficant radio interview this coming Friday.

Writer's Voice interviews Jennifer Nix, editor-at-large for Chelsea Green Publishing(that is publishing Kos' forthcoming book). Nix published a provocative essay on Alternet recently, asking why if the corporate media is so bad, do people like Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Al Franken and David Corn publish books with them? Nix points out that Chelsea made a name for itself and for George Lakoff, by propelling his book Don't Think of An Elephant onto the New York Times best seller list and inventing an alterative system of marketing:

"We did this by partnering with progressive activist and indy media groups, to launch the book via e-mail blasts and on various web sites, like MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, Apollo Alliance, Jim Hightower, GreenFestival, AlterNet and more. We also got a lot of help from the blogs, like DailyKos and BoingBoing. We published a book about new, progressive ideals, and rather than going the traditional and lengthy turn-your-hair-gray publishing route (calling on galleys, sales reps, early reviews, and ads), we went directly to progressives to get Lakoff's book out into the world. It worked. We created a new publishing model. And we're not shy about telling you that Chelsea Green and Mr. Lakoff have made a very nice chunk of change."

Francesca Rheannon's interview with Jennifer Nix on Writer's Voice airs 5:30-6:30pm EST on WMUA 91.1 FM, the radio station of the University of Massachusetts. Writer's Voice is a project of the Western New England Chapter of the National Writers Union. The program can be heard on streaming audio, and the podcast will eventually be archived here.

"This rant is really not meant to excoriate progressive writers," Nix continues in her Alternet essay, "but to draw attention to the fact that you need to do more than talk the talk about media reform. Independent publishers are with you, fighting against what's happening to our media, to our democracy and to our country. How much sense does it make to publish your books with the likes of corporate publishers, with the proceeds going to strengthen the very media and political systems against which you rail so eloquently? Why not make money for yourselves and also funnel profits into strengthening independent presses by giving us a chance to work with your names and ideas?"

"No one is asking you to make less money, or to see your books die on the vine due to a lack of publicity, marketing or distribution. Book publishing has always been a crapshoot in corporate hands, and it always will be. Why not align your efforts with nimble, committed folks who are working to reform our media while they sell books? Just as the internet is changing politics, it is changing media -- and it is changing the slow and antiquated world of book publishing. We've proven it, and we can keep proving it, with ever more inventive ways of reaching out to the public."

"You no longer have to make deals with the devil of corporate might in order to sell your books. Independent book publishers can work with writers to find their audiences, and create new echo chambers with technology and various independent media partners. Together, we can spread word of your important ideas -- and turn them into bestsellers."

While we are on the subject, my publisher,
Common Courage Press is another fine publisher of progressive non-fiction deserving of far greater attention and support. Give them a click, pull-out a shopping cart, and sample the merchandise. You won't be sorry.

But if you want to buy my book, Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy, which was the selection of The Daily Kos Reading Club this month, you can support this progressive writer by buying it directly from me.

Roberts, Law Enforcement and Reproductive Rights

The controversy over the now withdrawn NARAL ad attacking John Roberts, president Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, obscured an important bit of history, and a fair question about Roberts' role in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, the Supreme Court case at the heart of the ad controversy.

Gloria Feldt, who served as president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1996-2005, recounts, in a recent article on Alternet, what it was like for clinics during the days of mob attacks by Operation Rescue. Prior to becoming president of PPFA, Feldt had headed the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Phoenix. Keep in mind, that OR was never a non-violent protest organization. They were more like angry mobs intent on interfering with people's constitutional rights to receive and to perform abortions. Criminal violence was often involved.

Feldt writes that Robert's legalistic amicus brief written in support of Operation Rescue's position, had the effect of supporting their activities. To say that Roberts was just doing his job in arguing a point of law before the court would have more merit, if he and his colleagues in the Bush Justice Department had chosen to take action to otherwise protect the rights of clinics and patients against the thuggery of Operation Rescue and similar groups operating at the time.

One does not have to agree with the NARAL ad to see that there is a wider problem of indifference to and arguably tacit support for Operation Rescue's highly public activities and the concurrent acts of violence. If this kind of activity had been directed against say banks, car dealers, newspapers or courthouses, the response of the Justice Department would have been quite different. Why the double standard? It is OK to look the other way when mobs attack legal health care organizations?

Here are some excerpts from Feldt's article:

"From 1977 to 2000, there were 675 blockades, 365 invasions, 322 death threats, 502 bomb threats, 112 assaults and batteries, 40 bombings, 16 attempted murders and 8 murders in the name of 'life.' I personally was stalked, picketed at home and subjected to death threats, in addition to enduring bomb and arson attempts, vandalism, and an invasion at the health centers for which I was responsible."

"The year Bray was decided, 1991, was smack in the middle of this period years. It was a pivotal time, before any murders had occurred. It was a moment of opportunity when the violence and harassment could have de-escalated if law enforcement at all levels had joined together and taken strong stands against it."

"One of the things I learned during this time was that local law enforcement takes many cues from the Justice Department, and further, that the Justice Department has a unique capacity to bring law enforcement at all levels together, to enhance the effectiveness of local law enforcement when it is overwhelmed by massive actions like OR. They can proactively set a pattern of enforcing the law and keeping the peace."

"Instead, the Bush I justice department -- with Ken Starr as its chief litigator and John Roberts as his top deputy, strategist and chief arguer -- did no such thing. Indeed, they chose to do just the opposite..."

"Though Roberts says he was merely arguing on behalf of the administration's position, in the end that is an inexcusable reason. He appeared twice before the Court to argue Bray, and appeared in the media to speak for his case. And though the case was decided 6-3 in favor of the protestors on a technicality concerning the law's applicability to this case, quotes from dissenting justices, including Sandra Day O'Connor, whose seat Roberts wants to fill, are telling...."

"Justice Stevens.... castigated the plaintiffs, saying, "[T]he demonstrations in the 1960's were motivated by a desire to extend the equal protection of the laws to all classes -- not to impose burdens on any disadvantaged class. ... The suggestion that there is an analogy between their struggle to achieve equality and these petitioners' concerted efforts to deny women equal access to a constitutionally protected privilege may have rhetorical appeal, but it is insupportable on the record before us."

"Justice O'Connor compared Operation Rescue's behavior to the Ku Klux Klan itself, noting that "[l]ike the Klan conspiracies, Congress tried to reach in enacting §1985(3), '[p]etitioners intended to hinder a particular group in the exercise of their legal rights because of their membership in a specific class."

"Am I saying then that John Roberts supports or condones violence? Of course not.... But I am saying that when he had a chance to weigh in and explicitly oppose the rising tide of violence that continued to escalate over the ensuing years, he did not. That is a serious question of character."

Discussion of Eternal Hostility

Well, life intervened and the online discussion didn't quite happen. The organizer wasn't able to post the diary on The Daily Kos at the scheduled time, and it looks like most people missed it. Still, I am honored by shock's summary of the text. It was and is deeply gratifying to see how well he read the book and the excellent summary he presented. Thank you shock, for all of your efforts and the many kind words.

Its possible that the discussion will be rescheduled. If I hear about it, I will post something here. But anyone can check here to find out about a new discussion time, or anything else about The Daily Kos Reading Club.

(By the way, there is currently an effort to bring me to Northern Virginia and Washington, DC for a mini-speaking tour in October. Anyone who would like to help, let me know and I will put you in touch with the organizer.)

News of the MA Blogosphere (and a Frontier Sandwich)

Welcome to Walk In Brain who has transplanted from Cincinnati to North Adams, MA. He has plunged right into MA politics and found that the water is fine.

Also, a belated discovery of Beyond 495 who blogs from Townsend and goes by the handle Mariposa. She has organized her blogroll according to "Badass Mass Blogs" and "Kickass Blogs." Right on.

Beyond 495 may also be the best name in the MA political blogosphere. Thats because it is so difficult for some to imagine anything beyond that circumference of Bosto-consciousness. To suggest to these poor souls -- to actually travel beyond 495 -- can be like proposing to mount the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Beyond 495 generously provides a map for these reluctant travelers right in her logo. The map only goes as far as I-91 -- but I guess its better to break it to them gently. The vastness of "western Mass" beyond 91 might be too much for some folks to take-in all at once.

But I have good news for wary 495 insiders. There is actually sustenance available for those foolhardy -- nay, adventurous -- souls who attempt to cross the Commonwealth Divide at 91. Having traversed and settled out here in the vastness, and having consulted my field notes and my journals, I can confirm not only the existence of but I have actually sampled an exotic sandwich called "West of Woostah," at Sylvester's restaurant in Northampton -- just beyond 91.

OnLine Discussion of Eternal Hostility on Monday

There will be an online discussion of my book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy on The Daily Kos, the largest political blog community in the country, on Monday, August 15th beginning at about 1 pm EST. The discussion is sponsored by the The Daily Kos Reading Club, the members of which have been reading the book this month.

Stop on by and join in. I'll be there!

To order a copy of Eternal Hostility, or to read some reviews, click here.

Justice Sunday as "Intimidation" Tactic

One of the participants in tonight's broadcast of Justice Sunday II is William Donohue head of the Manhattan-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, one of the organizations participating in weekly conference calls to mobilize support for the confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Newsday reports: "'I'm going to try to do my job to intimidate the Senate Judiciary Committee so they do their job more carefully,' he said of his remarks."

"Intimidate? Did he really mean that?," Newsday asked. "'Absolutely,' he replied."


(For more, see my Backgrounder on Justice Sunday II)

Cindy Sheehan's Field of Dreams

When Cindy is not holding her vigil outside George Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, she is blogging her story every day on The Daily Kos.

Here is an excerpt from today's post:

"We had a rally downtown in Crawford. Then the people caravanned up to Camp Casey. I was told to come down to the point of the triangle to greet them. While I was walking down to the point, I had a great view of Prairie Chapel Road. There was car, after car, after car!!! I started sobbing and I felt like collapsing. The cars kept on coming. It took almost a full hour for them to all get to Camp Casey, it was a miraculous sight to see. It was identical to Field of Dreams."

"People came from all over the country to be here. We are building a movement and they are coming.'

Backgrounder on Justice Sunday II

First a bit of news. The American Jewish Committee has asked House Majority Leader Tom DeLay not to appear on the Justice Sunday II telecast.

"Sponsors of Justice Sunday II are promoting the insidious and baseless notion that the U.S. Supreme Court is hostile towards people of faith,” wrote AJC President E. Robert Goodkind and Executive Director David Harris in a letter to Rep. DeLay. 'We urge you to reconsider lending your name and the stature of your office to the Justice Sunday campaign."

"'America is a nation of diverse faith communities, and the political views of members of those communities run across the spectrum,' wrote AJC. 'The Supreme Court, like the judicial branch as a whole, is a microcosm of this diversity.'"

"'The publicity campaign of Justice Sunday II inaccurately suggests that all good people of faith adhere to the same tenets, beliefs, and understanding of political or legal questions. This characterization erroneously implies that promoting an interpretation of the law at odds with the conference’s sponsors constitutes hostility towards religion,' Goodkind and Harris wrote in their letter to Rep. DeLay."

Yesterday, I updated the state of the struggle, Battle of Justice Sunday Heats Up which generated considerable discussion on The Daily Kos. And I am glad to see that Armando has followed up with a dicussion this afternoon.

For those interested in more background going into tomorrow's rally for religious supremacism, here is an anthology of my posts on this subject over the past few weeks. The most recent first:

Counter Event to Justice Sunday

Focus on Dobson & Perkins

Taking on the Demagogues Behind Justice Sunday

DeLay to Speak at Rally for Religious Sumpremacism.

A Black Baptist Minister Takes on the Theocrats.

Rally for a Theocratic Judiciary.

Cindy Sheehan: Blogger

Cindy Sheehan, who wants president George Bush to give her one good reason why the war in Iraq justifies the death of her son, is fast becoming the world's most famous mom.

And she is blogging regularly on The Daily Kos.

Here is an excerpt from her most recent post:

"We had a very interesting day. We had Bush drive by really, really fast twice. I caught a glimpse of Laura. I was hoping after she saw me that she would come down to Camp Casey with some brownies and lemonade. I waited for her, but she never came.

The Bush's were going to a bar-be-que/fundraiser down the road from us. I was very surprised that they let us stay so close to Bush. The families of the fallen loved ones held their son's cross from Arlington West while Bush drove by. I bet it didn't even give him indigestion to see so many people protesting his murderous policies.

I am a continued thorn in the side to the right-wing bloggers and right wing-nut journalists.

One man, Phil Hendry called me an ignorant cow. But you know what, the people who have come out from all over the country to give me a hug and take a picture with me and to support the cause of peace, overwhelms me so much, I don't have time to worry about the negativity and the hatred. The people who are slamming me have no idea about what it feels like to unjustly have a child killed in an insane war. Plus, they have no truth to fight truth with, so they fight truth with more lies and hate.

"Three active duty soldiers from Ft. Hood came to visit me and tell me that they really appreciated what I was doing and that if they were killed in the war, their moms would be doing the same thing."

Romney a No-Show at the Showdown

Recently, I reported that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney appeared to be grandstanding the appointment of attorney Henry Rigali to a juvenile court judgeship in Hampden County. Since then, the Governor's grandstand dramatically collapsed -- providing a disturbing glimpse into the apparent conflict between the governor's presidential ambitions, and the administration of the routine functions of government.

There were three candidates recommended by the Judicial Nominating Commission as well-qualified for the job. Two were from Hampden County, and the third is from Berkshire County, (also in western Mass.) All Romney had to do was pick one. But the governor inexplicably decided to bypass the Judicial Nominating Commission and appoint a man who had not applied for the job and had no background in juvenile justice, among other concerns. Governor's Councilor Peter Vickery from the 8th District, which includes Hampden County, called on Romney to withdraw the nomination. (The elected, eight-member Governor's Council confirms or rejects judicial nominations in Massachusetts).

But Romney refused to withdraw the nomination, and instead promised to personally preside over a showdown vote at the Council's weekly meeting. These meetings are customarily chaired by Lt. Governor Kerry Healey, but the participation of the Governor would allow her to vote in the event of a tie. After, the Council delayed the vote on the Rigali nomination a week so that Romney could return from vacation to preside, the Councilors were subjected to an intensive lobbying campaign by people from inside and outside the Romney administration -- including Lt. Governor Healey.

The Councilors, led by Vickery who was the first to publicly oppose the nomination, caucused in a way that is rarely required when the judicial nominating process is working well. A clear majority resolved to stand up to the lobbying pressures and oppose the nomination.

The day before the vote, Romney and Rigali publicly declared they would not withdraw. But as reality slowly dawned on them, Rigali scrambled to the high road. In announcing his withdrawl, he told The Springfield Republican -- which splashed the story on the front page -- that he was also concerned about bypassing the Judicial Nominating Commission and that he did not want to be the beneficiary of "special treatment."

In the end, Romney didn't show-up for the showdown.

Healey opened the meeting with the usual procedures and then unexpectedly closed the meeting. In the presence of numerous reporters and observers who had come for the big event, Healey declared, "The meeting is over" -- and stormed out.

With the Governor and Lt. Governor having fled, the stunned Councilors were left to chew it all over with reporters. "The administration, for reasons they haven't shared with us, decided to completely ignore the Judicial Nominating Commission," Peter Vickery told the Associated Press. "That's a very big problem."

But its not a problem anymore. Vickery and his fellow Councilors did the job they were elected to do -- to oversee the selection of the judiciary. There is a system of constitutional government in Massachusetts and they showed that it works -- the whims of an imperious governor who is busy running for president, not withstanding.

What is most remarkable in this tale of bravado backed-down, is that Romney has made reform of the judicial nominating process -- to depoliticize this vital function of constitutional government -- a signature goal of his administration. And he is generally credited with having made great strides. But for Romney to have become the very problem he said he was trying to solve, and in a way that splashed the whole story on the front pages, shows why his bid for the Republican nomination for president may, like the last meeting of the Governor's Council, be over before it begins.

Counter Event to Justice Sunday

COMMUNITY OF FAITH AND UNITY

When: Sunday, August 14 at 3 p.m.

Where: Cathedral of Praise (Pentecostal Tabernacle) 4300 Clarksville Pike, Nashville, TN

What: Several Nashville and national organizations will gather to let Americans know that there are many people of faith who understand the importance of the separation of church and state, who believe that all faith traditions should respect one another, and who oppose the use of government to impose the beliefs of one doctrine upon our diverse country. The gathering is intended to give Americans a spirited and inclusive message.

Local Speakers: Bishop Maynard, Cathedral of Praise Tabernacle; Bishop Walker, Mt. Zion Ministry; and numerous others to be confirmed later this week.

National Speakers: Rev. Rita Brock, theologian and founder of Faith Voices; Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for separation of Church and State; Patrick Mroteck, president of Christian Alliance for Progress, and Rev. Emilee Whitehurst, director of Austin area Interreligious Ministries.

Battle of Justice Sunday Heating Up

The battle of Justice Sunday II promises to be a pivotal moment in the struggle over the federal judiciary that will set the agenda of the nation for generations. The effort is to energize conservative Christians in support of president Bush's judicial nominees. But progressive religious leaders of many faiths are speaking out against the Christian Right's rally for religious supremacy this Sunday, and the battle is likely to escalate before and after the event.

Focus on the Family is countering with pre-rally interviews with the speakers, and the Trinity Broadcasting Network, the largest religious broadcaster in the U.S., announced today that TBN will broadcast a tape delay of the rally at 10pm EST on Sunday.

And in recognition of the importance of bloggers, the Family Research Council is paying to import a number of unnamed bloggers to Nashville to generate post event buzz. Uninvited is progressive blogger and UCC seminarian Chuck Currie who charges that the leaders of Justice Sunday, are attempting to "equate Christianity with support of conservative judicial nominees."

Meanwhile, progressive religious leaders held a national teleconference with reporters today. Their entire statements and the audiofeed are available at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

Here are some quotes:

"It is damaging to the legitimacy of the confirmation process to suggest that the necessary and comprehensive examination of a nominee's record, as well as support for or opposition to a nominee is in any way religiously motivated." -- Rev. Dr. Robert Edgar, General Secretary, National Council of Churches USA

"The judiciary has long upheld the Constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion and separation of church and state that make our nation the most religiously diverse and robust democratic country in the world. It is troubling when people of faith are calling for the courts themselves to break down the wall separating church and state that has protected the right to freely exercise their beliefs." -- Ms. Mirin Kaur Phool, President, Board of Directors, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund

"People are [asking] a diverse array of questions pertaining to Judge Roberts' broader judicial philosophy and constitutional interpretation as well as more detailed queries regarding his interpretation of privacy and the establishment clause. What all of these questions do have in common is that they deserve to be answered." -- Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

"No person or group can honestly claim to represent 'the' single authentic faith perspective on a given issue. Americans of faith and good will differ on the issues facing our country today, but those differences should never be cause for questioning another's faith or patriotism." -- Rev. Bill Sinkford, President, Unitarian Universalist Association

Meanwhile, Focus on the Family's political magazine Citizen Link is conducting a series of interviews with rally speakers in advance of the event.

Phyllis Schlafly, head of Eagle Forum, claims in her interview that "the Supreme Court is demonstrating hostility to religion," and she will urge "Congress to act on its Article III power to take away jurisdiction from the court on those areas where we don't trust them -- starting with the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the definition of marriage and the Boy Scouts."

Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Bowie, MD, invokes the bogus ideology of Christian nationalism to explain his involvement in Justice Sunday: "America will either remain a Christian nation protected by laws based on morality or it will become more morally lawless than every before.... The Supreme Court is the front line of the spiritual battle for the culture." Regarding his message to viewers on Sunday, Jackson said: "I will call upon the two sleeping giants of America's culture--the black church and the white church--to move from individual impact to combined significance."

For a discussion of the views of rally organizers James Dobson and Tony Perkins, see my post, Focus on Dobson & Perkins:

"James Dobson the founder and caudillo of Focus on the Family.... who may be the most powerful Christian Right leader in the country, routinely uses his national radio broadcasts to demagogue his concerns about what he calls the "unelected and unaccountable and arrogant and imperious" judiciary. He claims judges are "determined to redesign the culture according to their own biases and values, and they're out of control...."

"Dobson could more accurately say these things about himself: he is unelected and far less accountable for his words and actions than judges at any level."

Online Book Discussion: Eternal Hostility

There will be an online discussion of my book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy on The Daily Kos, the largest political blog community in the country, on Monday, August 15th beginning at about 1 pm EST. The discussion is sponsored by the dKos Reading Club, the members of which have been reading the book this month.

Stop on by and join in. I'll be there!

To order a copy of Eternal Hostility, or to read some reviews, click here.

Briefing Paper on Progressive Political Blogs

The blogosphere is a mysterious place to many in politics. Talk about the "netroots" -- and people may look at you like you are from Mars. But that may be about to change.

Strange as it will seem to some, the blog phenomenon is an important trend in politics. So naturally, a think tank commissioned a report. Fortunately, they hired two pioneering progressive political bloggers, Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller to produce it. For candidates and political operatives at all levels, Emergence of the Progressive Blogosphere: A New Force in American Politics is must-reading. Fortunately there is still some beach reading time left in the season. This is especially fortunate for political consultants and campaign managers who are now going to have to scramble to pretend that they are ahead of (or at least not behind) the curve on this.

The report is going to further catalyze a trend that was already well underway: progressive political bloggers will be a significant factor in the 2006 elections at all levels, in many parts of the country.

Sco offers an MA political blogger's perspective on the report titled: How To Leverage Local Blogs For Dummies (and Candidates).

And Kos has a post about the report and the importance of local political blogs -- and he has some advice for candidates: "First thing campaigns need to do is read Chris and Matt's report. Do the things recommended in Appendix 1. Us bloggers will take you much more seriously if you do."

Focus on Dobson & Perkins

The Christian Right's staging of Justice Sunday II provides an opportunity to learn more about the men and women behind this event and the people they are presenting as exemplars of Christian values. Let's focus on the principals, James Dobson and Tony Perkins (and for the others, check out the very useful backgrounder on the speakers at Justice Sunday published by People for the American Way.)

James Dobson the founder and caudillo of Focus on the Family will deliver a prerecorded video message to this second rally for religious supremacism. (He appeared in person at the first Justice Sunday.) Dobson, who may be the most powerful Christian Right leader in the country, routinely uses his national radio broadcasts to demagogue his concerns about what he calls the "unelected and unaccountable and arrogant and imperious" judiciary. He claims judges are "determined to redesign the culture according to their own biases and values, and they're out of control...."

Dobson could more accurately say these things about himself: he is unelected and far less accountable for his words and actions than judges at any level. Federal judges are vetted through a rigorous process, and ultimately our elected Senators get to decide who merits a lifetime appointment to a federal judgeship. Dobson wants to reduce that rigor in order to pack the federal bench with as many Christian Right nominees as he and his fellow theocrats can squeeze out of the Bush administration.

Interestingly, in the run up to the first Justice Sunday, Dobson (who is given to rhetorical excesses) compared the Supreme Court to the Ku Klux Klan, and when called on the inappropriateness of the analogy, he later backpeddaled. But if Dobson were actually concerned about the Klan, he could probably get some inside information from the man he hired to run the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins. (The FRC was originally the official lobbying arm of Focus on the Family and Dobson remains on the board of directors.)

Perkins came up through the FOF farm team of state level family policy councils -- state think tanks and political and legislative advocacy groups that function much like FRC does in Washington. (For a detailed discussion of these groups, see my 1999 report in The Public Eye magazine, published by Politcal Research Associates, titled Takin' it to the States: The Rise of Conservative State Level Think Tanks.) Perkins founded and headed the Louisiana Family Forum before Dobson tapped him to head the FRC.

"During his unsuccessful run for the U.S. Senate in 2002 information surfaced about Perkins’ willingness to associate with racist groups," according to the People for the American Way profile. "During that campaign, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996, Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for Woody Jenkins, a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke."

Dobson hired Perkins to head the FRC in 2003 after Perkins unsucessful 2002 run for the Senate when the Duke connections surfaced.

Max Blumenthal published a detailed account of Perkins secret dealings with Duke in The Nation following the first Justice Sunday. As I commented at the time: "The Christian Right has a long and shifty history with white supremacist groups in the U.S. Certainly many do not and never have embraced racism. Others play ball."

Throughout American history, racial and religious supremacism have often been deeply intertwined. The racism of the Klan and others has often been justified in terms of Christianity. And many contemporary conservative Christians, (including Ralph Reed) have acknowleged that conservative Christians were generally either on the wrong side, or on the sidelines, of the struggle for racial justice in the U.S. And just as that history informs the present so does the history of the role of the federal courts in ordering the racial desegregation of society, having determined that racial discrimination in all of its forms was and is unconstitutional. Just a generation ago, the leaders of "massive resistance" to the racial integration of the public schools routinely denounced the federal judiciary as unelected tyrants in black robes. This is the same rhetoric we hear today from the leaders of the Christian Right and their allies in Congress.

Consider this history when we hear Tony Perkins making claims like federal judges have not only "become hostile to Christianity" but that "they pose a worse threat to this country than terrorists," and when James Dobson compares the Supreme Court to the Ku Klux Klan.

Letters from an Abortion Doctor

If you believe in abortion rights, and are angry and frustrated by the harrassment, threats and violence against abortion providers, this story is a must read. Its a hair-raising,and ultimately inspiring story of one man fighting back; the community that rallies around him; and the power of a blogger (Moiv) to not only tell the story well, but to reach people who would never have heard the story any other way.

The story is posted over at Talk to Action and elsewhere around the blogosphere:

"Every summer Operation Save America takes a massive, weeklong protest to some fortunate city in America where their director, Flip Benham, leads them in “storming the gates of hell." A couple of weeks ago, OSA swarmed Colorado in Operation Save Denver. But when Benham's "saints" and "gentle Christian warriors" pack up to go marauding, they carry along so much hellfire and brimstone that they had plenty left over for Boulder, where they focused the wrath of their angry God upon Dr. Warren Hern."

Dr. Hern is a provider of exemplary abortion care. He is also a renowned anthropologist, as well as an internationally recognized authority in his highly specialized field of medicine. Together with Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Dr. Hern has been at the top of the antiabortion mob's hit list for over 20 years.

And this time was no exception....

Read the whole story at Talk to Action

Taking on the Demagogues Behind Justice Sunday

"A focal point of Justice Sunday II apparently will be to underscore the argument that the court has been anti-faith," writes Melissa Rogers at TomPaine.com. [Family Research Council head Tony] "Perkins has said that the Nashville event will focus on the Supreme Court’s 'hostility toward religion and Christianity in particular....'"

Rogers is an attorney and visiting professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University Divinity School.

"It has become fashionable," she continues, "to say that the court is demonstrating hostility toward faith when it prevents the government from promoting faith for us. But those who make this argument are either ignorant of or willfully blind to the rationales expressed in Supreme Court precedent in this area. The court traditionally has refused to promote or to interfere with religion not because it is anti-religious, but because it wants to leave people free to make choices in matters of faith and to ensure that religious people and organizations may worship as they see fit, rather than as the government sees fit. Further, anyone who suggests that the court has scrubbed religion from the public square is inexplicably missing the rich religious landscape all around us--a landscape that has thrived in the midst of the Supreme Court’s so-called 'hostility' toward religion."

"Family Research Council has every right to hold this event. The precise role religion should play in public life, the exact place where the court should draw the church-state line, and the morality of abortion as well as other policy and legal matters are all legitimate topics for public debate. Religious citizens have the same rights as non-religious citizens to argue their side. But disagreement with those positions is not automatically anti-religious bigotry or hostility to faith."

Rogers is right on the money. There is no attack on faith, people of faith or religious institutions going on in America. Not by anyone, and certainly not by the courts. This is the strawman that partisans of the Christian Right has been relentlessly knocking down for a generation -- abetted by some religious progressives who, attempting to occupy an equally false middle ground, denounce the so called "secular left" in the same terms used by the Christian Right.

This bogus crisis of faith under seige is the gasoline thrown on the fires continuously stoked by both the protestant and Catholic wings of the Christian right in the U.S. -- and it will be on spectacular display next Sunday in Nashville.

Two Remarkable Stories of Race, Love, and More

I don't often link to diaries on the big community blogs.

But I want to call attention to two diaries over at Booman Tribune for no other reason that I find them extraordinary.

I am not going to say anything about them, except to say that one writer, Ghostdancer's Way, has a gift for telling the story of his life as a self-described "mixed blood" Native American and the tremendous obstacles he has overcome. The other, Kid Oakland is one of the most talented writers in the blogosphere. Both of them have the capacity to make you smile inside; to give you insight into surprising areas of life; to move you to tears. Don't be surprised if one or more of those things happens to you.

Ramping Up Opposition to Justice Sunday II

Next weekend we will be treated to yet another rally for religious supremacism, Justice Sunday II, organized by the Family Research Council. Like the first Justice Sunday, the event will be broadcast to churches and Christian Rightist groups in hopes of whipping up support for some of president Bush's controversial judicial nominations. And as before, the rally claims that anyone who doesn't support these nominees is an opponent of "people of faith."

Meanwhile, a coalition of religious leaders who affirm the importance of separating church and will be hosting events across the country and speaking out in the media. Among these will be Rev. Bob Edgar, president of the National Council of Churches, Dr. Susan Thistlewaite, president of Chicago Theological Seminary, and Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, President, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

According to a general press release today:

"Different groups' plans include a tele-conference Thursday with religious leaders, "Justice Everyday" events around the country and a counter-rally in Nashville preceding the Justice Sunday service on August 14th. That prayer service is being used as a platform for injecting right-wing religious views
into the upcoming Supreme Court nomination battle. Rep. Tom DeLay headlines a list of speakers intent on breaking down the wall between church and state and undermining the independence of the federal judiciary.

Though all groups are not participating in all events, they are united in their support for the careful balance struck in the First Amendment, supporting the free exercise of religion and preventing its imposition on the American people. In events throughout the week and in media appearances.

Here are the highlights:

Media Tele-Press Conference Thursday, August 11, with with progressive religious leaders including Rev. C. Welton Gaddy (Interfaith Alliance), Rev. William G. Sinkford (Unitarian Universalist Association), Rabbi David Saperstein (Religious Action Center) and others.

Freedom & Faith Counter-Event is planned for 3pm on Sunday, August 14th at the Cathedral of Praise church (8200 Macon Road, Cordova, TN), including national and local religious leaders. Details to come.

Across the country people of diverse faiths will participate in "Justice Every Day" activities to provide an alternative vision of justice and the courts to the one being promoted by organizers of Justice Sunday. Townhall meetings, letters to Senators, rallies and paid media will focus on what's at stake with a new Supreme Court Justice-voting rights, the right to privacy and protections of religious liberty.

Meanwhile, editorial writers are continuing to voice their outrage against the campaign of "intimidation" being waged against the federal judiciary by Tom DeLay and his allies on the Christian right.

"At the end of the day," writes the Austin American-Statesman, "Americans understand that the courts must be as free as possible of electoral politics."

"DeLay and the unbending Christian conservatives might come to realize that the hard way -- by defeat at the polls."

The Clash of Two Young Lawyers

My post about Deval Patrick's keynote speech to the New Democracy Coalition's 40th Anniversary teach-in on the Voting Rights Act has stirred a lot of discussion not only in Massachusetts, but the greater blogosphere.

First, Michael Wilcox, who was present for the speech, noted in a comment, that "What you can't tell from the transcript is that Deval got a standing ovation at the end." Over at his blog, Michael noted the contrast between the life and values of Deval Patrick and John Roberts, president Bush's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court:

"Mr. Patrick spoke eloquently of the importance and the history of this landmark legislation, and the role he had in helping defend it as a young lawyer working for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. I was struck by the contrast to what I had just read about the work done around this issue by another lawyer, of about the same age, who was working on the other side of the road. [see MSNBC and The New York Times]

"John Roberts, the current nominee for a Supreme Court seat, was working to quash renewal of certain provisions of the Act, and also to defeat a proposed new provision (a response to an unfavorable Supreme Court interpretation). The new provision would make it explicit that discrimination occurred when voting rights were denied, with no burden of proof that the denial was intentional. As Vernon Jordan had declared in a NY Times Op-Ed piece, 'Intent to discriminate is impossible to prove.' Roberts was keen on fighting back, and drafted a response for AG William French Smith, warning that the bill would 'gradually lead to a system of proportional representation based on race or minority language status.'"

Then, conversation went national when a diarist on The Daily Kos, the most popular political blog, picked up the story and in a widely read piece noted "the clash of two young lawyers, John Roberts vs. Deval Patrick." A difference, diarist Troutfishing notes, that couldn't be more stark.