Muslim Converts

Posted on October 8, 2004 by Michael Bailey

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: The number of Muslims in the U.S. is variously estimated at between two and six million — or more. About half are immigrants, and most of the rest, African Americans. We have a profile today of two Caucasian converts who were attracted to Islam when they were living abroad. They spoke with correspondent Bob Faw about why they adopted their new faith.

BOB FAW: For some, this is a faith alien, even menacing. But in America, only megachurches are growing faster than mosques. And this religion, say converts, offers something other faiths do not.

Fifty-nine-year-old California author and filmmaker Michael Wolfe was raised in a household which celebrated both Hanukkah and Christmas. Thirty-three-year-old Connecticut housewife and mother Noora Brown was brought up in the Episcopal Church. But for each, those religions fell short.

MICHAEL WOLFE (Author and Filmmaker): There was a spiritual element — an element of compassion for others that I think was missing. It’s a texture that was missing in my life. I can’t really put it into words, but there was something not there.

NOORA BROWN: I was searching for the meaning in life, for the purpose in life.

FAW: They came from two different worlds: his, the turbulent California of the ’60s; hers, the shelter of academia. But each — Noora traveling in the Muslim world on a college semester abroad, and Michael living in North Africa — was struck by the fervor of Muslim friends. They were also, they say, attracted to what they consider Islam’s simplicity.

(To Wolfe): Islam, you say, is mostly a matter of the heart. Every person faces God alone. That was appealing?

Mr. WOLFE: The idea that there is the potential for conversation between you and the divine and that it does not require any intermediary, doesn’t require a special building to go to or a special person to talk to. That whole notion is very appealing to me.

Ms. BROWN: There’s no one to excommunicate you or stand in the way. It’s so easy to declare you are a Muslim. You don’t have to take classes; you don’t have to be baptized or confirmed or go through any of that. You just declare that you accept that there is no God but God in front of two witnesses. So it’s really very simple.

FAW: Returning home from her semester in England, Noora began studying Islam and the Qur’an.

Ms. BROWN: Once I started reading, everything that I read struck a chord deep inside me that this was the truth; for me, that Islam is the true path. I was raised in a certain religious tradition, but I would never have said that I was religious. In fact, I shunned — you know, I would shun any, any religious discipline. I felt it was a burden. But here, I really wanted to follow this tradition.

FAW: For Michael, it took longer. For 20 years he wrestled with various beliefs before becoming a Muslim at age 40. Michael regards his conversion as an addition to his life, not a rejection.

Mr. WOLFE: I don’t feel I’ve rejected Judaism or Christianity. Islam teaches you that these religions are deeply connected. These three religions are deeply connected. The legacy of the whole prophetic tradition from Adam is very much alive and operative in Islam. I didn’t have to say good-bye to any of that.

FAW: Making the transition in other ways, especially in the western world, was not so easy. Fasting during the holy month of Ramadan, for example, was tough mentally — and physically.

Mr. WOLFE: The idea of not eating an entire day when I first became a Muslim was intimidating, to say the least — and no drinking water. At that time, I smoked cigarettes as well. So, I was really up against it for Ramadan.

Ms. BROWN: The first day was so difficult. It was probably one of the hardest things that I did. It really hit home why fasting is prescribed: So that you can feel empathy for those who don’t have, and also to be closer — I felt — I never felt so spiritually close to God in my life.

FAW: For Noora, how to dress, how to appear in public, was also difficult. Already a convert when she married Khamis Abu-Hasaballah, a Palestinian, she told him she would not wear a scarf every day, an option exercised by many Muslim women, and he said, “Fine.”

Ms. BROWN: I would look in the mirror and say, “This is — this is not who I am. This is somebody different.” And I wasn’t comfortable. But I came to a point in myself where I felt comfortable, and I identified with the scarf. I feel that this hejab or this scarf is something that we do to identify ourselves as believing women and that you are treated with more respect.

(Putting on Prayer Outfit): This is a prayer outfit that I use when I’m home…

FAW: Some women will undoubtedly find all this — and other restrictions imposed on Muslim women — unnatural, even oppressive.

Ms. BROWN: To me, it wasn’t oppressive; because I did it of my own free will, of my own free choice. I think a lot of people are intrigued why women especially would accept this patriarchal tradition, where women are supposed to cover. They have an image that women are supposed to walk 10 feet behind the men. And what I found was, really, liberation in Islam. And when you read the Qur’an, you discover that women have rights. They have rights that they didn’t have here until the eighteenth century.

FAW: Converting to Islam wasn’t just learning how to dress, but also how to pray.

Mr. WOLFE: You clean your face and hands and feet in an expression of a desire to also clean your spirit, to cleanse yourself entirely.

FAW: Cleansing oneself with water, or sand, five times every day — also learning the mechanics, the physical aspects of prayer. Though awkward initially, prayer, the new Muslims agree, brought to each something their earlier faiths did not.

Mr. WOLFE: I like something that I do every day. I like something that has a physical component to it. It’s physical and spiritual at the same time; one bows physically, and you bow internally as well. The prayer requires that I stop so many times a day for a couple of minutes and really check out of my daily, temporal existence, just long enough to remember that there is an element to life which is closer to the absolute, which is closer to a spiritual element in life.

FAW: The routine of prayer, especially its repetition, strengthens belief, they say. And this solitary act with no intermediary, no priestly hierarchy, ironically gives each a sense of community. For Michael, on one of his three pilgrimages to Mecca, the hajj, or at a recent national convention with hundreds of other Muslims in Chicago, it’s a feeling of belonging which neither he nor Noora had experienced before.

Ms. BROWN: I felt at home. I felt at peace and felt that this was part of a community of people from all different nations.

Mr. WOLFE: It has to do with recognizing that we’re a unit here, that people are one. And being in touch with that is a lot of what it’s about to be a Muslim, a lot.

FAW: Before embracing Islam, each had felt an emptiness. Not anymore.

(To Mr. Wolfe): Because you did become a Muslim, are you a different person now?

Mr. WOLFE: Yes, I think so. That texture that was missing so often in my life is there now. I feel it.

Ms. BROWN: It gave me self-respect, dignity that I hadn’t known before. Islam just completely changed my life. I feel happier now. I feel, actually, at peace.

FAW: From a faith so dismissive, then, of western values, so hostile to a society which it believes sanctifies materialism and rewards self-indulgence — for two who were searching, something missing has at last been found.

I’m Bob Faw for RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY.

John Podesta Extended Interview

Posted on October 8, 2004 by Michael Bailey

Read more of R & E’s interview about Catholic voters with John Podesta:

[Catholics are] a key swing vote in this election, and if you look at that both nationally or by the key swing states where there are a lot of Catholic voters, both campaigns are trying to reach out to Catholic voters. The Catholic vote seems to still be splitting toward John Kerry, and I think that is likely to be where it ends up.

Obviously in 1960, when John F. Kennedy first ran for president — not as the first Catholic to run, but the first Catholic to get elected — the Catholic community really swung behind his candidacy. But he was being attacked for being a Catholic, which highlighted the need for Catholics to defend their candidate. He was, by far, the high-water mark. Since that time, I think things have leveled off. President Reagan got close to a majority if not a majority — I can’t recall precisely — of the Catholic vote. The Democrats tend to get a little bit more of the Catholic vote, and as the demographics of the Catholic community change, as there are more Latino voters in the United States, I think the Catholic vote will increasingly become, if you look at it overall, Democratic again.

If you look at the underlying attitudes of Catholic voters, they look pretty much just like the rest of America. There are a core of voters for whom [abortion] is the only issue, and a few bishops for whom [abortion] is the only issue, but I think the vast majority of Catholics follow what the Catholic bishops have put out in their guide to the Catholic community on faithful citizenship, on how one approaches voting as a Catholic, which is to approach all of the issues and to view [abortion] as an issue among a whole panoply of moral issues — moral questions about how we are going to treat the needy in the society, how we are going to deal with issues of social justice and deal with issues of war and peace. I think there is a broad range of issues that Catholics look to. If you look specifically at the abortion issue itself, Catholics pretty much mirror the U.S. population in general. It is a moral question for people, but when you get down to the question of do you want to make abortion illegal and make it criminal again in the United States, a majority of Catholics don’t agree with that position.

I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life, and I’ve never considered it a Catholic value to be for the rich at expense of the poor, to be for the special interests at the expense of common good. I think [President Bush] is trying to use code words for a very narrow social agenda that he’s playing with conservative Catholics, and I suppose that it plays very well with a core of Catholic voters who are a part of the conservative base in this country. But I don’t think it reflects the views of the vast majority of the Catholic people, the Catholic laity at least, in this country. He’s done something which was really quite shocking, which was to go to the Vatican and to ask the Vatican to actually intervene in the U.S. election and try to instruct their bishops to instruct the laity on how they should vote in this election. Imagine that in 1960, when we were talking about whether John Kennedy would be controlled by the Vatican. We’ve now almost totally reversed that. You have George Bush actually asking the Vatican to try to exercise control and discipline over Catholic voters, but Catholics are probably like most Americans. They’re a pretty rowdy lot; they are pretty hard to control, particularly just by edicts coming from on high from cardinals they don’t know in the Vatican. I don’t think that is going to make much difference to Catholic voters in this country.

John Kerry is a practicing Catholic. I think that he approaches public life through a value base that is rooted in Catholic social teaching, and I think that is what he has fought for in public office. I think that is, in part, what brings him to public service and public life. He obviously wrestled with that, as I think many of us do. As a young man, he found importance in his faith, and it helped form meaning for his public life as well as, obviously, his private life. As he said in his convention speech, he doesn’t wear his religion on his sleeve. It’s probably not the tradition particularly among Northern Catholics to do that. But I think that it really does inform what he’s done — the work that he’s pursued in the Senate, his work for the less privileged, his work for the elderly. That is very much part and parcel of who he is as a man and what brings him to public life.

The census just released new data a few weeks ago that showed that 5 million more people were uninsured. It showed that poverty was going up again in the country. It showed that we have a minimum wage at which if you are supporting a family of three working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, you live 28 percent under the poverty level. We see people who are now struggling, falling back onto welfare, and I think that an economic policy that aims to try to protect people and to try to bring people into the middle class and help people to stay in the middle class is one that is very much rooted in Catholic social teaching. And not trying to define issues solely as ones that affect only Americans but as ones that affect people in the world — [John Kerry’s approach] to foreign policy is an attempt to try and build a stronger coalition, a stronger alliance around the world in the war against terrorism. It seems to me to be more consistent with where Catholic social teaching has been.

The Catholic Church accepts the doctrine of “just war,” but I think the Vatican found that [the Bush administration’s] doctrine of preemption doesn’t meet the [just war] standards, particularly in Iraq. I think that the Vatican was a strong critic particularly of the president’s unilateral action in pursuing this doctrine of preemption. I would argue that it wasn’t a successful execution of a national security strategy. I think that it actually makes the country less safe rather than safer. I think that is clearly the Vatican’s perspective and the perspective of the Catholic laity in this country. It is also a moral challenge to find the right way both to confront a person who is actually brutalizing his own population and do it in a way that is going to actually expand peace in the world and try to deal with a circumstance where you can provide a more secure environment for both the people of Iraq, the people of the United States, and the people of the world as well.

My personal view is that Senator Kerry may have learned the wrong lesson from the 1960 campaign, at least at the beginning of this campaign. I think he has done better more recently. But I think that John Kennedy set a standard when he gave that famous speech in Houston in which he said, “My faith is a matter that shouldn’t concern anybody but me, and I’m going to exercise my judgment on behalf of all the American people and obviously not be controlled by the Catholic hierarchy.” I think the challenge that then Senator Kennedy was under was one in which he was being challenged on how he would govern. Senator Kerry is being challenged on whether he really, truly has faith. Those are very different things. I actually think it’s quite unfortunate that attacking someone’s faith, not accepting someone’s faith, has become one more wedge issue and political issue and fodder for negative campaigns by outside groups and agents for the other side. But be that as it may, the American public wants to know what’s in your core, what makes you tick, what’s your moral dimension that you’re going to bring to bear on important public issues. They want to know when you close the door in the Oval Office, what values do you bring to the table? It’s important for candidates to be able to project that, and where you have a person like Senator Kerry who has such a strong moral dimension to his life, to his work, it’s a mistake for both the candidate and the campaign not to expose people to that. You’ve got to be authentic in doing it. I would never recommend to a candidate to quote the Bible more if that’s uncomfortable. There are different ways of speaking with moral clarity about the issues you care about, talking about what’s right and what’s wrong and why you think that, that really do begin to give people a sense of the moral essence of who you are as a human being and the religious values that shape that. I think that helps them make up their minds about who you are. There was a poll several months ago that one of the news magazines did, that said only 7 percent of the American public thought Senator Kerry had strong religious views. That is, to some extent, a failing of the campaign, because it is part and parcel of who you are, you need to let people know that. I think Senator Kerry did a lot better in his convention speech, where he really laid this out in his own way and in an honest way when he said, “I don’t wear this on my sleeve, but here’s who I am.” I think it was very compelling. But he needs to keep that going. Even in the last few weeks of the campaign, people need to sense that.

I’ll leave it to after Election Day to decide whether [Republican outreach to Catholics] has been effective. I think the Bush campaign particularly has gone over the edge in involving the campaign in direct church affairs. They collect rosters; they put out mailings that were approved by the Republican National Committee that say liberals want to ban the Bible. I think they have used religion as a wedge issue, actually, which is really unfortunate. I think it began with people like Jerry Falwell, and it’s culminated in the way the Republican National Committee is trying to make churches around the country be adjuncts to the campaign. The American public doesn’t like that. They reject it; they think there is a place for religious leaders to give moral guidance to people in their churches and synagogues and mosques, but I don’t think they want to see churches just become part of a massive political machine, and that’s what the Republicans are trying to do this year. Whether they pay a price for it or not, I guess we’ll know in November.

Maybe Catholics end up being a little bit self-selective about where they go to church these days. It used to be, when I was growing up, you were born in a parish. You were probably baptized in a parish, maybe got married in a parish, and were buried in the same parish. Now people are more mobile and they self-select into parishes that they’re more comfortable with. You can live a life, as I do, as a practicing Catholic and not see as much of [ ] as reporters who are going out looking for it will find. In the Catholic Church, both the clergy and the laity have tried to provide moral guidance, but again I come back to the bishops’ statement on faithful citizenship — a very broad and sophisticated and smart document about all the issues that are facing us as citizens, as voters, and as people of moral faith. But they also call you to look at the whole and to exercise your vote when you go into the voting booth based on what you think is the best judgment. This getting in and using the Church as part of a political machine is kind of new, I think. At least I haven’t seen it that much in a Catholic church before.

When I go to church, and I listen to the gospel of Jesus and think about what he’s trying to, what he said, and what he says to us every day, I feel pretty confident that if people listen to that gospel they are going to vote in a way that is reflective of a strong direction of this country to make it more just, more fair, and more peaceful at the end of the day.

Mark Rozell Extended Interview

Posted on October 8, 2004 by Michael Bailey

Read the full R & E interview about Catholic voters with Mark Rozell, professor of public policy at George Mason University:

Catholic voters are hugely important because we’re talking about one quarter of the electorate in the United States. But I think there is this misnomer floating around out there about THE Catholic vote, as though this were a unified bloc of voters waiting to be mobilized by one candidate or the other. What we have really is a largely diverse body of voters that is really not terribly distinctive when you look at the voting patterns of Americans more generally. We really have to look at distinctions within the Catholic community to find where the different blocs of voters are rather than talk in general about a “Catholic vote.”

Catholics used to be a part of the old New Deal Democratic Party coalition. They really helped anchor the Democratic Party for a number of generations, and the old Catholic monolith was really based mostly around ethnicity, around economic issues. We’re talking about a group of people who were of the immigrant underclass, who moved into the central cities and joined labor unions and became Democratic Party identifiers. It was that simple. But around the 1970s, there started to be a split within the Catholic community in part because of the national Democratic Party’s support for abortion rights. George McGovern’s campaign in 1972 highlighted that issue, the ROE decision, of course, in 1973. We started to see a number of Catholics looking at social issues as opposed to just economic issues in their voting patterns. And Republicans, of course, started to embrace the so-called pro-life movement when the modern Christian Right was formed in the later 1970s, so we saw a lot of socially conservative Catholics breaking away from their traditional support from the Democratic Party and either becoming Republicans or becoming independent voters who could be persuaded to vote Republican if there was a very strong difference between the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate, specifically on abortion.

John Kerry is not running self-consciously as the Catholic candidate for the presidency. In my lifetime there was one other example, John Kennedy, and at that time, of course, many Americans asked whether a Catholic could be elected to the presidency, whether a Catholic politician would be taking his cues from the Vatican, and so forth, and of course Kennedy proved that Catholics are electable in American politics at the national level, and we really haven’t had that debate for the past four decades. But John Kerry, being the next major party candidate for the presidency who is Catholic, really hasn’t run a campaign where he has self-consciously identified himself as such or tried to wrap himself in that identity as a way of trying to mobilize Catholic voters in America, and I think for perfectly good reason. I think Kerry recognizes that there is not a distinctive monolithic bloc out there called “the Catholic vote,” so trying to wrap himself up in that identity I don’t think is going to buy him any votes in the end. It’s really going to be his issue positions that attract certain blocs of Catholic voters who might be more willing to vote for a Democrat than a Republican if those issues happen to appeal to them.

You could break up the Catholic community into a vast variety of blocs, in a sense. We could talk about ethnic blocs, for example, Hispanic Catholics who are hugely important in this election, who tend to be socially very conservative but for the most part still identify [as] Democrat[s] on the basis of economic and civil rights-oriented issues. Or we could break it up according to class distinctions, those who are still of the inner-city working-class Democratic Party-identifying group of voters, or those Catholics who, unlike their parents or grandparents, have moved out to the suburbs, gotten college degrees and law degrees, and achieved economic success and become Republicans. Or we could distinguish between socially conservative regular churchgoing Catholics and Catholic identifiers in the electorate who are not very religious. They’re not regular churchgoers, but when surveys are done of the U.S. voting population, for example, and they’re asked to self-identify on the religion question, they still say “Catholic.” I think the most important distinction politically is between the regular churchgoing Catholics and the occasional and nonchurchgoing Catholics. The former group is heavily Republican, and the latter group is strongly Democrat[ic].

If you want to single out a variable that can really tell you whether a Catholic voter is more likely to be a Democrat or a Republican, it is church attendance. Those who are regular attenders of Mass either daily or weekly, or several times a week — they’re very socially conservative, they’re attracted to the Republican Party, they’re more likely to vote for the Methodist George W. Bush than for the Catholic John Kerry because of issues such as abortion and school prayer and so forth. The nonchurchgoing or occasional churchgoing Catholics — they’re still very heavily Democrats. It’s very interesting to follow this in elections. Remember, for example, in 1996 after the Clinton veto of the so-called partial birth abortion bill, a lot of social conservatives were saying this is going to cause a massive mobilization of Catholic voters in favor of the Republicans in the ’96 election cycle; that was just too much for most Catholics. Over 60 percent of Catholics voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 despite that issue. So it’s not necessarily the social issues that are driving most Catholics, but among that minority of Catholics who go to church very often and are deeply religious, they’re heavily Republican; they’re the Bush voters right now.

The bishops, when they decide to speak out on political issues, don’t really affect the voting behavior of the vast majority of Catholics in America. The voters themselves tend to be extremely independent of the Church hierarchy at any time when the hierarchy gives some signal about voting preferences. That’s been a constant for American Catholics, I think, for a very long time. Even though, in this election cycle, some bishops have spoken out openly and questioned Kerry’s claim to be Catholic because of his policy views, I don’t see that moving any Catholic voters at all. The people who are inclined not to vote for Kerry because of his positions on social issues — they’re already going to vote Republican. They don’t need to be prodded by the bishops to go out and vote against a socially liberal candidate. And those Catholics who are inclined not to support some of the social issue positions of the Catholic Church — abortion, school prayer, and so forth — who are not motivated to follow the lead of the bishops, they’re Kerry supporters to begin with. I just don’t see this really affecting the voting outcome at all.

It’s important to point out that the scandals in the Church that have really come to light in the past several years and the way the Church leadership has dealt with these scandals has hurt the credibility of the Church hierarchy when the Church decides to speak out on political issues or to give political signals in a campaign … as some of the bishops have done in this campaign, suggesting John Kerry doesn’t have a rightful claim to call himself a Catholic, or Catholic voters should not support a man who has some of the policy positions he has. I just don’t see that affecting the votes of those particular Catholic voters, because the heavy churchgoers are going to be Republicans anyway, the non- or occasional churchgoers are more heavily Democrat[ic], and these two different sides are pretty much locked right now in this election, and they’re not moving.

A certain number of Catholic voters who are not strongly entrenched in one political party or the other may be offended by abortion rights, but they also may be offended by the war in Iraq, and so they have this internal conflict as to the trump issue in this election cycle. Where do they put their loyalty? Obviously they may be more attracted to Bush because of his position on abortion, but they may oppose him because of how he’s handled the war in Iraq. I haven’t really seen any polling data that bring this small group together and identify what their leanings are. I tend to think that that is a real swing voter population in the electorate right now. We’re not sure where they’re going to go on Election Day and which issues are really going to carry the day for them.

Current events are hugely important, particularly in this election cycle that we’ve all been saying is an events-driven election, because we have this war in Iraq, and we have uncertainty about the economy, and a number of issues out there that just seem to change the standing of the candidates relatively significantly when events happen. We still have some weeks left in this campaign. We have debates that are going to take place between the candidates, so there’s still a lot that could happen in the next several weeks that could change voters’ minds.

On the social or so-called moral issues, of course, the Church leadership is much closer to what is right now the Republican position than what is right now the Democratic position, so if the intent [of the Catholic bishops’ voter’s guide] is to try to persuade Catholic voters that one particular party or one presidential candidate is more friendly to the Church positions, then I think that can help get the word out a little bit. But I just have to believe that most of the socially conservative, regular churchgoing Catholics are already in the Republican column, as the data suggest. This extra inducement is not really going to make a dramatic difference in their decision whether to vote or who to vote for. I think they are already there; they’re already Bush voters at this point.

Some faithful Catholics who are strongly antiabortion tend to identify with Republicans, but they’re not comfortable with the war in Iraq. They feel that, perhaps, it was morally not the right thing to do as well. Then the question becomes, where do they go on Election Day? But from all the data that I’ve looked at, it really seems that the abortion issue for these socially conservative Catholics trumps all. It’s really the issue that’s driving their voting behavior right now, more than the war in Iraq. A number of Catholics are both antiabortion and also opposed to the war, but the abortion issue seems to be trumping their voting decisions right now. There are many others who fall in between, who are deeply conflicted because they don’t know which of those issues right now should really carry the day for them.

There are a number of Catholics who are independents, like most Americans. They don’t strongly identify, or they don’t tell survey researchers that they consider themselves Democrat or Republican. But the reality is, when you look at the voting patterns of these same people, they tend to either vote Democrat consistently or vote Republican consistently. Even though a lot of the data suggest right now that there are large numbers of independents among Catholic voters, most of them are actually still, in their voting patterns, identifying with one political party or the other. But as [former Boston mayor and ambassador to the Vatican] Ray Flynn points out, there are a number of Catholics who feel right now that neither political party perfectly represents their particular viewpoint. That’s true of all groups and American politics. You can point to any religious, ethnic-based group or interest group, social movement, and ask, “Which political party really stands for you?” and they’ll say, “You know, we really tend to be more Democrat or more Republican, but neither party’s really perfect.” That’s just the way it works in our system.

I think it’s been a mistake of many Democratic Party campaigns to do what Kerry is doing, and that is to say, “We don’t wear our religion on our sleeves; we’re not so open about it; we’re not comfortable talking about it in the public square.” Unfortunately for them, I think many Americans expect candidates to talk about values issues and ethics and morality, and for a number of years now I think the Republicans have, to some extent, had a monopoly on the whole values debate. We have this movement in American politics we call the Christian Right, which is very actively mobilizing at the grassroots, identifying its people and speaking openly about values issues. There are some polls out there right now that have been done that ask Americans, “What are the most important issues in these campaigns?” And values come to the very top, trumping the economy and the war in Iraq. I think it’s a mistake when Democratic candidates simply say, “Well, we’re not comfortable talking about values issues or religion in the public square.” Most Americans, even secular-oriented Americans, are concerned about cultural issues, concerned about values, concerned about what’s going on in the public schools and public morality and so forth, all the things that the Republicans and the religious Right are very comfortable talking about. And yet the Democrats are saying, “We’re just not so comfortable talking about these things.” I think they miss a big opportunity by saying that they’re really not so comfortable talking about the whole values debate in public.

It’s very different from 1960, say, when John Kennedy was running self-consciously as a Catholic and there was a lot of pride among Catholic voters about just breaking that barrier and having a Catholic elected as president. Many of those voters, I think, were willing to put aside, perhaps, some of their policy differences with Kennedy, even those who might have identified more closely with Republican issues. It was such an important matter, to get this breakthrough and have a Catholic elected president. But this is four and a half decades later, and it’s a different America right now. I don’t think that there’s a lot of value added for John Kerry to run a similar type message or to promote himself self-consciously as the Catholic candidate in this campaign, because the barrier has been broken. No one is saying anymore that a Catholic can’t be elected or that someone is possibly going to be disadvantaged in running for public office specifically because he’s a Catholic. I don’t think there’s a core constituency out there that feels a strong sense of pride in the Catholic identity of a presidential candidate and will vote for him specifically on that basis alone. The so-called Catholic voters are thoroughly homogenized in the American voting population right now. They look like the rest of America, in a sense — they’re Democrats, they’re Republicans, they’re independents, they’re in the cities, they’re in the suburbs. I just don’t see that there’s a lot of political value to be gained by Kerry running a self-conscious campaign: “I’m the Catholic, and I’m reaching out to you on the basis of our shared religious identity.”

The Bush campaign has done that and did its [Catholic] outreach in the 2000 election cycle. You can even find in a lot of Bush’s speeches during his presidency that he has slipped in phraseology that connects very deeply with religious Catholics but might fly under the radar of most other Americans who don’t understand the references that Bush was making. He’s done that very self-consciously, I think, to try to connect with regular, churchgoing, conservative Catholics, for the most part. When people talk about the Catholic outreach of the Bush administration or the Bush campaign, I think it’s a targeted outreach to a particular group of Catholics, and that is the so-called faithful Catholics or regular, churchgoing Catholics who are going to be sympathetic to Bush’s policy views.

In using some language that might appeal to Catholics or be understood by them, Bush may be able to forge some kind of connection to the Catholic community. He’s had advisors, both informally and within the administration, who have really helped him in trying to do more outreach to the Catholic community. It has been a part of his political strategy, there’s no doubt about that, and there’s certainly more of that coming from the Bush campaign side than there is from the Kerry campaign side, even though Kerry’s the Catholic in this race. I’ve read articles by influential conservative Catholic writers who say, “I’m voting for the Methodist, and I’m doing so because I feel a deeper bond with George Bush because he understands us better” — talking about faithful Catholics — “than this guy John Kerry, who’s got it all wrong on the social issues.” It’s been a successful strategy on Bush’s part to forge a comfortable relationship with churchgoing Catholics, despite the fact that he himself is not Catholic. He’s a Methodist.

The Hispanic vote in America still is more strongly Democrat[ic], without a doubt. There are some differences, of course. In southern Florida, the Cuban Americans who are intensely anticommunist, anti-Castro, [are] of course very grateful for U.S. policy there and tend to be more Republican-leaning. But on civil rights issues of immigration and so forth, Hispanic Americans tend to be a lot closer to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, and I think Hispanic Catholics are a key voting group right now in the electorate that both parties are reaching out to. It’s an interesting voting group from the standpoint that if you look at the survey data, Hispanic Catholics tend to be socially quite conservative. They tend to be very religious, antiabortion, not terribly in favor of gay rights, for example. For a lot of the social wedge issues, they can be motivated to think a little bit about the Republican Party. They tend to be pretty conservative on cultural and social issues. But on the core issues on which most Hispanics base their voting — economic issues, immigration, education — they’re much more comfortable in the Democratic Party, and those issues tend to trump the social and cultural issues right now.

There has been a real movement by Protestant groups to reach out to new Hispanic immigrants. The Pentecostal church particularly has been hugely effective in drawing in a lot of new South American immigrants, Hispanics who come to a new country and they’re looking for a community and an identity with which they can forge some kind of identification and sense of belonging, and the outreach really has been done so much more by the Protestant churches than by the Catholic churches, which is quite surprising. That seems to be where a lot of the energy is. The studies that I have seen have shown that the Protestant churches have made pretty significant inroads in reaching out to new Hispanic immigrants in the United States. That could have political implications for the future if many of these more conservative-leaning Protestant denominations are bringing in large numbers of Hispanic immigrants and inviting them into their churches and persuading them to change from their Catholic affiliation to a Protestant denomination. It could be very interesting in the future to see how that develops. It could change somewhat the makeup of Hispanic voter identification in this country.

The Hispanic community is the fastest-growing ethic community in America right now. It’s hugely important. It’s interesting that the Republicans, up until about the mid- to late 1990s, were on the bandwagon with anti-immigration — Proposition 209 in California, where they were trying to limit government provision of goods and services to illegal immigrants, and so forth. They’ve dropped that completely, because they have seen how hugely unpopular that was in the Hispanic community and how over time that was just political suicide for the future of the Republican Party. President Bush, a Republican and conservative, is really supporting the so-called pro-immigration policies that Hispanics favor and trying to do outreach to the Hispanic community on that basis. There’s pretty much a consensus between the parties right now, whereas 10 years ago there was a huge divide between the parties on immigration issues. I think that shows the huge and growing power of the Hispanic vote in this country, and it’s only going to get bigger.

Hispanics in America again are more comfortable with the Democratic Party on issues of immigration and economic issues in particular, but on social-cultural issues, many are very conservative. They are deeply religious, and so it’s important that Kerry reach out to Hispanic voters — most Hispanics are Catholic in America — emphasizing the importance of faith in his life, because that’s an issue that resonates with many Hispanic voters who might be persuaded to consider the Republican Party on social-cultural issues if the Democrats simply did not bring those issues into the debate in this campaign at all.

Catholic Voters

Posted on October 8, 2004 by Michael Bailey

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: The candidates continued to campaign in debates and on the campaign trail. With religion a significant factor in how people vote, we begin this week a three-part series on religious voting blocs. Today, one of the most important of those blocs: Catholic voters. Once loyal to the Democratic Party, Catholics are now as divided as the rest of the nation. And since Roman Catholics make up about a quarter of the population, that’s a lot of votes up for grabs — particularly in the large battleground states. Kim Lawton reports.

KIM LAWTON: From the basement of his home in the Columbus, Ohio, suburbs, Eric McFadden is waging a faith-based, grassroots campaign in support of John Kerry. McFadden launched the CatholicsforKerry04.org Web site in July after meeting the senator and, he says, connecting with Kerry as a Catholic.

ERIC MCFADDEN (Member, Knights of Columbus and John Kerry Supporter): I’m trying to give a voice to Catholics so that they can stand up and say, “I am a Catholic Democrat, and I’m proud, and these are the principles that I believe in.”

LAWTON: McFadden admits it can be a tough sell, even in his own parish — St. Brigid of Kildare Catholic Church in Dublin, Ohio. Many of McFadden’s fellow parishioners there believe George W. Bush, a United Methodist, better reflects Catholic principles. Wayne Booker is one of them.

WAYNE BOOKER (Member, Knights of Columbus and George Bush Supporter): President Bush is very firm on the life issues and the issues of concern to Catholics. He gives support for the unborn. He believes in traditional family values — a man and a woman being married.

LAWTON: Catholics used to be a foundational part of the old Democratic Party coalition, but not anymore. In the 2000 election, Al Gore got just 50 percent of the overall Catholic vote, while George Bush got 46 percent. This time around, polls suggest Catholics are still almost evenly divided, with a significant percentage swinging back and forth between the two candidates.

CARL ANDERSON (Member, Knights of Columbus): The candidate who captures the Catholic vote captures the election. It’s very hard to win in these important swing states that everybody is talking about if you lose the Catholic vote by a significant margin.

LAWTON: The problem is there’s no longer a monolithic voting bloc to be persuaded. George Mason University professor Mark Rozell studies religious voting patterns.

Professor MARK ROZELL (George Mason University): We really have to look at distinctions within the Catholic community to find where the different blocs of voters are rather than talk in general about a “Catholic vote.”

LAWTON: Hispanic and African-American Catholics, for example, still vote heavily Democratic. In 2000, 67 percent of the Latino Catholic vote went to Gore. Another key variable is church attendance.

Prof. ROZELL: I think the most important distinction politically is between the regular churchgoing Catholics and the occasional and nonchurchgoing Catholics. The former group is heavily Republican, and the latter group is strongly Democrat.

LAWTON: The biggest shift to the Republicans has occurred among white Catholics, particularly those several generations removed from their labor union, immigrant roots. For many of these voters, conservative social issues such as abortion are key.

Wayne Booker is a cradle Catholic and a member of the Knights of Columbus. He runs a small printing company in Dublin, Ohio. Growing up, he says his working-class family supported all the things the Democratic Party stood for — until the abortion issue came to the fore.

Mr. BOOKER: I mean, I was a Kennedy Democrat, and I think I probably voted for Democrats up through Jimmy Carter. But with the life issues that are very important to me, I’ve become — my religion and my politics have kind of gotten together.

LAWTON: But the majority of Catholics are pro-choice. And even some of those who oppose abortion don’t base their vote solely on the issue. Like Wayne Booker, Eric McFadden is a lifelong Catholic, a member of the Knights of Columbus, and an opponent of abortion.

Mr. MCFADDEN: That’s a tough issue for Catholics, but again, I don’t think we have to be single-issue voters. Abortion is a life issue, but there are also many other life issues. Again, health care, jobs, the war, hunger, poverty.

LAWTON: This year, for many Catholics, concern over the war with Iraq is a key part of the mix, especially in light of the Vatican’s strong opposition to the war. The U.S. Catholic Bishops encourage Catholics to vote and have put out a nonpartisan list of issues the Church cares about. There is strong disagreement among lay Catholics — and among the bishops themselves — about how much priority each issue gets.

Mr. MCFADDEN: On one hand, I have the abortion issue. On the other hand, I have all these issues of life, and to me, they outweigh the abortion issue.

Mr. BOOKER: You can’t look at those issues as, “We’ve got 10 issues, let’s pick.” If Senator Kerry fills out five and President Bush fills out five, then they’re split evenly. Really, there are some issues on that list that are preeminent. The most important one, of course, is the right of an unborn child to be born.

LAWTON: A few conservative bishops, including St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, have publicly stated that abortion should almost always take precedence. Burke said he would deny Communion to Kerry and other pro-choice politicians. But analysts don’t believe that is swaying undecided voters.

Prof. ROZELL: Even though, in this election cycle, some bishops have spoken out openly and questioned Kerry’s claim to be Catholic because of his policy views, I don’t see that that is moving any Catholic voters at all.

LAWTON: Still, the Kerry-Edwards campaign has appeared deeply challenged by issues of faith. Kerry says he doesn’t like to wear his religion on his sleeve. On the campaign trail, he hasn’t emphasized his Catholic identity, and he has not spoken before Catholic groups.

Supporters see a much different situation from 1960, when John F. Kennedy had to answer concerns about whether his faith would interfere with his presidency.

JOHN PODESTA (Center for American Progress): I think the challenge that President Kennedy, then Senator Kennedy, was under was one in which he was being challenged on how he would govern. Senator Kerry is being challenged on whether he really, truly has faith.

LAWTON: Former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, himself a Roman Catholic, has been urging Kerry to be more open about how faith impacts his politics.

Mr. PODESTA: The American public wants to know what’s in your core, what makes you tick, what’s your moral dimension that you’re going to bring to bear on important public issues. They want to know when you close the door in the Oval Office, you know, what values do you bring to the table?

LAWTON: In Ohio, Eric McFadden says he’s also frustrated that the people organizing the Kerry campaign haven’t done more direct outreach to Catholic voters.

Mr. MCFADDEN: I really, strongly, believe that he will make a fine president. But if they’re not going to listen to us, then they’re going to isolate a lot of Catholic voters, and that’s a shame.

LAWTON: McFadden is trying to take matters into his own hands. In addition to his Web site, he’s organizing Catholic meetings in support of Kerry. Meanwhile, President Bush has mounted an aggressive effort to win over Catholic voters. In July, he appeared before the Knights of Columbus, where he was welcomed by shouts of “four more years.”

Rev. FRANK PAVONE (National Director, Priests for Life): Ah, isn’t it great to be with Catholics who aren’t afraid to be political!

LAWTON: Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie is Catholic and has made Catholic outreach a major priority.

ED GILLESPIE (Chairman, Republican National Committee): A basic look at the two candidates shows that President Bush is the candidate that shares the values that Catholics hold dear.

LAWTON: The RNC has recruited more than 50,000 Catholic team leaders to mobilize at the local level.

RALPH REED (Bush-Cheney Campaign): We’ve built an organization that goes down to the precinct level in every battleground state. And if you look at the states that will decide the outcome of this election — particularly the Great Lakes states of Wisconsin and Minnesota and Michigan and Ohio — those states, they’re high-percentage Catholic states.

LAWTON: And given the political divisions among the ranks, the battles are likely to be very hard fought. I’m Kim Lawton reporting.

Election 2004: Ethics of Foreign Policy

Posted on October 1, 2004 by Michael Bailey

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: Now, the first of three discussions this month on the moral principles underlying the major issues of the presidential campaign. E. J. Dionne is a columnist for THE WASHINGTON POST, a professor at Georgetown University, and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Michael Cromartie is vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington and was recently appointed by President Bush to be a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Welcome to you both.

First, briefly, in a few words: Michael, what did you make of this week’s debate?

MICHAEL CROMARTIE (Vice President, Ethics and Public Policy Center): Well, I think Senator Kerry wanted to prove to the American people that he was presidential, and he certainly did that. I think President Bush wanted to prove to the American people that he was a decisive leader — that he took firm stands and that there was no waffling on anything — and he did that.

ABERNETHY: E. J.?

E. J. DIONNE (Columnist, WASHINGTON POST and Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution): Yes, I think essentially, I agree with Mike, especially on the first half. I think Kerry was in control, was calm, and he spoke English in short sentences and not the past pluperfect subjunctive, which is good. I think President Bush had an off night. I think it showed that if you are in a cocoon and you’re not challenged a lot — you go to events only with your own people — there’s a certain kind of negative reaction. And that scowl of his, I think, will be remembered for a while.

ABERNETHY: The debate was about foreign policy. Let’s talk about that. Michael, what in your — how would you state the underlying moral purpose of American foreign policy? What should it be?

Mr. CROMARTIE: Well, it’s the purpose of the president of the United States, the head of the government, to protect the citizens of the United States. So national security is the issue that must underlie anybody who’s going to be the president of the United States. In other words, how best to protect the American people? Now, the disagreements come in how you make that happen in the world.

ABERNETHY: E. J.?

Mr. DIONNE: Except for pacifists who obviously, on principle, disapprove [of] the use of force anytime, I think most Americans agree that the use of force is legitimate to prevent violence against our country or against Americans. And I thought in that debate it was very clear that both candidates shared that moral value. I think there’s a second, more debated notion, which is it’s important for the United States, as the most powerful country in the world, to use force occasionally to protect people outside our borders. And I thought that was the other striking area of agreement in the debate on Darfur and genocide, where both candidates thought we, as a nation, have an obligation to do something about this.

ABERNETHY: And E. J., when is it right and when is it wrong to intervene militarily, as we did in Iraq?

Mr. DIONNE: Well again, I think the — most Americans believe that military intervention should be, as Kerry kept saying, “a last resort” and designed almost entirely to protect the people of United States, unless there is a calamity so severe that we end up with a moral obligation. And so I think Americans are reluctant interventionists, as a people. And I think that comes out whenever a war goes on for a little bit of a while, you see that in their guts Americans are reluctant interventionists.

Mr. CROMARTIE: And Bob, let me add to that that the “just war” theory had seven criteria. The most hotly disputed part of that criteria is the understanding of last resort. And as you remember, in the debate Senator Kerry kept saying, “I don’t think we went to last resort.” Honorable people disagree about when “last resort” is. You know, does it mean another UN Security Council resolution, does it mean another negotiation, more diplomacy? There’s always going to be a disagreement about when we reach last resort.

ABERNETHY: Is another fundamental moral idea that we should do everything we can to solve problems that have become violent or might soon become violent? I’m thinking of, for instance, the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. Do we have a moral obligation to try to help solve that? Michael?

Mr. CROMARTIE: Well yeah, I think we do, because we have national security interests in that region, obviously. And the question is — as we all know, for decades American presidents have tried through diplomacy to bring resolution to that horrible conflict there.

ABERNETHY: How about humanitarian aid? Where there has been a disaster, certainly. But humanitarian aid generally, because people are needy? E. J.?

Mr. DIONNE: Well, you know the moral position in the United States is difficult because the United States is the most powerful country in the world. That’s kind of a paradox — our power should give us more opportunity. But it is precisely because we are powerful that on the one hand we are called in to help resolve disputes, such as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, or to be more generous than we are in helping other countries in times of disaster. But that power creates certain obligations that a lot of Americans are worried about, and it also creates a fear that as the most powerful country in the world, there’s always the danger that we will abuse that power. And certainly there are others around the world who look at us that way. So the United States walks a very careful line, and sometimes we fall off the line and oftentimes, God willing, we don’t.

ABERNETHY: And in all this, to act by ourselves, to act with allies, to act only if the UN says it’s okay, Michael?

Mr. CROMARTIE: Inasmuch as possible, act with allies. Inasmuch as possible, act with the UN’s assistance. However, as the president keeps repeating, “I will not put American national interest and national security at stake, waiting for one more ally, one more resolution.” I think the candidates agree, inasmuch as possible — get as many allies as possible. They do disagree, however, how many is required before the U.S. interest is at stake in some region in the world.

Mr. DIONNE: I agree with that, but I think for most Americans the issue of allies is much more of a practical issue than a moral issue. Will we be more successful if we operate in concert with more people? And I think what you saw in the debate is much less a moral argument about the UN and the allies — a much more practical argument about what makes for success.

ABERNETHY: And in the debate, it was interesting, both candidates said the number one issue facing the president is the question of the spread of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons especially. Do we have a moral obligation to try to prevent that spread?

Mr. CROMARTIE: Oh, absolutely. I mean, the whole earth is at stake, not only the United States, but the whole earth. I was a little surprised that they didn’t couch [it] a little more in terms of terrorism. I mean, they had been debating terrorism for an hour and 15 minutes at that point and then that came up. I think their point was, nuclear proliferation in the hands of terrorists probably concerns them the most.

ABERNETHY: E. J., quickly?

Mr. DIONNE: Well, I think that was implicit, is [that] what we are worried about [is] that material getting in the wrong hands. So that includes terrorists’ hands. It could also include small, hostile powers to us. I mean, it was interesting that that was one answer where Kerry was right out of the blocks. He knew what he wanted to say and he said it in two words. Now, I would have been interested if the order had been reversed, because I wonder how President Bush would have framed it.

ABERNETHY: Gentlemen, many thanks. Very helpful. E. J. Dionne and Michael Cromartie.

Episcopal House of Bishops

Posted on October 1, 2004 by Michael Bailey

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: U.S. Episcopal bishops this week pledged to seek unity within their deeply divided denomination. The pledge came at the bishops’ annual fall meeting, held this year in Spokane, Washington. The U.S. Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion were thrown into crisis last summer, when the U.S. Church approved its first openly gay bishop. A panel studying how the international church can avoid schism will release its report on October 18. Kim Lawton has our story.

KIM LAWTON: The theme of this year’s House of Bishops meeting was reconciliation … finding unity in the midst of profound cultural and theological differences. In a statement written to the Episcopal Church at large, the bishops said, “We are confident that our household of faith is large enough to embrace us all.” But they also acknowledged that anger, anguish, and division have been on the rise over issues of homosexuality.

episcopalhouseofbishops-post02-salmon

Bishop EDWARD SALMON JR. (Diocese of South Carolina): I said, it’s like being in a train wreck.

LAWTON: About 130 bishops attended with their spouses, down from the numbers who attended previous meetings. Several prominent conservative bishops boycotted, unwilling to participate with the body that approved the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire — the church’s first openly gay bishop. This frustrated many of their fellow bishops.

Bishop J. JON BRUNO (Diocese of Los Angeles): It’s pretty hard to have differences of opinion if there aren’t two people willing to state their positions and express their differences looking for a place of resolution.

LAWTON: Bishop Edward Salmon of South Carolina was one of the conservatives who did attend.

Bishop SALMON: I came here committed to present what I thought needed to be said, and I’ve done that, and I’ve tried to do that with grace and with clarity, and I am very clear about where we stand in the diocese.

LAWTON: Where he and others stand is still refusing to accept the church’s decisions on homosexuality. But whether they’ll still be part of the U.S. Episcopal Church depends heavily on the report of the so-called Lambeth Commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold urged conservatives and liberals to be open to whatever the report has to say.

episcopalhouseofbishops-post04-griswold

Bishop FRANK GRISWOLD (Presiding Bishop, U.S. Episcopal Church): I would have the church adopt a spirit of graciousness and eagerness to receive the work of the Lambeth Commission because the Lambeth Commission was set up not so much to solve problems, but to help the Communion in all its diversity figure out how it can live with difference.

LAWTON: Conservatives want strong recommendations — perhaps a rebuke of the U.S. church or a call for Robinson to leave his post. But others say there is only so much the nonbinding report can do.

Bishop BRUNO: How do you undo a confirmation — where a bishop lays their hands on a person’s head and make them unconfirmed? We don’t have the privilege of backing up too far.

LAWTON: Once the report is released, bishops will hold regional meetings to discuss it. The entire House of Bishops will meet again in January to consider their response.

I’m Kim Lawton reporting.

Executing Juveniles

Posted on October 1, 2004 by Michael Bailey

Note: An updated version of this story aired March 4, 2005.

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term this Monday, and one of the first issues to be considered is: Should juveniles ever be executed? Fifteen years ago, the high court ruled that states could execute offenders as young as 16 if they chose to. But attitudes appear to be shifting. And the case now coming before the court could end that practice for good. Tim O’Brien reports.

TIM O’BRIEN: It started as a burglary at this home in Fenton, Missouri, about 30 miles south of St. Louis, early on a September morning in 1993. It turned into a gruesome murder.

ED KEMP (Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department): While in the home, the victim woke up, recognized both subjects. They bound her, put her in her own vehicle, transported her to a bridge, and threw her over alive.

O’BRIEN: Acting on an informant’s tip, police arrested two young suspects: 15-year-old Charlie Benjamin and 17-year-old Chris Simmons were picked up at their high school a day after the murder. After first denying any involvement, Simmons later gave a tearful confession to police:

CHRIS SIMMONS (Confessing on Tape): I had her tied up. She walked out on the bridge and [I] tied her hands and feet together — pushed her off.

UNIDENTIFIED POLICEMAN: Who pushed her?

Mr. SIMMONS: I did.

UNIDENTIFIED POLICEMAN: Who?

Mr. SIMMONS: I did.

UNIDENTIFIED POLICEMAN: You pushed her?

Mr. SIMMONS: I did.

O’BRIEN: Simmons even re-enacted the crime for police.

UNIDENTIFIED POLICEMAN #2 (On Police Video): So, this about where you threw her off?

Mr. SIMMONS (Gesturing): Yeah.

O’BRIEN: Simmons’s lawyer tried to get him to accept a deal: life in prison in exchange for a guilty plea. But Simmons wouldn’t hear of it.

DAVID CROSBY (Defense Attorney): Here’s a child that in Missouri couldn’t buy a car because he’s under age to contract, and yet he makes life-and-death decisions.

O’BRIEN: It was an open-and-shut case.

JURY FOREMAN (At Trial): We the jury find the defendant, Christopher Simmons, guilty of murder in the first degree.

O’BRIEN: The younger boy was sentenced to life with no parole. Simmons, 17, got the death penalty — the jury finding that the murder was aggravated in that it was committed to avoid detection and in the course of a kidnapping, another felony.

But a little over a year ago, the Missouri Supreme Court set aside Simmons’s death sentence, reducing it to life in prison with no parole. The court held it violates this country’s evolving standards of decency to execute anyone who was under 18 at the time of the crime — that it may have been permissible in the past, but that now it conflicts with the Eighth Amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.

The decision squarely contradicts a 1989 Supreme Court decision allowing the execution of juvenile offenders.

While it is most unusual for a state court to rule that a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has become outdated, the Missouri court’s decision has generated broad support — including from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Raymond Burke is Archbishop of St. Louis.

Archbishop RAYMOND BURKE (Archdiocese of St. Louis): When a young person commits a crime, granted, the crime itself is horrible; the degree of culpability is normally less.

O’BRIEN: The decision of the rural Missouri jury to execute Simmons is also being second-guessed and criticized by 18 recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize, including former Presidents Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Lech Walesa; also, South Africa’s Desmond Tutu — and the Dalai Lama.

In a joint “Friend of the Court” brief, they contend, “The death penalty for child offenders is contrary to internationally accepted standards of human rights.”

The American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association have also weighed in, also urging that Simmons be spared.

Dr. RICHARD RATNER (American Psychiatric Association): We have learned a lot more about the function and the structure, and the development of the brain.

O’BRIEN: Dr. Ratner says not only has the execution of juvenile offenders become less acceptable, but new research suggests the court also got it wrong back in 1989 when it first authorized the practice.

Dr. RATNER: And in a nutshell, it is that the brain has not really matured, you do not really have an adult brain until you are in your early 20s.

O’BRIEN: You have empirical evidence of that?

Dr. RATNER: Yes, we do.

O’BRIEN: Ratner says new, sophisticated Magnetic Resonance Imaging — MRIs like this — show that juveniles use a different part of the brain in the decision-making process than adults, making them more likely to act irrationally, less likely to appreciate the consequences of what they do.

The case of 17-year-old Lee Malvo has galvanized public opinion on the execution of juvenile offenders. Malvo was convicted of participating in a random sniper spree that left 10 people dead in the Washington, DC area two years ago. He escaped the death penalty in one trial, but could still face death in another if the Supreme Court allows it.

PAUL EBERT (Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney): Well, I’m going to take a shot at him, yeah. We’ve pretty much made that decision.

O’BRIEN: In Virginia, no prosecutor has put more men on death row than Paul Ebert.

Mr. EBERT: I just don’t see how you can say someone who is 18 and one month should be treated differently from someone who is 17 and nine or 10 months.

O’BRIEN: Prosecutors in Missouri told the jury that Simmons believed he could get away with murder — because he was a juvenile.

JOHN APPELBAUM (Jefferson County Prosecutor, in June 1994): He used his age as a sword, saying “Kids, you can get away with this because nobody will think we’re capable of doing this.”

Mr. APPLEBAUM (Today): He was talking to people, trying to incorporate them into his plot. It doesn’t necessarily have to be Shirley Crook that night, that’s what was so scary about this case. It could have been anybody.

PERTIE MITCHELL (Victim’s Sister): And you know what they said? These boys went to school the next day and they were bragging about what they had done. They said, “Guess what we did last night? We beat up an old lady. And we took her out to the trestle and we pushed her off, and guess what she did? She went ‘bubble, bubble.'” You think that didn’t hurt us!

O’BRIEN: Who could do such a terrible thing? While prosecutors say the victim could have been anyone, Chris Simmons’s mother says the perpetrator could have been anyone’s son.

SHERYL HAYES (Defendant’s Mother): We were caring parents for him. We did everything we could. We probably spoiled him. But there were things he was doing, I had no idea he was doing. It’s broken my heart. You think about it every day. A lot of my thoughts is, if I could just turn time backwards and none of this had ever happened.

O’BRIEN: Two years ago, the Supreme Court, reversing itself, banned the death penalty for mentally retarded defendants. The court found a national consensus against the practice, noting the number of states opposing it had risen from two to 18. The trend is not quite so sharp with executing juvenile offenders: of the 37 states that allowed the death penalty in 1989, 12 prohibited the execution of anyone under 18. Nineteen of 38 states forbid it today.

While for the justices, whether that’s “cruel and unusual” may be an issue of pure constitutional law. But the question of executing juvenile offenders is inescapably as “moral” as it is “legal.” When it comes to the death penalty, how old is “too young”?

For RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, I’m Tim O’Brien in Fenton, Missouri.

ABERNETHY: Around the country, there are now 73 Death Row inmates who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. If the Supreme Court rules that executing them would be unconstitutional, their sentences would be reduced to life in prison. If the court rules it is not unconstitutional, Christopher Simmons could face execution by lethal injection.

Black Churches and Gay Marriage

Posted on July 16, 2004 by Michael Bailey

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: Now, a special report on gay marriage and the black church. The national debate over same-sex marriage has posed big challenges for many African-American clergy. Traditionally, black churches have stressed an interpretation of Scripture that opposes homosexuality. But those congregations also have long been at the forefront in fighting for civil rights. What happens when those two values seem to collide? Kim Lawton reports.

KIM LAWTON: Sunday mornings take a traditional tone at Covenant Baptist Church in Washington, DC, with long-standing rhythms and rituals familiar to black churches across the country. But on this Sunday, Pastor Dennis Wiley is preaching a sermon that is anything but traditional. He’s giving a rousing affirmation of gay marriage.

Reverend DENNIS WILEY (Pastor, Covenant Baptist Church) (During Sermon): A lot of people will say God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Have you ever heard that? If God didn’t make Steve, who made Steve? Somebody had to make Steve.

Why would God create someone of that orientation and then not allow them to have the same kind of opportunity for love, for relationships, for a healthy life as heterosexuals enjoy?

LAWTON: Wiley acknowledges his is a minority view among African-American clergy, who are more likely to agree with the Reverend Cheryl Sanders. She pastors the Third Street Church of God across town.

Reverend CHERYL SANDERS (Pastor, Third Street Church of God) (During Sermon): We do not have any place in the Scripture or in our tradition that we would consecrate, or affirm or acknowledge, marriage between two persons of the same sex.

Homosexual practice in my understanding of Scripture is a sin. And it’s not the only sin, and it may not be the worst sin, but it’s certainly a sin.

LAWTON: Within the African-American community, the national debate over gay marriage is pitting two deeply held values against each other. Historically, black churches have interpreted Scripture as condemning homosexuality. But given their own history, African-American congregations have also traditionally empathized with oppressed minorities.

Dr. ROBERT FRANKLIN (Professor of Social Ethics, Emory University): Black churches have been struggling with both their natural empathy and their reading of Scripture. And this has prompted an extraordinary debate about whether or not the gay rights movement is a civil rights struggle, a human rights struggle; whether it is something that the church can support and embrace.

LAWTON: It’s a debate that touches Alvin Williams and Nigel Simon personally. The two met at a discussion group for black gay men and have been together for seven years. They’ve adopted a son, Kiran, who’s six. Both men say they grew up hearing messages of condemnation in black churches.

NIGEL SIMON (Congregation Member, Covenant Baptist Church): That you were going to burn in hell if you didn’t repent, if you didn’t change your lifestyle as a homosexual. It made me question my relationship with God. It made me question, was I who these people say I was — that I was going to burn in hell because of how I felt?

AL WILLIAMS (Congregation Member, Covenant Baptist Church): Actually, it started me to do a lot of praying about changing who I was. I would pray to God, “Take these feelings away from me. I don’t want to be this way.”

LAWTON: Today, they attend Covenant Baptist Church, where Williams sings in the choir. He says he has found great spiritual strength being in a congregation where he is affirmed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It was like, “Okay, news flash: maybe you’re not the terrible person everybody is trying to portray you to be. God loves you, just the way you are. He created you that way. He loves you.”

LAWTON: Pastor Wiley says black churches condemn homosexuality from the pulpit, while all too often refusing to acknowledge the gays in their own congregations.

Rev. WILEY: We will use these persons in our choirs; we will ask them to play our organs, our pianos, and our instruments. We will utilize their gifts and talents to the max, but we seem to be trying to adopt a policy like the military: don’t ask, don’t tell. I don’t think that is really consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

LAWTON: But many — perhaps most — African-American pastors say their position is consistent with the Bible. They believe the issue comes down to a straightforward reading of Old and New Testament passages that condemn homosexual practice, as well as the teaching that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.

Rev. SANDERS: There’s some very strict prohibitions in some biblical texts, and you balance that against the affirmation, the positive statements that Jesus makes about marriage, and that becomes the foundation of our view of marriage in general, and also of our view of same-sex marriage in particular.

LAWTON: In addition to being a pastor, Cheryl Sanders teaches Christian ethics at Howard University School of Divinity. She says this is a difficult issue for her.

Rev. SANDERS: My obligation is to tell the truth as best as I understand it and can proclaim it. But you recognize that the truth may be difficult for people to accept or to embrace. I’m also part of a tradition that believes that sinners come to salvation through the proclamation of the Scripture. So if we have a concept of sin and sinner, at some point, we have to be truthful about that to give people the opportunity to be transformed and changed.

Rev. WILEY: If one wants to understand the Bible, we must not just selectively take a few passages of Scripture that seem to support our own preconceived notions and try to base our argument on that. I think we need to look at the whole Bible, and we need to look at what I could call the character of God.

LAWTON: The theological debate has taken on new political significance as battles over gay marriage heat up at the state and federal levels. Activists on both sides of the issue see the black church as an important potential ally.

Dr. FRANKLIN: I think a lot of groups from the conservative evangelical camp to very liberal pro-same-sex marriage camps are both trying to enlist the moral authority of the black church on their side.

LAWTON: Black churches led the march for civil rights in the ’50s and ’60s, and gay rights advocates see this battle as a logical extension of the movement.

Rev. WILEY: To me, it’s a bit hypocritical for us — as African Americans who have been the victims of so much hatred, racism, bias, prejudice — for us then to turn around and to deny the opportunity for equal rights to any other oppressed community.

LAWTON: Nigel Simon and Al Williams had their union blessed in a religious ceremony six years ago. They say if marriage had legal status in their home state of Maryland, they would seek it, primarily for family benefits.

Mr. SIMON: Right now, when we adopt children, we have to do two separate processes to get it done. It’s separate, but unequal.

LAWTON: But many African Americans reject comparisons between the civil rights movement and advocacy for gay marriage.

Bishop GILBERT THOMPSON (Black Ministerial Alliance of Boston): It offends me that the proponents of same-sex marriage are trying to incorporate discrimination language in their argument. As an African American, I know something about discrimination. I was born black! It was not a decision on my part.

Rev. SANDERS: Any sexual activity involves some level of choice. What African Americans have faced historically has been on a whole different level from what people have faced historically because of their homosexual practices.

LAWTON: Opponents are also trying to make the case that legalized gay marriage will further erode the already fragile black family.

Dr. FRANKLIN: Black churches are feeling the pressure of having lost so much ground in building strong marriages and families that many feel they have to draw the line here. I think many feel overwhelmed by this burden to build stronger families, and so they are impatient with the demand to acknowledge equal rights to homosexuals.

LAWTON: Nigel and Al are trying to adopt more children. They say they’re building up the black family, not tearing it down.

Mr. SIMON: These children don’t have anyone to love them. They don’t have a home. And we’re saying, “We’re giving them a home.”

Mr. WILLIAMS: How can we destroy a family unit when half of the marriages that are in the heterosexual community end in divorce in less than 10 years? So who are you kidding? We’re not the enemy here.

Bishop THOMPSON: The massive evidence from social science research shows unique benefits to society and especially to children of a wedded mother and father.

LAWTON: Political coalitions are already forming over the issue. Republican congressional leaders have held press conferences with prominent Democratic black clergy who support a gay marriage ban. However, most African Americans are Democrats who tend to vote more on economic issues than social ones. Still, activists on both sides will be mobilizing black churches to be a force on Election Day. At least 11 states are likely to have anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballot in November.

I’m Kim Lawton reporting.

Stephen Baldwin Extended Interview

Posted on May 7, 2004 by Michael Bailey

Read more of the R&E interview with actor Stephen Baldwin on evangelism:

The DVD LIVIN’ IT is, first and foremost, an outreach tool created with my partner Kevin Palau, who is the son of Luis Palau, who is a very well-known and very successful international evangelist. He’s not as well known here in the United States. He’s kind of a Latin Billy Graham. The goal with LIVIN’ IT was to create content that would share views and perceptions of the subculture of skateboarding and BMX biking and those participants and their faith. The athletes involved in LIVIN’ IT are Christians, some of them very successful. One of our BMX riders is Bruce Chrisman, who was the gold medalist at the 2001 X-Games, and the gold medalist at the 2003 Latin X-Games. So we’re not talking about just a bunch of Christian skateboarders and bikers who are these obscure guys nobody knows about. These are some pretty successful guys.

The birth of LIVIN’ IT was in March 2003 at a big event that Palau put on in Fort Lauderdale, Florida called BeachFest. I attended this function, and there were 300,000 people on the beach in Fort Lauderdale over two days, a regular type of rock concert situation with TobyMac and Third Day and Mary, Mary and Jump Five and all of the premier Christian music groups. But down the beach a little bit, they had built this amazing 10,000-square-foot skate park. And it really kind of blew my mind for the first time to see these tattooed, pierced, edgy skate culture guys who loved God, were very strong in their faith, who in their own kind of cool way were this new wave of these Jesus freaks that are coming. You’ve got to be careful when you say that phrase, “Jesus freak,” you know what I mean, because within Christianity, for those who understand the word of God, it’s positive. But those who don’t understand it can sometimes be a little frightened by it.

It just blew my mind to be there on the beach in Fort Lauderdale and watch 3,000 little kids standing around the skate park, in bleachers, probably most of them nonbelievers. It was just a free event, a free concert. For kids, if they see a talented skateboarder, they’re going to watch. For me, it was fascinating that these kids were totally focused on these guys. And these guys would bang out an awesome trick, stop, somebody would hand them a microphone, and they’d start evangelizing the gospel. So for me, just the whole thing blew my mind. But first and foremost, to see guys who lived their life for God and Jesus and were very seriously committed Christians, to be demonstrating the fact that they could still be who they were, and they could be these edgy guys, living a skate lifestyle, but still be faithful. You know, not smoke, not drink, not cuss, not be sinning, so to speak. Just absolutely floored me. It was just awesome. And the thing that was so neat was, on a psychological level, what was fascinating to me was here were kids, three, four, five, right on up to 25, standing there, and I’m watching them, and I’m watching the expressions on their faces while these guys are talking to them about the Bible and God, and they’re interested. That was the moment for me that really clicked. I pulled Kevin Palau aside and said, “Luis Palau is awesome, he does great work around the world. But do you see what’s going on over here with these little skaters? You know, this is the future, this is really the future.” That coupled with the fact that in my experience in the Catholic Church growing up I felt like, and I still feel like, with all the evangelism going on in this country, I really believe that there’s a younger generation that really isn’t prepared to carry the torch, so to speak. We’re not engaging the youth of America in a way that they can hold onto long-term. There are statistics that support this. For me, that’s not the case with everybody. There are amazing young Christian organizations — Ron Luce and Acquire the Fire and Teen Mania and so many other organizations. There are a lot of young, exciting Christian youth organizations. But even those guys aren’t completely reaching this huge mass of America’s youth, because there isn’t content — things out there like video games, a 24-hour music channel that is going to be able to get their attention, but with the gospel, and the Bible, and God.

LIVIN’ IT was simply: How can we take this skate culture and create an outreach tool that is edgy, doesn’t have that cheesy Christian thing that everyone complains about. Let’s make something new, let’s do something really cool. …

It’s not my message. This isn’t Stephen Baldwin doing this. Stephen Baldwin became a born-again two years ago. And Stephen Baldwin went into the biggest Christian bookstore he could find. And some of them are pretty big. And I went, “Hey man, what’s up, guys? I’m a believer and show me all the really cool Christian stuff.” And the Christian employees of that Christian bookstore started laughing. And I was like, “What’s so funny?” And they were like, “Well, there is no really cool Christian stuff.” And I sat there and I said, “That doesn’t make much sense. There’s Christian billionaires. Eighty percent of the country’s Christian. Where’s all the really cool Christian stuff?”

It’s my understanding now, based on my experience in business, that most Christians don’t put their faith before their money. That’s the reason why there isn’t a lot of cool Christian stuff. Whenever there’s a potential Christian opportunity for business, the first question any Christian investor will ask you is, “How do I get my money back?” And the reason I love Luis Palau is because this is a guy who is completely all about evangelism and reaching people and the lost with the gospel. The message for me, for LIVIN’ IT, wasn’t about Stephen Baldwin the guy who makes movies and Celebrity Mole and all this stuff and what he thinks about the Bible. It’s not about that. I saw an opportunity to take skateboarders who were hard-core believers, who want to reach skateboarders and the youth and BMX bikers, and I wanted to focus on them. That’s what LIVIN’ IT is. LIVIN’ IT is a demonstration of extremely talented athletes who love God, who want to share that experience in a DVD, showing their talents and their tricks, and then in many of the bonus features is their testimony. Just like that day on the beach in Fort Lauderdale, I thought that there might be a really cool opportunity to have the main feature of the DVD just be a regular skate video. Let it be this cool thing with awesome tricks that little kids and a lot of adults are watching and loving. We set it to some awesome, new, edgy contemporary Christian music that people hear, and they go, “That music was Christian?” That was the goal, to create something very cool that the kids could watch and then explore the DVD, go to those bonus features, hear the testimonies, hear about what’s going on in the lives of these guys they admire and look up to, and then hopefully be touched by it.

The philosophy of utilizing the skate culture for evangelism was something that wasn’t my idea. Actually, 17 years ago, a skate pastor named Paul Anderson created something in Portland, Oregon called Skate Church. He was a skater, he was a Christian, he met some skaters who weren’t Christians, and he got an idea: how do I create a skate park affiliated with a church and use the skating as a way to start relating to these guys and then talking to them about the Bible? And so I give all the credit to him.

After that day in Fort Lauderdale I started researching, and on the Internet there were a bunch — you know, seven to 15 skate ministries. I started to say, “There’s something going on here.” There’s this really new edgy thing happening in relation to God and skateboarding. I just wanted to do my part in helping create more of an awareness for that. And for me, I think the thing that’s the most awesome aspect of that is, the new idea that’s fresh and effective and interesting is usually the one that’s going to become the most successful. I’m absolutely certain now that here in America you are going to start to see a wave in churches of skate ministries.

A lot of people don’t understand. In 2002, in this country, there was an observation that for the first time in America, more kids were actively pursuing skateboarding than baseball. A lot of people, a lot of Americans probably aren’t aware of that. Why? Baseball is on TV every day. But they don’t understand. More kids just want that piece of wood with the wheels and doing the tricks because they can do it alone; it’s challenging. That sport [is] being used as a way to get a hearing, get the attention from the kids. I wish this was around when I was going to church, because the best part for me is, they like it. We are positively reinforcing the gospel and the Bible and God with a sport they enjoy. I just think that anybody who is interested in wanting to communicate more about God and the Bible to their own children or any youth around them, a skate ministry and an outreach tool like LIVIN’ IT is an excellent way to do that.

I think there’s a big problem today in America with Christianity, and I don’t mean the existing problem of believers and nonbelievers. I think times change. And I think people need to change with the times. Technology changed with the times. Cars changed; everything around us changes with the times. And there’s the ongoing debate about: is the Bible real? What the Bible says is [that] the Bible is the word of God. And God’s a pretty powerful guy. You know, he created everything. So I think if he can do that, then he can keep his word exactly how he wants it. So anybody who debates that, you know, they have a choice: believe it or don’t. That’s what it says in the Bible, believe it or don’t. That’s what it says in the Bible. It says either you’re going to believe or you’re not. If you do, you get this; if you don’t, you go there. I’ve had one pretty direct confrontation. Somebody who was evangelizing on the radio said, “I don’t know about you guys, but the Jesus I know, if he were back here today, he wouldn’t by any means feel like hip-hop music could be used to spread his gospel.” I called that radio show. And I got on the phone with that evangelist, and I said, “Well, I’m Stephen Baldwin, and I make movies. And I love the Lord. And there’s an amazing hip-hop group called The Cross Movement. Sounds just as good as Puffy, just as good as Jay-Z, just as hard, just as slammin’, just as edgy, and they are all about evangelism and the ministry. Because God spoke to them, changed their lives, and now they want to share it with the youth through their music. And I think that’s wonderful. I think that’s going to give some inner-city kid maybe a chance to hear the word of God in a way they can relate to, that they never would have had an opportunity to do so if The Cross Movement didn’t exist.” My question to that evangelist was, “So if that happens, if the kid hears the word through the music and it gets him in the Bible and he becomes saved, aren’t you wrong?” And the guy said, “What’s the difference between that and somebody putting a Bible verse in a pornographic magazine?” I said, “The difference is, the editor or the owner obviously isn’t a Christian, is he? That’s the difference. These hip-hop guys are believers, and their message happens to be in this music.” I had fun proving that fellow wrong. But it’s not about that for me, honestly. I didn’t want to prove the guy wrong; I just didn’t agree with him.

There is this old regime of the Christian movement here in America that has done a wonderful job, has really spread the word, spread the gospel. But we can’t allow, in my perception, our traditions, which in the Bible are really looked down upon, to stop, literally, the potential of the gospel reaching the youth of America. A big part of what’s motivating me is, these kids don’t have a choice today. It really makes me sad that Grand Theft Auto, the video game, is, if not the number one video game in the country, it’s in the top five. It’s made so much money. This game is being played by five, six, seven, right up until 11 years old. In the game, you can solicit a prostitute, have sex with her, and beat her to death with a baseball bat. Number one game in the country. Now, I’ve been in some radical films: USUAL SUSPECTS, FLED, you know. I’ve done some things that, before I believed what I believe today — and obviously comparing those things to what I described isn’t even the same. But there are things that, if I could do them over again, knowing what I know now, believing what I believe, absolutely I’d have done them differently. Doesn’t mean I’m not going to be doing films in the future that have violence in them, as long as it’s not gratuitous, as long as I can be a part of films by my choice now, based on my faith, that are not gratuitous in their violence and language and sex, that have certain redemptive qualities — I’d love to do those films. But there’s a lot of young kids out there playing these games and watching MTV, which, quite frankly — MTV now probably more than 75 percent of the time depicts sex and money. That’s not what MTV was about when it first started. Why is that? Why does MTV only suggest the importance of making money and the power of money and sex? That’s all they do now. In the position that I am in, and with the opportunity that I have being in that position, I’d like to create some change in that regard. I believe that the Christian community is responsible for trying to create its own content, trying to reach these kids and give them an alternative to MTV and Grand Theft Auto. …

How can somebody like myself bang my drum, so to speak, and create more of an awareness of the importance of not relying on Hollywood? Don’t take your Christian idea to Hollywood. That’s like going, “Hey Jesus, I’ve got this idea, let me go ask the devil to help me create it.” You know what the devil’s going to do? The devil’s going to go, “Sure, buddy, come on in. Have a cocktail. Want a cigar?” He’s going to make you nice and comfortable, and he’s going to make you sign a contract that the end result won’t be what your initial intention was, I assure you.

I’m excited to create more awareness about the importance of giving the youth of America a choice. There’s a 24-hour music channel. There’s a 24-hour comedy channel. I believe there’s a 24-hour gay channel coming. Why isn’t there a 24-hour Christian channel that’s edgy and hip and cool and new and different, like all that other stuff? Makes sense to me.

Against my will, my evangelism has become very important to me. And when I say my evangelism, I mean I’m in, still, a pretty sensitive, interesting transition here. LIVIN’ IT, the skateboarding DVD, was something we originally created and we were thinking maybe 10,000 copies would get out there. Well, we finished the editing three or four weeks ago, and we already have a commitment to 50,000 DVDs that are going to go out. We anticipate another 50,000 before the end of the year. What’s really cool in my mind is, they like it. There’s obviously a desire and a need for it. I’m going to do everything I can to continue to push LIVIN’ IT and create the awareness of LIVIN’ IT and getting it out there as an outreach tool.

Rick Warren’s church in Southern California — he wrote THE PURPOSE-DRIVEN LIFE — has 24,000 members of his congregations. When we spoke, churches like that and other Christian youth organizations with larger numbers said, “We want to buy a whole bunch of the DVDs and get them out there, but we’re also interested in the skaters coming and doing a little demo and doing a two-day outreach, and could Stephen come and speak and give his testimony?” Early on in the process, when about 12 of these speaking engagements had been booked, one of the guys who works for Luis Palau came up to me and said, “So Stephen, look, we want to streamline and organize everything, and you’re busy, and we want to have as few glitches in the process. And we’re anticipating a lot more of these speaking engagements for you and your ministry and your evangelism …” And I said, “Whoa, whoa, whoa. I’m just Stephen Baldwin. Don’t ever call it my ministry or my evangelism. I’m not that guy.” And this really conservative Luis Palau guy who works for an evangelist let me finish, and he turned to me and went, “Steve, when you make a skate video about God and the Bible, and then you go around to churches and talk about it, and it’s in reference to Jesus, whether you like it or not, buddy, that’s a ministry.” I’ll never forget that exchange between me and that fellow. Right after it, I looked up and was, like, “What are you doing, what are you doing?” You see, it’s kind of unfair, because you really can’t fight God, because when he’s going to do something with you, he’s going to do it whether you like it or not.

I’m excited about my life today and the message I have for people, because I don’t hear a lot of people talking about their faith and God and the Bible, and I don’t hear them necessarily expressing their experience here in this realm in the world. Christianity for so long has been talked about — where will you spend eternity, and you have to repent, and you know, if you want to go to heaven. That’s such a big thought, and it’s been the one that’s been talked about so much. Yes, that’s important. But what it says in the Bible is, when you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and when, after doing according to the Bible what it says to do, the way the Bible says to do it, which is the way God says to do it, it says you’ll become baptized in the Holy Spirit, which is what happened to those folks on the day of Pentecost. And then they’re speaking in tongues and the gifts of the Spirit — a lot of supernatural, very powerful stuff. I don’t hear a lot of people evangelizing about that experience. What’s fascinating about my life today is, I am living those experiences. I am living and having supernatural experiences. A lot of people get really freaked out about that. I speak in tongues; I’ve been baptized in the Holy Spirit. Is it something that I initially didn’t understand and was a little freaky? Yeah. But when I opened my heart a little bit and said, “Okay, Lord, I’m willing,” he showed me. And that’s a big part of my walk that I like to share with people.

I was shooting a television series in Tucson, Arizona called THE YOUNG RIDERS for ABC. My wife is Brazilian, born in Rio de Janeiro, raised in New York City. Met her when I was 19. We’ve been together, married, 14 years, which in Hollywood is totally insane. But God was looking out for me. We hired this gal to come work with us after the birth of our first daughter, this very big, kind of tough 55-year-old Brazilian gal named Augusta. She was working around the house for the first week, singing every moment of the day. And in the chorus of every song was one word that you couldn’t miss: Jesus. She would sing in Portuguese, didn’t speak a lick of English, and my wife spoke Portuguese, and she would be singing, singing “Jesus.” After about a week of this, my wife and I got together and my wife says, “Did you notice that Augusta likes to sing a lot about Jesus?” And I said, “Yeah, I noticed that. Well, good for her, she probably needs it. God bless her.” After a week of this, my wife said to Augusta, “My husband and I noticed, and what’s up with that?” The woman burst into hysterics laughing. Like doubled over, keeled over, belly-laughing. My wife said, “I’m your boss. What’s so funny?” Augusta composed herself and said, “Forgive me. I don’t mean any disrespect, but I’m just very happy that you asked me this question. I’m a little charmed by the fact that you think I’m here to clean your house.” My wife said, “What do you mean?” She said, “Before I accepted the job in Brazil, I went to my church and prayed with my pastor and congregation, and it was prophesied — there was a prophecy that day — that I had to accept the job because the people I would work for would come to know the Lord Jesus as their savior and would eventually go on to have their own ministry.”

This was very interesting, and my wife came to me and said, “Guess what Augusta said?” You can only imagine who started laughing then. Augusta stayed with us for about three years; my wife started studying the Bible with her. Our second daughter was born. Augusta went to work with someone else. We moved back to New York. But the seed had been planted in my wife. And when we came back to New York, my wife started attending an extremely charismatic Brazilian church here in New York City. About three years ago she was officially baptized in water and said the sinner’s prayer and gave her life to the Lord. The year after that was probably the most — oh gosh, I almost really can’t find the words — spiritually, for me, and emotionally for me, and psychologically for me, it was an extremely powerful year because I watched my wife, my best friend. Every day she’d wake up and she would literally get down on her knees and put her face on the ground for 45 minutes. And wake up, get up, get in bed, and read Scripture for half an hour, every morning, every night. That’s three hours a day, every day, for a year. …

She never pushed it on me, never pointed a finger, never judged me. She did something — well, God did something in her that was very awesome. It was a demonstration for me of somebody who was having an experience that was real. What was happening in that 12 months was, slowly, I was becoming extremely curious about what that experience was. Because she wasn’t faking it, and it was a mighty powerful thing. I realized she wasn’t fooling, based on a couple of very interesting spiritual conversations that we had. In one of them, actually, she had expressed to me, “I love you, and I think we’re supposed to be together forever, but I need you to know that I’m going to live my life for Jesus Christ. Just so you know, if push came to shove and I had to choose him or you, you’d be gone.” … I felt like I was in a Clint Eastwood movie, and the problem was, my wife was Clint Eastwood. That’s kind of scary. But it really got the wheels of my mind spinning, going, “What is happening to her?”

That’s when I started to read the Bible and started praying myself and found a church that I thought was wonderful up in New City, New York. There’s a wonderful church called New City Gospel Fellowship. An amazingly humble and talented pastor named Carl Johnson. The church is rapidly growing. It was then I had made the decision that I really have to start getting serious about this. At that moment, 9/11 hit. Two planes flew into the World Trade Center and they fell down. And that was when Stephen Baldwin personally said, “Well, here’s a demonstration of something happening in my lifetime that, if you asked me beforehand, I would have said, never in a gazillion years could two planes turn left from Boston, hit them, and they would fall down. It’s never going to happen. Never, ever, ever could that happen, and I’m a pretty wild guy in my thinking.” But it did.

It really made me come to the realization that if something in my lifetime that I believed could never happen did, then couldn’t the translation potentially of something like that or that kind of a thought be, well if that could happen, then anything happen? If anything could happen, where am I in my life, in my beliefs, in my values, in my morals? If the World Trade Center could fall down because of [a] terrorist attack, Jesus could come tomorrow. That was the revelation I had. And for me personally, it was all God’s perfect plan for Stephen Baldwin’s life. But not to become some guy who’s, like, “Repent.” I’m not that guy. I’m the new guy that is going to bring it to people and bring it to the youth of America in a new way that stays true and righteous to the law, which is the word of God, which is found in the Bible. I’m excited about the doors opening and the opportunity of doing that in the future.

Randall Balmer Extended Interview

Posted on May 7, 2004 by Michael Bailey

Read more of Kim Lawton’s interview about evangelicals and evangelism with Randall Balmer, professor of American religion at Barnard College, Columbia University:

My sense is that evangelicals talk about doing evangelism a great deal more than they actually do it. I think one of the characteristics of being an evangelical is that you want to share your faith, or at least you feel you should share your faith or proselytize, bring others into the kingdom of heaven. And certainly that’s warranted in the New Testament. My sense, however, over the last 30, 40, even 50 years is that most evangelicals talk about doing that a great deal more than they actually do it. They tend to hire professionals to do it, so you have these large, particularly suburban churches, megachurches, or even churches that are not quite that large, who would have a visitation pastor or an evangelism pastor on their staff as a way of fulfilling that part of what it means to be an evangelical.

There’s not a whole lot of difference between proselytizing and evangelizing. I think that generally proselytizing has more of a pejorative connotation, and evangelicals talk about what they do as evangelism; they have evangelists, Billy Graham, Billy Sunday, a host of other evangelists who are active as full-time professional evangelists. They use the term “evangelism” more than “proselytization.” Besides, it’s easier to say.

I think evangelism’s always changing, and I think that’s the genius of evangelicalism throughout American history, is the way in which evangelicals have adapted to the cultural idiom, whatever that may be at any given time. In the 18th century you had George Whitefield coming with the Great Awakening, doing open-air preaching, very persuasive rhetoric; he [was] somebody who had been trained in the London theater and so he understood the importance of dramatic pauses and contemporary settings. He could bring tears to your eyes simply by saying “Mesopotamia,” he was that riveting a preacher. In the 19th century you had circuit riders; later in the 19th century you had coal porters who rode on the trading lines bringing gospel tracts and Bibles to western territories. In the 20th century you had the great urban revivalists, beginning with Billy Sunday and later with Billy Graham and so forth. So evangelicals are always crafting their message and using the media with extraordinary success in order to bring their message to the masses. I think what’s happened in the last 30, 40 years is that evangelicals have in many ways fine-tuned their message. The suburban megachurch, of course, is the great paradigm for evangelical adaptability to the larger culture, and learning how to speak the language of the suburban corporate culture in the case of Willow Creek, or speak the language of the hippie Jesus movement culture of the early 1970s with Calvary Chapel, and there are many other examples, but, again, evangelicalism has been masterful at adapting its message to the surrounding culture.

In the case of Willow Creek, they recognized that they were locating this new church, new in the mid-1970s, in a suburban context. So they speak the language of the corporate culture all around them. Willow Creek is often looked at as the great example of cultural adaptability. In the mid-1970s when Bill Hybels began the church, he did a door-to-door market research survey to find out why suburbanites were staying away from church. And then he proceeded to design a church in order to overcome their objections. He found, for example, they didn’t like religious symbols — no crosses, no icons — anywhere in the church. The building itself looks like a corporate office park or even a suburban shopping mall with a food court. Willow Creek is just one example of that, but evangelicals have been trying to adapt to the language and the idiom of the larger culture around them.

Evangelicals have probably been a little bit slower than others to pick up on the Internet, although more and more they’re catching up. Throughout American history, however, evangelicals have used communication technology quite effectively, beginning with radio in the early part of the 20th century and later with television and so forth. Aimee Semple McPherson was the first person to own a religious radio station. They’ve been masterful — Charles Fuller with the old-fashioned revival hour, Billy Graham with his various innovations in communications technology. I think the Internet has been picking up for evangelicals; almost every congregation you can imagine has its own Web site, and they’re jumping on the newest technology as well.

Evangelicals understand that the message is what is important. The vehicle for communicating that message is quite pragmatic, and they’re willing to try a lot of things. One of the reasons for the success of evangelicalism, if you compare it, say, for example, with mainline Protestantism, is that evangelicalism is always looking for novelty. It’s looking for innovation, always looking for the latest edge in communicating to the larger public. In more tradition-bound religious movements, whether it’s Presbyterianism or the Episcopal Church or something like that, you have liturgical rubrics, you have centuries or at least decades of tradition, and people are reluctant to countermand that tradition. Evangelicals have no problem with that. They’re always looking for the latest means to communicate with the public, whether it’s praise music, whether it’s Internet, whether it’s mass communications of one sort or another, and they’ve been very successful.

Most of the reservations about translating the gospel into popular forms come from the academy, the intellectual class within evangelicalism. They worry about that sort of thing, and I think they’re right to worry, because very often the gospel can get translated a little bit too much into the idiom of the culture. In the 1980s you had a really good example of that, with the popularity of the so-called prosperity gospel or prosperity theology. This was the decade of Reaganomics, with the Reagan administration and its economic policies that really were quite unabashed about self-aggrandizement and every boat is going to rise with the tide and that sort of rhetoric. Evangelicalism latched onto that, and that’s one of the reasons why it was so popular in the 1980s.

The day for the popularity of hellfire and brimstone preaching probably is past. It was popular in the 19th century and the earlier part of the 20th century when people really did have an innate sense that the world was a dangerous place, that there was eternal punishment. These days I don’t think Americans feel that so acutely, so it’s a message that doesn’t resonate quite so clearly. But even as far back as the 18th century, Jonathan Edwards is often cited for this famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” which is really a hellfire and brimstone sermon. But it was very atypical of his preaching, and throughout American history, evangelicals have quite rightly emphasized the grace of God rather than the anger and judgment of God, and I think that’s what the gospel is all about.

To some degree there has been a lessening of urgency about the spiritual, eternal fate of individuals. A lot fewer Americans generally, and certainly a lot fewer evangelicals as well, believe in eternal damnation and eternal hell and perdition, separation from God. They are much more willing to emphasize the paradise, the rewards of the faith. I think that fits in with the therapeutic culture that is all around us. We don’t talk much about sin any longer in the culture, and you don’t hear it much from evangelical pulpits. When I was growing up as an evangelical 30, 40, almost 50 years ago, I heard a lot of hellfire and damnation sermons, and I don’t hear it that much anymore.

One of the most striking things about the RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY survey is the high number, 84 percent I believe, of evangelicals who believe that being born again or having a personal relationship with Jesus is the ticket to heaven. But if you turn that question around or ask it in a slightly different way and say, “Do you have to have that experience or that credential for entering the Kingdom of Heaven?” far lower numbers were willing to say that. I think that’s probably a function of theology informing their theological responses to that particular question, but if they are forced to turn that around and apply that principle to their neighbors, to their friends and people they know from school or work, whatever it might be, I think they’re much less willing to say those folks also are condemned to damnation. It’s a natural response in some ways; you have these beliefs in the abstract, but if you really are forced to apply them to individuals, it’s a lot less comfortable for them.

Pluralism is a huge challenge for evangelicals. It comes at a time in the late decades of the 20th century when evangelicals really had become fairly complacent about their faith. One of the characteristics of American society is that the First Amendment set up a free market for religion, and you had all these religious groups competing with one another for popular followings. Evangelicals had to compete in that marketplace as well throughout the 19th and into the 20th century; even though they had a hegemonic hold over the religious landscape, they still had to compete somewhat. By the middle of the 20th century they had become fairly complacent about their role in society. Changes to the immigration laws, beginning in 1965, suddenly did change the complexion, quite literally, of religion in America. Evangelicals were unprepared to compete in that marketplace in the way they had in the past. The response generated by that was, politically, the rise of the religious right, which effectively tried to turn back the clock, tried to reintroduce evangelical Christianity as a kind of hegemonic expression of faith for the entire culture rather than compete in that marketplace. I think that’s a mistake. I think evangelicals need to understand how to compete within a religiously pluralistic environment rather than impose their principles on all of society.

Any person has a right to tell someone else that, “My religion, my faith, is better than other faiths.” But in a pluralistic culture, where we value discourse, we value freedom of expression, I think the other person ha[s] the right to disagree, and very often those sorts of discussions do take place. The real danger for evangelicalism is in trying to impose its religious values on the larger society, whether it’s posting the Ten Commandments in the Alabama judicial building or trying to prescribe some form of prayer in public schools. I think that is a mistake, because religion has flourished in this country precisely because the government has, for the most part at least, stayed out of the religion business. Once you begin to specify or to codify religious beliefs or behavior, I think you kill it.

We’re living in a moment where everyone is trying to understand the ground rules, and the ground rules have changed because we are in a pluralistic environment, arguably for the first time in American history, with the possible exception of the 17th and 18th centuries, long before the American Revolution. We’re living in a multicultural, religiously pluralistic context. We all have to figure out how to operate within that context. What is the appropriate form of discourse with someone else? How can I disagree with someone without being disagreeable myself? We’re all trying to find this language, and I think as a culture we’re looking for a common moral vocabulary which right now is eluding us. We haven’t come there yet. We’re looking for a way to talk about values and ethics without drawing on the language of one tradition in particular to the exclusion of all other traditions. And that’s a very difficult conversation to have. How do we talk about morality, how do we talk about ethics in a multicultural context in a way that does no violence to any one group within that multicultural environment? It’s very difficult. That’s the challenge facing us in the 21st century.

There’s no question that there’s been an overreaction on the part of some groups, liberals or secularists or humanists, whatever language you want to use, that have tried to be defensive and even to quash evangelical or more explicitly religious rhetoric in the larger meeting place of cultural discourse. But that’s an overreaction, and we are as a culture still groping toward common ground for discourse in this multicultural context.

Lifestyle evangelism has been effective on the part of evangelicals, and I don’t think it’s necessarily a cop-out. I don’t think it’s disingenuous. If you go back to the New Testament, that’s the kind of evangelism that Jesus himself did. Jesus was incarnational in his approach to the gospel. As an evangelical myself, I would feel much more comfortable with that sort of approach to spreading the faith, rather than preaching it over the airwaves. I’m not criticizing those who do, but it seems to me that incarnational approach to the faith and toward spreading the faith is much more consistent with the style that Jesus had in the New Testament.

Evangelicals are always struggling with exactly what’s appropriate: Should I be explicit about my faith? Should I simply live out my faith? At what point do I move from one stage to the next stage? That’s always going to be a struggle. But living one’s faith is essential to what it means to be a person of faith in a multicultural context. The New Testament calls on us to preach the gospel. If you believe that preaching the gospel means, “I live in a certain way, I hold myself to certain standards of propriety, I live my life with a great deal of integrity; that’s how I’m going to live my faith in this alien world,” then that has a certain legitimacy to it, that has a certain integrity that I honor.

Evangelicals would be hard pressed to draw a distinction between the two. Certainly, an evangelical would feel bound to communicate the faith in whatever way, in an incarnational way or through proclaiming the gospel in one way or another. The general understanding would be that having communicated the faith, it would have a generally ameliorative effect on the broader society and the people with whom you come in contact.

The biggest challenge facing evangelicals is how to communicate their faith. What are the ground rules in a multicultural context? What is appropriate for me as an evangelical making faith claims for myself or for my tradition, listening to others, trying to find a balance in that dialogue that would do no violence to the other and allow the other to be heard, but at the same time representing the faith, my faith, with integrity as Jesus would? We’re still struggling with that. It’s a big challenge in the 21st century in this bewildering multicultural environment.

CONNECT WITH US
Learn More
Providing Support for pbs.org
What's New

Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly

Author Archives: Michael Bailey

Muslim Converts

Election 2004: Ethics of Foreign Policy

Episcopal House of Bishops

Executing Juveniles

Black Churches and Gay Marriage

Stephen Baldwin Extended Interview

Randall Balmer Extended Interview

CONNECT WITH US

What's New