Media Matters for America conducted a study of news coverage of major religious figures to assess whether opinions of politically conservative religious leaders were represented more prominently and more frequently than the opinions of politically progressive religious leaders. Of course, the results of their study were not unpredictable. After all, Media Matters is a politically progressive site looking to document media bias and/or dishonesty in favor of politically conservative ideologies. They went into the study expecting such a bias would result in over-representation of politically conservative religious leaders. I'll take that to be what it is.

The results of the study were overwhelming. While 90% of Americans identify as religious, only 22% identify as belonging to traditionalist faith communities. Yet conservative religious leaders are represented in television media 3.8 times as often as progressive religious leaders; and conservative religious leaders are represented in major newspapers 2.7 times as often as progressive religious leaders.

Sidebar: I think the numbers identifying representation of the respective religious leaders informative and important in-and-of themselves. Contrasting those numbers with the statistics representing who the general population identify as is not entirely helpful. Here is why: I belong to what I presume Media Matters would identify as a traditionalist faith community; yet I self-identify as politically progressive -- though I most certainly mean progressive in a different way than Media Matters does. This contrast implies both a bias and a conclusion on the part of Media Matters that goes beyond what the numbers themselves convey.

Cindy Sheehan -- whose tireless efforts to pursue meaning and justification for her son's death in Iraq made her the face of the peace movement -- stepped out of her active role in the anti-war movement on Memorial Day.

Cindy signed out of her campaign in a letter she posted in her blog at DailyKos.com. To prevent loss of this letter, I uploaded a .pdf version of it to our server. It can be found here.

This is a letter written by a woman who has been through hell and back. Cindy comes across broken and disillusioned; and she deserves our prayers and support.

I am not upset that Cindy is stepping down from her active role in the peace movement. People often burn out in justice work; even without having sacrificed so much. Cindy has given up everything to be a standard-bearer of peace and accountability. How many among the peace movement can really say that? Cindy has galvanized the timid and moved the hesitant. Now she deserves her rest.

The vitriol which Cindy had to put up with -- and which still gets slung her way -- is reprehensible. The peace movement we see today consists of coalitions representing diverse ranges of groups; not all of which are solely or even primarily motivated by the desire to promote peace. There are groups which pursue justice at a broader spectrum. Then you have groups which have their own particular causes, and which find the peace movement to be an unprecedented opportunity to attract attention to those respective causes. And, let's not forget the young anarchist, neo-hippie wanna-be groups who simply want an excuse for excitement and rebellion. Then there are groups of ordinary citizens who just want what Cindy wanted: either justify this war or end it.

When:

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10 am

Where:

I did not respond, immediately, to the Supreme Court's ruling on Partial-birth Abortion. I avoided commenting because I first wanted a chance to read the ruling, as well as both the consenting and dissenting opinions.

I would be lying if I said I were not happy the Court upheld the Bill banning partial-birth abortions. I am thrilled at any check to the immoral claim that there is a right to murder infants.

Having said that, this ruling is, in my personal observation from reading Supreme Court rulings I care about, among the most boring and the most poorly-written set of legal opinions ever issued by the Supreme Court of the United States.

To begin with, those who wrote the ruling opinion contradicted themselves by opposing partial-birth abortion while, at the same time, allowing abortion for the same victims, provided the victims were aborted prior to the partial-birth state. Using this Court's language, it is acceptable to murder the infant provided the labor of the infant did not reach a "particular anatomical landmark." What a crock! The infant is the same infant, regardless of what "anatomical landmark" is reached in any attempt of inducing labor.

So here we have Catholic judges attempting to sound as if they are Catholic who are the same judges arguing in such a way as to compromise all rational thought in terms of this debate. They would have done better, and would have been more rational in their legal argument, had they undone Roe v. Wade altogether.

Here they only established a political position; while undermining the legitimacy of their own legal thought. While I am not a lawyer myself, I am extremely disappointed in the weakness of the legal arguments presented by both the ruling and the consenting opinions of this Court.

I just finished watching an interview Rudy Giuliani gave on CNN. The interviewer presented a clip of Giulini from 1989 where he disagreed with Bush, Sr.' veto against provision to publicly fund abortion. In the clip, Giuliani said there should be public funding for abortion.

The interviewer asked Giuliani whether his position is still the same. Giuliani said he has to review his comments at that time and the circumstances in which he made them. He went on to assert that he is prolife and that "adoptions went up and abortions went down while I was mayor."

Ummm. Adotions propably went up and abortions probably went down while Giuliani was mayor of New York City. But that did not happen because Giuliani was prolife. In fact, Giuliani played very much the pro-choice or pro-abortion people in order to sustain his electability in NYC. While Giuliani was mayor, Bill Clinton was President. It had already been established that, during that time, nation-wide adoptions went up and abortions went down.

Can Mr. Clinton take credit for that? I doubt it. I think other social factors fortunately played into that statistical reality. But Mr. Clinton is not now running for President, Anakin Skywalker -- I mean, Rudy Giuliani -- is. He cannot take credit for a social phenomenon he had nothing to do with. More importantly, his words in 1989, and consistently throughout his political career prior to running for President, do matter.

Either he lied then; or he is lying now. Either way he cannot be trusted. [But I know that already. I am a New Yorker who lived under his emperial rule here].

There are so many things that seem important to blog about today. FBI misuse of Patriot Act powers; improper firings of US Attorneys; Halliburton deciding to pack up their tent and move it to Dubai, just as they face the prospect for investigations into allegations about their work in Iraq; and other things.

But I just can't get energized about it today. After all, it seems like we're rehashing old stuff. Most of the things being treated as "breaking news" have been debated about for at least six years now. Remember when you were called "unpatriotic" for questioning things like the Patriot Act?

We all knew these Congressional investigations were coming down the pike. Nancy Pelosi herself had said they were going to be a priority. We also anticipated the investigations would have an impact on the Administration. It's odd that we're acting like we're learning new things (though some people may be). We are just having things we knew were happening be proven.

I suppose I should finally be relieved that we have a two-Party government working again, and that our Congress is willing to hold the Administration accountable to the law and to the people.

That's not really the point for me, though. When we had a one-Party government working in Washington, it wasn't just the government that was the problem. Look at the vast array of conservative apologists -- not just the professionals, but the lay folk as well -- who absolutely defended the Bush Administration at all costs. Many apologists still are, in fact, defending the Bush Administration.

I want to say up front that I am not a fan of Al Sharpton. I have associates and colleagues who are absolute fans of Sharpton; and that is a source of conflict (especially in terms of my relations with colleagues who play on racial tensions to promote our social justice agenda). The truth is, (and I want it clear I am speaking for myself , not for CfD; afterall, I have already been accused of risking CfD's name for my own thoughts) I do not believe Al Sharpton is particularly concerned about social justice, either for himself, his community or anyone else. Al Sharpton is self-interested in his own ego. He's a nut case with a platform.

Having said that, he has placed himself into a position where people in politics want -- and, maybe, need -- his support. I think that is a problem for people really interested in social justice. We find ourselves having to deal with psycho-ego-maniacs like Al Sharpton in order to have a place at the table to promote real social justice. Don't get me started on that.

But now lets revisit the question of Barack Obama's "blackness"; since Sharpton brought it up, again. As most know now, there is a titsy between Sharpton and Obama. Sharpton is out viruently arguing Obama started a fight. Obama denies there is a fight. Guess who I believe.

It's an interesting fight, though. Most of my colleagues absolutely support and defend the work of Al Sharpton, while, at the same time, they are enamored with Barack Obama. Yet some members of the organization I work for are also members of Al Shapton's National Action Network. Aren't they in a bind?

I have been reading various blogs lately that are tending to create some confusion about what it means to be liberal vs. conservative; particularly as Catholics are concerned.

Reading them initially, I was momentarily confused myself. But I do try to think my issues through.

First, Bill Donohue reported on Frances Kissling's interview with National Catholic Reporter following her retirement. In the interview, Kissling spoke out, not only against conseratives, but against the "Catholic left" as well. Can I say, "duh"?

The Catholic left is not defined by Frances Kissling. It is defined by the faith of Catholics who recognize that our faith demands that we participate in transforming society to promote the common good. Contrary to Kissling's belief, no Catholic endorses abortion; and so the abortion question is moot to Catholics, conservative or liberal (or progressive) -- Catholics consider abortion to be gravely evil.

That does not mean I think Kissling was being disingenuous when she said she had Catholic colleagues who lie about not supporting abortion in order to sustain the formal support of the Catholic Church. I know it is very possible that there are those who call themselves Catholic, and try to promote themselves as Catholic, while supporting abortion. I was thrown into just such a batch last year when I went to a faith/politics conference in D.C. The fact that there are self-professed Catholics who support abortion is really disappointing to me, but I know they exist. Fine. Id est.

There go those tax-and-spend liberals again. Always wanting to fix serious problems when leaving them alone would be so much cheaper!

As CNN reported, both the House and the Senate promise a broader investigation into military hospitals and Veterans' Affairs medical facilities, and Army brass promise action. Even the Administration got CYOA syndrome, appointing a panel to conduct a White House investigation.

All needed, but too little too late. What did we expect? When we talk about closing military and VA hospitals and don't provide the necessary funding for those facilities to operate smoothly -- and when we talk about outsourcing the work to the private sector -- we had to know the quality of service would be cut at the very centers the Administration is trying to close.

Those in command knew Bush's operating political and budget philosophies and they knew his Administration's stated intents for the various facilities over which they were in command. Congress wanted to know of Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley why he had not asked for help or money to fix the problem. Do I really need to answer that for him?

I echo Congress' belief that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the lack of quality service and deliverance of medical care across a much broader medical delivery service in the military and VA; and that an investigation would prove scandalous. But I would take it a step further. It is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of an Administration whose operating philosophy places priority for enriching private sector corporations over government delivering on its own responsibility to fulfill its mandate -- to the people who serve and to the common good.

Here is a clipping of the news story reported by CNN...

IPS News reports that Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice has appointed Eliot A. Cohen as State Department Counselor.

In a move that has surprised many foreign policy analysts here, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has appointed a prominent neo-conservative hawk and leading champion of the Iraq war to the post of State Department Counselor.

Eliot A. Cohen, who teaches military history at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) here and has also served on the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board (DPB) since 2001, will take up the position next month that was left vacant late last year by Rice's long-time confidant and "realist" thinker, Philip Zelikow.

A close friend and protege of former Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and advisory board member of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Cohen most recently led the harsh neo-conservative attack on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG), co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton.

Like his fellow-neo-cons, he was particularly scathing about its recommendations for Washington to directly engage Syria and Iran and revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process -- recommendations which Rice herself has explicitly endorsed in the last few weeks.

Given Cohen's hawkish ideals, and his public thoughts about the Iraq Study Group that attempted to provide positive solutions to our Iraq problem, it seems forboding that Rice appointed him. What are they getting ready to stir up now?

There is a downside to multi-tasking the media. I had CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 on TV while reading different blogs. Needless to say, my attention was not fully focused on either activity; and, admittedly, was more focused on the blogs. I was initially watching Anderson Cooper for his report on the ossuary that's all over the news right now. As the program progressed, though, my attention waned.

While reading a blog post, though, words of Anderson Cooper came through very clearly:

Whether you're Catholic or Protestant, the more literally you read the bible, the greater the chance you'll vote conservative.

Wow, what a claim. I really wish I had been paying closer attention to the show so I could have had a greater sense of the context of that statement (though I know it was a segway into a segment on Patriot Pastors) and from what source he is basing that claim. It reminds me of the Deal Hudson study that made claims about a church attendance vs liberal/conservative correlation.

Not knowing the source of that claim, it's difficult to respond. I can only say that Anderson Cooper would be hard-pressed to find any Catholic, liberal or conservative, who reads the Bible literally. We simply do not believe God sat down and dictated to scribes. That's beside the point, though.

I am disturbed that our mainstream media is still promoting the fallacy that people who tend to be more conservative religiously are also more conservative politically. It simply is not true. And all studies conducted -- including the one commissioned by Deal Hudson -- were unethically leading in the way they surveyed respondents and grossly misleading in the way they reported their findings.

Recently, I wrote a blog post, One Southern Baptist I Can Agree With.

Since I wrote that post, I got complaints via email from Southern Baptists who said I am over-generalizing my religio-political issues concerning Southern Baptists and inquiring whether I, myself, have a religious bias.

I need to answer that, yes, I have a religious bias. I am Roman Catholic, and my religious bias tends to my Roman Catholic faith.

Am I anti-Southern Baptist? Well... my personal experience with Southern Baptists has been greatly influenced by the radical right-wing politics of the public face of Southern Baptists; and so that has colored my understanding of who Southern Baptists are. I am willing to accept that my understanding of the faith of Southern Baptists is incorrectly influenced by the "political face" of Southern Baptists. I accept that because I know that, today, the face of Catholicism in America is often filtered through that same political paradigm.

So, to those Southern Baptists who are sincere in your faith and who do not meet the stereotype I blogged about, I am really sorry. I meant to challenge neo-con politics, not your sincere faith.

I also hope that you would agree with me, and all of us at Catholics for Democracy, that the human person -- as the image of God -- deserves not only life, but the opportunity to live life fully and to be free to discover who God is without compulsion from idaealogues or from the State.

Wounded Soldiers Face Neglect at Walter Reed Medical Center - The common perception of Walter Reed is of a surgical hospital that shines as the crown jewel of military medicine. But 5 1/2 years of sustained combat have transformed the venerable 113-acre institution into something else entirely -- a holding ground for physically and psychologically damaged outpatients. But while the hospital is a place of scrubbed-down order and daily miracles, with medical advances saving more soldiers than ever, the outpatients in the Other Walter Reed encounter a messy bureaucratic battlefield nearly as chaotic as the real battlefields they faced overseas. [Catholic Media Report]

I commented on our old site, here, that one of our Presidential Candidates, Senator Sam Brownback, had voted multiple times in the Senate against increasing funding for healthcare for returning war veterans. I am certain others voted against increased funding as well. They should be held accountable for that as they pursue future political office; whether the White House or a return to their current elective office

This is a travesty, though, that cannot wait until the next election to be righted. It has to be addressed now. First, it is a grave injustice to send our young people off to war, while so many others make no sacrifices to support this war; and while some (*cough* Halliburton *cough*, for example) even profit greatly off this war we're making our young citizens fight. Then, when they return, we do not provide them with the medical and psychological resources they need to minimize the impact of the war on them and return them, as much as possible, to a normal life.

CNN aired a segment, today, about Mitt Romney having been heckled in a crowd by someone who suggested Romney is a pretender when he says he is Christian. The heckler will not be voting for Romney, of course; the heckler wants a Christian in office.

Can I question Mitt Romney's Christian credentials? [self-checking: oh, yeah... we're Catholic here] I do not recognize Romney's professed status as a Christian, given his Mormon faith; though I recognize his right to say he is Christian. We could debate that sometime if Romney and I ever have a private opportunity to engage in religious discourse (I haven't had an engaging sit-down with a Mormon missionary in awhile). Either way, that has nothing to do with Mitt Romney's ability to execute the office of President.

To use a Glenn Beck line, The Real Story Here (hope I'm not breaking any copyright laws using that) is the religious Right (emphasis, of course, on Right) is still reeling from two major defeats: one, George W. Bush was not the stalwart the religious right had wanted; and two, the religious right got their butts handed back to them in the 2006 mid-term elections. My prediction is that they are going to get very ugly this year, more so than in 2004; especially since the so-called religious left is finally starting to assert itself.

Mark Adams, over at Dispassionate Liberal (also see here) blogged on a recent statement by Christian Churches Together on the need to eliminate domestic and global poverty.

According to the CCT statement:

As Christian leaders in the wealthiest society on earth, we are called by God to urge our churches and nation to strengthen and expand efforts to address the scandal of widespread poverty in the United States and around the world. The Gospel and our ethical principles place our service of the poor and vulnerable and our work for justice at the center of Christian life and witness (emphasis added).

Given the growing problem of poverty here and abroad, and the obvious erosion of a middle class in our country, the question of poverty is becoming a pressing issue for a rapidly growing number among the American public. It shouldn't have taken this long for people to begin to think about this issue; not given that we self-identify, in very many circles, as a Christian nation.

I hope people pay attention to this statment of the many churches that signed on to it, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and take up this call to end poverty as a serious issue for consideration in the 2008 elections.

The word is out. The Senate will not follow the House in passing a non-binding resolution opposing troop increases in Iraq.

from Reuters...

Republicans stopped the Senate on Saturday from considering a resolution denouncing President George W. Bush's Iraq troop buildup that the U.S. House of Representatives passed the day before.

For the second time in two weeks, the Senate voted not to debate a non-binding measure that would repudiate Bush's recent decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. Democrats wanted to debate the measure but failed to overcome Republican resistance, although there was less resistance this time.

The vote was 56 in favor and 34 against. Under Senate rules, 60 votes were needed to bring the resolution to the floor for debate. Before the vote, Democrats argued in vain for minority Republicans to break with Bush and support taking up the measure.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said it was significant that a majority of senators, including seven Republicans, had voted for the debate.

"The majority in the U.S. Senate just voted against the escalation of the war in Iraq," he said.

The significant part about today's decision in the Senate was not that any Senator voted against the resolution. I think the jury is still out on the prudence of the resolution and so cannot overly-criticize anyone in the Senate who opposes it. The significant part about today's decision was that Senators voted against even debating the resolution.

Kenneth J. Cooper has an Op-Ed piece published over at www.blackpressusa.com (originally published in "The Wilmington Herald") that weighs in on some of the pundit chatter in the Black community about whether Senator Barack Obama is Black. Cooper asserts that, "debates about who is an 'authentic' Black rarely have any merit. This one is particularly mindless and pointless."

The Op-Ed piece merits thought. Though I do think the other side of the argument is salient in that it asks to what degree Senator Barack Obama identifies with the experiences of injustice for a great many Black people in American society. It's sort of a toss up. On the one hand, one can consider that Obama is well-equipped to be a unifying force in America. On the other hand, he could be perceived as a persona non grata in terms of rectifying systems of injustice to Black people.

Whichever side you find yourself on in this debate, Senator Barack Obama's Presidential bid will -- intentionally or not -- force a discussion about race in this presidential campaign. That discussion could be painful, hopeful or both. Personally, I would like to see it be both. We cannot resolve racial tension and systems of injustice without being honest. And when a social system is unjust, very often honest consideration about the injustice requires painful admissions, radical repentance and difficult sacrifices; especially if you are a beneficiary of the injustice.

Ultimately, how this debate moves forward this year will depend very much on how Senator Barack Obama frames the debate; that is, unless the black community has an equivalent of the Catholic League, at which point all bets are off and the debate will be just painful for all sides involved.

Finally, a Southern Baptist I can agree with... on one issue, anway: Rudy Giuliani should not be in the White House. Of course, I have some different reasons for opposing him, but the end result is the same.

According to The Hill, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, says that Rudy Giuliani will not get the vote of "the 'vast majority' of social conservative voter's... even if he gets the nomination and faces off against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)." Clinton's team must be lapping that one up. The problems, for Land, are Giuliani's positions, respectively, on abortion (he's pro-choice) and gay rights (he looks passable in a dress). Add to that, Giuliani is on his third wife; after having openly cheated on wife number two with wife number three. Not a good match for social conservatives.

I risk sounding like an Edwards campaigner. After all, I have already come to the defense of his campaign against the malicious attack from the Catholic League. I want it on record that Catholics for Democracy has not made an endorsement decision; nor, for that matter, even begun discussion around an endorsement for a Presidential candidate (it's waaaaayyyyy too early to begin endorsing candidates). I, myself, am holding back to study the policy initiatives of the respective candidates (slow in coming, by the way) and assess their ability to follow through with those initiatives.

Having said that, John Edwards must have been reading my blog at CfD. I had taken a position on whether and how we withdraw from Iraq. See this blog post in the archive: www.catholicsfordemocracy.org/archive/node/7355.

Check out this article at The Hill: Edwards stakes out his turf on Iraq policy. The article quotes John Edwards as saying:

"I believe we need to end the war in Iraq, but I believe it should be done in an orderly way, a smart way, so that we increase the chances of stability as we’re leaving,” Edwards told reporters. “So I’m not for immediate and total withdrawal."

Both issues -- pulling out of Iraq and ensuring we do not leave Iraqis' society in chaos after having invaded their country -- are very important and morally required. I am happy to see a Presidential candidate thinking about these issues and looking to achieve both objectives.