Billy Graham Passes Away at 99

---

---

"When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost."

Billy Graham (1918–2018)

---

It has been more than a decade since Billy Graham's last crusade; consequently, there are many people living today who have no memory of the evangelist in his prime — when he routinely drew huge crowds to massive stadiums and counseled presidents at critical times in our nation's history.

There are people in our lives that we can't imagine living without. They tend to be people with whom we share some sort of personal connection — friends, parents, siblings, etc. My mother's mother was such a person for me. When I was little, I believed everything she said. With the benefit of hindsight, I realize now that there were some things she told me that weren't true, but I understand why she told me most of those things, and she is undiminished in my eyes. She will always be wise and a model to follow, however I may stumble.

One thing she told me — many times and in many ways — was what a wonderful person Billy Graham was, how inspiring he was, how fulfilling it was to be in his presence. She went to a couple of his crusades, and I can recall her vivid description of the experience of a Billy Graham crusade at Texas Stadium.

My personal religious beliefs have been less certain than hers over the years. Let's be clear: I have never regarded myself as an atheist. For awhile, I looked upon myself as an agnostic, but now I tend to empathize with Timmy in "The Subject Was Roses" when he said, "I believe there is something bigger than myself. What you call it or what it is, I don't know."

There may have been a time in my grandmother's life when she had her doubts — most people do — but by the time I came along she was certain of things. She knew what was bigger than herself. I'm not there yet.

Billy Graham gave her that assurance — as he did millions around the world.

---

---

There was a time when I thought my grandmother liked Billy Graham because he was a friend of Richard Nixon. My grandmother was an admirer of Nixon, but I realized that her fondness for Graham was entirely separate from her admiration for Nixon. The fact that they were friends was, for my grandmother, a happy coincidence.

Those who were close to Nixon always seemed to suffer for it. I suppose Graham suffered for it, too, because, after Nixon left office, he tried to avoid the appearance of partisanship. He was mostly successful, too, but he continued to pay a price.

I have written before of people I thought would always be there. That was a foolish state of mind, and I guess I always knew that. Everyone dies. We all know that.

Still, I just always thought that Billy Graham would go on forever. His body did not. He passed away early today after a lengthy battle with prostate cancer, pneumonia and symptoms of Parkinson's. I knew he had been sick, but I figured he was one of those people who would live to be 100. That would have been a suitably biblical age for him. It was not to be, though.

But he built a legacy that will live on — in his writings, recordings and videos — so that those who never knew what it was like at a Billy Graham crusade, even those who can remember when they were still being done but never had the first–hand experience, can learn from them.

The Day of Four Popes

---

---

Today was an historic day at St. Peter's Square in the Vatican City.

Pope Francis presided over the canonization of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. Francis' predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, was on hand for the occasion, thus creating an historic "Day of Four Popes."

John Paul II is the only one of the two who is familiar to many modern Catholics. John Paul has been dead less than a decade; John XXIII died more than half a century ago.

Both left their marks on the modern Catholic church. In fact, I have often heard it said that it was John XXIII, who convened the Second Vatican Council in 1962, who first made the church accessible to the masses.

The selection of John Paul as the first non–Italian pope in more than 400 years helped expand the church's reach, as have the elections of his successors, a German and an Argentine. John Paul's papacy was more than symbolic. His was the second–longest papacy in modern history, and he was one of the most widely traveled world leaders ever. He went to 129 countries during his pontificate, seeking to touch the faithful on every continent.

The movement for sainthood began almost immediately after John Paul's death in 2005.

I don't know when such a movement may have begun for John XXIII. His papacy was before my time. I vaguely remember his successor, Paul VI, but only because a lady who used to babysit my brother and me, Mrs. Strack, was Catholic and had his picture on the wall, and I remember that the first John Paul chose his names to honor his two immediate predecessors, John XXIII and Paul VI. After John Paul I died a month later, his successor chose the name John Paul II to honor his predecessor.

---

---

And what I know of John XXIII is almost entirely what I have heard of him from others. My mother admired him, and so did many other people I knew. Strangely enough, none of them were Catholic. We did know Catholics when I was growing up — Mrs. Strack and several others in my hometown — but I don't recall ever hearing them speak of him.

I don't know why that was so.

I've been trying to read what I can about the two newest saints. I already knew quite a bit about John Paul and already regarded him as a saintly man.

From what my mother told me, John XXIII was a lot like Pope Francis. I also get that impression from what I read by Bill Huebsch in the National Catholic Reporter.

John XXIII was an "accidental saint," Huebsch writes. "His personal gifts and weaknesses were ones that you or I might possess."

Apparently, one of his greatest strengths was his sense of humor. He had a razor–sharp mind and directed many of his wisecracks at himself.

"There are three ways to face ruin: women, gambling and farming," he wrote. "My father chose the most boring one."

Perhaps John's most memorable one–liner came when he was asked by a reporter how many people worked at the Vatican.

"About half of them," he replied.

John XXIII appears to have been a very accessible pope, just as Francis is perceived to be today. Upon meeting a young boy named Angelo, John said, "That was my name, too," which it was, and then he added, "But they made me change it."

In his lifetime, he was known as "Il Papa Buono" — "The Good Pope."

How appropriate that he should be canonized by Pope Francis.

On Stereotyping and Hypocrisy

Last night, as I was waiting for the Oscars broadcast to begin, I was casually looking at Facebook to see what people were saying.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I almost never go to the movies anymore. There was a time when I did, but that was years ago. I eventually get caught up through home video or TV broadcasts, but it's been several years since I could select a favorite in an Oscar category based on firsthand knowledge.

For some reason, that has seemed especially true this year.

(I have taken to joking that this year, more than usual, I feel like Bill Murray on a Weekend Update segment on Saturday Night Live circa 1979 or 1980 when he predicted the Oscar winners based on which movies he had actually seen — and repeatedly dismissed nominees by saying "Didn't see it ... Didn't see it ... Didn't see it," punctuated by an occasional "Saw it, didn't like it.")

Since I rarely have a dog in that hunt — to use an old expression that is so Southern that, if it didn't originate here, it should have — I don't feel compelled to stay with the Oscars broadcast until all hours. And I seldom do.

But I do like pre–Oscar conversation. I know little about most of the nominees so I say little, but I am interested in what more knowledgeable (or supposedly more knowledgeable) people have to say.

I advise the student newspaper staff at the community college where I teach, and one of the staff writers authors the movie reviews. He knows quite a bit about all the nominees so I have enjoyed listening to what he has had to say in recent weeks.

(Turned out he was wrong about some of the winners, right about others.)

Anyway, the red carpet stuff doesn't really interest me so I was cruising through Facebook, as I said earlier, to read conversation threads on the Oscars.

About an hour before the actual awards broadcast began, the minister at my church (Methodist) posted this statement: "Oscar voters are 94 percent white, 77 percent male, with a median age of 62."

This set off a thread that drew comments for two hours. The minister at my church is vocal about his support for liberal causes (there was a highly publicized same–sex marriage here this weekend that had him and many others fired up) and the clear presumption of the remark was that these old white men would behave as right–wing reactionaries when casting their votes.

Within minutes of the original post, two people replied, "That explains a lot."

To make sure the point wasn't lost, another replied, "Just like the Republican Party!" (The good pastor was among half a dozen folks who liked that comment.)

Still another replied, "Are they from the south?" (The good pastor liked that one, too, but he was the only one.)

Another one asked, "How is that possible in what is reputed to be very liberal Hollywood?"

Notice that the original post only mentioned race, gender and age. I ask you: What do those characteristics by themselves have to do with political philosophy? My father would fit in all three categories, and he is a liberal Democrat.

(Remember that same–sex marriage I mentioned earlier? It was conducted by a retired minister who would easily fit in all three of the demographic groups mentioned in the original post as well — and I doubt that anyone would call him a conservative.)

To continue ...

Another person commented, "That explains why Sandra Bullock was nominated. And why 12 Years doesn't stand a chance." (The good pastor liked that one, too — and it proved to be 100% wrong in its assumption.)

Bullock did not win Best Actress. Cate Blanchett did. And "12 Years a Slave" did win Best Picture.

(Incidentally, Lupita Nyong'o of Kenya won Best Supporting Actress. And Best Supporting Actor went to Jared Leto for his portrayal of a transgender woman.)

Liberals like to tell themselves — and especially others — that they are tolerant, that they are above this sort of thing, but the fact is that no group, no matter how high–minded it believes itself to be, has a monopoly on tolerance, stereotyping or hypocrisy.

Nixon's 'Evil Genius' Dies

In the Nixon White House, Charles Colson was known as an "evil genius," a master of "dirty tricks," the guy who (reportedly) said he would walk over his own grandmother to ensure the re–election of Richard Nixon.

He was more than 18 years younger than Nixon so, I suppose, it was appropriate that he should die nearly 18 years to the day after Nixon did.

And, to many, I suppose, his story is an inspiring one, even if Nixon's is not — a man who spent the first half of his life exploiting the weaknesses in the system and the second half of his life trying to repair them.

It is a story, I guess, of one man's quest for redemption, and that is something I can appreciate. Once, when I was filling out a job application, I had to answer the following question — "What is your favorite word and why?"

My answer was that my favorite word was redemption because it suggests that no mistake or bad decision a person makes in his/her life is permanent, that a second chance is always possible.

And, in hindsight, it is clear Colson's life — well, the first half of it, anyway — was loaded with mistakes and bad decisions.

He was involved in the decisions to develop and fund the infamous White House Plumbers unit to gather intelligence on the Democrats, and at least one recording of a conversation he had with Nixon in June 1972 indicates his early involvement in efforts to obstruct justice in the Watergate investigation.

Colson was in prison when Nixon resigned the presidency, and he emerged about five months later with a new purpose in life.

It is understandable, I presume, that those who had been the targets of his wrath were skeptical, but Colson apparently was a changed man. And, on the occasion of his death, that unwillingness to acknowledge that Colson turned over a new leaf offends his defenders.

"Prison opened his eyes not only to God," writes Fr. Johannes Jacobse in The Observer, "but the desperate conditions of other prisoners."

He points out that Colson founded Prison Fellowship, a Christian outreach program for prisoners and ex–prisoners and their families.

"The world has lost a good man," asserts Fr. Jacobse.

In the South Florida Sun–Sentinel, James D. Davis laments the overemphasis in the media on Colson's political career and under–emphasis on his faith–based activities.

"Even in reporting his death, not everyone grasped the spiritual side of Colson," writes Davis, observing that "[o]f the 57 paragraphs in the Washington Post's obituary, only seven or eight dealt with the faith that steered his life for more than 38 years — and three of the paragraphs mentioned the 'skepticism and even hilarity' from many columnists who heard of his conversion."

Personally, I always felt Colson was sincere in his expression of faith. I was still young when he was released from prison, and I was no more certain then than I am today that I shared his beliefs, but the things he said seemed genuine to me.

I was brought up in the buckle of the Bible Belt, so when I say Colson's words and actions seemed plausible to me, you can believe it. I think I know the real article when I see it.

That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible for someone to fake the "born again" experience.

And, to be sure, I have seen my share of people who fooled others with some well–chosen words and phrases. Sooner or later, their deceptions were exposed.

But Colson matched the words with deeds for four decades.

If he started out as a phony, a disbeliever, he must have become persuaded at some point. It would take a remarkably skilled hypocrite to pull off such a charade for that long.

Colson was always true to his conservative beliefs, which he reconciled with his religious beliefs. He opposed homosexuality, and, although he never (to my knowledge) contended that Hurricane Katrina was some sort of judgment or punishment from God, he did say it was a "warning" from God and implied that there would be worse to come if it was ignored: "[O]ne lesson I learned from Katrina is that we had better win the war on terror and resolve to prevent another 9–11. Katrina exposed how easy it would be to take a city out."

Ironically, it seems to me, Charles Colson, who spent a significant portion of the first half of his life driving wedges between people went on to spend a significant portion of the second half of his life trying to bring them together.

And Sarah Pulliam Bailey of GetReligion.org wishes more of the writers who seem to remember only the first half of that life would move on.

"It's clear that some reporters are stuck in the 1970s," Bailey writes, "apparently unaware of how the state of evangelicalism was shaped by Colson's complex life and legacy."

Maybe that is Colson's real legacy. Perhaps, in Colson's own story of redemption is a cautionary tale for the rest of us about our relationships with each other.

Mom's Milestone

---

---

Today would have been a milestone for my mother — if she had not died in a flash flood 16 years ago.

Today would have been her 80th birthday — and, if nature had not intervened, I am quite sure she would still be with us today.

I can't know a thing like that, of course. But I know the family history, and I know what Mom's health was like on the day she drowned. At the time she died, I believed she could have been with us for another 20 years, at least, and I still believe that today.

Anything else could have happened in the last 16 years, though. Family history isn't infallible. Mom's father died of a heart attack in his sleep when he was 70. The same thing could have happened to her.

But my grandmother outlived my grandfather by nearly 20 years — even though the quality of the last 10 years of her life is debatable. She suffered increasingly from dementia, and I know that Mom feared a similar fate.

She never said so, but she didn't have to.

Mom was a first–grade teacher. At times, it seemed to me that she drew energy from the 6– and 7–year–olds in her classroom. They kept her young, and I realized, after she died, that a significant part of her was afraid of ending up like my grandmother, unable to recognize those who came to see her, unable even to communicate in her final years.

Funny thing — when Mom died, she was the subject of several newspaper articles because she had been recognized for her classroom innovations. Someone (and I can't remember now whether it was an administrator or another teacher or a parent who said this) was quoted as saying Mom was "everyone's favorite grandmother."

I had trouble seeing her as a grandmother. Mom was a free and independent spirit. She also had a childlike fascination with things that I'm sure made her popular with the children who spent their first year in elementary school in her classroom. It permeated her life — and I never realized that until after she died.

I remember one day when I was sorting through my mother's belongings following her death. My father walked into the room while I was looking at a special vest Mom wore on an excursion to St. Louis with some of her colleagues. The vest was covered in buttons she got at a Cardinals baseball game.

One button was equipped with a music player. When you pressed it, it played "Take Me Out to the Ballgame." I pressed it, listened to it, looked up and saw my father, who had entered the room without my notice. He smiled. "Your mother was a child," he said, turned and walked out of the room.

Yes, she was. Maybe that was what made her such a great mother — and a great teacher (and, by extension, everyone's favorite grandmother). Above all other things, my memory is that it was fun having her for my mom. She made everything an adventure. I'm sure it was that way for the children in her classroom.

I am about to begin my second year of adjunct teaching in the local community college, and I am trying to apply things she taught me in my classroom. It is a work in progress.

After she died, a family friend sought to comfort my brother and me by observing that Mom "went out at the top of her game."

At that time and under those circumstances, it simply wasn't possible for me to be comforted by that thought — I didn't want her to be gone, still don't, and no thoughts that indicated an acceptance of the new reality could be tolerated — but I have drawn some comfort from it since.

I wish Mom was still with us, but if she was spared her mother's fate, then I am thankful for that.

You see, I understand now, in a way that I really didn't before, that no one lives forever. Oh, I said things like that, but it was more of an expression for me, I guess. I didn't really think about the truth of those words or however subtly they might be influencing me (sort of like the Pledge of Allegiance I dutifully recited each morning as a child). I do now.

I understand that, while no one really wants to die (probably because none of us can be absolutely sure what happens when we die — we may think that we know, but no one who is living can really know), it's going to happen to all of us. I can't imagine what that will be like, but I've concluded that there would be no advantage in living forever — not even if one could strike some sort of deal and be sure never to age or lose one's mobility.

Since such a Faustian arrangement is not possible — at least as far as I know — I would rather not linger past the time that all my contemporaries have gone. I would rather be taken when I am still alert and capable — and the people I leave behind believe there were still things I didn't do that I should have done before I died — than to overstay my welcome and die long after my quality of life began to decline.

Whichever it turns out to be, I would just prefer that my death wouldn't be an excessively painful or lingering one. I don't even have to know it's happening. My grandfather died in his sleep — wouldn't any of us choose that over being conscious?

Mom's quality of life definitely did not decline — and I can only hope that she did not experience too much pain. But that is something I will never know.

---

---

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Mom's sense of humor. It was different, but I really miss it.

Mom had a great knack for laughing at herself.

When I was a child, she used to make a beef–noodle casserole that was absolutely delicious. As far as I could see, it was perfect. Mom used to rave about how easy it was to prepare, and I don't exaggerate when I say it was one of my favorite dishes. I actually looked forward to evening meals when I knew it was on the menu.

She served it once when some friends came over, and they went wild, insisting that Mom give them the recipe. She promised that she would.

Never one to put off such things, Mom typed the recipe on an index card the very next day and passed it along to her friend while she was out running errands.

(Now, when I say "typed," I mean that — literally. It was long before personal computers and word processors with spell checkers or any of that other stuff. Mom used a typewriter — and it was the old–fashioned, manual kind, too.)

Mom didn't proofread the card first, and it turned out she had typed an o instead of an e in the word "noodle" in the title of the recipe (which was something very basic, like "Beef–Noodle Casserole," but, with the typo, it read "Beef–Noodlo Casserole").

Someone noticed the typo and remarked that the dish was "Goodloe's Noodle–ohs." Mom liked that. We ate it at least once a week every week — and we called it "Goodloe's Noodle–ohs" for about as long as I can remember.

It became kind of a family joke. I can remember having friends over to spend the night, and I would ask Mom what we were having for dinner. She would reply "Goodloe's Noodle–ohs," seemingly oblivious to the fact there was a guest in the house who wasn't familiar with the joke.

Mom also liked to joke about what she called the "Goodloe luck." It was sort of a family variation on Murphy's law. I'm not sure if she originated it or not — or if perhaps my father played a role — but if something went wrong, we were sure to hear the "Goodloe luck" mentioned.

The photo of Mom sitting in our foldout camper was taken on the occasion of my favorite example of the "Goodloe luck." We had driven from Dallas to South Padre Island during the Christmas holidays — about an 11– or 12–hour drive, as I recall. It was something we had done — without incident — the year before, and the entire family was looking forward to some sand, surf and fresh seafood.

The picture that shows Mom smiling and laughing in our camper was taken about an hour after our arrival. The weather was gorgeous, and everyone was in a jovial mood. But, during the night, a storm front moved in, and we spent the next couple of days huddled around that small table, eating modest meals and playing card games while wind and rain pounded the tiny trailer outside.

Finally, my parents decided that we had had enough, and we left on the third day. We took down our camper in a pouring rain and began the long drive back to my grandmother's home in Dallas. On the way, we heard on the radio that the storm was the worst to strike the area in decades. Boats were missing at sea.

That, my parents agreed, was the "Goodloe luck."

I guess the most extreme example of the "Goodloe luck" was the flash flood that took Mom's life. But that would be a real misnomer. There was nothing lucky about that night.

Well, anyway, today would have been her birthday. It isn't the anniversary of her death. It's an appropriate time to remember who she was, not how she died.

I can't help feeling somewhat wistful on this day. I think of the world that existed on the day Mom died and the world that exists today, and I can't help wishing she had lived to see some of the things I have seen.

The flip side of that, of course, is that I'm glad she was spared some of the things that have happened since her death — so I suppose it is something of a tradeoff, as it is in every life, be it wealthy or privileged or longer than most.

In the great scheme of things, I guess one life is pretty much the same as the next. Some are longer than others. Some are more accomplished.

Religious people often speak of "God's will" and his "plan." I guess it is the only way some people can make sense of the irrational. There must be a reason why terrible things happen. We just aren't smart enough to figure it out.

I guess it's comforting, in a way, to believe that things that appear to make no sense — like the deaths of children — really do have a purpose. And some people believe the purposes for all things will be revealed to us when we die.

But some people will tell you that, whatever the reasons for these things may be, those reasons are God's, not man's — and God is under no obligation to explain himself.

So life continues to be, as it has always been, unfair. Some lives end far too early while others go on for a century or more, and there is no justification for it. Some lives are harder than most while others are easier, and there is no obvious justification for that, either.

I don't think I ever discussed this with Mom during her life. I know she believed in God, but I don't know what her conclusions were about the inequities of life.

Mom's life could have been longer than it was. Perhaps it could have been more accomplished.

But today, I want to remember Mom's life, and I want to do something to mark the occasion. Today is Saturday, and I'm going to the cemetery.

Maybe it seems odd to say that, but it isn't. Not really. In the years since Mom's death, the cemetery is the only place where I can feel close to her. I don't know if it is her "spirit" or not. I just know that is the way it is.

I used to go there every year on the anniversary of her death. I preferred going to the cemetery in May over going there in August, even though going there in May always seemed like more of an observance of her death than her life. It's always hot here in August — and it has been especially hot this summer.

But, since this would have been a milestone birthday for Mom, I will brave the elements, however severe they may be, and pay a visit in the morning hours. I'll keep it short, though. Classes at the community college begin next week, and I have last–minute preparations to make.

Mom would have understood.

Hate Crimes Decline

David Gibson, the religion reporter for Politics Daily, wrote last month that, according to the FBI, "the number of reported hate crimes dropped significantly in 2009 from the previous year, to their lowest point in more than 15 years."

This happened, Gibson observed, "despite the deepening recession and growing social tensions."

And that's a good thing — if you can verify that hate–inspired crimes actually did drop, but that isn't as easy to verify as you might think.

I'll grant you that sometimes it's obvious — like that case a dozen years or so ago when the black man was dragged to his death by a group of white men in a pickup truck.

Sometimes it's a matter of suspicion. You may think that a crime was motivated by hate because the victim(s) belonged to a particular race or religion or gender — but suspicion alone is not sufficient to charge anyone with a crime, whatever the motivation.

I would argue that, at least to a degree, all crimes are hate crimes so I'm not sure how I feel about the special designation in the criminal code for hate crimes.

I understand what lawmakers are trying to do, but it seems to me that it is an invitation for the implementation of George Orwell's Thought Police — and I really don't believe that is what anyone really wants in America.

The laws already regulate — as much as is possible — the actions of the citizens. Do we also want to regulate the people's thoughts?

Gibson reports that the faithful are hailing the news, which is to be expected, I guess, in this season of love and hope and joy.

"[R]eligious groups are giving thanks for the decline," Gibson writes, "even if they have no clear explanations for the drop."

I guess no explanations are needed — except, perhaps, in Room 101.

A Matter of Faith

---

"I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. ... [I]f you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you, but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell ..."

Arnold Vinick
The West Wing

---

A couple of days ago, I examined the likelihood that Barack Obama will have the opportunity, either this year or next, to nominate the replacement for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

I discussed a number of the issues involved. But there was one angle I didn't explore. Today, Nina Totenberg of NPR did bring it up, and I am glad. Not because it matters to me but because it could influence the debate over Obama's nominee.

The angle Totenberg brought up? "[W]hen Justice Stevens retires, it is entirely possible that there will be no Protestant justices on the Court, for the first time ever."

That might not be an issue. When Stevens retires and Obama announces his choice for a successor, that successor could turn out to be a Baptist or a Methodist or a Presbyterian — or a member of another Protestant denomination.

But what if he nominates a Catholic? Or a Jew? Totenberg points out that three of the people who are frequently mentioned as the leading contenders are Catholic or Jewish.

And can you imagine the reaction if Obama nominates a Muslim?

---

"In fact, six of the nine justices on the current court are Roman Catholic. That's half of the 12 Catholics who have ever served on the court. Only seven Jews have ever served, and two of them are there now. Depending on the Stevens replacement, there may be no Protestants left on the court at all in a majority Protestant nation where, for decades and generations, all the justices were Protestant."

Nina Totenberg
NPR

---

Given the fact that, as Totenberg observes, "almost nobody has noticed" the impact that Stevens' departure could have on the religious balance on the court, it might not be important to many Americans.

On the other hand, when you consider the issue of child sexual abuse that has plagued the Catholic church, adding a seventh Catholic to the Supreme Court might do more than raise a few eyebrows.

And if another Jew was nominated to the highest court serving a self–identified Christian nation (where less than 2% of the population is Jewish), there might be some backlash in the Christian community.

Personally, I don't think a jurist's religion should be of any more consequence than his/her political party affiliation. It smacks of a litmus test, like inquiring about a potential nominee's views on abortion.

But that's probably a perfect world we're talking about — and God knows this world is far from perfect.

The fact that a nominee has a religious faith — whatever it may be — seems to me to be a good thing. It shows that he/she has given a lot of consideration to issues that affect the human condition, that go well beyond his/her personal circumstances. Even if a nominee is an agnostic or an atheist, that, too, suggests the nominee has thought about things that are bigger than himself/herself and has come to a conclusion with which he/she is comfortable.

Such a demonstration of mental acuity does have meaning for me because it shows that the nominee (or, if confirmed, the justice) is capable of evaluating an issue from many sides and arriving at a fair and reasonable conclusion. That is relevant to all sorts of matters that could come before the Supreme Court — not just cases involving religious freedom.

In my own case, I am a journalist. I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of the press matter, and protecting those freedoms is paramount to me. I believe that all of our freedoms are important, but everything else depends on those freedoms.

Justice Louis Brandeis, the first Jew appointed to the high court, penned perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of speech in the high court's history in his concurrence in the Whitney v. California (1927) case (in which the concept of a "clear and present danger" played a prominent role):

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self–reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

I am a Protestant, but I would support whole–heartedly the nomination of anyone — Catholic, Jew, Protestant, whatever — with that kind of agile mind.

It doesn't seem to me that it could be said of a nominee who has simply shown no interest in religion (or, at least, not enough to form an opinion) that he/she has an agile mind — beyond cynically calculating how an expression of religious faith (sincere or not) could help his/her career goals.

And, as Arnold Vinick implied on The West Wing, some potential nominees will say whatever they think their listeners want to hear if they believe it will make it easier to get what they want.

A nominee's religion could be very important to some Americans, though, and for good reason. Supreme Court justices are not subject to the whims of voters so Stevens' successor could very well be on the court for two or three decades.

If a Protestant is not nominated, some Protestants in America might wonder if their interests will be represented in the high court's rulings.

Timing, as they say, is everything, and a lot may depend on whether Stevens decides to leave this year or next year.

Few Republicans in Congress have shown any interest in cooperating with Obama, and it is reasonable to expect that any new Republicans who are elected this fall will be unlikely to extend an olive branch to the administration.

If Stevens retires this year, Obama knows he will have 59 Democrats in the Senate who are likely to support his choice. But, rather than risk a messy confirmation proceeding that could further endanger Senate Democrats (nearly half the Democratic seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be on the ballot this year, and two are already believed to be at risk of a Republican takeover), he might choose a safe nominee (which might include picking a Protestant).

If Stevens waits until next year, it's anyone's guess at this point whether Democrats will still be in the majority in the Senate. But Obama will know that the next election will be more than a year away. If he prefers a nominee who breaks boundaries, 2011 may be a better time to do so — although not if his party loses its majority.

Given all the political considerations Obama will have to juggle, one would be justified in wondering whatever happened to the (alleged) separation of church and state.

Or, to quote an exchange from The West Wing, when Vinick asked President Jed Bartlet that question, Bartlet replied, "It's hanging in there, but I'm afraid the Constitution doesn't say anything about the separation of church and politics."

The Shortest 'Papacy'

It has not been unusual for America to have two presidents in a single calendar year.

It has happened whenever an election has produced a new president — because either the incumbent president did not run or the incumbent president was defeated. When that has happened, America has begun Inaugural Day (for many years, March 4 — now January 20) with one president and ended it with a different one.

Additionally, there have been eight times when a president has died in office — and once when a president has resigned. On those occasions, the vice president has succeeded the president. Most of the time, the president who died (or resigned) had been in office for more than a year.

Only twice in American history has this nation had three presidents in a single calendar year. On both occasions, a duly elected president–elect has taken the oath of office and then died before the calendar year ended. In those years, America has had the president who was in office when the year began, then the president–elect was sworn in, and then the new president died in office within the same calendar year and the vice president succeeded him.

Of course, the American presidency has only existed for 220 years, and there have been 43 occupants of that office.

The papacy, on the other hand, has been around much longer — nearly 2,000 years — and there have been more than 250 people who have held that title. And, while there have been popes who reigned for decades, others have been in office for a few weeks, sometimes only days.

Consequently, there have been times when the Roman Catholic church has had at least three popes in the same year.

I'm not Catholic, but in some ways the pope transcends religion. He is a global figure, and his authority is at least perceived as political as well as religious. Having been raised Protestant, I can't say that I know the history of the papacy, but my understanding is that, in the early days, a pope enjoyed political as well as spiritual authority. Today, the pope's authority is mostly spiritual in nature, but what he has to say about the issues of the day still commands a lot of attention from non–Catholics as well as Catholics.

Once elected by the College of Cardinals, a pope reigns until his death. He does have the option of resigning, but Gregory XII was the last to exercise that right more than 600 years ago.

After his death in 2005, John Paul II was said to have considered resigning when he neared his 80th birthday in 2000, but he clearly did not do so. When he died, his reign had lasted more than 26 years. But even if he had been alive for the last five years, his reign still would not match that of Pius IX, who reigned longer than any other pope — excluding St. Peter, who is considered the first pope even though the title of pope did not exist in his lifetime.

There haven't been many popes in my life, but there was one year — 1978 — when there were three popes.

In that year, Pope John Paul I succeeded Paul VI, then served just over a month before dying suddenly. He was succeeded by John Paul II, who was the only pope that most people under 35 knew until Benedict XVI succeeded John Paul II.

John Paul I's papacy seemed short — and it was — but the shortest papacy wasn't even a papacy in the traditional sense.

On this day in 752, a priest of Rome named Stephen was elected to succeed Pope Zachary, but Stephen died of a stroke a few days later — before being ordained a bishop.

I don't know much about Stephen — except that he is remembered in history as Pope–elect Stephen — and I don't know if he dreamed of becoming pope, but if he did, his life and death are reminders that, even if you believe that you have reached the pinnacle of your profession, it can be taken from you in the blink of an eye.

The Great Disappointment

Over the years, countless people have tried to interpret the writings in the Bible — usually in an attempt to understand the meaning behind apocalyptic prophecies.

The Second Coming of Christ usually plays a role in these interpretations. In 2,000 years, though, every calculation that was intended to pinpoint when the Second Coming would occur has been wrong.

Those who have believed these miscalculations — and, in many cases, made great sacrifices because of them — have been profoundly disappointed. But perhaps none have been as disappointed as the followers of a Baptist preacher named William Miller in the mid–19th century.

Based on his studies of the Bible, Miller determined that, in biblical terms, a "day" did not mean a 24–hour period but rather a calendar year. Daniel 8:14 stated that the "sanctuary" would be "cleansed" after 2,300 days. Miller interpreted that to mean the cleansing of the sanctuary — purification of the earth by fire upon the Second Coming — would occur in 1843. He reached this conclusion based on his assumption that the 2,300–day period began in 457 B.C. with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem.

The "Millerites," as his followeres were called, believed Miller's prediction in spite of the fact that there were a few false alarms. Miller told his followers that Jesus would return between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844, but March 21, 1844, came and went without Jesus' return and so did Miller's revised prediction of April 18, 1844.

Miller was unfazed, writing that "I still believe that the day of the Lord is near, even at the door."

Thus, the stage was set for a Millerite preacher named Samuel Snow, who calculated that the exact date of the Second Coming would be Oct. 22, 1844, and many Millerites gave away their belongings in anticipation of the event. Then, on this day 165 years ago, thousands of Millerites gathered together to wait for Jesus, but he did not return, and the day went down in history as "The Great Disappointment."

Miller, who died in 1849, is remembered as the man who began the Advent movement. One of its spiritual descendants, the Branch Davidians, made headlines in 1993, first for the siege of their compound in Waco, Texas, by federal agents and then for the compound's fiery destruction more than seven weeks later.

In God's Name

When I was a child, my parents taught me that God was about love and forgiveness, not hate and punishment. And that's what I have believed all my life.

As a teenager, when I heard Bea Arthur, in her first major TV role as Archie Bunker's nemesis, "Maude," tell someone that "God'll getcha for that," I laughed because it was the opposite of what I believed. And that, it seems to me, is the essence of really good comedy.

Because, you see, I don't believe that God will "get" anyone for anything.

I'm not sure, frankly, what I believe about God or the existence of an afterlife, but I can say this. If there is a God, I believe he is a loving God who realizes that his children are mere mortals, that there are many things we don't understand, and I believe he would never condemn any of his children to eternal punishment.

(I'll admit, though, that, in the last year or so, I've become less likely to believe that God has a plan, and each of us is playing out his/her role in it. The logic behind deliberately permitting such widespread failure and pain escapes me — but if this is part of some elaborate plan, I suppose God has his reasons.)

Anyway, when Maude confidently asserted that God would "get" someone for something, I laughed. I thought it was funny.

But there hasn't been anything funny about the conflict I have felt when other people have expressed thoughts that contradicted those things that I believe in my heart. Unlike Bea Arthur, they haven't said those things to be funny.

And there may never have been a time in my life when I have felt that conflict as keenly as lately, when I have read reports that Southern Baptist Rev. Wiley Drake says he is praying for Barack Obama's death.

Drake's comments have been dismissed as "unbiblical" by the present leader of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I would hope so. Asking God to kill someone seems like a very un–Christian thing to do. Well, it seems that way to me, anyway. Doesn't it go against what Jesus taught?

And I hope most Southern Baptists agree with me. In Arkansas, where I was brought up, Southern Baptists are the largest religious group, and I knew many when I was growing up. Most seemed then to have an affinity for the concept of being "born again." I presume they still do.

Some were my friends. Some still are. In fact, the first person I voted for in a presidential election openly called himself "born again."

(Actually, the pastor of my church, a branch of the Methodist denomination here in Dallas, touched on this in one of his sermons recently. And I think he makes a good point when he observes that "when you read the Bible, there doesn't actually seem to be anything called a 'born again experience.' " It all comes down to the translation, he says. In some instances, the word is translated as "again." In others, it is translated as "above." And that affects the meaning of the rest of the sentence.)

I gather, from what I have read of Drake's comments, that he considers himself "born again." And, frankly, that is fine with me. To me, such a phrase is no different from saying one is "saved." It reflects one's commitment to what one believes, which is something I can respect and admire.

The problem I have with the "born again" mentality is that, most of the time, it seems to be an exclusive label — like knowing the password that gets you into a ritzy club. I've known some people who considered themselves "born again" and yet could embrace all Christians, even those with whom they did not agree on every issue. But many seem to feel that, if you do not call yourself "born again," you are not an authentic Christian — and, therefore, not worthy of admittance into the ritzy club.

Drake seems to fall into the latter category.

But, you know, Drake isn't the only religious leader who's been actively shoving his foot in his mouth lately. Obama's former minister, Jeremiah Wright, hasn't been helping matters by blaming "them Jews" for not allowing him to speak to the president.

It seems to me that we're getting some very un–Christlike behavior from some of our Christian leaders.

And that reminds me of a statement from Gandhi that my pastor is fond of quoting. "I like your Christ," Gandhi said. "I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Ouch.

Religion and Politics

This morning, I saw an intriguing item on the CNN Political Ticker about an action taken by Liberty University, the school in Lynchburg, Va., that was founded nearly 40 years ago by the late Jerry Falwell.

Falwell died two years ago this month. During his lifetime, he was known for his right–wing political beliefs, which were embodied in the agenda of his political organization, the Moral Majority. Liberty University seems to be upholding Falwell's agenda.

Ray Reed writes, in the Lynchburg News & Advance, that Liberty officials say they revoked recognition of the campus' College Democrats for religious, not political, reasons. But part of the problem here is that, thanks in part to Rev. Falwell's activities and statements, the line between religion and politics is blurred. Before the creation of the Moral Majority, neither major party was seen as the home party of conservative Christians.

Actually, until the 1980s, conservative Christians were not united in their political activities. Many conservative Christians were not politically active at all. But Falwell brought them into the political arena and encouraged them to embrace the Republican Party. And there they have been for three decades. It is safe to say they were not motivated by economic policy or, for that matter, global politics — unless there was a direct conflict with evangelical Christians. They used the Republican Party as their platform to bring attention to crusades against abortion and homosexuality and to promote what they considered a traditional family.

At Liberty University, the primary sticking points with the College Democrats — there may be others — seem to be the group's pro–choice stance on abortion and support for gay rights and how those positions conflict with the school's policies. The policies may be presented as representing the views of today's school administration, but they are Falwell's legacy.

Not that there was ever much of a line drawn between religion and politics in this country. In spite of the lofty language one often hears about the "separation of church and state," it always has been virtually impossible to divorce the two in a nation where schoolchildren recite a pledge of allegiance that contains the words "one nation under God" on a daily basis.

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, has asked Liberty to reconsider. A reader poll at the News & Advance website shows that more than 90% of respondents disagree with Liberty's decision.

With public sentiment running that high against Liberty, it is no surprise that bloggers are almost unanimous in expressing their outrage. Here is a small sample:

• FaithfulDemocrats.com, which bills itself as an "online Christian community," calls the move "brazenly undemocratic."


• Joe.My.God, an apparently gay–oriented blog, gives a (pardon the expression) straight–forward account of the decision in its post under what appears to be a slanted headline that reads "Liberty" University Bans Democrats Because They May Support Dirty Homos.


• Sandwalk writes that the move is "just the beginning," that it is the first step at Liberty University.
  
  "Mark my words," writes biochemistry Professor Larry Moran. "In a few weeks they're going to shut down the 'Liberty University Gays and Lesbians Club' and the 'Liberty University Secular Humanist Club.' And it's only a matter of time before the 'Liberty University Teletubbies Fan Club' is kicked off campus."

Hey, I appreciate a well–turned phrase as much as anyone.

And, as a lifelong supporter of free speech, as well as a Democrat (by the way, Professor Moran, "democrat" with a lowercase "d" refers to someone who supports democracy in general, regardless of party affiliation, while "Democrat" with an uppercase "D" refers to a member of the Democratic Party. I consider myself both, but I am a centrist, which has led many of my Democratic acquaintances to wonder which side I was on), I sympathize.

But what can be done about it?

Liberty University is a private college. I am not aware of any public funding that is used to support the school. A couple of years ago, before Falwell died, Liberty had a debt of between $20 million and $25 million. But Falwell had a $34 million insurance policy, and the proceeds from that were used to pay off Liberty's debts. Since then, it has been a self–sustaining institution.

Thus, as far as I know, Liberty is privately funded. Perhaps it does receive some public funds. If it does, that would be grounds for challenging its actions.

But unless public money is involved in the operation of the school, there isn't anything that can be done if Liberty believes, as Mark Hine, the school's vice president of student affairs, stated in his e–mail to the College Democrats, that "[t]he Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine."

In America, you are free to disagree with that position. You may, as many bloggers are doing today, argue against it. But there is little else you can do about it.

Except discourage your children from going to school there.

The 'Godless' Campaign

Kay Hagan, the Democrat who is challenging Sen. Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, announced she would file suit against Dole yesterday, claiming that she has been libeled by Dole's TV commercial that says Hagan is "godless."

It wouldn't surprise me if there's something to be said for Hagan's case. But it's a time-honored tradition for politicians who are losing to question their opponents' moral character. It's how politics is played.

Besides, the visage of God has been strangely absent from the proceedings this year. Sarah Palin's faith hasn't been mentioned frequently. Nor has Barack Obama's — once Jeremiah Wright departed the scene. But Dole's ad is proof that religion remains a potent issue for a politician to exploit, especially in a place like North Carolina, where many conservative Christians live.

Dole probably feels like she's under siege these days. Lately, she has been one of several Republicans in close Senate races who have been targeted by labor unions, according to a report in USA Today.

But does that justify labeling your opponent as "godless?"

Even if Hagan takes the matter to court, she won't receive a judicial ruling until after the voters have handed down their ruling.

And few, if any, voters will be able to dismiss the memory of the Dole campaign's assertion.

It reminds me of a scene in "Anatomy of a Murder," in which the defense attorney, James Stewart, is told that a question he has asked of a witness is improper.

Stewart's character, of course, didn't ask the question because he wanted to get the witness' answer. He asked it because it was a way of introducing something into the record that he had been restricted from mentioning.

He apologizes and withdraws the question, after which the judge instructs the jury that it is to "disregard" both the question and the answer.

When Stewart returns to the defense counsel's table, the defendant leans over and whispers, "How can a jury disregard what it's already heard?"

"They can't," Stewart replies. "They can't."

North Carolina's voters will go to the polls next Tuesday with Dole's "godless" allegation thundering in their ears.

The last time he assessed it, Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, judged the North Carolina Senate race to be a "toss-up." That was nearly four weeks ago, on Oct. 4. I wonder what his opinion is, now that the Republicans have made a blatant effort to engage conservative Christians in the last-minute debate.

Was John Paul I Murdered?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Candidates' Christmas Ads

Along with the usual Christmas commercials for products and services, this year we have seen commercials for presidential candidates with Christmas/holiday themes.

Ads by Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama have been on the airwaves, and political strategist Dick Morris took some time to discuss the ads on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor" recently.

Of the Clinton ad, Morris says it was a "terrible" ad, in which Clinton was surrounded by gift packages, each bearing a tag that mentioned a specific issue, like "Bring the Troops Home," "Universal Health Care" and "Middle Class Tax Breaks."

But Clinton's ad was more generic than the others, referring only to the "holiday season" and making no specific mention of Christmas, for which Clinton was punished by the God-o-Meter.

Huckabee's ad was the "greatest ad," in Morris' words, "because we have to appreciate, politically, that Christmas is Huckabee's season." And the Huckabee ad, as the God-o-Meter points out, is the only one that mentions the birth of Christ.

Besides, the God-o-Meter already punished Huckabee this week after Bob Novak reported that the"elite evangelicals" who support Huckabee's candidacy are short of Southern Baptists.

"He did not join the 'conservative resurgence' that successfully rebelled against liberals in the Southern Baptist Convention a generation ago," Novak writes of Huckabee, a former president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention.

Novak says Baptists aren't on board with Huckabee, but other Christian conservatives are, particularly in Iowa.

Morris says the "Huckabee-Romney split ... mirrors the division between economic and social conservatives. The country club, upper income, Wall Street, business community is [for] Romney, the Joe Six-Pack, Christian right community is with Huckabee. That's the fault line that's running through it."

And Morris predicts Huckabee will win Iowa.

Like the Clinton ad, Obama's ad was punished by the God-o-Meter, as was Giuliani's. The God-o-Meter hasn't said anything about the Edwards ad.

But Morris says he liked the Obama ad, which achieves the "warm and fuzzy" level Clinton sought by showing Obama with his family. Morris didn't particularly care for Giuliani's ad, in which the former New York mayor (sitting next to Santa Claus) "lists those issues" of concern to voters, as Clinton's does. Edwards, Morris points out, "discusses" them in his ad.

Morris also says he believes the "anti-Hillary vote is coalescing around Obama." He predicts that Obama will win in Iowa and when that happens, much of the Edwards vote will gravitate toward him, leading to Clinton's defeat in New Hampshire as well.

And that could produce a new front-runner among the Democrats a little over a week into the calendar year.

Romney to Give 'Mormon' Speech Thursday

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney apparently has decided to give the "Mormon" speech (inspired by John F. Kennedy's address on his Catholicism in 1960) well before the end of the holidays.

Earlier, it had been reported that his campaign staff had made an internal decision to wait until January before Romney took on that particular issue.

But that was before recent polls that showed Romney's campaign faltering in Iowa, where caucuses will be held Jan. 3, and in New Hampshire, where primaries will be held Jan. 8.

Romney will make his "Mormon" speech this Thursday morning during a visit to the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. Presumably -- although I haven't heard any announcements about this -- the speech will be carried live on CNN, C-SPAN, Fox, MSNBC and other cable news outlets.

If you're interested in making a comparison, the text of JFK's speech, delivered to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960, can be found at the JFK Presidential Library and Museum, along with a recording of the address.

In his speech, Kennedy didn't actually defend Catholicism. He defended religious freedom and his right to be Catholic. He also made a vigorous argument that no president -- of any faith -- should take directions from the leaders of his church.

Movement in the God-o-Meter

We're starting to see movement in the God-o-Meter among Democrats as well as Republicans.

Earlier this week, we reported that Mike Huckabee had achieved what no one had ever achieved. He scored a perfect 10 in the God-o-Meter.

And the distance between Huckabee and Mitt Romney in this particular area appears to be widening. Romney's rating went down when it was reported that his campaign had come to a conclusion internally to delay a "Mormon" speech (inspired by John F. Kennedy's speech in 1960 about being a Catholic) until after the holidays.

Meanwhile, Huckabee got a big boost from an endorsement from Jerry Falwell Jr. The former Arkansas governor seems to be on a meteoric rise these days. David Yepsen, political columnist for the Des Moines Register, says that Huckabee belongs in the top tier of Republican candidates.

On the Democratic side, the God-o-Meter's rating for Hillary Clinton went up when she got the endorsement of a group of South Carolina ministers.

The endorsement is being seen as a blow to Barack Obama's campaign. Obama had been actively pursuing the evangelical Christian vote in South Carolina.

Faith and Politics, 'Push Polls,' and The Campaign in General

No matter who says it or how often it is said, church and state have never been separate in this country.

The God-o-Meter and its religious rankings for Democratic and Republican candidates for president is ample evidence of how intertwined religion and politics are in America. And there's plenty of historical evidence of the influence religion has had on political campaigns in the past. Nearly 50 years ago, for example, John F. Kennedy had to defend his right to be Catholic and also a candidate for president.

Kennedy wasn't the first Catholic to be nominated for president, but he was the first Catholic to be a serious contender for the White House -- and, as it turned out, he was the first Catholic (and, so far, the only Catholic) to be elected president.

The latest God-o-Meter says Fred Thompson's rating is inching up, thanks to the fact that he signed Shannon Royce as his campaign's grassroots director. If you're not familiar with the name, Royce has been the chief lobbyist for the Southern Baptist Convention and the executive director of the Arlington Group, a coalition of leading conservative Christian leaders, including Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Gary Bauer of American Values and Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association.

Wildmon recently announced his endorsement of Mike Huckabee for president.

The God-o-Meter also reports that Mitt Romney's rating has remained virtually unchanged lately, although it did get a slight bump from the endorsement of Paul Weyrich, the co-founder of the Moral Majority. In Friday's Washington Times, Weyrich defended his endorsement of Romney and gave his reasons for believing Romney was the best choice to be president.

Romney's campaign has been complaining recently about "push polls" being conducted in New Hampshire and Iowa by unidentified opponents who want to create the impression of widespread anxiety about electing a Mormon. Read the report in the Manchester Union Leader.

Hillary Clinton's rating remains unchanged, even though she announced last week that she has accepted an invitation from Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, to participate in his Global Summit on AIDS and The Church later this month.

Clinton's been getting some unfavorable press lately -- an unusual position for the New York senator, who has grown accustomed to the fawning adoration of the media as she has raced to the top of the Democratic public opinion polls. The unfavorable publicity, however, doesn't have anything to do with religion.

It has more to do with her gaffe at the debate last month in which she made statements supporting and opposing the policy of issuing driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants in New York.

Maureen Dowd of The New York Times says Clinton is a "control freak" whose insistence in the most recent debate that criticism of her shifts on issues amounts to "mudslinging" and character attacks and sets a "ludicrous standard."

To be sure, Clinton isn't the only presidential candidate, in this election or in previous ones, who has insisted on "ludicrous standards" by which to be assessed. But Dowd herself neatly summarized Clinton's propensity for this kind of thing in a recent column.

She called it Clinton's "Gift for Gall."

Religion and the Republicans

A return visit to the God-o-Meter finds that there has been some intriguing movement on the Republican side in recent days.

Pat Robertson's endorsement seems to have helped Rudy Giuliani's ranking. And the endorsement John McCain received from former Republican presidential rival Sam Brownback, who made no real impact on the race as a candidate but remains a favorite of social conservatives, gave McCain's flagging campaign a boost -- albeit one that was not generally noticeable in the God-o-Meter rankings, since McCain's rating already was about as high as it could go.

The highest-rated candidate in the God-o-Meter is Democrat Barack Obama, but his ranking hasn't been revised in nearly a month, in spite of the "40 Days of Faith and Family" tour of South Carolina sponsored by his campaign. There hasn't been much movement on the Democratic side, with all the religious activity apparently generating from the Republican side.

The Latest 'God-O-Meter'

The latest ratings in the God-O-Meter have some surprises for a few of the candidates.

According to the latest assessment, Fred Thompson's "tenuous courtship" of evangelical voters is over. He has dropped to the bottom of the God-O-Meter's list after telling Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" that he does not support a Human Life Amendment that would, in effect, reverse Roe v. Wade. Thompson feels individual states should be free to make their own laws on abortion.

Rudy Giuliani has also dropped in his rating, presumably after re-stating his pro-choice views at the Values Voter Summit. Polls show that more than half of evangelical Christian voters would seek a third party option if Giuliani is the Republican nominee.

Mitt Romney has moved up slightly, but John McCain and Mike Huckabee remain at the top on the Republican side.

On the Democratic side, only Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have been revised in the last week, and neither candidate went up or down in the ratings.

Christian Conservatives and the Republican Candidates

In the aftermath of the Values Voters Summit in Washington this weekend, there's been a bit of a shakeup in the "God-o-Meter."

There was no update on John McCain. He didn't get much support from the Christian conservatives in their straw poll, either. One has to wonder if McCain's pandering to the religious right has backfired.

Mitt Romney stayed where he was, which was at the top. Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee and even Rudy Giuliani went up slightly, perhaps from the exposure of speaking to the summit attendees.

There have been no updates recently on the Democratic side.

A week ago, Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard was saying that Giuliani needed to make a serious commitment to the pro-life position when he spoke to the social conservatives. Now, Barnes is saying that Giuliani made inroads with Christian conservatives with some of the things he said yesterday.

Apparently, that "inroads" assessment conveniently overlooked the fact that Giuliani got less than 2% of the vote in the Values Voters Summit straw poll. Giuliani doesn't seem to be building a groundswell of support among Christian conservatives for his candidacy.

By the way, the Philadelphia Inquirer has an interesting observation or two about the Republican race.

And Steven Greenhut of the Orange County Register sees the libertarian and conservative factions that Ronald Reagan brought together in the 1980s splitting apart.

Such a split was inevitable, without a charismatic force like Reagan to keep them together.