As you may know, Obama recently announced that, if elected, he would revive Bush “faith-based” initiative, supporting religious organizations in their community work and involvement.  This was done surreptitiously (or not so much) to invite Christian voters from the right.  One problem with Obama’s faith-based revivification plan is that faith-based organizations would be forbidden to hire employees who do not have faith.  We might call it the Faith-or-Not-Faith-Based Initiative.  Lew Daly at Boston Review explains that this one weakness will ensure Obama’s plan would be as ineffectual as Bush’s.

By restricting religious hiring rights, Obama’s faith-based initiative attacks the very thing it claims to be supporting. That is, it attacks communities. The Supreme Court’s greatest advocate for the poor, Justice William Brennan, explained this better than anyone in his separate opinion in Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos (1987), the case that established the constitutionality of faith-based hiring rights […] For government to restrict the criteria and discretion that religious communities use to define and maintain their identities threatens the very existence of religion, as Justice Brennan (correctly) understood it.

It’s nice to be reminded that the Supreme Court believes such things, and bad to be reminded that a presidential candidate doesn’t.

As President Bush wraps up his final year in office, he is receiving a record number of pleas from felons seeking clemency–including former track star Marion Jones and John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban. Thus far, Bush has only granted clemency 163 times during his tenure, as compared to Ronald Reagan’s 409 times and Bill Clinton’s 459 times.

In the midst of all these requests, legal analysts are wondering whether Bush will choose to grant pre-emptive pardons to officials involved in controversial counterterrorism program–in order to reduce the risk of a future administration launching a criminal investigation against them.

Some legal analysts said Mr. Bush might be reluctant to issue such pardons because they could be construed as an implicit admission of guilt. But several members of the conservative legal community in Washington said in interviews that they hoped Mr. Bush would issue such pardons - whether or not anyone made a specific request for one. They said people who carried out the president’s orders should not be exposed even to the risk of an investigation and expensive legal bills.

“The president should pre-empt any long-term investigations,” said Victoria Toensing, who was a Justice Department counterterrorism official in the Reagan administration. “If we don’t protect these people who are proceeding in good faith, no one will ever take chances.”

What’s your take?

Leah Daughtry is on a mission, and part of that mission is preaching barefoot.

[She] slipped off her stiletto-heel shoes at the House of the Lord Church in Brooklyn, stepped from a pastor’s chair to the pulpit and shouted, “I am on the rise!” She wore a long black tunic with gold buttons that ran from her high collar almost to the carpet. Her graying hair was shorn tight to her dark brown scalp. She always preaches in bare feet in order to “de-self,” she had told me, and to let God’s spirit and words rush through her unimpeded. “I am on the rise!” she erupted again.

The other part of that mission is being chief of staff to Howard Dean and chief executive of the Democratic convention next month.  So the Times wants to know, “Can Leah Daughtry bring faith to the Democratic party?”  I wonder, too.  The answer may be in statements like these, from Daughtry’s own mouth:

The right of self-determination is the concern. If I do all the right things, I will live a full and abundant life - this should be true. But it’s not. Something’s wrong with the equation. Americans may not call this liberation theology, but they have the sense that things aren’t fair.

I’ll agree with Daughtry that things aren’t fair and that something’s wrong with the equation.  What’s wrong is sin.  Not oppression of one class or race over another.  It’s oppression of ourselves by our very own selves.  What Daughtry is talking about - well, that’s faith, but it ain’t Biblical.  That’s faith in man, not God.  Faith that “if I do all the right things, I will live a full and abundant life” is to make the self divine.  Perhaps this is what most people think Christianity is, I don’t know.  But life is unfair.  It will always be unfair.

The lessons of Biblical faith would suggest that 1) nobody can do all the right things, and 2) having a full and abundant life comes from acknowledging #1, along with accepting on faith that God is who he says he is and that he has done and will do what he’s said he’s done and will do.  Oh, and the fact that “full” and “abundant” can only mean a life of full and abundant love and service.  Race might still be a problem in America, and in the world, and in human history, but it’s only a corollary to the Bigger Problem of sin and rebellion.  Can Leah Daughtry bring faith to the Democratic party?  Faith in something, but not God.  But perhaps that will be enough to give Obama a victory.

Earlier this year, evangelical leader Dr. James Dobson said he could not in good conscience vote for John McCain in the upcoming election. But now? “I never thought I would hear myself saying this,” Dobson says in a radio broadcast to air Monday. “… While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might.”

“There’s nothing dishonorable in a person rethinking his or her positions, especially in a constantly changing political context,” Dobson said in a statement to the AP. “Barack Obama contradicts and threatens everything I believe about the institution of the family and what is best for the nation. His radical positions on life, marriage and national security force me to reevaluate the candidacy of our only other choice, John McCain.”

Dobson’s “flip flop” is indicative of the “lesser-of-two-evils” quandary many evangelicals are debating this election year. And with poll numbers indicating an already close race, support from evangelicals like Dobson may give McCain the boost he needs come November.

Barack Obama is visiting Iraq today, marking the second major leg of his war zone tour that began in Afghanistan. Thus far, his trip has attracted widespread international coverage, which stands in stark contrast to the attention John McCain received on his recent and very similar trip.

The media fuss has left the McCain camp in a quandary, the International Herald Tribune reports. It says the Republicans seem unable to decide whether Obama’s visit to Iraq “is worthy of praise or an opportunity for payback for Obama’s unrelenting criticism of their own policy.” An AP headline sums up the surliness in the McCain camp at all the media attention Obama will get next week: McCain says he’s glad Obama is going to Iraq, sort of.

In an ABC News interview this morning, McCain–who had criticized Obama for developing his Iraq strategy without first revisiting the country–said he hopes Obama’s travels will give him an opportunity to see firsthand the success of the surge: “This is the same strategy that he voted against, railed against. He was wrong about the surge. It is succeeding and we are winning.” McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker didn’t mince words, however, when analyzing Obama’s travel plans: “Let’s drop the pretence that this is a fact-finding trip and call it what it is: the first-of-its-kind campaign rally overseas. It’s a giant photo opportunity.”

WORLD Magazine folks are prepping a feature section remembering the Summer of ’68. Were you there? The oldsters among us (I was a philosophical giant of 7 in 1968) are writing up memories of where we were in The Year That Changed America and humming “Abraham, Martin, and John” as we go. Where were you in 1968? How have the tumultuous events of that year shaped who you are today?

I’m sure some of you out there are a bit bleary-eyed this morning after catching a midnight screening of The Dark Knight last night. For those of you waiting until today, or later, WORLD’s Sam Thielman’s offers his take on the latest Batman flick, including the much-talked-about portrayal of the Joker:

The film’s early reviews have been gently quizzical about the late, lamented Heath Ledger’s magnetic performance as the Joker. It’s obvious that he’s doing a superb job, but nobody seems to know what he’s doing. Let me clear things up: He’s playing Satan. Ledger flicks his tongue like a snake, tempts people to kill one another, and is gleefully sloppy with bullets, bombs, and knives. Everyone else plays gangland archetypes; Ledger’s Joker has escaped to the movies from Milton, or C.S. Lewis’ Perelandra.

Sam also offers this warning for parents:

I should note here that I have been a film reporter for years and have no idea why, beyond the power of the Warner Bros. empire, The Dark Knight is rated PG-13. This is an R-rated movie if I’ve ever seen one—the violence isn’t particularly bloody but it’s disturbing. You may laugh at the occasional demented gag, but if you do, you’ll feel ill. Don’t take your kids. They’ll whine about it. Don’t take them.

Read his complete review here.

The Washington Post has crafted a devastating editorial on the “foolish consistency” of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama’s strategy allows no such linkage — his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

Ouch. The Post concludes that Obama’s message “is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome.” About time the MSM acknowledged that that has been the Democratic “strategy” all along.

It’s summer, and things are heating up, especially here on WORLDMagBlog. So it’s time for a not-too-subtle reminder of how you are expected to behave here on the blog. A year ago, Lynn Vincent posted the blog’s Rules of Engagement, and it would be difficult for me to improve upon what she laid out last July. So here they are, with just a few updates:

We here at WORLDMagBlog have grown fond of you all. But as much as it pains us, we will ban you, as many diehard rule breakers have learned. Here, once more, are the Rules:

1. Do not engage in personal attacks.
2. If someone attacks you personally (rather than attacking your ideas), do not return evil for evil. If in the process of attacking you, a person violates the rules against profanity, racism, or vulgarity, or you think their attack is serious enough to merit our attention, please send an email to [email protected]. (Note: A new address will be available soon to send complaints and will be posted in the “Contact Us” section of the site as soon as it is set up.)
3. If we perceive that a person is emailing us to point out every insignificant jot and tittle in order to get another person thrown off the blog, we will count it against the persistent emailer, so be sure a person has really attacked you.
4. Do not email us to say that someone attacked someone else. Let each person speak up for him- or herself if he or she perceives an attack.
5. In terms of banning/not banning, we will take into account that person’s history of being naughty/nice.
6. Recognize that on this blog, many of us have intrinsically irreconcilable ideological differences. This does not make us haters, bigots, homofascists, boy-lovers, Nazis, blind, ignorant, etc., etc. It means we subscribe to a different worldview. We are all thinking people, uniquely created by and for God. Most of us arrived at our worldviews through thought and study—MANY from the other side of the spiritual/political fence.
7. Members of the WMB staff would have coffee with any one of our liberal regulars in a second and disagree with every word that came out their mouths, but still enjoy having coffee with them. Someone suggested that we post as if we are having an in-person chat. That’s probably a good guideline, though we would add that the imaginary chat be in a very public place. That might mitigate some of our tendencies to be nasty.
8. We expect each of you to post comments with humility and respect.

Together, we have created something unique across the blogosphere—a place where people of different faiths and worldviews can come to discuss the issues of the day civilly, without profanity, and with most of us remaining friends at the end of the day.

Note that the entire WMB staff has ready access to “the scepter.” Please play nice. Thank you.

Addendum (3:16 p.m.): For future reference, these Rules of Engagement can now be found on the WOW/WMB About Us page.

The New York Times called it an “assault on Darwin.” The Louisiana Coalition for Science said it was an “embarrassment” and warned that it would attract “unflattering national attention.” Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State pointed out that “Louisiana taxpayers should not have their money squandered on this losing effort.” The ACLU’s Marjorie Esman threatened: “We’re known for suing school boards.”

On the other hand, it received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Louisiana legislature, with no senators opposing it and only three representatives voting no. And even some Darwinists agree with it. Self-described atheist Jason Streitfeld, writing in the American Chronicle, said it promotes “exactly what American students need: encouragement to think critically about controversial topics.”

So what’s all this fuss about? Reporter Mark Bergin explains in the current WORLD:

The Louisiana Science Education Act, which mirrors legislation receiving serious consideration in a handful of other states, protects the right of teachers and administrators “to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

In other words, the bill supports a more thorough examination of controversial topics, complete with scientific explanations as to why such areas of study spark controversy. Anticipating suspicions of ulterior motives, the legislation also includes a proscription against its misuse “to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.”

Read all of Mark’s excellent article here.