-
Pew: Half of Americans Who Attend Religious Services Go to More than One Place
Tweet Share on Facebook December 14, 2009 Comment (6)By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
Here's some comfort for those of you celebrating Chrismukkah this month: A quarter of American adults say they sometimes attend religious services of a faith other than their own. That according to a new Pew poll that also finds a third of Americans sometimes attending religious services at more than one place, accounting for about half of the churchgoing public.
The phenomenon is hardly limited to folks who aren't particularly committed to any church; even among those who attend religious services at least once a week, about 4 in 10 attend at multiple places. Check out this graph from the new Pew report:
-
Gallup Poll: Religious Intensity Predicts Party Identification, With Caveats
Tweet Share on Facebook December 11, 2009 Comment (4)By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
A new Gallup survey shows that religious intensity continues to be a strong predictor of party identification, with religious Americans more likely to identify as Republicans and more secular Americans more likely to be Democrats. But there's an important caveat: Being religious is a less dependable predictor of party identification than being unreligious.
Americans whom Gallup describes as "not religious" are 56 percent Democrat and just 26 percent Republican, a 30 point spread. Among those Gallup categorizes as "religious," more actually identify as Democrats than Republicans. It's only among "highly religious" Americans that Republicans enjoy an advantage, 49 percent to 37 percent.
Highly religious Americans account for a third of American adults, while 18 percent are religious. About half of Americans are "less religious" or "not religious," according to Gallup.
This graph sums up the report pretty nicely:
Read the full Gallup report here.
-
Conservatives' Faith-Based Praise for Obama in Oslo
Tweet Share on Facebook December 11, 2009 Comment (3)By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
Lots of prominent voices on the right are praising Obama's "just war" speech from Oslo yesterday, and lots of it—like the speech itself—has serious religious overtones.
"I liked what he said," Sarah Palin told USA Today. "I talked too in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times."
Fallen nature of man . . . a key tenet of Christianity that gets special emphasis in the evangelical tradition. Hence the need to be born again.
"He clearly understood that he had been given the prize prematurely," Newt Gingrich mused after the speech, "but he used it as an occasion to remind people, first of all, as he said, that there is evil in the world."
Recognizing evil . . . a faith-tinged staple of George W. Bush's speeches.
And conservative Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker says that anyone who still questions whether Obama is truly Christian after yesterday's speech "needs to seek therapy forthwith." Parker called the speech a "Judeo-Christian epistle."
Anyone seen criticism of the speech's religious and moral overtones from the secular left?
-
In Nobel Speech, Obama Argues Policies Conform to 'Just War' Theory
Tweet Share on Facebook December 10, 2009 Comment (6)By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
Who would have guessed that President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech today would offer a defense of his war policy based on the philosophy of St. Augustine?
In his speech today in Oslo, Obama invoked "just war" theory early on, then subtly made the case that his war policies conform to its central tenets.
Augustine, a prolific fourth-century philosopher, is frequently cited as the father of just war theory, although the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says its roots are a bit more convoluted. "[J]ust war theory is a synthesis of classical Greco-Roman, as well as Christian, values," according to the encyclopedia. "If we have to 'name names,' the founders of just war theory are probably the triad of Aristotle, Cicero, and Augustine."
Obama gave the thumbnail version of just war theory a few paragraphs into his speech:
-
Rick Warren Condemns Ugandan Antigay Bill
Tweet Share on Facebook December 10, 2009 Comment (4)By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
With a growing chorus of voices calling for Rick Warren to denounce a bill before the Ugandan parliament that would punish homosexual acts with long prison sentences—and, in some cases, death—the Saddleback pastor today blasted the proposed law as "unjust, extreme, and un-Christian."
Warren, who'd once associated with a prominent Ugandan pastor who is pushing the bill—Warren cut ties to him in 2007—sent a video message and letter to Ugandan pastors today that make clear he "completely oppose[s] and vigorously condemn[s] the measure."
Video is above. Here's the letter:
-
5 Unresolved Questions on Abortion in Healthcare Debate
Tweet Share on Facebook December 9, 2009 Comment (16)By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
With the Senate tabling Democrat Ben Nelson's strict ban on federal funds for abortion in a government-managed healthcare plan, there are lots of unresolved questions about how abortion will figure into the ongoing healthcare debate. Here are the ones I see as the five biggest:
1. Will Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, Nebraska's Nelson, or another antiabortion Democrat withhold a cloture vote on the Senate healthcare bill because it lacks a strict ban on federal dollars for abortions? Nelson has left the door open to the possibility. The antiabortion group Susan B. Anthony List plans to launch an ad pressuring Casey to withhold his vote and enable a Republican filibuster this week.
The Family Research Council has just launched a campaign to press other Senate Dems, including South Dakota's Tim Johnson, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, and Arkansas's two senators, to withhold cloture votes over abortion. For every Senate Democrat that antiabortion advocates can convince to withhold a cloture vote—and it's not certain they'll win over any—the Dems need a Republican vote to counter.
-
Your Thoughts on Uganda's Anti-Gay Bill
Tweet Share on Facebook December 9, 2009 Comment (68)By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
There were lots of comments on my post asking whether U.S. Christian conservative groups that condemn homosexuality should be expected to denounce a new bill in Uganda that would punish gay sex with prison or death. Most readers said that such groups should speak out, though a handful of posters who identified themselves as Ugandans lambasted such action as American political/cultural imperialism.
Warren Throckmorton, a prominent evangelical blogger on issues of religion and sexuality, writes:
Yes, I believe Christians should speak out in opposition to the bill. Andrew Marin (Author of Love is an Orientation) and I formed a Facebook group to encourage others to speak out. My friend Chad Thompson has written below one of many reasons why nearly everybody in Uganda is at risk by this bill.
Visit the group, engage in the discussion and join with us.
-
Abortion Funding Ban Fails, Abortion Foes Up Attacks on Healthcare Bill
Tweet Share on Facebook December 9, 2009 Comment (2)By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
After last night's Senate defeat of a Stupak-like abortion funding ban in the healthcare bill, the Family Research Council announced a stepped-up campaign to kill the bill. The council's effort will target voters in Arkansas, South Dakota, and Louisiana. Each of those swing states has at least one Democratic senator whose vote could be crucial to the healthcare bill's passage. Here's the FRC ad that is going up in Arkansas.
More from the Family Research Council on new steps to stop the healthcare bill:
-
Should U.S. Religious Conservatives Denounce Uganda's Anti-Gay Bill?
Tweet Share on Facebook December 7, 2009 Comment (38)By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
The story of a bill before the Ugandan parliament that would punish homosexual acts with life in prison—or, in some cases, death—has been gaining media attention in the United States. The bill has been pushed by conservative Christian leaders in Uganda, and the coverage has raised the question of how much, if any, responsibility American religious leaders who denounce homosexuality have to oppose it.
Three conservative American Christian activists attended a conference in Uganda earlier this year that helped lay the groundwork for the bill, and one has unequivocally denounced it.
Today, the progressive faith-based political group Faith in Public Life issued its own denouncement, signed by dozens of American Christian leaders, mostly political liberals. "Given U.S. Christian groups' extensive history of involvement in Uganda," the group said in a statement, "these numerous Catholic, Evangelical, and Mainline Protestant leaders . . . felt especially compelled to speak out against the 'Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009' as an affront to Christian values and call on all American Christian leaders to join them."
-
Stupak-Like Amendment Introduced in Senate; Catholic Bishops Urge Support
Tweet Share on Facebook December 7, 2009 Comment (1)By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
Sens. Ben Nelson and Bob Casey, both Democrats, and Utah Republican Orrin Hatch have introduced an amendment to prohibit abortion coverage from a public-health insurance option and from private insurance plans receiving federal subsidies under healthcare reform. Their proposal echoes the House's Stupak-Pitts amendment.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has endorsed the amendment, creating the same conditions that preceded the House Stupak vote last month, when many political watchers were surprised that a strict abortion funding ban passed, given the Democrats' control of the chamber. The big difference now is that abortion rights groups have launched a vigorous campaign to prevent the passage of a Stupak-like amendment in the Senate.
Here's the letter that the Catholic bishops sent all U.S. senators today, urging support for the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment:
advertisement
