Posts on National Clergy Council

When Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agreed to participate in a “Compassion Forum” over the weekend to “discuss how their faith and moral convictions bear on their positions on … important issues,” you’d think that the Religious Right would be elated and that they’d be criticizing John McCain for blowing off the event entirely, especially since they are constantly claiming that it is imperative for politicians “to bring their religiously-informed moral values to bear in election campaigns and public policy decisions.”

You’d be wrong:

As a way of dealing with the controversy surrounding the various remarks made by his pastor Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama is set to deliver a speech tomorrow where he promises to talk “about not just Reverend Wright, but the larger issue of race in this campaign .”

Regardless of what he says in this speech, it’ll probably do little to appease the rank-and-file conservative Christian voters in the Republican Party who never liked him anyway and now seem to really, really dislike him, at least judging by most of the comments mailed into CBN’s David Brody:

I am sure Obama was listening to rev Wrights sermon about "America causing this to happen...and that the chickens came home to roost...etc."Right there Obama has lied on TV, to news reporters and to his supporters-claiming he knew nothing of these awful hate filled sermons.

…

Obama being a member of this church for over 20 years and calling this guy his spiritual mentor and having him at present on an advisory committee is political suicide. He should pull out the race now, make a statement that he is leaving this radical black church and try to salvage whatever political career he has left. If he is the dems nominee they are handing the white house to the Republicans. It has been said time and time again that this guy should have been vetted. He is now, which is only the tip of the iceberg. The media has given him a pass.

…

[N]ow that he has made that statement, I await the video of Wright spewing a bunch of crap while Obama's family is shown applauding in the pews. I wouldn't be surprised if it's coming.

Of course, the fact that Brody himself has posted on the Obama/Wright issue a total of ELEVEN times so far (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) - versus the two times he posted about John McCain and John Hagee and the zero times he posted about McCain and Rod Parsley - might have something to do with that.

Anti-gay right-wing activist Harry Jackson also weighed in, saying that it is entirely reasonable that Obama be held responsible for the words of his pastor:  

“Should Mr. Obama be judged because of the acts of his pastor.” My answer is yes! Pastor Wright’s worldview and his understanding of race, culture, and religion of the bible will in some measure affect how Barak Obama views the world. Only time will tell whether Obama’s life and message have been helped or handicapped by the ministry of Jeremiah Wright. If Obama says nothing elese, many people will simply label him as a hypocrite who says one thing in public but acts differently behind closed doors. During the next few months it will be important for Obama to set the record straight concerning his faith.

Does that mean that the congregants at Jackson’s own Hope Christian Church ought to be made to answer for Jackson’s anti-gay rhetoric?   Presumably. 

For his part, Obama has publicly distanced himself from Wright’s comments, calling them “inflammatory and appalling” … and now that has gotten him in trouble with the Right as well:

The National Clergy Council finds Dr. Wright's recent comments extraordinarily indiscrete, inapt, inaccurate and ill-considered, yet we find Mr. Obama's disloyalty even worse. We adjure Mr. Obama to remain faithful to the man who in so many ways shaped him for the campaign he now undertakes.

Mr. Obama's tossing of Dr. Wright under the bus for political advantage is a painful spectacle and is a classic politics-as-usual move.

The National Clergy Council adjures Mr. Obama to stay faithful to his father-in-the-faith and take whatever criticism comes.

Considering that the head of the National Clergy Council, Rob Schenck, has been on a one-man crusade to convince the world that Obama’s Christian faith is “woefully deficient” and that he might really be a Muslim, it is probably safe to assume that his “stand by your man” advice is not being dispensed with the purest of intentions.

Like many other religious-right activists, Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council is not a big fan of John McCain. While Schenck gave him an okay assessment a year ago, the activist has made “in-depth examination” of candidates’ “religious beliefs” a key political test, and McCain apparently fails that test: Schenck recently wrote on his blog that the senator “doesn’t appear to me to have any vital faith.”

What exactly does that mean? Apparently, it has something to do with scheduling conflicts:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has scheduled a town hall meeting at 11:45 AM this Sunday in Polk City, Florida. … National Clergy Council president, the Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK) today released this statement:

"John McCain is showing an obvious insensitivity to church people by scheduling a major campaign event smack in the middle of Sunday morning church hours. We object to any candidate interfering with church attendance by encouraging supporters to skip church services to participate in political activities. If Senator McCain or any other candidate wishes to connect with church attendees, they need to respect Sunday morning church hours."

On the other hand, Schenck had the chance “peer into the soul” of Mike Huckabee, and concluded that he’s “the real deal.” So we probably won’t be getting any press releases denouncing Huckabee’s campaign strategy of speaking at friendly, politically-involved churches and relying on church-based get-out-the-vote.

The National Clergy Council's Rob Schenck is upset with John McCain for scheduling a rally during church hours: "John McCain is showing an obvious insensitivity to church people by scheduling a major campaign event smack in the middle of Sunday morning church hours. We object to any candidate interfering with church attendance by encouraging supporters to skip church services to participate in political activities. If Senator McCain or any other candidate wishes to connect with church attendees, they need to respect Sunday morning church hours."

The Family Research Council is launching a project aimed at convincing its supporters before the 2008 election that liberal politicians “are spouting God-talk” in order to “confuse people of faith” and hide their “true agenda.” Invoking the Religious Right’s recent favored phrase for its imagined constituency – as well as the “Swift Boat” campaign of 2004 – the so-called “Values Voters for Truth” campaign is an attempt to vilify liberals – and, obviously, Democratic candidates – as enemies of Christianity who are undertaking a conspiracy to “deceive and split values voters.” From a recent fundraising letter from FRC Action:

Our relentless effort to reveal the facts about the Left’s true agenda is already under way. It will not stop until the last vote of the 2008 election has been cast. The Values Voters for Truth campaign will partner with organizations in all 50 states—and at the national level. We will mobilize values voters, engage them in the war of ideas, and keep them informed and involved.

We will rally churches to the cause. And by God’s grace, we will neutralize our opponents’ deceptive tactics.

As an example of this supposed “fraud,” the letter cites a Democratic presidential candidate who spoke of his “belief in Christ” and also supports civil unions for gay couples. Similarly, the letter warns that a candidate noting a “biblical call to feed the hungry” also voted against an anti-abortion bill. A third candidate is denounced for the “hypocrisy” of wanting to let gay couples adopt children. According to FRC, these supposed contradictions indicate that Democrats discussing their faith and values is merely “lip service,” part of a “campaign of deception” that led directly to the Democrats winning control of Congress in the 2006 elections.

So says the Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK) of Faith and Action and the National Clergy Council: "In fact, I'll show that America's abortion tragedy is in many ways worse than what's happening in Darfur." See this post for our take on Schenck's trip to Darfur.

As we have noted repeatedly over the last several years, the Right has developed various means to defend controversial Bush administration nominations against those who raise concerns about a nominee’s views by accusing anyone who might voice such concerns of being in some way a bigot. 

As we noted recently, the Right has routinely accused those who opposed nominees such as Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown of being, respectively, anti-Latino, anti-woman, and straight out racist. 

Perhaps the most common accusation is that those who raise concerns about a nominee’s views are motivated by anti-religious bias, which is a charge they’ve thrown around multiple times, most notably regarding opposition to William Pryor and John Roberts.  

And they are at it again, this time in defending Dr. James Holsinger, President Bush's nominee for surgeon general, who has exhibited an open hostility to homosexuals.

Paul Weyrich levels the accusation:

In spite of his qualifications, radical homosexual activists are intent on defeating his nomination, in blatant violation of Article VI of the Constitution, because of his religious beliefs

So does Al Mohler:

In other words, Dr. Holsinger's opponents are not directing their attention to his medical experience or qualifications, but to his beliefs and responsibilities as a Christian and a member of the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church.

…

The nomination of Dr. James Holsinger promises now to be a defining moment in American history. Will it now be necessary for a nominee to deny the teachings of his or her own church in order to be confirmed by the United States Senate?

It seems that, for the Right, any criticism of a nominee is out-of-line if the views for which the nominee is being criticized are, in some way, rooted in his or her religious faith, thereby allowing them to ignore the issue at hand, which is the nominee’s actual writings and record. 

But for some reason, the Right seems to have a different standard for Democrats and feels free to openly disparage not only their views, but their respective faiths directly.  

For example, not too long ago, the National Clergy Council openly declared that “[Sen. Barack] Obama's Christianity woefully deficient.” 

Or what about Don Feder’s recent broadside:

Democrats are to traditional religion what Islam is to tolerance.

…

It's not that Democrats aren't religious - rather that they practice a religion alien to both Christianity and Judaism.

Its doctrine includes support for abortion on demand, hate crimes legislation, the Kyoto Treaty, driver's licenses for illegal aliens, multiculturalism and a socialism of property and values.

Its priesthood is feminists, environmentalists, gay-activists and radical secularists, presided over by its college of cardinals --Rosie O'Donnell, Bill Maher, Barbra Streisand and Al Franken.

It calls for atonement for the sins of sexism, homophobia, the religious right, the gun lobby, pharmaceutical companies, big oil, Guantanamo, Halliburton and trans-fatty acids.

Its vision of Kingdom Come looks a lot like San Francisco on a Saturday night.

Or what about Paul Weyrich himself, who once attacked John Kerry, Tom Harkin and Dick Durbin for being “nothing but hypocrites” who were” trying to take advantage of their Catholic faith when its suits their purposes on the campaign trail, but shirking the obligations that really come with that faith” and called on the media to differentiate between “politicians [who] have taken stands in accordance with their faith and are therefore ‘observant,’ true Catholics and which ones are non-observant, only claiming to be Catholic.”

Apparently, for the Right, opposing a Bush nominee is proof of blatant religious bigotry, whereas directly denigrating the faith of Democrats is perfectly acceptable.   

In a brief press release, Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean commemorated Easter by saying, “During this time Christians are called to remember who they are as people of faith, and that even the greatest of evils will not have the last word.” He also said that “peace, redemption and renewal” is a “theme which brings hope to people of all faiths.” The latter sentiment is driving some commentators to read all kinds of meaning into the press release – Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals claims that the lack of specific use of the name of Jesus is “a sad reflection of a 'lowest common denominator' religious outreach of the Democratic party” which “will not pass the smell test of any evangelical.”

More partisan activists on the Religious Right, however, go as far as accusing Dean of heresy-by-press-release by “redefining” Easter. He’s “taking Easter and making it into a nondescript, universal, nonexclusive religious celebration for all religions,” warns Don Wildmon of the American Family Association. According to Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council, Dean’s press release proves that “the Democratic leadership is in fact secularist by philosophy and worldview” – and it’s part of a larger conspiracy against faith:

"And we see it here in Washington, where I'm located," Schenck adds, "that there is a growing hostility towards religious faith in the public arena, and this is more indication of that." Dean has attempted to redefine the meaning of Easter, the Christian spokesman contends, by "dumbing it down to a universal, New Age spirituality."

In addition to ascribing devious motives to a one-paragraph press release, Schenck also offers his discernment on Dean’s own belief:

However, since Howard Dean is not a theologian or a student of the Bible, Schenck says the politician is not in a position to redefine the meaning of Easter. In fact, after talking with Dean personally and observing him in many public settings, the National Clergy Council spokesman says he has seen nothing that would indicate the DNC chairman has any "overriding religious sensibilities."

Reverend Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council and Faith and Action says he just returned from Sudan and Darfur and apparently likes what he sees:

The Reverend Rob Schenck … returned over the Easter weekend from a seven-day diplomatic mission to Khartoum, Sudan and its Darfur state … The purpose of the mission was to engage Khartoum's government in dialogue on religion and human rights and to gain first-hand information on the state of religious liberty in the officially Islamic country.

"I was surprised by what we found in Sudan," said Schenck. "The new unity government and various peace plans seem to be working. There is new power sharing with Christians, but much remains to be done. It's an extremely complex situation, one we need look at afresh."

Schenck added, "Evangelical believers in Khartoum gave us a strong message against U.S. sanctions, one I intend to deliver to President Bush."

Schenck just returned from visiting with the Sudanese leadership in Khartoum, a regime which is accused of orchestrating a genocidal counter-insurgency campaign against the people of Darfur with the assistance of government-backed Janjaweed militias who routinely rape women, torture men and burn victims alive, killing nearly a half-million people and displacing millions more. 

And he returns pledging to press the Bush Administration not to implement sanctions simply because there appears to be some “power sharing with Christians” - even as the regime continues to kill African Muslims throughout the region. 

Schenck’s visit was hosted by Sudan's Foreign Ministry at the same time as Rep. James McGovern was being denied entry into Sudan because he refused to “[meet] with government officials, saying he wanted to visit the refugee sites alone.”  Presumably, Khartoum realized that McGovern and Schenck would have different messages to share with the US public once they returned, which is why one was welcomed and the other barred. 

Schenck is not alone in thinking that the regime in Khartoum ought to be rewarded simply because, while it continues to kill the mostly Muslim people of Darfur, it has stopped war against the mostly Christian south. In February, Franklin Graham also returned from a meeting in Khartoum with similar views: 

Graham said he came away thinking that Bashir, who now stands accused of presiding over the killing of at least 200,000 people in the Darfur region in the country's west, deserves credit for signing the peace agreement with rebels in the south in 2005.

Although human rights activists and some U.S. officials are counseling tougher measures against Bashir's government to end the violence in Darfur -- and to more fully implement a faltering peace agreement with the south -- Graham said that a softer approach is needed.

"I'm not a politician, but I think our government does need to recognize some steps he's taken and reward this government in some way to show them we appreciate what they have done" regarding southern Sudan, said Graham, the son of famed evangelist Billy Graham and head of the international Christian relief group Samaritan's Purse. "I think we can do more when we're engaged."

…

Graham said Bashir pledged to allow groups to build their churches and to look into Graham's other requests, including one for $15 million to help rebuild at least 600 churches in the south destroyed during the war.

Of course, there are other faith organizations that have been vocal in their concern about the victims of Darfur, such as Evangelicals for Darfur and the dozens of organization affiliated with Save Darfur. Graham and Schenck don’t appear to be members of either.  

AFA, Schenck, Mahoney defend Pace, warn against soldiers being “subject to … a political agenda.” Perkins: “… showers and bathroom facilities.” David Limbaugh: gays would “compromise” national security.

After the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Chicago Tribune that his support for barring gays and lesbians from openly serving in the armed forces was based on his belief, from his “upbringing,” that homosexuality is “immoral” and analogous to adultery, supporters of equality for gays were quick to criticize the nation’s top military officer for his prejudice-based promotion of public policy and for sending an inappropriate message to gays currently serving under his command. Not surprisingly, the Religious Right has come to the defense of Gen. Peter Pace, who has refused to apologize, and ambitious politicians are not far behind.

Concerned Women for America’s Matt Barber wrote that Pace “is to be commended for publicly expressing the common sense values shared by the majority of Americans, for having the courage to face down America’s self-appointed thought police and for his bold attempt to reign in our nation’s political correctness run amok.” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins declared that “Gen. Pace's job is not to be politically correct but to protect the nation and the well-being of our soldiers.” Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council said his group will “ask President Bush to support General Pace's right to stand by his convictions as he enforces the military code of conduct.” And Phil Magnan, director of a group called Biblical Family Advocates, issues a press release attacking gays as “licentious”:

"If there is any apologizing that needs to be done, it's by homosexual advocates who have drawn millions of young people, including soldiers into a destructive, immoral and unhealthy lifestyle."

"The homosexual community has sold the public their licentious lifestyle in the name of tolerance and freedom when they should be seeking to be freed from it. Ask the person dying from HIV if it was worth having hundreds of partners or if some of the millions who are enslaved to it would like to be free of it."

Others claimed that criticism of Pace was “clearly an effort to purge from authority anyone who dares represent the most basic tenets of a Judeo-Christian moral code,” as WorldNetDaily.com editor Joseph Farah put it. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth said of Pace critics, “Their idea of civil rights is that we can’t voice our moral beliefs about homosexuality. … If you say that homosexuality is wrong, they come after you; and, ultimately, we have to believe that they are going to want to ban [speaking out against] it, just like is happening in Canada, and England, and other countries.” The American Family Association is asking its supporters to send a letter to President Bush in support of Pace and in opposition to gays serving in the military: “I strongly oppose homosexual activists who want to force the military to approve their immoral lifestyle,” reads the letter template.

Already, one Republican presidential candidate struggling to gain momentum and distinguish himself among the Right has taken on the Pace cause. Sen. Sam Brownback circulated a letter in which he characterizes Pace’s justification of the military’s anti-gay policy as merely the expression of “his personal moral views.”

The moral behavior of members of the Armed Forces is of the highest importance, particularly during this time of war. The question is whether personal moral beliefs should disqualify an individual from positions of leadership in the U.S. military? We think not.

Although it is still early, the current crop of candidates running for next year’s Republican nomination for president are almost all treating the Religious Right as their first and most important constituency. And that goes beyond the familiar names of right-wing leaders the press likes to call “kingmakers” – such as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell. At this stage, candidates are vying for the attentions of even lesser known radical activists.

This week, four candidates made the pilgrimage to Orlando, Florida for the National Religious Broadcasters convention. Sen. John McCain, who has been working overtime to reach across bridges he burned in 2000, and former Gov. Mitt Romney, who has been struggling to regain the Right’s favor after revelations of past moderation, both held private meetings with far-right activists, and it appears the meetings bore fruit.

Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, who recently organized a protest when House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (a Catholic) attended a Mass to remember the children of Darfur, said McCain “helped himself in that room tremendously today.” The National Right to Life Committee issued a statement from their exhibit booth at the convention to note their approval on McCain’s recent about-face on Roe v. Wade. And Rev. Rob Schenck, head of the National Clergy Council and Faith and Action (with his twin brother Paul), bragged about his face time with the candidates and how pleased he was with their performances:

I was able to get a read of these two men away from the cameras, the reporters and rah-rah audiences. These were honest, candid dialogues on critically important aspects of Governor Romney's and Senator McCain's personal and political principles. We got a pretty good assessment of where they are on the key issues for traditional Christians and particularly for Evangelicals. I was impressed by both, but especially Mitt Romney.

Schenck – who once walked out on a Billy Graham crusade after the famous evangelist was introduced by Bill Clinton and who implied that only Christians who are “moral failures” care about peace and justice -- cited the same narrow platform as he did in a warning to presidential hopefuls almost a year ago: abortion, gay marriage, and “the public acknowledgement of God.”

Schenck and Mahoney have worked together on a number of creative projects such as organizing a protest (featuring another presidential candidate, Sam Brownback) over the mythical “War on Christmas” and “consecrating” the seats in the Senate hearing room with oil prior to Sam Alito’s confirmation hearing. The pair also attacked “Purpose-Driven Life” author and megachurch pastor Rick Warren for inviting Barack Obama to participate in a global AIDS conference. “Having Senator Barack Obama speak on issues of social justice is like having a segregationist speak on civil rights,” said Mahoney. More recently, Schenck’s National Clergy Council expanded its religious test of Obama with an “examination and debate focused on his faith. Sadly, we will find Mr. Obama's Christianity woefully deficient.”

So far, no indication that Romney or McCain are at all bothered by their new-found friends’ attacks on the faith of their political opponents.

Well before Sen. Barack Obama had officially announced that he was running for President, the good folks at the National Clergy Council were already hard at work attempting to discredit his Christian faith.

On January 8th, Faith and Action, an affiliate of the National Clergy Council, unveiled an “in-depth examination of the religious beliefs of Sen. Barack Obama titled: ‘Barack Obama: Sheep or Goat?’” that claims to “tell you what kind of Christian he is not … [he] is definitely not an Evangelical.”

Of course, Obama doesn’t claim to be an Evangelical, so why exactly the NCC thought it so necessary to “research who and what Barack Obama is … as far as his faith is concerned” is impossible to know.  

Maybe next, the NCC can release a lengthy exposé on the fact that neither Catholic GOP candidate Sen. Sam Brownback nor Mormon Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are Evangelicals either.

Now that Obama has announced his intention to run, the NCC is making clear that it intends to continue its “examination” of his faith … and that it is his own fault:

By injecting his faith so directly into his campaign, Mr. Obama has invited an examination and debate focused on his faith. Sadly, we will find Mr. Obama's Christianity woefully deficient.

Not surprisingly, the NCC has a completely different position on this sort of tactic when it comes to Republican officials:

I recall sitting in on confirmation hearings for John Ashcroft who was up for attorney general in the first Bush Administration and it was nothing short of brutal. Besides attacking him for being a right wing extremist, opponents of President Bush threatened to grill Mr. Ashcroft on his Christian doctrinal beliefs. It was one of the most contentious, prejudicial, petty and insulting exercises I have witnessed in Washington since arriving here nearly twelve years ago.

So apparently what is “prejudicial, petty and insulting” when it applies to John Ashcroft is entirely legitimate when it comes to Barack Obama.

In words of Rob Schenck. ALL’s Judie Brown calls for no compromise.

Soon up for vote. TVC’s Sheldon asks: “Why are liberals so determined to expand on the killing of the unborn?”