SOURCE: AP/Charles Krupa

Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney visits a church in Berlin, New Hampshire. Gov. Romney and the Mormon churh's founder, Joseph Smith, differ on many issues pertaining to the size government.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has made history this year as the first Mormon running for president on the ticket of a major political party. Gov. Romney, however, is not the first Mormon to ever run for our country’s highest office. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, ran for president as an independent candidate in 1844, in a race that was eventually won by Democrat James Polk over Henry Clay of the Whig Party. (Smith himself was assassinated by an anti-Mormon mob in Illinois five months prior to the election.)

Although they share a devotion to their faith, Gov. Romney and Smith do not have much more than that in common. Most notable is their diametrically opposed views regarding the role of the federal government in society and in people’s lives.

The gap between Gov. Romney’s stance on the federal government and that of his religion’s founder is quite large: Gov. Romney believes that the federal government encourages dependency, is too big, and is less trustworthy than the free market—according to many, such conservative views seem consistent with his Mormon faith. But Joseph Smith held a much more positive view of the federal government. He believed it should protect individual liberty, strengthen the economy, promote justice and equality, and provide for all Americans.

We look first at Gov. Romney’s position before comparing that stance with Joseph Smith’s.

Gov. Romney’s distrust of the federal government

In a speech after winning the Wisconsin primary this past April, Gov. Romney said, “Free enterprise has done more to lift people out of poverty, to help build a strong middle class, to help educate our kids, and to make our lives better than all the programs of government combined.” Gov. Romney criticized President Barack Obama’s so-called government-centered society and was dismissive of community organizers such as President Obama, who turn to the government for help solving problems in their communities.

In addition to claiming that government programs stand in the way of economic opportunity, Gov. Romney says the government infringes on individual liberty by “thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams.” Based on these views, Gov. Romney wants to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—also known as Obamacare—and drastically cut government programs such as nutrition assistance and family planning. He believes that free enterprise combined with private charity will provide Americans with the services they need.

Gov. Romney’s distrust of government can clearly be seen in a video unearthed last month by Mother Jones, in which he told donors in a private meeting that 47 percent of Americans believe they are victims and that the government has “a responsibility to take care of them.” Gov. Romney went on to say that these 47 percent think they are “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

When questioned about his comments, Gov. Romney said, “The president believes in what I’ve described as a government-centered society where government plays a larger and larger role, provides for more and more of the needs of individuals, and I happen to believe instead in a free enterprise, free individual society where people pursuing their dreams are able to employ one another, build enterprises, build the strongest economy in the world.”

This encapsulates Gov. Romney’s belief that a strong federal government harms both individual liberty and economic opportunity. While he has since apologized for these remarks, they are in fact consistent with his belief that government programs should be cut and that the people who deserve admiration and respect are those who do not rely on government assistance.

These views, however, make for a stark contrast with those of Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith’s belief in a strong federal government

Joseph Smith believed that a robust federal government was necessary for economic stability, national security, and individual liberty. In his campaign platform, Smith emphasized the role that government could play in helping improve people’s lives. He advocated expanding and strengthening the federal government in three ways:

• Economically through rechartering the national bank
• Geopolitically through the annexation of Texas
• Morally through the protection of civil liberties and the abolition of slavery

Smith was the only candidate running for president in 1844 who supported both a national bank and the annexation of Texas, two measures that would have strengthened the federal government. Smith’s support for a national bank is particularly striking because in the 19th century this represented the ultimate example of a powerful federal government. The charter for the previous national bank had expired in 1836 after a heated political battle. Smith argued that a national bank would provide economic stability and promote “more equality throughout the cities, towns, and country, [which] would make less distinction among the people.

As for Smith’s position on Texas, he favored annexation in order for the United States to gain geopolitical power over the British, who were trying to increase their presence in North America. Expanding the country fit in with Smith’s belief that America’s God-given destiny was to “let the union spread from the east to the west sea.”

Smith also advocated radically reforming state prisons so that convicts, instead of being incarcerated or executed, would complete public works projects such as building roads. He wanted the federal government to have the power to send in troops to put down state mobs, a position he arrived at because of the mob violence Mormons had experienced in Missouri in 1838.

Experiences with mob violence further formed Smith’s understanding of the role the federal government should play in protecting its citizens. In 1839 Smith travelled to Washington, D.C., to meet with President Martin Van Buren and members of Congress and ask for protection for Mormons. Similar to abolitionists in the 1850s and civil rights activists a full century later, Joseph Smith saw the federal government as essential to protecting the liberty and safety of its citizens from harm inflicted at the state level.

Smith’s campaign platform and his own petition to President Van Buren reveal a man who believed the federal government had a key role in protecting individual liberty. This philosophy was motivated in part by Smith’s religious beliefs, which held that the Constitution was a divinely inspired sacred text and that America’s government had divine power. The Doctrine and Covenants—an important religious text that Mormons believe was revealed to Joseph Smith by God—recounts God “establish[ing] the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men,” whom God protected in order to create the United States. Smith believed there was a difference between the federal Constitution, which was divinely inspired, and the laws of individual states, which were created by men without God’s influence and were therefore prone to error.

Joseph Smith’s opposition to slavery

One of the most interesting manifestations of Smith’s progovernment ideology was his staunch opposition to slavery. The Mormon Church has had a complicated history with race relations, largely due to a policy existing from 1849 until 1978 that barred African Americans from being ordained to the Mormon priesthood. But in the 1844 campaign, Smith spoke out against slavery more vehemently than either of his two opponents.

Smith supported a plan that would have led to the abolition of slavery by 1850. In the decades before the Civil War, most politicians were too concerned with winning elections to oppose slavery and avoided taking a firm stand on such a politically contentious issue. But Smith proposed to end slavery by selling federal land and using the money to fund antislavery efforts.

Smith’s deep opposition to slavery and the racial hierarchy it created led him to criticize the United States for violating the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by holding “two or three millions of people … as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours.” He advised slaveholders who joined the Mormon Church to move to a free state, set their slaves free, and “educate them and give them equal rights.”

While Joseph Smith understood that the federal government has a part to play in protecting the human rights and dignity of all Americans, Gov. Romney disagrees. In issues ranging from immigration to health care to marriage equality, Gov. Romney does not follow the progressive lead set by his religion’s founder. He has opposed the DREAM Act, which would provide undocumented youth with a path to U.S. citizenship if they complete a college degree or serve in the military; he wants states to be responsible for providing health care; and he supports a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Unlike Joseph Smith, who proposed federal legislation that would help correct a shameful inequality in America, Gov. Romney has consistently opposed legislation that would correct contemporary inequalities and injustices.

Furthermore, Smith’s willingness to speak out on issues of race stands in contrast to Gov. Romney’s silence regarding the racial history of his church. Smith shows that the Mormon Church’s early history is not shameful when it comes to racial issues—and that it could provide Gov. Romney an educational opportunity to discuss issues of race, religion, and America.

American principles

During a campaign speech in 1844, one of Joseph Smith’s closest friends said, “He is not a Northern man with Southern principles, not a Southern man with Northern principles … He is an Independent man with American principles, and he has both knowledge and disposition to govern for the benefit and protection of ALL.”

Smith’s forceful belief that the federal government exists to protect, defend, and provide for all Americans stands in stark contrast to Gov. Romney’s view of the government as unwieldy, ineffective, and even dangerous. One wonders what Smith, the first Mormon to run for president more than 150 years ago, would say about his current successor.

Eliza Blanchard is an Intern with the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress.

SOURCE: Center for American Progress

Sally Steenland, Director for the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, talks to Angela Kelley, Vice President for Immigration Policy and Advocacy at the Center, about the harsh immigration laws spreading around the country, the anti-immigrant rhetoric on the campaign trail, and how faith leaders are speaking out on these issues.

Sally Steenland: My name is Sally Steenland and I direct the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress. With me today is Angie Kelley, Vice President for Immigration Policy and Advocacy here at the Center, and a good friend. Welcome, Angie.

Angie Kelley: Thanks, Sally. Great to be here.

SS: So let’s get right into it. I want to start off talking about Alabama. So last June Alabama passed what’s being called the harshest anti-immigration law in the nation. And it was in the headlines for weeks, but then it slipped from the news. Recently your team released a report called “Alabama’s Immigration Disaster,” and you bring the law back to national attention. Can you tell us what you found in the report and give us an update on what’s happening in Alabama?

AK: Sure. Thanks very much for having me. We tried to capture different aspects of the law’s impact in our report. And one was “so what’s the economic impact” specifically in the agriculture industry, but also foreign investment, because Alabama had been working hard to try to make itself appealing and attractive to foreign investors. And then another aspect that we looked at was what’s been the damage to both social and civil rights.

And the economic consequences have been staggering and are only going to go up. It could be that they will lose up to $10.8 billion, or 6.2 percent, of their GDP. They may lose up to 140,000 jobs. Their tax revenue, the state tax revenue, could go down by $2.64 million. Their agriculture industry is something that they depend on that brings in $5.5 billion a year, and one tomato farmer said that he’s estimating a loss of $300,000. And those are figures that are going to continue ticking up, because we don’t know fully yet, particularly for farmers, what they’re going to be able to plant next year, whether they’ll have workers there next year.

With foreign investment, we’re beginning to see contracts canceled. So for example a Spanish bank was looking to open up its U.S. headquarters in Birmingham—$80 million that they were looking to invest; gone.

The social impact, which isn’t a dollar value but incredibly meaningful, is perhaps the most poignant and frightening. On the first day after this law went into effect, you had nearly 10 percent of Latino students not showing up to school. You had mobile-home parks, where a lot of Latinos [were] living, empty. Dogs that were their family pets that had to be turned away. People literally packing and fleeing overnight. There was a hotline set up that got 2,000 calls from people desperate for information, fearful, and not knowing what they should do.

Those stories continue even if CNN and MSNBC aren’t reporting on this anymore, and The New York Times isn’t running daily stories. The harm is vast. And what we tried to do was to bring that home in the form of numbers in the report. And then we also released a series of videos called “Is This Alabama?” Go to isthisalabama.org. They were produced by a Hollywood director, Chris Weitz, who has done big blockbuster films like “About A Boy,” one of the “Twilight” movies, and “American Pie.” And he also, through videos, tells the story of Alabamans and what they’ve experienced in their home state, which drives home the impact.

SS: The videos are incredibly moving and they put a face to this story. Can you just share one or two of them with us?

AK: Sure. The one that’s gotten the most hits is a farmer who’s probably in his late 50s, early 60s, a very typical Alabama stereotype. And he’s wearing a hat and flannel shirt, and you would think that the story he would tell is about how much money he’s lost. But the story that he actually tells is about the relationship that he lost. His longtime worker, whom he calls his partner in business, is Paco, and he said, “I’ve been to Paco’s house. I’ve had dinner at his table. He’s had dinner at my table. And his children I call my nietos,” which means grandchildren in Spanish. And in his terrific Southern accent, he goes on and on about the relationship and the impact of a law that tells him who he can drive in his truck. Because under the law he shouldn’t be driving Paco anywhere. And he says, “That’s the state of Alabama telling me who I can be friends with, and that’s not the Alabama I know, and it’s taking us backwards.”

So that’s one story, and there are several others. What they really represent is just a tiny fraction of what’s playing out in that state, and in Georgia, and in Arizona, and South Carolina—states that have decided to take up the anti-immigrant, myopic enforcement-only banner, and run with it. You know, the consequences of it, frankly, harm them economically, and it doesn’t stop illegal immigration.

SS: Just to go back to the farmer for a minute. It really is a very powerful story, and you think, this is probably a pretty conservative guy.

AK: Yeah. He is a Republican, actually.

SS: He’s a Republican. And when he tells it, what it sounds like is, “This is probably a guy who believes in limited government.” But yet this is really government intrusion. So you would think that a conservative view would not want the government to say, “This is who you can put in your car. This is who can be your friend. This is who can come to your house for dinner.” So is that sort of backlash picking up steam? And I just want to bring in faith leaders here, because I know that they have a role to play, and that they’ve been involved as well. So what is the faith community doing along these lines, and what do we see among ordinary, regular folks?

AK: The law really flies in the face of liberal and conservative values, and it’s not consistent with human values. It’s not consistent with the economic self-interest of these states. And those dual messages of “This doesn’t make sense for us economically, nor does it make sense for us as a people and how we should be treating each other” are messages that I think the faith community can deliver. What I think is so brilliant about the faith community is that they’re bilingual. They can talk about this from a moral and a faith perspective but also from an enormously practical perspective.

There was a conference recently that Sanford University held, in Alabama of course, looking at the law, and you had prominent Alabama pastors, bishops, and other religious leaders talking about how “This isn’t who we are. It isn’t who we are as Alabamans. It isn’t who we are as faith leaders or people of faith. It isn’t who we are as people who want to have a healthy economy.” And you had 80 pastors who signed a letter to their state leaders saying, “Enough. Let’s roll back this law.” There are faith leaders that have started a documentary series. So they’re using film as a way of communicating this dual message.

I do think, at the end of the day, Americans are enormously practical people, and I think they’re mainly pretty principled. And it is the range of voices, but most especially faith leaders, reminding them that you can be both principled and practical. And in that vein, you need to speak up against these laws. And only with that kind of moral, grounded voice do I actually think we can turn the tide.

SS: Let’s turn our attention to the Republican primaries, and the candidates, where we’ve heard from just about everybody enormously harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric that’s gone beyond just policy. It’s really been cruel and dehumanizing. Why do they talk like that? Is there a particular group of people that it’s working for, that it’s appealing to? Why do we see that happening?

AK: I definitely can’t read the minds of the Republican candidates. And if I were in a room advising them, I would suggest that they change their tone dramatically around the topic of immigration. Because it is not just a policy conversation but really about people, and it particularly speaks to the Latino community, which is the fastest-growing group of voters in this country. It is a demographic wave that is going to, frankly, overtake the Republicans.

In a way they are drinking a slow poison in how they’re alienating that community. Obviously a Latino voter is here legally, they are not undocumented. But the undocumented don’t all live in one apartment building by themselves. So undocumented people, you know, life is life. They marry, they work with other people, they have friends, they have co-workers. And an astonishing statistic is that one out of four Latino voters knows someone who’s been deported, or is in the queue to be deported. That’s an astonishing statistic.

SS: That’s amazing.

AK: Now what that speaks to are stepped-up enforcement policies by the Obama administration. But the way Republicans are playing this topic, which is not wise, is they’re associating themselves with being all about enforcement, all about deportation. And it’s hard to feel warm toward a candidate who wants to deport your cousin or who’s out to get your grandmother.

I can tell you that my family, for example, who has been here now for decades—my mother was naturalized many years ago—has become very political around this issue even though right now everybody in my family is documented and legal, because they’re speaking in this disrespectful tone. She can’t separate who we’re going to look for that doesn’t have papers. She has dark skin, dark hair, speaks with a thick accent, and you catch her on a weekend and she might look like she’s just finished picking some crops in the field. And that led her to cancel our family vacation in Arizona because she was too afraid she would be stopped and would be humiliated in front of her grandchildren, my daughters.

That conversation is happening around kitchen tables all across the country, of Latinos saying, “Whoa. I may even agree with your economic policy. I may even agree with your position on abortion. But you’re talking about me in a way that’s disrespectful.” And the depth of how tone-deaf the Republicans are is astounding. They’re making Obama’s job a lot easier.

SS: We know there was disappointment toward the Obama administration within Latino communities for not passing comprehensive immigration reform. Given how the Republican candidates are playing out, how do you see the issue of immigration playing out between now and November, given, as you just said, the fast-growing Latino voting bloc?

AK: Well you already see Romney trying to run some ads in Spanish-language press, and coming across as someone who can somehow relate to the Latino community that he’s just said he wants to deport. And certainly someone like Marco Rubio, who’s a senator from Florida and is of Cuban descent, is being talked about as a possible VP candidate. So I think that they’re going to try to do their best. But frankly, the Republican Party, particularly Mitt Romney if he emerges as a candidate, is in a very deep hole, and he can’t seem to help but continue to dig.

The Obama administration is recognizing that there has been a growing connection between how Latino voters are viewing this administration and their immigration policies, and it has tried a bit to take its heavy foot off the enforcement gas pedal. They announced, for example, last August, guidelines for who is going to be deported. They’re going to look carefully now at whether you’re someone who might be a DREAM Act student—a person who’s been here since they were a youth, has basically grown up in this country, and somebody who it makes no sense to send back to a country that they haven’t been to since they were perhaps an infant. They’re going to be looking at people who have long ties to the United States, that sort of thing, and making some very reasonable assessments as to where to execute prosecutorial discretion and where not to. They’re going to go back and open up 300,000 cases—and they’ve already started that process—and will be closing some cases.

This is all policy that sounds very technical, like, “Is anybody really paying attention?” But yes, they are paying attention, because if your family’s attorney sends an email, or makes a phone call and says, “Oh my God, José’s immigration case has been closed,” that sends a ripple effect throughout the entire Latino community. Similarly, if there are roadblocks around the elementary school and DHS agents checking papers, that word goes through the community very quickly as well.

I think the administration is trying to do what it can, and there’s more that it can do that they would still be enforcing the law but without being as heavy-handed. And so we’ll see if there’s more of that. But honestly, because so much of this campaign, like any campaign, gets down to “What’s a sound bite? What has he said?”, there is a lot of fodder there that Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have all provided that make Obama’s job a lot easier.

SS: In terms of vetoing the DREAM Act, for instance—

AK: Exactly.

SS: By Romney—

AK: Yeah, vetoing the DREAM Act, embracing Alabama, embracing Arizona—

SS: Right.

AK: Embracing Jan Brewer, embracing a guy named Kris Kobach. Again, a lot of people don’t know who he is, but to the Latino community he is the architect of all those laws, and he’s their boogeyman.

SS: Right.

AK: So yeah, so I think that the importance of this issue will continue to play out throughout the campaign. Those people who, like most of us, follow politics and the national conversation in English-language press are going to declare the issue dead. People will say, “Oh, they’re not talking about it at all.” But if you can dig out your rudimentary Spanish and listen to Univision, or just watch the commercials, as in ’08 with McCain and Obama, there is a very active conversation going on about immigration.

SS: So let’s skip over November and look at the next four years. What should happen? What’s the smart thing to do and what’s the right thing to do? What would you like to see happen with comprehensive immigration reform?

AK: If members could vote anonymously for smart policy, it would have passed a long time ago, with a substantial majority, and I think it would look something like this: I think it would be enormously practical in dealing with the people who are here without papers, and we would set up a program where people would come forward; we would know who was here; they would pay taxes; they would learn English; we would do a background check on them; they would be able to work legally, thereby not having their wages depressed or U.S. workers’ wages depressed so everybody would be on a level playing field; and over time they would earn residency and eventual citizenship.

I think that we’re not going to be able to deport 11 million people. It would be harmful to our economy. It would also be harmful to the character of this country, so we should just deal practically with those folks.

Next part: How do we avoid more illegal immigration so we don’t have the same problem in five years? So the second part of a smart policy would be, “All right. We want people to come with visas, not with smugglers.” So we should have a flexible system that assesses, “What does our country need?”

Right now we have very small, limited numbers of visas for people to come to work, and we treat our economy as if it’s perfectly stagnant, as if the number that we need today is the same that we needed five years ago, the same that we needed 15 years ago. That’s crazy. And we need to have a much more sophisticated analysis of “What kinds of visas do we need? What kinds of jobs?” Make sure that we’re bringing people in who are filling needed job openings.

And given the wave of retirement we have—the baby boom wave has just begun, so we will have openings, and we are doing harm to our economy if we don’t have the right workers in those jobs.

The third [part]: We have the most secure border we’ve ever had now, the lowest levels of illegal immigration since when President Nixon was in office.

SS: Wow.

AK: And that’s because one, we’ve built up at the border. We’re using much more smarter technology, and we need to keep doing that. The border is also dynamic, so we need to stay on top of that and be sure that people aren’t finding creative ways to enter illegally. I actually think if they had a line, if there were visas available to them, they wouldn’t come in illegally. Who would? That doesn’t make sense.

We also need employers to be accountable, and we do need some kind of a verification system so when someone presents themselves to you and says, “I want to apply for this job,” you have a way of verifying that they’re here legally. Those things all work together. You can’t have any one of those pieces of a policy and hope that that’s going to be enough.

That would be my prescription, and we also have a lot of family members who are here in the United States illegally, they have a U.S. citizen family member, but they’re stuck in a family backlog. It would make a lot of sense to clear out those backlogs. Let’s make sure that we have families reunited in a quick way. But let’s at the end of the day be sure we’re serving our national interest and that we know who is here, and that we put them on a path to belonging here.

SS: And what you said earlier was so intriguing—if people could vote anonymously, just because it makes sense, and it’s left or right, it just makes perfect—

AK: Smart policy, right.

SS: It’s smart policy. And the fact that names and faces are attached to those votes means those people would get demonized on Fox News, or what’s the penalty?

AK: You only have to go back to 2006—which wasn’t that long ago, despite what my children would say—and 23 Republicans in the Senate supported an immigration bill that would have legalized most people who are here illegally. Twenty-three Republicans.

SS: Wow.

AK: That’s how much we’ve deteriorated and made it so that the moderate Republican, the moderate Democrat, is a relic. It’s like a dinosaur. It’s like my old cell phone that had an antenna. And so we can’t have a sensible conversation, unfortunately, because you have too many people that are afraid of a right-wing, Tea Party challenge if they’re sensible on the issue. Think Sen. [Bob] Bennett from Utah, for example. Sen. [Orrin] Hatch, who shed his pro-immigration policies a decade ago, and this is an issue he’s afraid of because of the emergence of the far right.

The John McCain that I knew in 2006 could talk about this issue without his face turning red and declaring that the border is unsafe.

SS: Yeah.

AK: The Ted Kennedy, who’s sadly passed away, could knit together that kind of left-right coalition and drive a legislative product that both sides were proud of. And it’s those kinds of leaders that we need to have back. Until then, I actually do think that the responsibility sits on the Obama administration to examine its immigration policies, examine the role of police in enforcing immigration law, and the ways that’s making us less safe because people are afraid to report crimes. What is a threat? Who means to do us harm? Who are people with criminal records? Let’s go after them. But for the other folks, I don’t think it serves anybody’s interest to be targeting them for removal.

SS: I’ve got one last question for you. You were talking about 2006, and when immigration reform legislation almost passed, you were there, and then it didn’t. So you’ve been doing this work either as an advocate or as a service provider for quite some time, and it’s been a rollercoaster. It’s had its moments of triumph. It’s certainly had a lot of heartbreak. So why do you do this work?

AK: That’s such a great question. I do this work for a couple reasons. One is because I was privileged enough as a young lawyer to represent mainly Central Americans, some African refugees, who came to this country, and who had endured extraordinary pain and hardship and tragedy, that I couldn’t have survived a day, and they were surviving years. And they inspired me. They taught me courage. They taught me character. And so they became my North Star, and that’s just how my compass points.

The second is my own family’s story. My grandfather sent his six daughters to this country, and they were lucky enough to come legally because he believed in the character of this country and the promise that it holds, and that’s something that I firmly believe in and I want to fight for.

And then the last, I guess, you know, I’m a mother. I have two daughters who are 11 and 15, and they get this issue, they’ve grown up with it. My kids could do roll call votes on the Senate floor. They would call me from home and ask me how somebody voted. And I think it’s for them, because I want them to see the world—the way they see it now isn’t about whether somebody’s gay or straight, whether they have papers or they don’t. I mean they can’t believe that there was a time that black and white people couldn’t marry. And so it’s really for them. I need to leave the world better for them and that they feel an obligation to leave the world better for their kids.

SS: Amen. Thank you so much, Angie.

AK: Thank you.

Sally Steenland is Director for the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative and Angela Kelley is Vice President for Immigration Policy and Advocacy at the Center for American Progress.

This enormous response launches a massive effort called “40 Days for Health Reform.” The campaign cuts across religious and race lines and is intended to mobilize people of faith from many different perspectives to press Congress to finish work on health care reform when they return after Labor Day.

President Obama called health care reform “a core ethical and moral obligation,” and spoke pointedly about those who are “frankly bearing false witness” with “ludicrous claims” designed to derail real change. The president also underlined that people of faith have led in the most significant movements for change in America, like the Civil Rights movement. Melody Barnes spoke directly to the most important priorities in health care reform and answered questions from the participants.

The call also included specific examples from Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish leaders about what they have been doing to raise awareness about the need for real health care reform in their own congregations, as well as their communities and their states. A United Methodist pastor from Leewood, KS talked about an upcoming health care forum his church is sponsoring. They expect between 1,000 and 2,000 people to come to a panel discussion that includes both a hospital CEO and an ethicist to talk about why reform is needed.

A rabbi from St. Louis, MO, talked about how her synagogue has been involved in raising awareness about the need for health care reform for three years. They work in an interfaith coalition that is sponsoring two meetings this week to train religious leaders on how to respond to myths and fears. They are putting up a website called “Missouri Voices for Health Care Reform.”

A monsignor from a Catholic church in Lafayette, CO, shared how his congregation had conducted a survey on health care needs in their community. They have also held prayer rallies at the offices of their congressional representatives called “No Recess for Health Care.” This Catholic priest spoke movingly about how health care reform was a moral issue.

A United Methodist pastor from Little Rock, AK shared that congregation’s practical and attention-getting strategy called “No More Band Aids.” This campaign has people write their stories of struggles about health care on a card, to which they attach a band aid, and then send the card, the story, and the message “No More Band Aids” to Congress.

A common theme in these practical, faith-based strategies was getting out the stories of real Americans suffering from inadequate or no health care as a way to counter the emotionalism of those who oppose reform.

CAP Action Senior Fellow for Faith and Progressive Policy Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite provided live tweets during the call that may be accessed on your twitter feed at #sbthistle.

A recording of the call is available at www.faithforhealth.org or www.blogtalkradio.com/40mins4health, which live-streamed the call.

More information about the 40 Day Campaign for Health Care Reform is available at www.faithforhealth.org, including the call co-sponsors.

SOURCE: AP/Richard Vogel

Rev. Rick Warren hosted presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain at his Saddleback Church earlier this year in a discussion on leadership and faith.

Download this report (pdf)

The past eight years have seen a dramatic transformation in the relationship between religion and politics. The watershed year was 2004, when the “God gap” is said to have reached its peak. In that year, post-election pollsters claimed that a significant majority of religious voters voted for politically conservative candidates rather than candidates who were progressive or liberal.

In fact, the “God gap” was somewhat of a mischaracterization. The truth is the gap resulted in part from exit-poll questions that limited “values” questions to a few wedge issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, rather than including other values choices such as poverty, the environment, and the Iraq war. Subsequent polling by Zogby, which did present a more expansive list of “values” issues, showed that religious voters were more culturally and politically diverse than the headlines claimed.

Even so, as the God gap was re-examined, progressives became increasingly concerned that their policies were not connecting with faith voters—despite the fact that many of these policies were grounded in spiritual values. Soon after the 2004 election, a number of organizations and advocates began to address the problem in a focused way. The Center for American Progress hosted a meeting with a diverse group of faith leaders and began working with them to increase their organizational capacity and make their voices heard. CAP’s Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative continued these efforts, helping to re-activate the progressive faith movement and strengthen collaboration with secular progressives on a wide range of social justice issues.

As part of this work, CAP helped bring into being new organizations dedicated to these goals. For instance, Faith in Public Life was created in 2005 to organize faith communities and amplify their voice on justice issues, from torture to global warming. FPL, in turn, identified and strengthened statewide faith-based groups, such as We Believe Ohio, bringing together diverse faith leaders in the community to work on issues of common concern. FPL has also helped create new faith-based groups around the country, such as We Believe Colorado. Another organization created in 2005 was Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which focuses on promoting awareness of Catholic Social Tradition and its values of human dignity and justice.

These groups joined long-standing faith organizations and leaders such as Jim Wallis of Sojourners, David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Rev. James Forbes of the Riverside Church, and many others to strengthen the progressive faith movement and increase its visibility. And so, in 2005 a book by Jim Wallis of Sojourners became a New York Times best seller. God’s Politics offered biblically based arguments for fighting poverty, caring for the earth, opposing torture, and more. It was widely read and generated much discussion. Wallis’s book was a clear reminder that being evangelical didn’t mean one had to be politically conservative.

After the 2006 election, the strength and visibility of the progressive faith movement was no longer in question. By 2008, as Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama comfortably talked about their faith in debates and speeches, the distance progressives had traveled became clear. In the spring of 2008 both Clinton and Obama appeared at the Faith in Public Life “Compassion Forum” at Messiah College in Pennsylvania to answer questions from a diversity of faith leaders. The event was carried live by CNN and replayed several times, reaching millions of people. In August, Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ) appeared at Rev. Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church to discuss leadership and faith.

Because of efforts such as these, there has been a sea change in perception and in reality regarding the face of religion in America. The values debate today is much broader. The grip of the religious right has weakened. Interfaith alliances that include evangelicals, Catholics, mainstream Protestants, African-American congregations, Jewish believers, Muslims, and others are working together and finding common ground.

For instance, the National Religious Partnership for the Environment brings together the National Council of Churches, the Evangelical Environmental Network, the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to combat climate change and work on environmental sustainability and justice. The National Religious Campaign Against Torture includes over 200 faith groups working to end U.S.-sponsored torture and cruel inhuman treatment. Prominent Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars have joined together to publish “Abrahamic Alternatives to War,” a comprehensive theological case for nonviolence. And the Christian coalition Call to Renewal works to overcome poverty nationwide.

Furthermore, in the spring of 2007, an influential group of evangelical leaders released the “Evangelical Manifesto,” in which they declared independence from any political party, warned against religion being used for partisan ends, and reiterated a religious commitment to issues of poverty, human trafficking, and more.

Polling data show that religious voters increasingly care about social justice issues. For instance, 70 percent of Catholic voters say they would vote for a candidate who works to solve global warming and 59 percent would vote for a candidate who supports universal health insurance. In addition, close to half of all young religious Americans support same-sex marriage. The generation gap is also evident among young evangelicals who are much more likely than older evangelicals to support larger government that provides increased social services to address poverty issues (44 percent to 23 percent respectively).

Changes in 2008 and beyond

Early exit polls from the November 4 election show that Sen. Obama had greater support from religious voters than Sen. Kerry did in 2004. Among Catholics, the increase was 10 percent. Sen. Obama got 45 percent of the Protestant vote, 54 percent of the Catholic vote, and 78 percent of the Jewish vote. In 2004, Sen. Kerry got 44 percent of the Protestant vote, 44 percent of the Catholic vote, and 76 percent of the Jewish vote. Among those who attend church weekly, 43 percent voted for Sen. Obama; in 2004, 36 percent voted for Sen. Kerry. Among those who attend church monthly, 53 percent voted for Sen. Obama, while 50 percent voted for Sen. Kerry.

This exit polling data suggests that the range of values issues of concern to voters continues to grow. For example, Hispanic voters polled a month before the election said they considered immigration to be as important a religious issue as abortion. The economy also is increasingly being seen as a moral issue by faith voters. Whether it rises to the top in polling data remains to be seen.

Many factors have contributed to the changing faith vote in the past four years. Evangelical faith communities have broadened their focus of concern to include issues such as the environment, poverty, and genocide. Interfaith groups have come together to forge common-ground approaches to abortion reduction, stem cell research, and other controversial issues. Progressive faith communities are reaching out to build new alliances with diverse partners within and beyond the faith community.

Together, their voices are being heard. In just four short years, the progressive faith movement has made remarkable progress, connecting with its proud past of supporting abolition, women’s suffrage, and civil rights, to work on the social and economic justice issues of our day. The movement is reaching out to build alliances among secular citizens, evangelicals, and others, inspiring people and bringing them together across traditional divides on a host of issues where they share values and goals.

It is important for religious progressives to continue to expand their outreach to an ever-widening range of religious voters. In so doing, the progressive faith movement will be embracing the increasing diversity of religion in America, welcoming it as a strength and an opportunity to build new bridges and to see religion as a unifying force rather than a divisive weapon. In the challenging days ahead, as we face daunting problems at home and abroad, it is the responsibility of faith communities and their leaders to bring us together, enriching our national dialogue with purpose and possibility, and transforming words into actions, as we all join hands in the difficult work that lies ahead.

Download this report (pdf)

Rev. Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is a Senior Fellow with the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at American Progress and Professor of Theology at Chicago Theological Seminary.

Sally Steenland is the Senior Policy Advisor to the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at American Progress.

For more information on this event, please visit the events page.

“I have a strong sense that in 2008, something new is beginning,” said E.J. Dionne, Jr. on a panel at the Center for American Progress Action Fund yesterday. Dionne was joined by Amy Sullivan and Jim Wallis, all three of whom have published recent books on the evolving role of religion in American politics.

Dionne, a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, said that the differences between this year’s presidential campaign season and the 2004 election cycle are miraculous.

Personal faith has been a vibrant force in this year’s presidential election campaigns, especially for the Democratic candidates. Both Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) speak comfortably of their faith and explain their policies in terms of religious and moral values, said Amy Sullivan, an editor at Time Magazine.

Jim Wallis, president and executive director of Sojourners, described the broadening of the evangelical agenda in the past four years: Once limited to a few wedge issues, evangelical priorities now include poverty, the environment, torture, and the war in Iraq. All three panelists agreed that this is a welcome and unexpected departure from the 2004 presidential election, when a significant majority of evangelicals voted for a narrow conservative agenda. According to Sullivan, 2004 presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) failed to engage America’s more moderate and conservative religious voters.

“None of us ever believed that Republicans and conservatives had a monopoly on religion,” Sullivan said, but she wouldn’t have guessed that this year it would be the Republican presidential candidate—Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)—who appears uncomfortable talking about his faith.

Polls indicate that poverty and the war in Iraq are now more important to evangelicals than are abortion and gay marriage. And issues are expanding to have a social justice component, with evangelicals considering poverty and social mobility as key components of the abortion issue, said Wallis.

People of faith are blurring ideological lines and decoupling religion from partisan allegiances by bringing together conservatives and progressives to work on pressing issues. For example, last year Rev. Rick Warren, who wrote the Purpose Driven Life, invited both Sens. Obama and Sam Brownback (D-KS) to talk to his mega-church in California about AIDS.

In some ways, Democrats in the past four years have made inroads among people of faith, and by doing so, have “leveled the praying field.” Panelists agreed that religious voices have more power to influence policy because they are no longer presumed to be a conservative ally.

But it is not just evangelical voters who are engaging both political parties; Catholic voters—many of whom disagree with conservatives on poverty and liberals on abortion—are a strong swing vote, Dionne pointed out. Since both political parties are now attempting to engage religious voters, these voters have the ability to hold both parties accountable to a broad social-justice agenda.

All this talk of religion begs an important question: Can an atheist be elected president? According to polls, the answer is, “not yet,” and that’s unfortunate, said Sullivan. But since religious issue bases are beginning to broaden, the “religious candidate” designation will apply to a larger pool of politicians. Hopefully, this will broaden even further into a moral test, rather than a religious test, for office.

The media may be the last frontier in this religious awakening, said Wallis. According to Sullivan, the media are asking candidates irrelevant questions—like what their favorite Bible verse is—rather than questions that would indicate the personal character and moral compass that they would bring to the White House.

In any event, 2008 has a hopeful climate where religion is no longer pigeon-holed into a particular political camp, and evangelicals are broadening their fight for social justice.

“I wanted this, I worked for this, I hoped for this,” Wallis said, “and it happened a lot faster than I ever would have dreamed.”

For more information on this event, please visit the events page.

Exit polls sponsored by the major networks, CNN, Fox, and the Associated Press, which provide the basis for election analysis, continue to ask only Republican primary voters whether they considered themselves “born-again or evangelical Christian.” Faith in Public Life, Center for American Progress Action Fund, and Sojourners conducted a post-election poll in Ohio to demonstrate that self-described evangelicals are not an ideologically monolithic voting bloc, and are more diverse in their views than the media assumes.

More than four in ten (43 percent) white evangelical Ohio primary voters participated in the Democratic primary, and 57percent participated in the Republican primary. Post-election polling following the Missouri and Tennessee primaries on Super Tuesday showed that one-third of white evangelical voters in those states participated in Democratic contests.

While exit polls identified Ohio’s 395,000 Republican white evangelical voters, they failed to identify 300,000 white evangelical Democratic voters. These white evangelical Democratic voters comprised 14 percent of all Democratic voters in Ohio – a figure roughly equivalent to all Ohio primary voters over 65 or under 30.

The majority of white evangelical voters (54 percent) in Ohio support a broader issue agenda that goes beyond abortion and same-sex marriage to include ending poverty, protecting the environment, and tackling HIV/AIDS – 39 percent favor sticking to the more limited agenda of opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. Post-election polling following the Missouri and Tennessee primaries showed similar positions among white evangelicals in those states. Sixty-two percent of white evangelicals in Missouri and 56 percent in Tennessee favored the broader agenda.

The survey also found that three times as many white evangelical voters said jobs and the economy were the most important issues in deciding their vote (42 percent) and said abortion and same-sex marriage were most important (14 percent). Even among Republican white evangelical voters, 29 percent said jobs and the economy were most important issues, while 23 percent said abortion and same-sex marriage weremost important.

It is also notable that in Ohio, nearly 6 in 10 (59 percent) of voters who report attending church at least once a week voted in the Democratic primary, while 41 percent voted in the Republican primary. Nearly half (49 percent) of all primary voters reported that they attend religious services at least once a week. In Missouri, where 53 percent of voters reported attending church once a week or more, 53 percent voted in the Republican primary, while 47 percent voted in the Democratic primary. In Tennessee, where 61 percent of voter reported attending church once a week or more, 54 percent voted in the Republican primary, while 46 percent voted in the Democratic primary.

Candidate preference

Senator Hillary Clinton’s support from white evangelicals surpassed that of Senator Barack Obama’s in Ohio 57 percent to 35 percent. Senator John McCain and Governor Mike Huckabee ran even among white evangelicals, 41 percent to 42 percent (MOE +/-7.0 points).

Methodology

Zogby International was commissioned by Faith in Public Life, Center for American Progress Action Fund, and Sojourners to conduct a RDD telephone survey of Democrats and Republicans who had voted in the primary elections on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 in Ohio. Sample sizes: Republican primary (n=400), MOE +/- 5.0; Republic white evangelical over sample (n=196), MOE +/- 7.1. Democratic primary (n=401), MOE +/- 5.0; Democratic white evangelical oversample (n=207), MOE +/- 7.0. White evangelical subsamples combined (n=407), MOE +/- 5.0.

Read the full report

Listen to the press call

In the 2008 election, media organizations and pollsters are relying on an outdated script by treating evangelicals as a monolithic voting bloc. The exit polls (sponsored by the major networks, CNN, Fox, and the Associated Press) provide the data for nearly all post-election analysis. Yet, thus far, exit polls have only asked one party’s primary voters whether they considered themselves “born-again or evangelical Christian.”

A new post-election poll in Missouri and Tennessee, commissioned by Faith in Public Life and the Center for American Progress Action Fund conducted by Zogby International, demonstrates the diversity of evangelical voters and the need for more thorough polling and careful analysis. Large numbers of white evangelicals participated in the Republican and Democratic primaries; majorities of both Democratic and Republican evangelical voters want a broader agenda that goes beyond abortion and same-sex marriage, and like other voters, white evangelicals ranked jobs and economy as the most important issue area in deciding how to vote.

One in three white evangelical voters in Missouri and Tennessee participated in Democratic primaries. Comparatively, only one in four white evangelical voters in Missouri and Tennessee supported Senator John Kerry in the 2004 general election.

While this year’s exit polls in both states identified all Republican white evangelical voters, the Missouri exit polls failed to identify 160,000 white evangelical Democratic voters, and the Tennessee exit polls failed to identify 182,000 white evangelical Democratic voters. In both states, this group of overlooked white evangelicals represents a figure equal to or greater than all African American voters, all voters over 65, or all voters who said the Iraq war is the most important issue facing the country, according to the state exit polls. (Nineteen percent of all Democratic voters in Missouri and 29 percent of all Democratic voters in Tennessee were white evangelical.)

Majorities of both Democratic and Republican evangelical voters want a broader issue agenda that goes beyond abortion and same-sex marriage to include ending poverty, protecting the environment, and tackling HIV/AIDS—rather than sticking to the more limited agenda of opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. Majorities of white evangelicals in both states support a broader agenda by more than 20 percentage points.

Sixty-two percent of white evangelical voters in Missouri embrace a broader agenda (75 percent of Democratic voters and 56 percent of Republican voters). In Tennessee, 56 percent of white evangelical voters embrace a broader agenda (60 percent of Democratic voters and 54 percent of Republican voters).

In both states, white evangelicals who ranked jobs and economy as the most important issue area in deciding how to vote far outnumbered those who considered abortion and same-sex marriage most important. In Missouri, 30 percent of all white evangelicals ranked jobs and economy the most important issue, while 14 percent considered abortion and same-sex marriage the most important (12 percent chose Iraq, 11 percent health care, 7 percent immigration, 6 percent terrorism, 4 percent taxes and 4 percent education). In Tennessee, 34 percent of all white evangelicals ranked jobs and economy the most important issue, while 19 percent considered abortion and same-sex marriage the most important (8 percent chose Iraq, 8 percent health care, 6 percent education, 6 percent immigration, 5 percent terrorism, 4 percent taxes).

Candidate preference

The media has failed to analyze the preference of white evangelicals in the Democratic primaries.  Senator Hillary Clinton’s support from white evangelicals surpassed that of Senator Barack Obama’s in Missouri 54 percent to 37 percent and in Tennessee 78 percent to 12 percent.

As widely reported in the media because the exit polls in every state have asked Republican primary voters whether they considered themselves evangelical, Governor Mike Huckabee did well among white evangelical voters in Missouri, Tennessee, and other states—though he did not capture a majority of white evangelical voters in either.

Methodology

Zogby International was commissioned by Faith in Public Life and the Center for American Progress Action Fund to conduct a telephone survey of Democrats and Republicans who had voted in the primary elections on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 in Missouri and Tennessee. All calls were made February 5 and 6, 2008. Missouri sample size: 402 Democratic primary voters and 402 Republican primary voters. Tennessee sample size: 401 Democratic primary voters and 400 Republican primary voters. MOE +/-5.0 percentage points. Margins of error are larger in subsets.

Read the full report

Listen to the press call.

Their arguments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the interaction of faith and science, treating science as an ideology to be ignored rather than empirical facts to be considered. While the candidates equivocated in answering the question, neither Brownback nor Huckabee last night acknowledged support for evolution.

Huckabee claimed he did not know the answer because “I wasn’t there,” millions of years ago. Brownback was equally vague, and though he recently claimed in a New York Times opinion piece that he believes in “small changes over time within a species,” he avoided acknowledging a belief that all life evolved from a common ancestor.

Unfortunately, there was no follow-up question in either debate about why a new flu vaccine is needed each year or why we are running out of antibiotics that kill bacteria. The answers to these questions presuppose the mechanisms that underlie evolution and much of biology, and it would be nice to hear the candidates’ answers.

Rather than directly address the issue, both candidates attempted to twist the question into an attack on faith. In his opinion piece, Brownback lashed out at what he calls the “exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world,” which he associates with evolution. He said that aspects of evolution that contradict his beliefs “should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.”

Huckabee was equally caustic last night, claiming the question about his belief in evolution was “an unfair question because it simply asks us in a simplistic manner whether or not we believed… there’s a God or not.”

Here Brownback and Huckabee reveal their true colors. Rather than acknowledge that faith and science address different questions, they want to treat science as a rival ideology to be dismissed at their whim. But there is no reason to view evolution as an attack on faith.

The Catholic Church, for example, does not deny evolution any more than it contends the Earth is flat or the center of the universe. In fact, many scientists believe in God, like Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, and Darwin himself, both Christians. And evolutionary theory makes no claims about religious issues; it simply explains the processes that have led to the diversity of life on Earth.

The candidates’ real concern lies not with evolution but with the conclusions that some people have drawn from evolutionary evidence, and with the moral anxiety that many people feel today. They have every right to argue against the notion of a materialistic world that lacks meaning or purpose, but they’re wrong to equate such philosophical and cultural concerns with scientific evolution. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

This dismissal of evolution could not be more ill-timed. Scientific knowledge is more important than ever, particularly in the biological sciences. Just as the 20th century saw the exploration of the New Frontier of space, the 21st century will witness the exploration of the Next Frontier of the human body.

Biomedical research will lead to life-saving new treatments for diseases and advances that will improve the quality of life and increase prosperity. It will also pose new questions about the best ways to use this technology to serve humankind. In order to ensure that this work proceeds ethically and effectively, Americans—both religious and secular—need to be scientifically literate.

Our growing understanding of the world is one of humanity’s greatest achievements. Shouldn’t our leaders celebrate it? When Huckabee was asked about evolution last night, he claimed: “I don’t honestly know, and I don’t think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president.” But he misses the point entirely.

We need our leaders to set a positive example. They should be clear that they will not allow personal ideology to color facts or dismiss evidence that does not fit with their preconceived notions. And they must be courageous enough to engage honestly with the new promises and challenges of biomedical research.

Increasingly, science presents us with discoveries that expand our understanding of the world and how our beliefs apply to it. The solution is not to deny these facts, but to continue to explore our values and our faith in light of new knowledge.

Jonathan D. Moreno, Ph.D., is the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor and Professor of Medical Ethics and the History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Sam Berger is a Researcher at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.