Palin's Creationism

There is a little splash today on the tidbit emerging from Palin's new book about her views on evolution. The response has overlooked the reality that beliefs are not that extreme, and might even fall in the center of the predominate views of U.S. Evangelicals.

Here is an excerpt from her rendering of a conversation with McCain adviser Steve Schmidt:

"But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt."

This suggestion that God set in motion some type of evolutionary process differs from the hard-line creationist stance. It deters from the Young-earth orthodoxy that resists any semblance of evolutionary theory in scientific understanding.

A Pew Forum report from 2006 found that a majority of white Evangelicals (65%) believe that humans have not evolved at all since their creation. Of those that allow for some evolution "over time" (28%) -- where Palin's statements seem to fall -- a bulk see a Divine hand behind these changes.

Her stance that creationism should be taught alongside evolution is also not atypical in Evangelical circles. Such a sardonic response from MSM (read: mainstream society) to these beliefs may serve to bolster the common Evangelical practice of viewing themselves as a prosecuted minority.

"Religion as a political football"

A federal judge has wisely shot down efforts in South Carolina to institute an "I Believe" state license plate. It's mind-boggling that this was even passed by the state legislature.

Must Read

Jeff Sharlet on Stupak and C Street. I will fully digest this soon.

Pat Is On His Trolley

Remarks like these are nothing new, but insightful: “not a religion,” but “a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination."

The irony here, perhaps, is that if we follow this logic Islam becomes a more legitimate participant in the public sphere. That is, if we accept Habermas' claim that only agents using reason are permitted to engage in constructive discourse. A "political system" then has more legitimacy than a religion since, although it may be anarchistic (as Robertson is implying), it is based in reason. No?

Of course, this is not Robertson's point. And the key lesson to take away (aside from the rampant fear-baiting) is how he names PC as the main culprit here. More on that later.

"God Is Very Angry"

Good article on a tribal religion confronting climate change:

"This is where our God lives and it is being destroyed," said Mwangi Njorge, 95, one of those mostly older Kenyans who continue to make sacrifices to the deity they believe resides on Mt. Kenya. He worries that the disappearing ice is a sign of God's fury. "God is very angry, and if things don't change, I fear he might abandon us forever."

Phrased this way, the idea of a God abandoning humanity is strangely poetic and tragic. One Judeo-Christian concept of Hell is simply this -- the abandonment by God. It certainly borrowed heavily from strains of "animistic" religions, like these in Kenya. But modern Christianity (with its healthy dose of Plato & Zoroastrianism), banished this possibility in earthly reality. God is that all-seeing-all-knowing eye, if you will, who metaphysically cannot abandon.

Too bad. This theology lends some hefty gravitas to the global warming challenge.

Good Luck

Obama to ABC News:

"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," he said.

This comes on the tails of reporting that Stupak's amendment is not just controversial, but really confusing. By forbidding abortion coverage from any government plan, the amendment would contradict a central tenet of the legislation. It amounts to creating a strong disincentive for insurance companies to offer the coverage. And, as Ezra Klein points out, it would disproportionately impact poorer women.

A Director at the Center for American Progress notes, in this article, that Stupak's amendment "hasn't been thought through." But it clearly has further complicated an already unpredictable legislative debate.

One thing is certain: Stupak's national profile has, perhaps unwittingly, been raised. It will be interesting to watch what happens to him.

Fringe Watch

TPM, swift to the muck as always, picks up this call from a Christian right commentator to ban Muslims entirely from the military. The money quote:

As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve.

How about a WWMD bracelet?

Reproductive Slights

Most of the news analyses of the Stupak amendment on the health care vote are chalking up a victory for pro-life Bishops. The Catholic church was arguably not a significant part of the Religious Right constellation of the '80s and '90s. But the institution has been a long proponent of universal health care, and Catholics are traditionally a strong Democratic voting bloc.

Of course, the survival of the U.S. Catholic church is increasingly reliant on its steadily growing immigrant ranks. While this population is typically conservative on the abortion issue, it is clearly concerned and effected by immigration policy. What if the Catholic leaders were as vocal and instrumental in holding up a House bill without strong immigrant rights language?

Would Jesus Discriminate?

Here is a surprisingly tactful local piece on a campaign from GLBT congregations in north Texas:




The two opposing pastors that speak at the conclusion are genial and civilized, a refreshing departure from the usual sensationalized talking heads. Take note of the young, hip-looking pastor that delivers a more watered-down opposition to GLBT inclusion than the former fire-and-brimstone. He is a prime example of the savvier, conciliatory face of the conservative church.

Mother Government

And that delicate balance -- staunchly anti-government and yet persistently pro-moralistic intervention -- lives on:

If Nancy Pelosi gets to 218 tonight and HR 3962 passes, it won't be a good night for those of us who want less government in our life. But, if Stupak-Pitts is attached to HR 3962, those of us in the pro-life activist community will know that we did our part in the battle to preserve the life of the unborn.

Culture Wars Reemerge

On the day before the apex of health care reform, as the House moves to vote on a bill, two contentious cultural issues are arriving resurgent. Conservative Democrats are threatening to block reform over the legislation's potential impact on abortion and illegal immigration.

Pro-life Representative Brad Stupak (D-MI) is leading the charge, pushing an amendment to bolster the block on federal funding for abortions. These Democrats are a small fraction of their Party, but they are offering the victory spin today claiming they have a bloc large enough -- combined with unilateral Republican opposition -- to halt the bill.

While the economic crisis has demanded center stage, former linchpin cultural issues have remained relatively dormant. Gay marriage has moved from a national battleground to smaller regional fracases. And the abortion debate has largely been relegated to the fringe of domestic policy debates.

The high-profile return of this issue indicates its continued mark on American politics. Pro-life Democrats are not driven by the realities of the policy, but by shrewd political posturing in what has become a legislative process of one Party. The LA Times parses the baseless argument Stupak's camp makes, pointing to the presence of an ulterior motive:

The real goal of abortion opponents isn't to maintain the status quo. It's to extend federal prohibitions into private pocketbooks. By restricting coverage offered through the exchange, they hope to make abortion coverage so unattractive that insurers eventually stop offering it in the market for individual and small-group policies.

So the pro-life bloc is content to block health care reform, despite the public support of religious individuals for reform that would cover abortions. This approach hardly seems to resonate with the post-partisan, non-ideological commitment candidate Obama made to address the structural causes for abortion; a stance that arguably brought a fair chunk of the Evangelical vote.

But such a legislative coup could easily frame its leaders as defenders of the anti-abortion crowd. This may be why the White House will not come down on Stupak et al. The conventional wisdom, however inaccurate, is that these pro-life Democrats are teetering in conservative districts. A strong-armed showing for these cultural issues -- regardless of how or if they address actual policy problems -- could fold value voters firmly into the Democratic tent.

It is hard to imagine how this is any less manipulative and disingenuous than the once-formidable Religious Right strategy?

Update: Looks like House liberals, who were once poised to bring a halt of their own on a bill without a robust public option, are not having Suptak's amendment.