Katherine Stewart’s book, The Good News Club, is the kind of smart, in-depth reporting that makes you want to scream at the text while you are reading it–not because it’s bad, but because you can’t believe you haven’t heard about the issue before now.

Ms. Stewart uncovers a virus that is invading the public school systems. No, not MRSA or chicken pox. It is the Religious Right, a group which is becoming increasingly entwined with America’s public schools–notably our elementary schools where children 10 and younger are unable to distinguish between curricula sponsored by the state and that promoted by a group with a religious evangelical agenda.

A group with the unassuming name, The Good News Club, comes to schools offering to teach religion as nondenominational. Given this spin, school boards and parents accept the entree of these groups into their school believing it is an opportunity to expose children to religion as an anthropological, sociological or historical area of study. But, this is not the case. In fact, The Good News Club is part of an evangelical mission that stoops to “faith-based bullying”, leading to angry splits among what had been harmonious communities.

So how do these openly faith-based groups invade the very secular institution of the public elementary school? Stewart pegs this to a Supreme Court case Good News Club v Milford Central School, which equated religion with free speech. In so doing, a loop hole was created whereby if a school opens its doors to any outside organization, it must also allow religious organizations the same access.

Stewart cites a number of issues as it relates to this situation, which are too numerous to outline here. However–and this is the most compelling take-away–the entree of religious teaching in public schools hits at the core of the First Amendment. We do not have a state sanctioned religion, and we do not want one in the future. Unfortunately, if groups like this go unchecked, Stewart believes that may very well be where we are heading.

This past Sunday, The New York Times ran a story about Rev. A. R. Bernard.

I was drawn to the article, in part, because of the call-out quote. It said, “A Brooklyn church with more than 30,000 members is run with corporate efficiency. And the pastor has the mayor’s ear.” This caught my eye because we don’t usually think about megachurches being in New York City, but of course there are a number of them. Then I wondered, “Why don’t we hear about this church like we do Joel Osteen’s Lakewood or Rick Warren’s Saddleback?” In part, this may be because the Christian Cultural Center (CCC) is a predominantly African American church run by an African American pastor. While President Obama broke the color barrier for the presidency, the same is not yet true about the visibility of black pastors versus white ones. Sure we see Creflo Dollar and T.D. Jakes, but were they asked to the inauguration? Are they on Time’s list of most influential people or do they sit across the desk from Larry King on a regular basis? (Okay, T.D. Jakes was endlessly on Dr. Phil, but that’s because they were developing a new show for him.)

The lack of visibility could be attributed to African American churches — even megachurches — being fundamentally different from their white brethren. They aren’t all in the South, and they aren’t traditionally as conservative. When you aren’t controversial, you don’t get the media attention.

In the case of CCC, they use noncontroversial megachurch characteristics such as using Disney consultants (who Pastor Bernard switched to after first reviewing the sales manual for Amex) and small groups, but shy away from contentious characteristics like prosperity preaching. This has been a recipe for success and growth, which is what is most important because size is what leads power and ultimately to the ear of the powerful.

Perhaps, then, it doesn’t matter that these churches have not been in the spotlight and, perhaps, that is changing.

While I’m in the middle of the end of semester madness, I had to stop to comment on this whole Rick Warren issue.

It reminds me of the famous line that Jay Leno asked Hugh Grant after he got caught with a hooker, “What were you thinking?” which, of course, is said with the totally incredulous inflection that only Leno can do. Okay, repeat after me, “Obama, what were you thinking?!?!?!?”

Inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration was a lose-lose idea from the start and that’s being reflected in all the punditry. The Left can’t stand Rick Warren, well, because of his obvious conservatism (and the fact that he’s compared gay marriage to things like incest and pedophilia); the Right isn’t really please with him either because he does things like let Barack Obama speak at Saddleback even though Obama supports abortion.

I realize that Rick Warren has been dubbed “America’s Pastor,” but let us all remember that we are dealing with a marketing message here and not reality.

The other morning I was reading Ladies Home Journal, a publication that I confess I do not like but I peruse because of my interests in media and advertising. By way of background, LHJ is a very conservative women’s magazine. Even while it tries desperately to come into the 21st century after 125 years of existence, it feels still in many ways like a publication out of the 1950s. (To their credit, they are obviously doing something that appeals to a large number of women. LHJ has a circulation of 4.1 million readers. To put that into perspective, that’s almost half a million more readers than People magazine and almost twice as many readers as O, The Oprah Magazine.)

Rick Warren of Purpose-Driven Life fame writes a monthly column for this publication. It is usually about God or being a better person or something along those lines. This month’s column is called What Makes a Great President?

I have issues with this article on a number of levels. First, the article’s subhead is “For women who want to vote with their heart.” Since when should our heart be the organ that is used to decide who to vote for? Is this publication suggesting that only women vote this way or that they should vote this way? Are they suggesting that women vote with their hearts, but men vote with their brains? While I am aware from studies that in the final analysis when people are standing in the booth it does ultimately come down to a gut decision, but is that where the process should start? Is that what a major women’s publication should be espousing during this critical election?

Second and even more offensive is the language that is coded into this text. Remember, Rick Warren is the pastor that held the Saddleback Civil Forum. This forum was the first long form interviews with the two presidential candidates after they were selected by their respective parties. Because of this, he has become a powerful influence in the political process.

During the forum, Pastor Rick (as he is known) went out of his way to say that he was friends with both McCain and Obama. Yet, in this article which will be read by millions of women and presumably passed on to their husbands, Warren shows that he is partisan toward McCain. The column says in part:

The foundation of leadership is not competence or charisma, but character. Charismatic people are often assumed to be the best leaders, but it’s a trait that can be used for good or evil. Three of the most charismatic leaders of the 20th century — Hitler, Mao, and Stalin — were also its worst, destroying the lives of millions. Without character, charisma becomes a menace, used to manipulate situations for selfish reasons. Whether leading in business, education, politics, or family, character always trumps charisma.

Charisma is the term that has been used again and again to describe one candidate and one candidate only in this campaign — Barack Obama. Not only does Warren use the term over and over to ensure people get the underlying code, he equates the word with the worst of history’s despots.

Since when did charisma become a bad word? According to the dictionary, charisma is “a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people.” More colloquially, charisma is sometimes defined as being filled with spirit. In Christianity, it is ascribed to someone who can perform miracles because they have been infused with the Holy Spirit.

Wouldn’t we describe the vast majority of our leaders as charismatic? Wouldn’t we describe the vast majority of our religious leaders as charismatic? Wouldn’t we describe Rick Warren as charismatic? Is he like Hitler? Or Mao? Or Stalin? I don’t think so. Though I do believe, like many others, that he wields more influence than he should and not all to the good.

Yes, the article goes on to say that a president should have compassion, contemplation, cheerfulness, concentration, courage, and a clear conscience. Certainly all of these things could also be applied to Senator Obama. However, the column is structured to lead the reader to be anti-Obama from the start — “don’t like this guy because he’s charismatic, even if he does have all these other attributes.”

Shame on Rick Warren, shame on Ladies Home Journal, and shame on their publisher, Meredith, both for being so deceptive and for treating women like they don’t have a brain. Please feel free to contact them.

I just saw a piece on CNN this morning that had me screaming at the TV screen. Evidently a number of churches “don’t want the government telling them what to do.” Well, that’s fine. Say whatever you want to say. Just give up your tax exempt status.

This, of course, led me to come up with the perfect solution to the bailout: If the IRS would finally enforce the laws on the books and revoke tax exempt status from these churches that endorse from the pulpit, I am absolutely convinced we would make a sizable dent in our national coffers.

I’ve noticed over the last several days a couple of quick pieces that tie Sarah Palin to the country’s largest megachurch pastors.

This Monday, Joel Osteen was on The Insider commenting on Sarah Palin’s daughter being pregnant. (Interestingly, the clip is not available online.) The “reporter” asked Joel who he was voting for and of course he didn’t respond. However since the story was all about Palin the viewer was led to believe that is his choice.

Similarly, there was a news piece about Sarah Palin calling Rick Warren on the phone. According to the Huffington Post part of their exchange included the following:

“The question I asked her was, “How can I pray for you? … She asked me to send her some Bible verses on how do you deal with all of the unfair, unjust attacks and the mean-spirited criticism that comes in.”

(Let me also note here that this piece appeared on television news broadcasts and not only on Internet blog sites.)

For those of you who have not read Brands of Faith, there is a chapter on religion and politics where I explain the behind the scenes maneuverings of America’s celebrity pastors. Rick Warren has a database of approximately 150,000 pastors. He readily used it to support George Bush in previous elections, reportedly telling pastors to tell their congregations to vote for the current president. (Something he’s allow to do in email, but restricted to do from the pulpit.)

While Osteen may not have a pastoral database (at least not one that I’m aware of), he does have a weekly live audience of 40,000+, a television audience of 7 million and large direct mail and online databases. Again, while legally he can’t tell someone who to vote for from the pulpit, he can suggest things like “I don’t agree with abortion,” etc. which can influence certain voting segments.

This ability to influence opinion as well as the ability to get out the base is what gives these men so much power. (If you don’t think that’s so, remember it was Rick Warren that did the first serious back-to-back interviews with the candidates immediately after they were officially nominated.) I only hope — should I say pray? — that Democrats have a megachurch or two up their sleeves.

I’ve been putting off writing about Sarah Palin because I needed time to get some perspective — something, unfortunately, the news media take little time to do.

Eve Ensler’s piece in the Huffington Post called “Drill, drill, drill” was helpful in wrapping my head around this woefully enigmatic choice for Vice President. She says in part:

I don’t like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.

But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story — connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.

What I find interesting about Ms. Palin from a religious perspective is that her faith seems to radical, so at odds with the direction that many churches are going — much of which is in line with feminist ideals. We’ve seen the greening of evangelicals. We’ve seen Rick Warren become increasingly involved in social issues (or maybe he’s just promoting them more). And, we’ve seen the rise in more progressive evangelicals like Jim Wallis.

So how come this over-the-top, super-conservative, gun-toting woman is appealing to the masses when it seemed we were moving in the opposite direction? People keep saying it’s because she appeals to conservatives, which I understand. What I question is whether those conservatives have a grasp on what that her beliefs consist of.

The reality is this. Sarah Palin’s faith, which has slipped through in her speeches (when they are unscripted), is an extremist one. I don’t use that term loosely, and you can read it as you will. She is a member of the Assemblies of God which the Wall Street Journal noted recently,

…espouse[s] core beliefs not widely ascribed to by major Christian factions. Many members pray in undecipherable sounds or “tongues.” The denomination’s Web site says some scholars believe that the “end times” foreshadowing the end of the world was confirmed in 1948, with the founding of the state of Israel, marking the Jews’ return to the Holy Land, fulfilling a Biblical prophecy.”

It’s one thing to see that in print, quite another to see it in action. Many of you might have seen the viral video from Ms. Palin’s church that was sent out via Alternet after it was pulled from YouTube. While I can’t vouch for everything that is in it, the link I provide does provide documentation about where the footage comes from. Even if only part of this 10-minute piece is true, it is disturbing.

As those of you who read this blog on a regular basis know I am a firm believer in supporting people of faith. It is not my job or my responsibility to tell others how to live their lives or convince them of what they should or should not believe. Unfortunately, I do not think that Ms. Palin feels the same way. Giving her the keys to the White House (even if it’s only the back door) is tantamount to letting the inmate run the asylum.

Today’s blog post got picked up by WIMN (Women in Media & News). Be sure to check out their site for some insight from a female perspective.

According to an article in today’s New York Post, Buffy, the Vampire Slayer is instrumental in 50,000 women leaving the church every year. This information is based on a new report by Dr Kristin Aune, a sociologist at the University of Derby. According to this work, Buffy introduces young women to Wicca, which holds a particular appeal to this group because of the empowerment messages for women within this belief system. This message is more appealing for this demographic than those provided by traditional religious institutions.

Surprise, surprise, the Post article is a bit misleading. Dr. Aune’s work is contained in an edited booked called Women and Religion in the West: Challenging Secularization.

This title suggests that similar to my own thinking, this work attempts to evaluate how faith is being practiced in new ways and not necessarily that there is horror at the decline in traditional church attendance (a fundamental aspect of secularlization theory). Much as I argue that faith has not disappeared, but rather is found and practiced in new ways, Dr. Aune seems to be suggesting the same ideas.

“Today’s modern woman sees more relevance in TV icons who promote female empowerment such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, than in church and traditional religion” (University of Derby Web site)

In digging a bit further, I found that Buffy is just one element in what Dr. Aune believes has contributed to the decline in church attendance. Others are:

* Fertility levels – women have fewer children and are not having enough children to replace the older generation lost from the church.
* Feminist values – feminist values began influencing women in the 1960s and 1970s. Feminism challenged traditional Christian views about women’s roles and raised women’s aspirations.
* Paid employment – At the beginning of the 1900s, a third of women were in paid work, now two thirds are in the labour market. Juggling employment with childcare and housework causes time pressures and attending church is one activity to suffer.
* Family diversity – compared to wider society, churches include fewer non-traditional families. Family forms which are growing such as singleness, lone-parent families and cohabitation are under-provided for and even discouraged by churches.
* Sexuality – The church’s silence about sexuality is driving women to leave, feeling that the church requires them to deny or be silent about sexual desire and activity.

When I first read the Post article, it didn’t make sense to me because the research seemed to fly in the face of other media and religion scholars, notably Lynn Schofield Clark’s From Angels to Aliens. Rather, this research furthers existing work including my own. I guess it should not surprise us that the Post went for the sensational rather than the informational.

I just finished watching the interviews that Pastor Rick Warren did with Barack Obama and John McCain. All the news stations carried it. Here is the link to CNN.

Here are some random thoughts on this event. Please feel free to add your own: