Will last minute attack on catholics and evangelicals by DFL Party and Melendez cost DFLers' elections?

This not so subtle attack on Catholics and evangelicals by the DFL party through a series of post cards mailed out in a local state Senate district may cost DFL'ers in the elections Tuesday. The problem was only compounded by DFL party chair Brian Melendez who didn't apologize for the postcards but, in fact, defended them saying they were good ads.

His response evidences not only arrogance and an anti-Catholic and evangelical Christian bias but political tone deafness.

It's reported that DFL Catholic elected officials are livid by their party's actions. They are facing tight, tough local, legislative races which could turn on a controversy ad like this.

The fact that Dayton and his family have given $900,000 to the DFL Party and Tom Emmer who is Catholic could mean the controversy could spill over to the tight governor's race.

I came across this interview with Jeff Blodgett who talked about the impact last minute political blunders can have. Blodgett was the campaign manager for Paul Wellstone in 1990 when Rudy Boschwitz sent out a letter to Jewish leaders calling for their support over the less observant Paul Wellstone. It upset many non-Jewish voters. Some say it impacted the outcome of the election. Here's what Blodgett said about last minute blunders.

"Rule No. 1 in politics," said Blodgett, "is don't do something that becomes an issue itself."

If it's so basic, why does the rule seem to be violated so frequently?

"In a campaign, you have to be careful because you can end up losing perspective," said Blodgett.

At some point in a campaign, politics gets personal, and the personal gets emotional. Your candidate is good. The other candidate is evil.

"It's a big mistake when one campaign ends up hating the other campaign," Blodgett said.

We'll see what the political impact of this attack on catholics and evangelicals is Tuesday.

Catholic, Evangelical and Orthodox leaders issue bold statement on critical moral issues and ultimately civil disobedience. Add your name as well.

A number of leaders in the Christian community - evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox - have signed the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience". It's a lengthy statement on Christian engagement in the culture and responds to the three critical areas of current social contention -- abortion and life issues, marriage and efforts to redefine it, and religious freedom and growing efforts to infringe on religious freedoms.

A summary of the Declaration on their webpage states:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Maybe the most significant and new aspect of the statement is that it's a bold statement that they will not be forced to violate Christian convictions on important matters like abortion and marriage.

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; not will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage an the family. We will fully ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. but under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

The Declaration raises the specter of civil disobedience. Christians will not be forced to participate in immoral activities.

I think it's new and significant that this concern is being raised front and center by a growing number of prominent individuals and church leaders across all denominational lines. I think the battle lines are being drawn between Christians and a culture and society which embraces values hostile to Christian values.

Individuals can add their name to the list of signers here.

Want to discredit President's faith-based initiative? Appoint anti-Catholic director with homosexual Human Rights Campaign Fund.

Want to discredit the President's faith-based initiative without actually eliminating it? Appoint an anti-Catholic director from the homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign Fund. Seriously, that's exactly what President Obama has done.

According to a Fox News story:

A representative of a national gay rights group who was appointed by President Obama to a White House advisory council this week once described Pope Benedict XVI and some Catholic bishops as "discredited leaders" because of their opposition to same-sex marriage.

Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based gay rights group, lambasted the prelates in a gay newspaper last month for their support of Proposition 8, the successful November ballot measure that made same-sex marriage unconstitutional in California.

Knox told the Bay Area Reporter that the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic fraternal service organization, were "foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression" for their role in the campaign, saying the group "followed discredited leaders," including bishops and Pope Benedict.

Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, an organization for gay Catholics, who has worked closely with Knox, called Knox a strong supporter of Catholicism who acknowledges the good works of the church.

"But I think he also represents a valid viewpoint in criticizing the Catholic bishops' efforts to sustain continual oppression in this country," she said, adding that they have been the primary financial backers of measures to block the human rights of gay couples. "The bishops have done a lot of damage to our communities, and [Knox's] presence in that circle brings a much needed voice."

Knox is among the 25-member advisory council that is part of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Some wonder whether the choice of Knox was simply a replay of the Warren-Robinson inauguration prayer situation. Then Warren was invited to pray; gays were upset so homosexual Bishop Robinson was invited to pray at another event. In this instance, Tony Dungy was invited to be a part of the council so then Knox was invited to head it up.

Some have accused Obama of appointing Knox to deflect criticism from liberal groups after he invited former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy to be part of the council. Dungy, an evangelical Christian, supported efforts in Indiana to ban same-sex marriage in 2007. He declined Obama's offer, citing scheduling conflicts.

However Bill Donahue, head of the Catholic League points the incongruity of the analogy if that was the case.

"The counter to Dungy is Harry Knox," Donahue said. "But you don't counter a man with traditional beliefs with an anti-Catholic bigot. It's not a moral equivalent."

What ever happened the President's faith based initiative will have no credit, if not negative credibility if there is such a thing, with millions of Americans.

Evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for McCain, but according to Barna they're a smaller percent of Americans than you might think.

Evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for McCain over Obama. According to a survey by George Barna it was 88% to 11% respectively. Barna finds though evangelicals represent only 7% of all adults. The reason for the small percentage is Barna uses a more detailed definition of evangelicals based on their theological beliefs.

When pollsters ask individuals to self identify themselves, 41% of individuals who voted identified themselves as evangelicals. Of this 41% only 16% would fit the theological meaning of the term evangelical. Of the self described evangelicals 61% voted for McCain and 38% for Obama.

It would be interesting to see how that dynamic played out among Catholics. Self identified Catholics voted for Obama over McCain by a 56% to 43% margin. Though I'm sure it's much less than the self identified "born again" or "evangelical" split, I wouldn't be surprised if the truly devout Catholics went for McCain., particularly because of his views on abortion and homosexual marriage.

Democrats and Catholics: Is a sea change in the works?

Traditionally, Catholics have been a inclined to vote democrat for a number of social and cultural reasons. Now with the more conservative and outspokenness of American Catholic bishops on the issues of life and marriage and a re-prioritizing of the issues of most concern to Catholics, I think the orientation towards democrats is and will be changing.

This is highlighted by the recent statement of Archbishop Raymond Burke who said, "At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death' because of its choices on bioethical questions."

He was responding the invitation of the pro-abortion singer Sheryl Crow to sing at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. He said that didn't surprise him and went on to say the Democrat Party was "the party that helped our immigrant parents and grandparents better integrate and prosper in American society. But it is not the same anymore."

I think the shift in the stance of Catholic leadership will be very significant over the long term. Of course, lay Catholics don't vote in lock step with the views of their leaders but if Catholic leaders clearly define what the implications are of being Catholic are on voting and public engagement, people will have to decide how seriously they consider themselves Catholic. They'll either shift their views or leave the church.

The article linked above has other interesting things to say:

Burke, who was recently appointed by Pope Benedict XIV to be the head of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest internal tribunal in the Catholic Church, has not only consistently opposed the idea that a politician can be both Catholic and pro-abortion, but has done more than any other US prelate to raise the issue in the media.

He was one of the few bishops of the US Conference unequivocally to support the instruction from the former Cardinal Ratzinger that such politicians "must" be refused Holy Communion.

But Archbishop Burke told Avvenire that he was not the only one. "Mine was not an isolated position," the archbishop said. "It was shared by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, by Bishop Peter J. Jugis of Charlotte (N.C.) and by others."...

As the head of the highest ecclesiastical court in the Church, which interprets Canon law definitively, Burke indicated there is no wiggle room for Catholic politicians on the issue. "It is not licit to give Holy Communion to one who is publicly and obstinately a sinner," he said. "And it is logical that one who publicly and obstinately acts in favor of procured abortion enters into this category."

Traditionally the US Democrats have been the party of the US Catholic Church. In a 2006 article appearing in the Summer edition of Human Life Review, George McKenna chronicled the history of the US bishops' dalliance with the Democratic party, noting that it started with the party's support for the black Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. By the time the party had moved forward into the leftist program in the 1970s and 80s, first by accepting and then zealously promoting abortion, the US Catholic Church was so entwined with the fortunes of the party it seemed next to impossible to withdraw.

In 1980, when the Democrat convention presented a "right to abortion" as part of the party platform, despite their previous strong statements on the right to life of the unborn, the US Bishops' Conference made no response.

McKenna writes, "The bishops were literally dumbstruck. There was no expression of 'outrage' from them ... Abortion was thrust right in the bishops' faces and they said nothing - not that year, not for the next three years. And when they finally did speak, abortion was no longer their main topic."

Since the 2004 presidential election, however, the scandal of pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians defying or simply ignoring the leadership of the Church has come to a head. Archbishop Burke was one of the few who stated that then presidential Democrat candidate John Kerry would not be allowed to receive Communion in his diocese of St. Louis. Leading up to the visit of Pope Benedict to the U.S. this year, the bishops were again divided and equivocated when pro-life advocates begged them to refuse Communion to pro-abortion "Catholic" figures such as Senator Ted Kennedy and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Recently, however, more forceful statements have been forthcoming from the U.S. bishops, with an official statement from the USCCB correcting the pro-abortion stands of Senator John Biden and Speaker Pelosi.

The interview with Avvenire was not the first time Archbishop Burke has stated, in his new position as head of the Apostolic Signatura, that Catholic leadership is obliged to refuse Communion in such cases. In August, he told the Italian magazine Radici Cristiane, that public officials who contravene divine and eternal law such as "if they support abortion, which entails the taking of innocent and defenseless human lives ... should be publicly admonished in such a way as to not receive Communion until he or she has reformed his life."