RELIGION

After a year in office, President Obama is coming under scrutiny from both left and right for his leadership. But so is Congress. The public's faith in it as an institution is not so great. And, for that matter, the public seems non-plussed with the leadership of large businesses.

We go through periods like this from time to time, so we may not be having a unique crisis in confidence. Still, the question about leadership -- and leadership styles -- is an important one. While the Psalmist warned about putting one's faith in princes, our society depends in part upon the ability of leaders to, well, lead our institutions.

Looking at your own faith traditions, and the stories that inform them, what models of leadership would you suggest for our political and corporate leaders? What examples would you recommend?

Read ahead for some interesting suggestions:

The American Psychiatric Association is proposing a new version of its manual that classifies various personality disorders. Quite a few disorders were reclassified. For example, the reviewers of the existing manual felt that too many children were being misdiagnosed with an early onset of bipolar disorder. So, they created a category called "temper dysregulation disorder with dysphoria."

We're not here to debate whether those categories are accurate or not, but the existence of so many disorders of the mind does raise a question with serious theological underpinnings:

The more we learn about the mind, the more it seems like it can predetermine our behaviors. Is that so? Or are we still primarily moral responsible for our actions, even with a genetic disorder?

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court opened the door for corporations and labor unions to contribute directly in support of political candidates. Some conservative Christian political organizations have been critical of federal limitations affecting their ability to campaign for a candidate by advancing a particular message before an election. As expected, Focus on the Family Action spokesman Tim Goeglein said his group is happy with the court's ruling.

"Organizations like Focus on the Family Action, the family policy councils, all of our allies-- this (Supreme Court decision) will give us an incredible voice in the great issues of our time," he said. On the other hand, liberal Sojourners founder Jim Wallis warned the ruling will just make it easier for the wealthy to dominate the debate.

But is there another way to look at this? Might all religious groups - conservative or progressive - now be freed of past restrictions limiting advocacy on behalf of a candidate they like? Churches can't support candidates, but why not faith-based groups - whatever their ideological stripe?

Here's the question: Should religious organizations view this ruling as an opening as well to engage directly in financial support of, and advocacy for, specific candidates?

Our panel of experts weighs in:

University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow, a Heisman winner, has prepared an ad that CBS has said it will run during the Super Bowl. Supported by groups like Focus on the Family, Tebow's ad will tell the story of how his mother decided to give birth to him despite medical complications that were severe enough that doctors recommended against it. Serving as a missionary abroad at the time, she returned home and went ahead and gave birth to him.

Some organizations, including the National Organization for Women, want CBS to pull the ad. They claim introducing the subject of abortion is political advocacy and doesn't belong in a Super Bowl telecast.

Here is the question for the week:

Should CBS pull the ad? Or keep it? Please explain your position.

President Obama goes up to Capitol Hill Wednesday night to deliver his State of the Union address. Of course, he does so having just suffered a serious setback in Massachusetts. He described the anger that fueled Scott Brown's victory as akin to the revolt that elected him president.

Whether he's right or not, we certainly are seeing swings back and forth in our political system. We're going through rapid movements between left and right, right and left. And that leads to this week's question:

Is there a defect in our social and political fabric that religion or religious leaders can speak to so that we can find more stability in our politics? If so, what are the defects and what message or messages can religious leaders deliver?

Nelson Mandela has formed a group called The Elders to address causes of suffering around the globe. One area that the council, which includes such members as Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu and Aung San Suu Kyi , has been looking at is whether religions oppress women.

In responding to this new organization, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently observed that:

Paradoxically, the churches in Africa that have done the most to empower women have been conservative ones led by evangelicals and especially Pentecostals. In particular, Pentecostals encourage women to take leadership roles, and for many women this is the first time they have been trusted with authority and found their opinions respected. In rural Africa, Pentecostal churches are becoming a significant force to emancipate women.

This week's question is two-fold:

Do you think religions are a factor in the oppression of women? If so, how? If not, please explain your view.

Also, is Kristol right? Are Pentecostals ahead of the pack in encouraging women to take leadership roles?

Fox News analyst Brit Hume said the other day that Tiger Woods should forget Buddhism and pursue Christianity as a way to redeem himself. Here's how Hume put it:

"The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Hume since has come under fire, with blogger Andrew Sullivan decrying his "sectarianism, " Columbia University professor Robert Thurman calling his remarks "insulting to Buddhism" and Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales writing that Hume's comment:

"Sounded a little like one of those Verizon vs. AT&T commercials -- our brand is better than your brand -- except that Hume was comparing two of the world's great religions, not a couple of greedy communications conglomerates. Further, is it really his job to run around trying to drum up new business? He doesn't really have the authority, does he, unless one believes that every Christian by mandate must proselytize?"

The back-and-forth continued with the Washington Post's Michael Gerson responding in a column that:

"The assumption of these criticisms is that proselytization is the antonym of tolerance. Asserting the superiority of one's religious beliefs, in this view, is not merely bad manners; it involves a kind of divisive, offensive judgmentalism.

But the American idea of religious liberty does not forbid proselytization; it presupposes it. Free, autonomous individuals not only have the right to hold whatever beliefs they wish, they also have the right to change those beliefs and to persuade others to change as well. Just as there is no political liberty without the right to change one's convictions and publicly argue for them, there is no religious liberty without the possibility of conversion and persuasion."

So, here's this week's question:

Was Brit Hume out of bounds in trying to persuade Tiger -- and others -- to convert to Christianity? If so, why? If not, why not?

We are not only entering a new year this week, but also a new decade. Fresh starts come with a sense of exhilaration but also a sense of trepidation. Wonderful possibilities are ahead in this journey, but so are unpredictable moments.

The concept of journeying into the unknown is a major part of many religious traditions, so here is the first Texas Faith question for a new decade and new year:

What does your tradition say about how we are to confront new periods in our lives? How do we deal with change, knowing what lies ahead is filled with risk and reward?

Read ahead to see what our panelists have to say.

Happy new year to all our Texas Faith readers. Thanks for being a loyal -- and passionate -- part of this discussion. We will return for business the week of January 4.

North Texas has been talking this fall about "Tinsel," Hank Stuever's non-fiction account of Christmas in Frisco. The Washington Post writer spent three consecutive Christmases in Frisco, chronicling the way the townspeople celebrate Christmas - this, as a window into how contemporary Americans observe the holiday. What he records is to a great extent a people who have allowed consumerism and an addiction to spectacle to overshadow the spiritual heart of the holiday. This is a familiar critique of American life - which doesn't, of course, make it untrue.

In this holiday season, we ask to what extent materialism compromises the meaning of religious holiday observance here (Christmas, Hanukkah, whatever your own faith tradition or what you see of others' traditions).

The question: Does materialism compromise the celebration of Christmas or other religious holidays? Can you point to examples of Texans being true to the spirit of the holiday?

Our Texas Faith panel weighs in after the jump:

In accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama delivered a complex speech in which he talked about both the need to expand our "moral imagination" and to understand that there is evil in the world and that there are limits to reason.

Here's an excerpt of what he said about expanding moral imagination:

"We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

"For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass."

Here's an excerpt of what he said about evil in the world and the limits of reason:

"I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."


Here's the question then for our panelists, a straight-forward one:

How do you evaluate his speech?

The routine has become almost predictable. Big-name politician or sports star gets caught cheating on his wife, confesses his "sin" and asks that people respect his family's privacy.

Of course, Tiger Woods is the most recent example of this routine. No need to go into details here. They are all over the newspaper headlines, TV news and the blogosphere. The only difference perhaps is that Woods refused to regurgitate all his personal transgressions before the TV camera, at least so far.

But he did issue a statement confessing his wrongdoing, even though days before he had been reportedly asking the woman he was supposedly having an affair with to help him cover up their relationship. Which begs the question: If his wife had not found out about it would he have felt so confessional?

We will never know, but there is a question here for people of faith to consider. And that has to do with the act of contrition. The late theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously lamented "cheap grace." He scorned easy confessionals that cost the sinner little.

Here's the question for our panelists:

How should we judge these confessionals we hear so regularly? Celebrities all say the right words. But how are we to know if they aren't just asking for "cheap grace?"

Jim Dale's spiritual memoir carries the subtitle "Rethinking Religion to Find a Faith That's Real." He'll be signing copies Saturday at Lee Harvey's, 1807 Gould Street, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.

We're getting close to decision time in Washington on health care, a topic that we have discussed on Texas Faith before. As that moment arrives, it's becoming clear that Congress can expand coverage for more people and offer more services, but the bills being presented won't stop health costs from rising. In fact, experts predict they will increase medical costs, meaning future generations will live with the problem of us now being able to have more access to health care.

New York Times columnist David Brooks touched on this when he recently wrote:

The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.

We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security.

So, here's the question of the week:

Should we prize security for more people now knowing that this bill will surely cost future generations in the end? Or should we sacrifice a present gain so our children and grandchildren will have a more secure future?

Read on for provocative answers from our panelists, including some who think this is a false choice:

Texas Faith panelists and moderators wish all our readers a happy Thanksgiving. We will return on Tuesday, December 1.

Caring for the poor, tending to the least among us and embracing the outcast are ethical ideals promoted by most major religions. And many people of faith practice them in quiet ways.

But how do those tenets apply in the real world. Late last month, Dallas County public health officials finally got some swine flu vaccine doses and set up a clinic where people without insurance could come get a shot. With H1N1 vaccines in short supply because of manufacturing delays, there have been long lines at clinics and doctors' offices where patients have been turned away.

The shortage means decisions have to be made about who gets their shots first. Which raises the question: Should public health policy give preference to the uninsured over those who went out and bought health insurance? How is that right? If it's not, then shouldn't those vaccines have gone immediately to clinics and doctors offices for the insured? But then, is that right? (The county has begun to send some of its vaccines to clinics. But the shortage remains.)

In a perfect world, there's enough vaccine for everybody. In the real world, there isn't. So the question is: Do you believe the religious injunction to care for the poor means give preference to the poor? Should the uninsured have been given preference over the insured in the distribution of H1N1 vaccines?

In posing the question, I was concerned is might seem to minor, too much of a stretch to merit attention. But the the answers (and occasional gentle chiding) from our Texas Faith contributors were interesting, thoughtful and eminently worth reading.

We had an excellent exchange last week about how to sustain a meaningful interfaith dialogue. But two days later, Fort Hood erupted with violence. An Army psychiatrist who was about to be deployed to Iraq took the lives of 13 people on the base and wounded 31 others.

The shooter, we've learned, is a Muslim. News reports claim he shouted "God is Great" when beginning his slayings. News reports also indicate that he felt harassed by fellow soldiers for his faith. Muslim leaders have strongly denounced his actions.

Perhaps we will learn more in the next several weeks about his real motives. But even if we learn the shootings had little or nothing to do with his faith, this event will undoubtedly create tension between American Muslims and those Americans who believe Islam is an inflammatory religion.

This is where interfaith dialogue gets hard. When religion is wrapped up in the story of such an atrocity, religious leaders need to step forward.

So, here's this week's question:

How can religious leaders -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and any other -- keep this incident from creating fear, tension and misunderstanding?

Read on to see what our panelists say.

We had a meeting of Texas Faith panelists last week, and the discussion was so good that some of us stayed around for an extra hour. The after-conversation that Joe Clifford, Lillian Pinkus, Amy Martin, Ric Dexter and I had led to this topic for the week:

In a world filled with too much religious tension, we often hear calls for more interfaith dialogue. Unfortunately, such discussions can lead to people suggesting that all religions are the same, which they are not. Or they can lead to one group shouting down the other. Neither is satisfactory nor gets us very far.

So, here's the question for this week:
How can we have an interfaith dialogue without it diluting the essentials of each faith and without it ending up in a Dallas Cowboys/Washington Redskins-type standoff?

Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas and Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth have joined their Texas colleagues in issuing the following statement about health care reform:

The storm over the Cameron Todd Willingham case has focused public
attention on the death penalty and stirred debate in the Texas governor's
race. Willingham was executed in 2004 for setting a fire that killed his
three children. He maintained until his death that he was innocent, and
evidence in the case presents a mixed picture. Several independent experts
have challenged whether it was arson. The governor and the prosecutor are
confident he was guilty.

In Texas, more than 400 people have been executed since capital punishment
was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976. Ours is the busiest death
chamber in the nation - and Texans overwhelmingly back the death penalty.
Polls indicate that nearly three-quarters of Texans support capital
punishment.

What is the moral dimension? Supporters say the question is not whether
the state is justified in taking a life, but when - for example, in
self-defense or in order to save someone else's life. There is the
argument of deterrence. And justice - "an eye for an eye."

Opponents make two arguments: 1) the death penalty is immoral and 2) the
death penalty is flawed because an innocent person could be put to death.

So here's the question: Is it moral to support capital punishment? Or are
Texans immoral because they support the death penalty?

The responses from our Texas Faith panelists are varied, provocative and well worth reading amid this political and faith-based debate:

Richard and Mayumi Heene may face criminal charges in the "Balloon Boy" incident of last Friday. Many believe that the couple staged the incident to gain publicity for their family; it has been reported that father Richard Heene has been trying to sell a reality show based around his family to cable TV networks. YouTube carries several startlingly obnoxious videos of the Heene boys, plainly staged and filmed by their father, in an attempt to market his young sons as rough-and-tumble scamps. (Go to YouTube.com and use "Hilarious Heene Family" as your search terms, if you want to see them.) In them, the children swear, behave like brats, and in one rap video not easily discoverable on YouTube, fart, pick their noses, and throw rocks at a, quote, "faggot." This, their father filmed and put on the Internet, in what looks like an attempt to promote his children's career as public personalities.

So, to this week's question, or questions: What does the Heene family and their Balloon Boy saga tell us about modern parenting? What should responsible parents should learn from their example?

Panelists' answers are below the jump.

The Waco Tribune-Herald has a fine feature obit on the Rev. Charles T. Wellborn, who had a number of distinctions in his long career, including leading Seventh and James Baptist Church in Waco to open its doors to all races in 1958.

The situation in Afghanistan involves two competing realities. One is that more Americans believe we should get out of that war, and the other is that there's a real possibility the Taliban could provide a safe haven for terrorists if we simply left.

The president is weighing these realities and trying to come up with a strategy. And here's another reality: His decision could be the biggest one he makes in his presidency.

Here, then, is this week's question:

What would you suggest to him is the moral path to pursue?

Some insightful answers from our panelist await you.

David Letterman dramatically confessed on his "Late Show" program that he had been the target of an extortion attempt having to do with sexual affairs he had with office subordinates. The Letterman affair -- or, so to speak, affairs -- has caused a lot of talk about the ethics of office romances, especially between supervisors and subordinates. We asked the Texas Faith panel this week:

If your friend confided that his boss's ongoing affair with a co-worker greatly troubles him, how would you advise him to handle the situation?

Answers below the jump.

The number of Americans who don't identify with any religion is growing. A new study by Trinity College suggests that more than one in five Americans will identify themselves as "Nones" in religious terms in 20 years (up from 15 percent now). Most would not consider themselves atheists. But they are increasingly skeptical of organized religion and clerics. They are, said one researcher, a stew of agnostics, deists and rationalists - and their numbers appear to be increasing.

Clearly, interest in religion is high. News magazines run cover stories. Megachurches are booming. Political campaigns target churchgoers as a valuable metric to win elections.
So why are fewer Americans identifying with a religion, denomination or particular faith group? Why are a growing number of people becoming faith-free? And if the trend continues, is it a matter of alarm?

Our Texas Faith panel weighs in after the break

The Billy Graham Rapid Response Team will be at First Baptist Church of Wylie on Oct. 3, to lead a program on crisis ministry training. Details below:

Pastor Ed Young has gotten a lot of ink and air time for his forthright talk - from an evangelical Christian perspective - about sex. He'll have a huge audience tonight when he and his church, Fellowship Church of Grapevine, host a "Nightline" debate on adultery.

The program airs locally at 10:35 p.m., on Channel 8. Click here for the "Nightline" Web site, which has posted segments from tonight's program.

Talk show host Glenn Beck landed on the cover of Time Magazine this week, after a powerful start as a Fox News host. Beck is most famous these days for his updated version of American exceptionalism and for promoting a fear that the Constitution is being undermined by a conspiracy.

It's easy for liberals to dismiss such thinking as more nuttiness or groundless anger on the right. But the New York Times' conservative columnist David Brooks also talked about people being afraid because of their economic insecurity, which is very real. And liberal evangelical Jim Wallis put out a letter saying to Beck that progressives share a fear about tomorrow, although he believes hope should overcome fear. Liberal columnist Jim Sleeper issued his own warning to progressives, saying today's anxiety goes far beyond race.

So here's this week question:

What constructive thing would you say to people who are afraid in today's world so they don't fall prey to demagogues?

Read on to see how our panelists respond.

The South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church, which includes North Texas, will move from 11 to 10 bishops in 2012. And one key detail of the downsizing was announced today by Bishop Earl Bledsoe of the Dallas area, who is president of the College of Bishops of the jurisdiction.

Nebraska and Kansas will become one episcopal area, meaning they will share a bishop.

Details (but not who's in and who's out) can be found in the press release below:

Erickson has worked with some of the biggest names in contemporary Christian music. The release party for her new CD is Sept. 26, at a church in Fairview. Details below:

A year ago this week, the nation walked straight into a frightening economic collapse. Lehman Brothers fell, and soon thereafter Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was meeting with bank executives around the clock to stave off further damage.

Amidst all this turmoil, the country learned in detail about the complex deal-making that financial houses engaged in, including unfathomable derivative trading. At the same time, we found out just how much Wall Street executives were making, including taking home big, big bonuses. After all was said and done, Americans were left looking at an economic system that many felt was driven by greed and even gluttony.

All this was playing out amidst a presidential campaign, where the religious left was talking mostly about issues like torture and the environment while the religious right was largely decrying abortion and homosexuality.

But who was talking about greed and gluttony?

Not many, which leads to this week's question:

Why is there such little dialogue in the religious community about greed and gluttony? They affect everything from our financial system to our health care, so arguably they are as important as torture and the environment and abortion and homosexuality.

In her new book, former White House speechwriter Peggy Noonan notes the toxic trend in our recent public discourse: "What we need most right now, at this moment, is a kind of patriotic grace ... a grace that takes the long view, apprehends the moment we're in, comes up with ways of dealing with it, and eschews the politically cheap and manipulative."

Look at the dustup over Barack Obama's telecast to school classrooms. It underscores how polarized we are, how public debate is too often a war - each side choosing sides and automatically assuming the worst motives of our opponents. The president is a socialist. Town hall meetings are shout-fests. Adversaries aren't just wrong, they're evil. Protesters carry firearms outside a presidential appearance in Phoenix to make a point about the 2nd Amendment (but oblivious to tragic aspects of our history). The president of the United States wants to address school children - and is pilloried as a result.

How did we get here? How did our civil debate become so uncivil? And as matter of faith, are the loudest voices in this fulsome, thoroughly American debate neglecting the Christian message of Paul who said we should respect authority and view our leaders as ordained by God?

Our Texas Faith panel of experts weighs in.

Dallas-based charity Buckner International has lots of programs, and one of the most popular is Shoes for Orphan Souls. The program just passed a milestone in donations. Associated Baptist Press has the story:

Brandon Pope, a Dallas area financial advisor, has written a book called "Spiritual Lessons from Wall Street." It gets a blurb from the CEO of Crown Financial Ministries.

Here's a press release:

Following the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, novelist Joyce Carol Oates reflected on the senator's role in the Chappaquiddick death of Mary Jo Kopechne in the fullness of the his life. Writing in The Guardian, Oates said:

Yet if one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?

The poet John Berryman once wondered: "Is wickedness soluble in art?". One might rephrase, in a vocabulary more suitable for our politicized era: "Is wickedness soluble in good deeds?"

This paradox lies at the heart of so much of public life: individuals of dubious character and cruel deeds may redeem themselves in selfless actions. Fidelity to a personal code of morality would seem to fade in significance as the public sphere, like an enormous sun, blinds us to all else.

This week, we ask our panelists to think about the two questions Joyce Carol Oates poses here, both implicitly and explicitly, in the context of Ted Kennedy's life. Namely:

1. Is wickedness soluble in good deeds?; and

2. To what extent should greatness factor into our evaluation of a public person's life?

A note to readers: we asked panelists to refrain from making a political judgment on Sen. Kennedy's life and career -- this is not a political blog, after all -- but rather to use his life and his death as a starting point for reflecting on these themes. Their responses follow the jump below.

Bishop James Stanton of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas has suspended a priest accused of financial misconduct. Click here for our colleague Brooks Egerton's story.

Despite the cries at town-hall meetings, the House's health care bill contains no "death panels" that would force end-of-life decisions upon elderly Americans. But the protests certainly have revealed a deep anxiety among some voters about the end of their lives.

Part of that is natural. No one wants someone else making decisions for them about how their days come to a close. Yet it also speaks to a heightened fear that many of us have about our mortality.

Texas Faith moderator Rod Dreher explored this subject in a paper he did for his Templeton Cambridge journalism fellowship this summer. He drew upon the writings of Orthodox theologian Jean-Claude Larchet, author of "The Theology of Illness." Here's an excerpt from Rod's work:

Larchet laments the way today's patient has become entirely dependent on physicians for deliverance from physical illness and related maladies. Paradoxically, despite the great advances medical science has made in treating illness, Larchet says patients today have fewer spiritual and psychological resources with which to cope with illness than their ancestors did. He identifies five factors in modern life in the West that put the patient at the mercy of physicians:

In Larchet's view, all this leads people to expect salvation from medicine, turning physicians into priests, kings and prophets - a role they did not seek, and which they are utterly unequipped. Orthodox Christianity brings to the holistic treatment of a sick person a philosophically ascetic orientation increasingly alien to the way we live and think in the modern West.

With that in mind, here's this week's question:

In thinking about health care, have we gotten to the point that we put too great a premium on our biological lives? As we have become more secularized, have we lost sight of the transcendent?

See what our panelists have to say:

Bishop Kevin Kanouse, leader of the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has written the statement below about the denomination's decision to accept gay pastors who are in committed, monogamous relationships. Kanouse voted against the resolution, but says he's staying in the church and urges others to do so.

I spent two months this summer as a Templeton Foundation journalism fellow in science and religion, attending Cambridge University seminars on various aspects of the dialogue, historical and contemporary, between science and religion. It was surprising for me to discover that the perception that the two are oil and water is fairly recent. Indeed, I met this summer on the program robust atheist scientists and academics, but also believers from Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism.

All thinking religious believers of whatever tradition understand that religion has to engage science in a serious way. There's no serious debate over that. But there is a serious discussion among scientists as to what, if anything, science ought to be saying to religion. Some, like the famed biologist Richard Dawkins, argue more or less that the only meaningful thing science has to say to religion is, "Sit down and shut up." But there are many others who are more open, but wary.

So, here's this week's question of the week for our panelists:

How would you make a case for mutual engagement between science and religion?

Answers below the jump:

Religious historian Randall Balmer's written a new book, "God in the White House," in which the Columbia University professor suggests we've moved too far away from John Kennedy's line that his faith would not have the final say in his political decisions. Balmer, who considers himself a liberal evangelical, worries that candidates in both parties are trying too hard to persuade voters that they are people of faith.

We don't need to go into the details of Balmer's book to know that the connection between religion and politics is one of the hottest topics around in American elections. Whether it's Barack Obama and Bill Clinton or George W. Bush and John McCain, candidates regularly trot out their religious credentials.

With that as the new reality, here's this week's question of the week for our panelists:

Has the connection between religion and political candidates gone too far? Or is it appropriate given that most major religions have a strong social component?

This week's question comes from our own Texas Faith panelist Amy Martin, and it certainly is appropriate given that we're still enjoying summer, a time many of us associate with play. Here it is:

We live in society where so much attention is devoted to work. But we're headed into August, the vacation month. What do your spiritual paths say about the role of play?

Read on, because there are some terrific answers from our panelists:

The debate over health care has revolved, perhaps appropriately, around cost, availability and the limits of partisan compromise. But is health care more than a political issue? Is it fundamentally a moral issue? And if so, does that mean that providing expanded - or universal - health care is a moral imperative, not just a programmatic choice?

Catholic social teaching says that just societies are those in which basic needs are met. For those who believe that health care is a moral issue, the question isn't whether it should be provided: a just society must provide it. For those who see health care as a policy issue, the status quo -- or any of the variations under consideration in Congress - are equally appropriate solutions, depending on our resources and our politics.

Here's the question: Is health care a moral issue? If so, doesn't that mean we must do whatever is necessary so that everybody has health care? For some thoughtful and provocative responses from our Texas Faith panel, keep reading.

For three days, members of a Senate committee pressed Sonia Sotomayor on her view of the law and how individual experience affects judicial decisions. And for three days, Sotomayor was careful to avoid political blunders that might derail her confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In large part, Sotomayor followed the model of other successful Supreme Court nominees: say as little as possible. Mostly, she expressed deep respect for precedent, for the rule of law and for setting aside personal views in deciding cases.

But is that realistic? Or even wise? Should justices who decide the most fundamental questions of our society actually set aside how their faith has shaped their world view? Clearly, judges must not impose a religious litmus test deciding cases. But do the lessons of a judge's religious tradition have any role in understanding - and deciding -- the issues of the day?

Here's the question: How should a particular judge's life experience - including the tenets of religious faith - inform judicial rulings?

The responses of our Texas Faith panel were both thoughtful and provocative.

Demographics are destiny.

Just ask those of us in the newspaper world, where we wonder if enough young people will turn to papers or some other version of what we produce.

Politicians think about demographics when it comes to projecting who will be around to vote for them and their party in a decade. That's why Democrats and Republicans alike have their eyes on the growing Latino vote.

Policy experts think demographics when it comes to projecting the needs of a state like Texas. One thing we know is our state is becoming poorer, older and more Hispanic, and those changing demographics suggest a set of policies.

What about religion? How do demographics shape the thinking of you who are in the pulpit, theology schools or the pew?

Churches like my own, a Presbyterian Church (USA) church, certainly wrestle with declining or stagnant numbers. I'm interested in hearing how each of you, from various traditions, deal with demographic changes, whether that's in terms of message, outreach or planning.

Here's what our panelists have to say:

Texas Faith moderators and panelists are taking a break this week. We will return for duty next week. Meanwhile, please join the conversation about our previous posts.

We are all about to enjoy the wonderful ritual of the Fourth of July. The ceremony honors many parts of our tradition as a nation, including our commitment to pluralism. Coming from different faiths and perspectives, we naturally like that.

However, there always is a tricky relationship between people of faith and the countries in which they live. So, here's this week's question:

How do believers both celebrate their country and use their prophetic voice to critique and reform their nation?

Read on for some illuminating answers from our Texas Faith panel and fo rsome great quotes from various traditions. I particularly liked the Frederick Buechner quote that Bill Lawrence included.

John Calvin's 500th birthday rolls around next month, and the theologian's influence will be observed in ceremonies and seminars across the country. Our own Texas Faith panelist Cynthia Rigby is participating in Calvin conferences in North Carolina and Russia this year.

If you only knew of Calvin's participation in a trial that led to a heretic being put to death, you would think he was a sinister figure bent on punishing his foes. Actually, he was one of the most influential theologians the world has ever known. His work on the sovereignty of God, for example, remains a bedrock of the Reformed tradition. What's more, his emphasis on empowering young Genevans to read on their own reflects the premium he placed on education.

Love him or hate him, 500 years later Calvin remains a force with which theologians --and the larger world --must grapple. And that leads us to this week's question:

What thinker has most influenced you? Please explain.

There are some great answers coming your way from our Texas Faith panelists:

In his new book, "God's Continent, Christianity, Islam and Europe's Religious Crisis," Philip Jenkins argues that Europe is really not being Islamized, that Christians from Africa and Asia also are pouring into Europe. And both Muslims and Third World Christians are running full-square into Europe's secular culture, says Jenkins, who also has written the acclaimed Next Christendom and New Faces of Christianity books.

What's interesting, the Penn State professor reports, is that the great faiths aren't fading away. Instead, Islam and Christianity are adapting to the culture around them.

This leads me to this week's question, which we have discussed in various ways over the last few weeks:

How does a faith adapt without losing its essential meaning?

See what our panelists have to say about this topic, which mirrors the larger discussion about how Sonia Sotomayor or any Supreme Court justice interprets the Constitution. Like the Constitution, faith has to apply to the times in which it lives. But, also like the Constitution, a religion loses its meaning when it becomes too malleable.

President Obama wove together numerous themes in a compelling address in Egypt Thursday. He talked about bridging religious differences, expanding women's rights and America's role in the Mideast. At the very end, he said:
javascript:void(0);
"We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you."

Now, we all want the lamb and the lion to lie down together. But here's the question for next week:

Can the world live together in peace? What does your faith tradition say about that being a realistic hope?

Read our Texas Faith panelists to see how they answer these questions.

President Barack Obama has made it clear that he wanted a Supreme Court justice with a sense of empathy. Since then, a debate has ballooned up about what empathy means.

Some see it as a code word for judicial activism. Some see it as a trait needed to understand a litigant. The New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote last week that:

"People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row....But because we're emotional creatures in an idiosyncratic world, it's prudent to have judges who are cautious, incrementalist and minimalist."

I'm not looking for your views on whether Sonia Sotomayor would make a good justice, but I am interested in your thoughts about the role -- and limits -- of emotion in guiding individuals.

People of faith clearly have been known to be passionate about their beliefs. The joy they have in their faith often is seen as a positive, even by skeptics. But here's the question of the week:

How much can anyone rely upon emotion in shaping their religious experience and the way they act in the world?

Our panelists respond:

The Pentagon's top secret wartime memos that mixed Scripture and battle photos sparked a lively debate -- rich, heated and very diverse -- among our Texas Faith panel this week.

Over a photo of a U.S. tank entering Baghdad was a verse from Isaiah, "Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, the nation that keeps the faith." Above another photo of a tank roaring through the desert was a quote from Ephesians, "Therefore put on the full armor of God ..." Some in the Bush administration worried that if the cover sheets got out, they could cast the Iraq invasion as a holy Christian crusade. Others saw no problem.

Religion is about absolutes; public policy is about subjective judgments. And yet, our currency invokes our trust in God, our leaders pray for divine guidance and, apparently, the Pentagon annotates briefing memos with Bible verses.

So here's the question: When, if ever in our secular democracy, is it appropriate advance public policy with God's words? When it is okay? And more the point, when does it cross the line?

Our Texas Faith Panel weighs in with a variety of thoughts. And they're really worth reading.

"Reason, Faith and Revolution," a new book by the Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton, has been getting a lot of attention because of his no-holds-barred attack on Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" - this, in defense of Christianity. It is unclear whether or not Eagleton is a religious believer (and if he is, he is certainly not a conventional Christian), but he eviscerates Hitchens and Dawkins for what he considers their fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity in particular and religion in general.

Which brings us to this week's Texas Faith questions:

What don't most people understand about religious faith?

What don't most people understand about your faith tradition?

My view is that people -- atheists, agnostics and even many of the faithful -- don't understand that religion is not a feel-good panacea, but, properly understood, poses an enormous challenge to each individual. On the particular question, people generally don't get that my religious tradition, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, is not just the Tribe At Prayer (Greeks, Russians, what have you) -- and that's primarily our fault. They also don't understand that we're not an exotic variation of Catholicism, though we share many things with Roman Catholics.

What do our panelists say? Read on past the jump...

Dirk Nowitzi. Manny Ramirez. Two sports icons took a big fall last week. The FBI arrested Nowitzki's girlfriend in the middle of the Dallas Mavs' playoff run and Ramirez's drug test drew him a 50-day suspension from the Los Angeles Dodgers. Their personal problems landed them on the front pages of newspapers and the 24-hour TV news cycle.

Of course, they aren't the first sports stars to take a tumble. But when celebrity-athletes like Nowitzi and Ramirez slip up, people react strongly. The Dallas Morning News' story about Dirk drew more than 500 comments in the first 36 hours.

Let's not argue this week about whether or not we should get so wrought up over fallen stars. The fact is, many people do, going back to how many fans were crushed by Shoeless Joe Jackson's alleged dirty dealings that cost the Chicago White Sox a World Series championship 90 years ago. Let's instead debate this question:

What is it in the human condition that causes many of us to elevate sports stars to a high plateau and causes us to get crushed when they fall from their mighty perch?

Our Texas Faith panel answers:

A group of young evangelical leaders last week announced a national initiative to enlist Christians online and in schools and churches to make a moral case for nuclear disarmament. A 31-year-old Baptist minister named Tyler Wigg Stevenson said many under-40 evangelicals see eliminating nuclear weapons as consistent with their values agenda - sanctity of life, stewardship of the earth.

There's a practical argument: Cold War strategies about deterrence don't work any more. The primary threat increasingly is from terrorist groups who might get their hands on nuclear material, not major states balancing nuclear power.

But it is the moral argument to a conservative community on yet another issue long the purview of the left (the environment, AIDS, the poor, now nukes) that is new here.

So here's the question we posed to the Texas Faith Panel this week:

Is this broadening of the agenda real or a political sideshow? Are young evangelicals truly changing the contours of our politics - and if so, if Christian conservatives do embrace a broader priority agenda, what does it mean for our political parties, our politicians and our political debate?

As usual, the panel weighed in with a fine range of opinon

This week, the Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life released results of a comprehensive survey asking people who have changed the religion they were raised in to explain why they made that move. Their results were surprising, and complex. Prior to the Pew report's release, I asked Texas Faith panelists what they would say to someone of their own faith who came to them and said that he or she was thinking hard about leaving it. Under what set of circumstances, if any, could you approve unreservedly of the planned move?

To complicate matters, I told panelists that by "changing faith," I meant either leaving one form of one's faith for another (e.g., leaving Methodism for Catholicism), leaving one's faith for another (e.g., leaving Christianity for Judaism), or ceasing to affiliate with religion at all.

That's a question that can't really be answered in a short series of paragraphs, but our panelists bravely tried. Their answers are below the jump.

Texas Faith is our weekly discussion of matters of religion, politics, and culture. Read about our panel here.

Our question this week spins off of a couple fo recent intersections of faith and politics involving President Barack Obama. At a speech about the economy at Georgetown University, he quoted the New Testament to make a policy point. And he (or his advance staff) had a religious symbol in the background covered. And in news about another Catholic university, Notre Dame, an invitation fo have Obama deliver the commencement address and get an honorary degree is a matter of controversy. So I asked our panel:

Are these inevitable, even healthy examples of how faith and politics produce sparks in a diverse society? Or are they examples of how Obama -- or some of his opponents -- are tone deaf, insensitive, or deliberately provocative about matter of faith and public policy?

Answers on the jump.

Last week was a busy one with Passover and Easter, so Texas Faith is on vacation this week. We will return next Tuesday as usual. See you then.

Pope Benedict travels to Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories in May, the third papal visit in modern times. For this Pope at this moment, the trip is both pastoral and geopolitical.

So far, attention has focused largely on atmospherics (should he wear a cross at the Western Wall?) and speculation (how specifically, if at all, should the pontiff touch on the delicate politics of a two-state solution?) Many hope he will use the opportunity to ease Roman Catholic relations with Muslims and Jews, which have been strained since the start of his papacy four years ago.

How specifically can he do that? Is there a single thing the Pope can say or do that will - in concrete terms - help heal the breach? And in practical terms back here in the U.S., does it matter?

Some fascinating, provocative answers from our Texas Faith panel, after the jump.

This week, the U.S. House and Senate are supposed to consider their budget roadmaps for the next five years. The proposals will contain $3.5 trillion in spending, including hundreds of billions in new expenditures for health care, education and energy alternatives.

The plans also will grow the federal debt by at least $4 trillion over the next five years. That debt is now officially around $11 trillion, but it actually balloons up to $56 trillion when you factor in unfunded promises to Social Security and Medicare.

People of faith often use moral appeals to urge Congress to spend in compassionate ways, such as for health care for children. But here's this week's Texas Faith question:

Is there a moral dimension to passing a huge federal debt onto future generations? Should being a good steward apply here?

Here from our Texas Faith panelists how they answer this dilemma -- and share your thoughts:

This week, I've asked the Texas Faith panelists to think about the role anger plays in our public discourse around the financial crisis. The AIG bonus argument of last week was a flashpoint for all the frustration many Americans are feeling over the role Wall Street and Washington are playing in this frightening crisis. On the one hand, anger can be a necessary catalyst for righting wrongs and addressing injustices. The Hebrew prophets, for example, didn't play Mr. Nice Guy with the powerful they witnessed to. On the other hand, most religious traditions soberly warn against allowing yourself to be driven by anger.

So, with that background, this week's question: In the face of the current economic crisis, how should we deal, both individually and as a society, with anger over corporate crimes and moral misdemeanors?

Panelist answers below:

This week's Texas Faith question is short, if not simple:

What does justice look like for Bernard Madoff?

What do your faith systems suggest should happen to him? And what should he do, now that he's admitted guilt to what appears to be the largest financial swindle in human history?

If like me you're a fan of Dante's topography of Hell, don't miss Deal Hudson's suggestion. Amy Martin also nods at Hell in her answer.

CNBC correspondent Rick Santelli caused a firestorm when he fulminated against the White House bailout plan to help "losers" - those facing foreclosure or bankruptcy. "This is America," he said, standing in the center of the trading floor on Wall Street. "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?"

What does our faith teach us about this moment? Does our inner Calvinist say we have no obligation to bail out those who failed to act responsibility? Or are we our brother's keeper? Our Texas Faith panel weighs in with some remarkable thoughts.

"Are there no work houses?" Professor William Lawrence at SMU offers in a wry and provocative opening that channels Ebenezer Scrooge.

Author and producer Katie Sherrod notes: "It is interesting how often it is the conservative fundamentalists and 'fiscally conservative" Republicans who seem most offended at the idea that we should help the poor, feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned."

And Deal Hudson, director of InsideCatholic.com, offers a clear-eyed counterbalance, noting that the bailouts are for prudential reason, not instruments of "love or justice."

Read on to see what our panel said in full

In recent days, many Christians began observing Lent, the season of fasting in preparation for Easter, the holiest day on the Christian calendar. It's been reported that some Protestant Christian churches that have not observed Lent are discovering the practice, which has been associated with older, more liturgically oriented churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and others). Other religions also have periods of fasting and ascetic denial. Jews fast on Yom Kippur, Muslims fast during Ramadan, and so forth. There are different fasting traditions, of course, even within Christianity (Orthodox Christians, for example, abstain from all meat and dairy during Lent, but the rules tend to be more relaxed in Western churches).

This week's question: Is it important for religious believers to fast - and if so, why?

We received a great cross-section of replies. Read on to see what our panel said...

We're two days after the Oscars now, where the movie Doubt and Meryl Streep were up for top honors. What was interesting about Doubt is that the film took religion seriously. The writers wove issues of faith into the movie in a compelling way. In fact, Streep was up for best actress for her role as a nun.

Robert Duvall's portrayal of a Pentecostal preacher in The Apostle also was fascinating and gripping. But Hollywood, unfortunately, can treat religious themes in clichéd or hackneyed ways. Religious figures are often turned into stock villains or figures of fun, not complex, interesting people.

So, here's this week's question for our panel:

What two or three elements of your faith would you like to see portrayed in a film? What, if any, film has come close to doing that?

The case of the Suleman Octuplets has many angles. Initially there was amazement at the sheer medical feat of delivery. Then, as details about the mother filtered out, public attitudes turned from positive to, well, mixed at best.

Some critics focused on details about the mother -- unmarried and unemployed. But others focused on the fact that she already had six children at home. Which should, they suggested, have been more than enough.

But some religious traditions say there's no such thing as too many kids. Some Catholics and Orthodox Jews, for instance, have families as large or larger than the Suleman family. So here's this week's simple question (I'm filing this for Jeff Weiss, who had to go out of town at the last minute):

What does your faith tradition say about the Suleman case? Did she do anything wrong? Did her doctors? Or is this an example of science being properly used in the cause of new life, as desired by a woman who sees bringing new children into the world as her highest good?

It's the Obama era, and searching for common ground has been given a new lift. The president even talked at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday about the ways in which major faiths share common values.

But look at the news stories of the last several days:

The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church traveled Saturday to Fort Worth to deal with profound differences between Episcopal churches in the diocese over the decision led by traditionalists to break away from the denomination. Pope Benedict attempted to straddle the differences within the Catholic Church when it came to deciding whether to rehabilitate a cardinal who denied the Holocaust occurred. And the Iraqi vote was primarily a contest between Shiites and Sunnis.

So, here is this week's Texas Faith issue for our panel and readers:

How can common ground be found in religious disputes when people of faith hold very different views of the world? In fact, why should they try to seek common ground if doing so violates their beliefs?

The controversy over a Dallas Christian school's girls basketball team walloping an opposing team 100-0 not only consumed Dallas for a week, but even made national headlines. The headmaster of The Covenant School apologized for the merciless victory, and ultimately fired the unrepentant coach. The story, however, raises a complex question for people of faith: How should a believer reconcile the obligation to be morally excellent with the aspiration to excel in competition?

Our panel's answers are below the jump.

Welcome to Texas Faith, our weekly discussion of politics, religion and culture.

As president, George W. Bush was praised - and pilloried - for a faith-based certitude that guided his decision-making. Even as he prepared to leave office, he invoked in his farewell address the divine drama of good and evil on earth - and America's role in that battle. And he did it, as always, with a confident clarity.

That's not Barack Obama's style. And yet, Obama is no stranger to expressions of faith. In his inaugural address, the newly minted president said: "This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape our uncertain destiny."

The question: Is there a place for divinely inspired certainty in the governance of the nation? What's the difference between Obama and Bush on this point, and how will that difference be reflected in decisions to come?

Weighing in on this weighty subject, our panel of experts, after the jump

Texas Faith is our weekly discussion of matters of religion, politics, and culture. Read about our panel here.
Sometimes the obvious question is the best one. And there's nothing more obvious in the news today than Barack Obama's inauguration -- not to mention the various discussions about the various folks who will offer prayers at the various events. So here's the question:

If you were delivering the invocation or the benediction, what would you say? Write a (short) prayer that you'd deliver if for some reason you get called to pinch hit for one of the named headliners.

Go to the jump for our panel's answers. And if you have your own suggestion, post it in the comments.

The Bush years are not quite over yet, so we asked Texas Faith panelists this question about the 43rd president:

George W. Bush made religion and religiosity a greater part of his presidency than any president in modern terms. How would you assess his use of religion, whether in terms of his faith-based initiatives or how religion was integrated into his ideas of governing?

Rod Dreher here. I don't know if you saw it, but New York Times science writer John Tierney recently wrote that science is discovering that people of faith tend to be more self-disciplined than people who have weak faith or no faith at all. If this is true, the implication is that formal religion can be personally helpful in inculcating habits of mind that lead to worldly success. Is this good or bad news for religion - and why?

Me, I'm divided, but tend to think it's bad for religion. I mean, it's good, I suppose, that science can show that religion leads to more self-control, and in turn success. The problem I have with it is that this could lead to thinking of religion in utilitarian terms -- that is, not based on whether or not it's true but whether or not its useful in getting us what we want. After all, depending on the circumstance, religion could cause us to be failures by the world's standards -- and someone who has been successful in the world might be a failure by the tenets of his religion. All of which is to say that the finding is interesting, if unsurprising to me as a religious believer -- but I don't draw any conclusions about whether or not practicing a religion is worth doing from it.

What did our panelists say? Read on...

Don't fret. Texas Faith will return next week. Even our wonderful panelists get a break for New Year's!

See you at this spot in 2009.

The economic downturn brings with it a host of negatives, no doubt - and not just material, but psychological as well. As columnist David Brooks of the New York Times wrote recently, recessions reorder the social order and breed a certain pessimism.

But in this holiday season, it is possible to ask another question: Does our economic distress invite us to simplify our lives? To focus on what really matters: family and friends? For all the problems a recession brings, might it also be an opportunity to look beyond material things in a way that strengthens our faith?

Our Texas Faith Panel weighs in on the question -- Might this recession be an occasion for moral renewal? And while there is the optimistic grace you'd expect from our panelists, it's no sugar-coated conversation.

Texas Faith is our weekly discussion of matters of religion, politics, and culture. Read about our panel here.

This week's question was pegged to the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich. But since we sent out the question, a second news story, the unprecedented investment fraud confessed to by Bernard L. Madoff makes the query doubly timely:

What do your faith traditions say about the best way to spot a phony -- and to keep from getting involved with one?

Answers after the jump, including a T.S. Eliot reference...

In the Mumbai bombings, the world has seen another example of how religions can conflict. The Washington Post's Craig Whitlock and Karen De Young summarized the India/Pakistan situation this way: "The roots of the long-running conflict are religious: A majority of India's population is Hindu, while most Pakistanis are Muslim."

Of course, the India bombing is not the only place where religious conflict is playing itself out. In his new book, "World of Faith and Freedom," Thomas Farr, the former director of the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom, argues that foreign policy makers cannot afford a hands-off approach to understanding religion, whether in the Mideast, China or Afghanistan.

His writing tracks what former Secretary of State Madeline Albright wrote in her book, "The Mighty and The Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs." She contended that our diplomats don't adequately understand the role of religion in nations around the world.

So, here's this week's Texas Faith question:

Based on your studies and travels, what would you advise Hillary Clinton in her new job as secretary of state about the role religion plays in influencing politics and culture around the world? What trends or currents should she pay attention to as she tries to overcome the religion deficit in diplomacy?

Editor's Note:

Don't worry. Texas Faith hasn't gone away. We just gave our panelists a week off for Thanksgiving. Postings will return on Tuesday, December 9. In the meantime, what ideas would you like to see discussed on Texas Faith in the new year?

Texas Faith is our weekly discussion of matters of religion, politics, and culture.

In politics, it's not your enemies who do you in, it's your friends. When Barack Obama won the White House, religious progressives took a bow. They had worked for him. And there is no small measure of expectation that the new president will reflect an agenda embraced by the faith community.

Many liked what they heard when Obama promised to reduce the number of abortions, said he was opposed to gay marriage, embraced aspects of President Bush's faith-based initiative, and talked about drawing down troops while shifting some forces to Afghanistan.

But those positions conflict with the demands of others in the Democratic base (say, backers of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate many state abortion restrictions; advocates of legalizing gay marriage; opponents of the faith-based initiative; anti-war advocates who want the troops brought home).

So what happens now?

Here's this week's Texas Faith question: Is there are a fault line between Obama's faith-based supporters and his traditional-left supporters? Can he satisfy both? And what issue might test this alliance?

After the jump, the responses of our panel of distinguished experts.

Texas Faith is our weekly discussion of matters of religion, politics, and culture. Read about our panel here.

The U. S, Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on a case that has interesting religion-in-public-square implications. The case is Summum v. Pleasant Grove City and it's been bumping up through the court system since 2003, when the founder of a religion called Summum asked the town of Pleasant Grove City in Utah to accept the donation of a stone monument with his faith's precepts, to be placed in a city park next to a decades-old monument with the Ten Commandments. The city said no, and the case was off and running -- with several sets of federal judges ruling for Summum.

The constitutional and social questions are important: How does a government body decide the credibility of a religion? How does the law protect the rights of minorities without imposing a tyranny of minorities? What kinds of objects belong in public parks?

The question for the panel: If you were on the court, how would you decide the case? Answers at the jump.

The recent victory in California of Proposition 8, which overturned the state Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage, has revived one of the most contentious cultural and religious issues in American politics. Legal scholars on both sides of the gay marriage issue foresee and irreconcilable clash between the civil rights claims of homosexuals, and the religious liberty claims of traditionalist churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious institutions. (For a more detailed discussion of the legal arguments, see Maggie Gallagher's article here, especially the remarks of Georgetown law professor and same-sex rights activist Chai Feldblum, who says that there is an irreconcilable clash).

This week's question to our Texas Faith panelists:

Is a compromise between religious liberty and gay civil rights regarding marriage possible - and if not, which of the two is more important?

Here are their responses:

The Big Sort, a new book by former Austin American Statesman reporter Bill Bishop and retired University of Texas sociologist Robert Cushing, chronicles how Americans cluster among people like themselves. We will hear more about that phenomenon tonight, when network tally boards focus on red states and blue states, with the occasional purple swing states thrown in as tie-breakers.

The self-selection doesn't stop with politics, though. It involves the places where we worship. The authors talk about how we select faiths that fit ourselves. You could call them red, blue and purple faiths.

So, here's the question of the week for our Texas Faith panel:

Do we indeed have red, blue and purple faiths? If so, do you worship in a red house of faith, a blue house of faith or a purple house of faith? Explain what you like or dislike about that, including what you would do to change religious clustering.

Texas Faith is our weekly discussion of matters of religion, politics and culture.

Former Secretary of Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican who endorsed Barack Obama for president, said he was troubled by some members of his own party suggesting Obama is a Muslim. "What if he is?" Powell asked. "Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? No, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim kid believing that he or she can be president?" Once, they said that about Catholics. And this year, an African-American is one step from winning the White House.

So here's question: When do we reach a point in the U.S. where it doesn't matter politically if a presidential candidate is Muslim? How long will that take? And how might it finally come about?

Our distinguished panel weighs in. Answer after the jump.

Texas Faith is our weekly discussion of matters of religion, politics, and culture. Read about our panel here.

The Catholic bishops in Dallas and Fort Worth co-wrote a letter read from church pulpits this month. The letter said: "To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or "abortion rights" when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil - and, therefore, morally impermissible." Some local Catholics took that as a de facto endorsement of John McCain, given the positions that he and Barack Obama take on abortion.

Here's the question: Were the bishops offering appropriate moral guidance based on Catholic dogma? Or did they cross a line either from a theological or constitutional perspective? Should clergy offer such specific guidance on issues of political importance that clearly benefit a particular candidate or political party?

Answers after the jump. (Hint: We have some strong opinions on both sides.)

This week's Texas Faith question deals with the economy, which clearly has everyone's attention. The situation seems like an age-old tale of greed and fear. Financial houses were doing all they could to sell risky mortgages and complex debt swaps so their bottom lines could grow and they could avoid being consumed by a competitor. While hindsight shows us the folly of those decisions, the economy also was growing in part because of these financial transactions.

So, here's the question for our Texas Faith panelists:

Is it possible to think of an economy not driven by greed and fear? If so, what would that economy look like?( E.F. Schumacher took a stab at that in "Small Is Beautiful," where he talked about linking religious values and economic progress through Buddhist economics.)

A new survey by the Pew Center and Beliefnet.com reports that the economy vastly outweighs social and moral issues among voters this fall. The poll raises questions about the relationship moral ideals and economic realities in our political deliberations. Most religious and moral traditions warn against replacing God with Mammon - or, to put it more prosaically, in elevating material well-being over spiritual and moral righteousness. But it gets complicated when trying to work this principle out in real life.

Some pro-life voters this year may be so hard-pressed economically that they may be thinking of voting for the pro-choice Barack Obama. This particular dilemma might not be present for voters from spiritually progressive churches or faith traditions, but it's not hard to imagine a political situation in which practical economic interests clash with one's commitment to certain moral ideals. Many Democrats who were liberal on social issues surely faced this challenge in trying to decide whether or not to stick with President Carter in 1980, amid the dismal economic conditions, or to take a chance on Ronald Reagan, a social conservative who promised economic change.

With that context, here's this week's Texas Faith question:

Under what conditions, if any, is it acceptable for someone to vote for a presidential candidate whose social policies the voter finds morally objectionable, but whose economic policies that person favors?

Our panelists answer below:

Texas Faith, our weekly discussion of matters of religion, politics and culture takes on a matter of particular interest this election season: politicking from the pulpit. Jesus certainly had his encounters with tax collectors but apparently was never limited by tax law on what he could say in the Sermon on the Mount.

A group called the Alliance Defense Fund encouraged pastors this past weekend to turn their sermons into partisan stump speeches. The ADF wants to establish a legal class to challenge the IRS restriction. Which prompts this week's question to our panel:

Is the federal ban against partisan politics from the pulpit - including endorsing candidates - a good thing or should it be thrown out? Is the government violating the separation of church and state when it tells individual churches how it can or cannot practice politics?

After the jump, what our distinguished panel had to say on the issue:

Texas Faith is our weekly discussion of matters of religion, politics, and culture. Read about our panel here. We'll take a break from politics this week. The past seven days have been notable for examples of human suffering large and small: Hurricane Ike affects millions. And a 17-month-old boy whose family escaped the storm in Dallas is killed in an accident. Trains collide in California, killing dozens. Suicide bombers in Yemen, Pakistan and Iraq murder innocent bystanders. The genocide in Darfur continues unabated. Etc etc etc.

What do you find in your faith tradition that helps you deal with or explain the reality of suffering?

Note: The answers from panelists will be updated as late entries arrive. Keep checking back with us. -- Ed.

Another week, another political question. It's that time of the year. But inasmuch as there is no such thing as a separation of religion and life, it's not surprising that faith has come up yet again in the presidential campaign. Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin caused some buzz when a video of her asking her church to pray for God's blessing on a pipeline project emerged on the Internet. Similarly, she was filmed once discussing the Iraq War in light of divine providence. Now, there was some controversy over whether or not she prayed for God's blessing for the pipeline, or whether or not she invited God's blessing on it. And it was not exactly clear whether she asked for prayers that God's will would be done in the Iraq war, or whether she asserted that the war was God's will.

The distinctions are important, but that's not what this week's query is about.

Now, some critics of Palin found it unsettling, even offensive, that she would invoke God in this way. The pipeline business seemed to some to be trivial either way, and the war - well, if she was claiming that the war was the will of God, then the grounds for theological objection there are obvious. But defenders of Palin's prayers pointed to the prayer that Barack Obama left in the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, in which he petitioned God to make him an "instrument" of the divine will. How is that different? asked the Palin defenders.

So, with that background, here is this week's question:

If you were the spiritual advisor to the next president, what would you advise him on how to discern and implement God's will in the execution of his duties?

(Answers from our Texas Faith panelists below)

Texas Faith is a weekly online feature that draws upon the expertise of clergy, laity and academics in Texas to debate, discuss and define the intersection of religion, politics and culture.

This week, we asked panelists to step back from the heat of the fall campaign and think about what their religious traditions have to say about the ultimate decision presidents must make: whether to send soldiers into war.

Here's the question we asked the panel to consider:

All of the candidates on the GOP and Democratic tickets say their faith informs their views. They also agree that sending soldiers into war would be their most difficult decision. What does your faith tradition offer for guidance on that most difficult of decisions?

(Click here to read about our panel.)

Texas Faith is a weekly online feature that draws upon the expertise of clergy, laity and academics in Texas to debate, discuss and define the intersection of religion, politics and culture.

This week's question is pegged to the Republican convention:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is about to go under the microscope that Obama, McCain and Biden have already experienced. Is there a particular faith-related question you would like to see her address? Is there a faith-related question the others have not answered you'd like to see asked? And why?

Answers this week from Joe Clifford,William B. Lawrence,Darrell Bock, Katie Sherrod, Trey Graham, Amy Martin, Robin W. Lovin, Gerald Britt, Matthew Wilson, George Mason, Bob Dean, Diane Presley, Cynthia Rigby, Larry Bethune, Clara M. Reed, Ric Dexter, Mohamed Elibiary, Geoffrey Dennis, Daniel Kanter, and Lynn Godsey.

Please feel free to add your own comments.

Welcome to Texas Faith, our new discussion of religion, politics and culture. Texas Faith is a weekly online feature that will draw upon the expertise of clergy, laity and academics in Texas to debate, discuss and define the intersection of these volatile topics.

Our opening topic of the week revolves around the Democratic convention. We put this question to our panel:

From Faith Caucus meetings to panel discussions on morality to debates about an Obama administration and religion, the Democratic convention is spotlighting an enormous amount of explicit religious content. What does this mean? Is this appropriate?

Answers this week come from:

WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and professor, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University; GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami, Flower Mound; KATIE SHERROD, independent writer and producer and progressive Episcopalian activist, Fort Worth; LYNN GODSEY, Pastor, Temple of Power Ministries, Ennis, and founder, Alliance of Hispanic Evangelical Ministers; DARRELL BOCK, Dallas Theological Seminary professor; JOE CLIFFORD, Pastor, First Presbyterian Church of Dallas; DEAL HUDSON, director, The Morley Publishing Group, Washington, D.C.; TREY GRAHAM, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Melissa, ; CYNTHIA RIGBY, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary professor; BRIAN SCHMISEK, University of Dallas professor; MATTHEW WILSON, Southern Methodist University professor; GERALD BRITT, vice president, Central Dallas Ministries; LILLIAN PINKUS, Community volunteer and executive committee member of the Dallas Anti-Defamation League; LARRY BETHUNE, Pastor, University Baptist Church, Austin, ; BOB DEAN, executive director, Dallas Baptist Association; ROBIN LOVIN, professor, Southern Methodist University and Perkins School of Theology; AMY MARTIN, executive director, Earth Rhythms, Dallas, ; MOHAMED ELIBIARY, President and CEO, The Freedom and Justice Foundation, Dallas; GEORGE MASON, Pastor, Wilshire Baptist Church, Dallas.

You can read their answers below. And, please, chime in and let us know your thoughts about this topic and what the panelists say about it!

Normally, I don't jump in on the religion blog, but starting next week, this blog will be the site for a weekly online discussion about religion, politics and culture. The conversation will take place at www.dallasnews.com/texasfaith, which will have a link on the Opinion blog and Trailblazers.

Jeff Weiss, Wayne Slater, Rod Dreher and yours truly will be the rotating moderators. Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

We hope this new feature will help all of us think through the interesting and complicated intersection of religion, politics and culture. With the presidential race going into overdrive, we will have plenty of issues to discuss. But this conversation will last long beyond the fall election, so we plan on making this a debate that runs across many levels of interest.

Check us out on Tuesday, August 26, when the first postings go up.