GeorgePWood.com

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama told a church convention Saturday that some right- wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked," the Democratic presidential candidate said in remarks prepared for delivery before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

"Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Illinois senator said.

"At every opportunity, they’ve told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," according to an advance copy of his speech.

"There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich," Obama said. "I don’t know what Bible they’re reading, but it doesn’t jibe with my version."

Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, a church of about 1.2 million members that is considered one the most liberal of the mainline Protestant groups.

In 1972, the church was the first to ordain an openly gay man. Two years ago, the church endorsed same-sex marriage, the largest Christian denomination to do so. Obama believes that states should decide whether to allow gay marriage, and he opposes a constitutional amendment against it.

Conservative Christian bloggers have linked Obama to what they call the "unbiblical" teachings of his church. Theological conservatives believe gay relationships violate Scripture, while more liberal Christians emphasize the Bible’s social justice teachings.

Obama trails Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York by 33 percent to 21 percent in the most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll among Democrats and those leaning toward the party.

Kennedy’s speech reads like a complete acquiescence to American mainline Protestant notions of privatized faith and anti-clericalism, as well as its stereotypical, outdated, and uncharitable ideas about the Catholic hierarchy and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Kennedy could have argued that his Catholicism informs him of certain theological and moral doctrines that will make him a thoughtful and principled president. He could have consulted and mined from the works of Catholic scholars who were able defenders of liberal democracy and the natural law that grounds it. But he did not. Kennedy’s speech was a terrible concession. For it played to his audience’s anti-Catholic prejudices while saying that his religious beliefs are so trivial that he would govern exactly the same if they were absent.

Romney, in order to pacify secularists and traditional Christians, may be tempted to emulate Kennedy and claim that his theology and church do not influence or shape his politics. But this would be a mistake. For it would signal to traditional Christians that Romney does not believe that theology could, in principle, count as knowledge; but this is precisely the view of the secularist who believes that religion, like matters of taste, should remain private. Yet if a citizen has good reason to believe her theological tradition offers real insights into the nature of humanity and the common good—insights that could be defended on grounds that even a secularist cannot easily dismiss—why should she remain mute simply because the secularist stipulates a definition of religion that requires her silence? Why should she accept the secularist’s limitations on her religious liberty based on what appears to many of us as a capricious and politically convenient understanding of “religion”? If Romney commits the Kennedy Mistake, it would give tacit permission to secularists to call into question the political legitimacy of not only Romney’s fellow religionists (including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) but also conservative Catholics and evangelicals.

If one does not support Romney’s candidacy, it should not be because he is a Mormon. It should be because one has good reason to believe he is not the best candidate for the office. That is the message of Hewitt’s book. It is one that would resonate with Martin Luther, who once tersely said, “I’d rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.”

Michael Gerson, formerly President Bush’s speechwriter extraordinaire, is now a columnist for the Washington Post. Today, he focuses on Rudy Giuliani’s position on abortion, which Gerson describes as "a muddle."

Giuliani says he hates abortion and considers it morally wrong, but nonetheless opposes legislation to outlaw the practice because he thinks the person carrying the baby has the right to make her own choice. Gerson considers this position "incoherent" because, by saying that he hates abortion, Giuliani is "implying his support for the Catholic belief that an innocent life is being taken." And if an innocent life is being taken, then the need to ban the practice must trump the choice of the would-be mother.

Although I don’t agree with Giuliani’s position, neither do I find it inherently incoherent. One can regard the fetus in its early stages as close enough to an innocent human being for us to abhor its destruction, but not close enough for us to deny the would-be mother the freedom to terminate it.

I doubt, though, that Giuliani wishes to articulate this position — the perception of incoherence might be a better option. And Gerson is certainly correct that this issue "is likely to dog [Giuliani] in the primary process."

Largely unnoticed by the public, climate researchers are currently embroiled in their own struggle over who owns the truth. While some have always seen themselves as environmental activists aiming to shake humanity out of its complacency, others argue for a calmer and more rational approach to the unavoidable.

One member of the levelheaded camp is Hans von Storch, 57, a prominent climate researcher who is director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht in northern Germany. "We have to take away people’s fear of climate change," Storch told DER SPIEGEL in a recent interview. "Unfortunately many scientists see themselves too much as priests whose job it is to preach moralistic sermons to people."

Keeping a cool head is a good idea because, for one thing, we can no longer completely prevent climate change. No matter how much governments try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it will only be possible to limit the rise in global temperatures to about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. But even this moderate warming would likely have far fewer apocalyptic consequences than many a prophet of doom would have us believe.

For one thing, the more paleontologists and geologists study the history of the earth’s climate, the more clearly do they recognize just how much temperatures have fluctuated in both directions in the past. Even major fluctuations appear to be completely natural phenomena.

Additionally, some environmentalists doubt that the large-scale extinction of animals and plants some have predicted will in fact come about. "A warmer climate helps promote species diversity," says Munich zoologist Josef Reichholf.

Also, more detailed simulations have allowed climate researchers to paint a considerably less dire picture than in the past — gone is the talk of giant storms, the melting of the Antarctic ice shield and flooding of major cities.

Improved regionalized models also show that climate change can bring not only drawbacks, but also significant benefits, especially in northern regions of the world where it has been too cold and uncomfortable for human activity to flourish in the past. However it is still a taboo to express this idea in public.

The current leadership thinks it [the new policy on abortion] follows with syllogistic rigor:

But couldn’t they see that abortion isn’t the solution to women’s problems but just one more problem to add to the list of evils to oppose? (At one point they say their new abortion policy will help the situation in Darfur; I fear it will simply add one more form of violence.) Has the message of Feminists for Life that “Women Deserve Better than Abortion” fallen on deaf ears? Have the stories told by the brave women of Silent No More and Rachel’s Vineyard gone ignored? Has the witness provided by the Sisters of Life—and the mothers they serve—been to no effect? Nothing I read on the AI site showed any indication of having wrestled with the possibility that abortion isn’t the answer women need but might actually be part of the problem.

Nor did I see anything about whether abortion was itself a violation of basic human rights. In fact, AI expressly ignores that question: “AI takes no position as to when life begins.” But how can a human-rights organization take no position on who is a human being? The question isn’t about speculative theology or mysticism; it’s readily apparent to anyone with high school knowledge of embryology and developmental biology. And for a human-rights organization simply to “take no position” undermines its entire mission. As First Things contributor Hadley Arkes argued so well in his Natural Rights and the Right to Choose, one embracing this logic is left in a most curious position: “He cannot vindicate then his own rights, and for the same reason, he is not in a position any longer to vindicate the rights of anyone else.”

Regardless of whether Hadley is right as a point of logic, he is certainly right as a point of fact. Amnesty International’s new abortion policy will strain—if not completely sever—the close ties it enjoys with many of the staunchest defenders of human rights: religious believers, in particular, the Roman Catholic Church. Though they hope to preempt such a conclusion—and gave their members just such a set of talking points—they are only kidding themselves:

Amnesty International, of course, ultimately does take a position on the question of when life begins: Life does not begin—at least not in a way that merits the advocacy of Amnesty International—until after birth. The organization’s leadership deludes itself if it thinks its new support for an unlimited abortion license doesn’t undermine the solidarity once enjoyed among all those working to end human suffering. And that’s reason for all champions of human rights to be saddened by the “news” coming from Amnesty International today.