Check out this story in the Nation that talks about the work of my firm, Public Religion Research, to work for a broader religious agenda of social justice and the common good. You can view the full article here.

Democrats Chase Evangelical Votes
Sarah Posner

When Barack Obama proclaimed that "we worship an awesome God in the blue states" at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he sent a tingle through many young evangelical Democrats. The party was set to nominate John Kerry, considered by many evangelical activists to be religiously tone-deaf, but these Democratic faithful were already eyeing Obama as the un-Kerry, an unabashed believer ready to praise God in public...

Peeling away moderate and conservative evangelicals with a message of public service and social justice may prove to be a challenge, even with evangelical discontent with the GOP. But Robert Jones, author of the new book Progressive and Religious, maintains that "the real numbers are yet to be seen...there are still double-digit uncommitted voters. Those folks who aren't knee-jerk partisan voters will wait it out." Jones admitted that in 2006 "most of those evangelicals came home to the Republican Party," but he is not so sure this year. "The story will be where the uncommitted evangelicals break...I think we will see numbers breaking in a way that will surprise people."

Creating such a surprise has been the goal of Jones and some of the clients of his consulting firm, Public Religion Research, which has worked with new organizations in Washington to promote a broader religious agenda. One of his clients, Faith in Public Life (FPL), a nonprofit incubated at the Center for American Progress after the 2004 election, was at the forefront of promoting a more robust discussion of faith in this year's presidential campaign. Throughout the season, FPL has advanced the story line that less conservative religious voters are not only keen on having their voices heard in the public square but also on hearing about how presidential candidates' values guide their policy decisions. FPL organized the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in April, at which Obama and Hillary Clinton were put to the test of establishing their religious credentials, and pressed for the one at Warren's Saddleback Church.

Another one of Jones's clients, the centrist think tank Third Way, partnered with prominent evangelicals to produce an October 2007 white paper, "Come Let Us Reason Together," on how progressives and evangelicals could find common ground on divisive culture-war issues like abortion and gay rights. (Jones was a co-author.) FPL played a key role in promoting its signers, evangelical centrists like David Gushee, president of Evangelicals for Human Rights and professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University; Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners, who moderated two of the four Faith Caucus panels at the DNC; and Joel Hunter, the Florida mega-church pastor and registered Republican who gave the benediction on the closing day of the DNC. All three have been promoting evangelical interests in non-culture-war issues, with Gushee focused on environmental issues and ending torture, Wallis emphasizing fighting poverty and Hunter addressing environmental issues.

"Come Let Us Reason Together" focuses on an issue that is anathema to the religious right, and may also spoil Democratic chances to peel off moderate evangelicals and Catholics--abortion. The white paper stresses the value of abortion reduction, and while no reproductive rights groups were openly critical of it, none endorsed it. Wallis and Hunter lauded the adoption of the abortion reduction plank in the Democratic platform, hailing language that they said was included after religious leaders' input. (Reproductive rights advocates also declared victory, claiming the strongest prochoice plank in party history.) In his acceptance speech, Obama tried to straddle the line between his prochoice base and the religious abortion-reduction advocates: "We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country."

Continue reading the full text here.

Labels: faith in public life, progressive and religious, public religion research

Torture and Evangelicals: Faith takes a back seat
Tom Krattenmaker

I wanted to recommend for everyone this recent piece that features both Progressive & Religious and our recent poll on attitudes on torture among white evangelicals.
You can read the full piece here.

Then there's the integrity of the Christian religion -- already shredded, unfortunately, in the minds of many skeptical Americans... The new findings about evangelicals and torture certainly won't help in that regard. Commissioned by Mercer University and the Washington-based Faith in Public Life, and conducted by Public Religion Research, the survey finds that 57 percent of white evangelicals in the South believe torture can be justified. By comparison, an earlier poll by the Pew Research Center finds just 48 percent of the general public in support of torture.

Even more illuminating is this finding from the new poll: The evangelicals surveyed are far more likely to turn to life experience and common sense (44 percent) than Christian teaching (28 percent) in forming their opinion on torture. In other words, the segment of the population presumably most serious about their Christian faith is disinclined to be guided by the Bible on one of the central moral questions we face.

It comes as some relief to know that a different result emerged when the pollsters tweaked the question and challenged those surveyed to re-approach the issue with the Bible in mind, particularly its "do-unto others as you would have them do unto you" precept. Then, a majority agreed that torture should never be used.

Religion scholar Robert P. Jones, whose polling firm conducted the survey, believes evangelicals' support for torture probably stems from two major impulses: Fear, and the understandable but unrealistic yearning for absolute safety from terrorists.

"When you reach for ultimate security and find it ever more elusive, you then begin to rationalize your principles in the way you treat people," says Jones, author of the new book "Progressive and Religious." "It extends all the way down to doing things that [before 9/11] would have been unthinkable, like rationalizing away the Geneva Conventions, and talking about how in these times we're living in, the old morals don't apply."

Labels: evangelicals, faith in public life, guest voices, public religion research, torture

I had the privilege of presenting the findings of a poll conducted by my firm, Public Religion Research, at A National Summit on Torture: Religious Faith, Torture, and our National Soul. The poll was commissioned by Faith in Public Life and Mercer University and demonstrates the conflicted attitudes on torture among white evangelical Christians in the South.

The press conference included remarks by Katie Barge of Faith in Public Life, David Gushee of Evangelicals for Human Rights, and Tyler Wigg Stevens of Two Futures. You can download the polling memo here, and see a video of the press conference releasing it here.

______________________

Close to six-in-ten white evangelicals in the South say that torture can be often (20%) or sometimes (37%) justified in order to gain important information. This compares to roughly half (48%) of the general public who believe that torture can be justified, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll (02/2008).


Despite high levels of religiosity, white evangelicals in the South are significantly more likely to rely on life experiences and common sense (44%) than Christian teachings or beliefs (28%) when thinking about the acceptability of torture. And only about one-in-twenty white evangelicals rely on the advice of government leaders when it comes to torture. These different sources of moral thinking lead to strikingly different attitudes.

Among those influenced by Christian teachings, a majority (52%) oppose torture—14 points higher than white evangelicals in the South overall. In contrast, among those who rely most on life experiences and common sense, less than one-in-three (31%) oppose torture.

A majority (52%) agree with the Golden Rule argument against torture—that the U.S. government should not use methods against our enemies that we would not want used on American soldiers. This movement represents a 14-point increase from the 38% of white evangelicals who initially said that torture is rarely or never justified. Appeals to three other moral and theological frames did not significantly influence views on torture.

An appeal to the Golden Rule increases opposition to torture among every subgroup of white evangelicals. For example, only about one third (34%) of white evangelicals who attend worship services more than once a week say torture is never or rarely justified, but a majority (50%) of this group was persuaded by the Golden Rule argument against torture. This represents a 16-point shift in opinion among the most frequent attending white evangelicals in the South.

Other Findings
A majority (53%) of white evangelicals in the South believe that the government uses torture as part of the campaign against terrorism, despite repeated claims made by government officials that the U.S. does not engage in torture. Only about one third (32%) say that the U.S. does not use torture as a matter of policy.

Among white evangelicals in the South who are registered voters, 65% support Republican John McCain, 14% support Democrat Barack Obama, and 21% remain undecided. These findings are consistent with the recent Time Magazine poll (08/04/2008) that showed 66% supporting McCain, 17% supporting Obama, and 17% undecided among white evangelicals nationwide.

Two thirds of John McCain’s supporters say torture can often or sometimes be justified, compared to only 46% of Obama supporters and undecided voters.

About the Survey
This survey was commissioned by Mercer University and Faith in Public Life and conducted by Public Religion Research. Results for this survey were based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Opinion Access Corporation among a sample of 600 white evangelical Christian adults, age 18 years or older in the southeastern United States. This region includes the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. The survey was fielded from August 14-22, 2008.

The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 4.5% at the 95% confidence interval. In addition to sampling error surveys may also be subject to error or bias due to question wording, context and order effects. The data was weighted using demographic weighting parameters derived from the Religious Landscape Survey. Conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life from May 8 – August 13, 2007, the Religious Landscape Survey is a national survey of 35,000 adults with detailed information on religious affiliation and identity.

Labels: evangelicals, faith in public life, golden rule, public religion research, torture

For much of the last two decades, voices that are both progressive and religious have been like the “the Whos” in Dr. Seuss' classic Horton Hears a Who, yelling "We are here! We are here! We are here!" just to be noticed. This is how Rev. Tim Ahrens described it in an interview I conducted with him last year about the founding of We Believe Ohio in 2005 (for the full interview see my forthcoming book Progressive & Religious). But in just a few short years, the Whos have indeed been heard.

We Believe Ohio has grown from a few religious leaders responding to a single email into a broad organization that includes more than four hundred pastors, priests, rabbis, cantors, imams, and other religious leaders all over the state. These religious leaders have come together in an unprecedented way to reclaim a progressive voice for religion in the public square.

The growth of We Believe Ohio contrasts sharply with the fate of Rev. Russell Johnson, a fundamentalist megachurch pastor who had one of the biggest megaphones in Ohio in 2004. With his 2,000-member Fairfield Christian Church, Johnson ridiculed the early participants of We Believe Ohio, joking that their combined congregations could fit into a phone booth. Along with Rev. Rod Parsley—the movement’s bombastic mouthpiece who called on Ohio Christians (who he called the largest “interest group” in the state) to “lock and load” to defeat the “hordes of Hell”—Johnson was the force behind the so-called “Ohio Restoration Project,” an attempt to recruit “patriot pastors” to register one million “values voters.”

But by late 2007, Johnson had fallen. The pinnacle of Johnson’s work turned out to be supporting the failed bid of Kenneth Blackwell for governor in 2006. And he found himself in a swirl of controversy: the IRS placed a lien on him and his wife for failure to pay $22,269 in income taxes and penalties from 2002 to 2004; his church and the school and hotel it owns showed a net operating loss of $1.5 million for its fiscal year ending in June 2007; official complaints were filed against his church for violating its tax-exempt status in backing Blackwell’s campaign; and although neither he nor the church officially cited problems with his leadership, Johnson resigned his post as pastor in October 2007.

In the meantime, Ohio Christians clearly voiced their preference for a candidate that shared all their values rather than a candidate running on a narrow divisive platform of opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. Blackwell was handily defeated by Ted Strickland, a Methodist minister who stumped as a “Golden Rule Democrat” and who, as a senator, insisted on paying for his own health coverage as long as his constituents were not covered. According to the 2006 NEP exit polls, Strickland gained fourteen points among voters who attended religious services once per week or more, compared to support these voters gave Senator John Kerry in 2004. And voters, including a majority (fifty-one percent) of weekly church attenders, overwhelmingly supported a long-overdue ballot measure to increase the minimum wage.

Especially since 2006, I have been struck (and heartened) by the contrast in the energy, new ideas, and accomplishments among progressive religious groups and the flagging, tired efforts to trot out the same old lines among the religious right....

Read the rest of the article at Religion Dispatches.

Labels: dispatches from the beltway, faith in public life, progressive religion, we believe ohio