There was one major difference between candidates Rep. Stephen Lynch and Rep. Ed Markey – Lynch initially favored construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and Markey steadfastly opposed it.

In case you’re just joining us, the debate over the Keystone XL Pipeline has global consequences. If the pipeline is completed, vast Canadian reserves of dirty tar sands oil will hit the international market at a time when we need to be drastically reducing our use of fossil fuels in order to curb the most catastrophic effects of the climate change crisis. And that’s to say nothing of the inevitable toxic spills that will happen along the route from northern Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico.

Lynch’s early support for this disastrous project sparked a strong response from local and national faith leaders. The evangelical-led Good Steward Campaign joined forces with Catholics United, Sojourners, American Values Network, Interfaith Power and Light, 350.org and local nuns and activists to organize opposition, gather tens of thousands of petition signatures and publicly speak out against the pipeline. Lynch (who ultimately lost anyway) subsequently walked back his support for this environmentally catastrophic pipeline.

Keystone in particular, and climate in general, are flying somewhat under the radar right now but will take center stage sooner or later. The fact that faith leaders are gearing up and speaking out now bodes well as the debate goes forward.

President Obama won the Catholic vote by a 2-point margin,  50%-48%. This victory lags behind his 54%-45% advantage among Catholics in 2008 but precisely mirrors the president’s overall 2012 margin of victory. Mitt Romney won white Catholics by a 19-point margin, 59%-40%, an improvement on John McCain’s 52%-47% advantage in 2008. Those who attend religious services weekly or more often favored Romney by a 15-point margin, 57%-42%. Those who attend less often favored President Obama 56%-42%, nearly identical to his 57%-42% advantage among these voters in 2008. Twenty-five percent of 2012 voters were Catholics, and 27% of voters in 2008 were Catholics. Catholics have sided with the winner of the popular vote in every presidential election since 1972.

Nationwide, white evangelical voters favored Romney by a 57-point margin, 78%-21%, a 4-point improvement upon John McCain’s 74%-24% advantage in 2008. However, this change mirrors President Obama’s decreased support among white voters overall.

White evangelical voters comprised 26% of the electorate this year, an identical share to 2008 despite a massive, well-publicized effort by Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition to turn out conservative evangelicals in record numbers.

OHIO — In the most heavily contested state, President Obama improved upon his 2008 performance among white evangelicals. In 2008, white evangelicals favored John McCain by a 71%-27% margin. Last night they favored Romney by a smaller margin, 70%-29%. These results are particularly noteworthy because Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition focused heavily on Ohio. Reed did not deliver the results he predicted in the most crucial state for Republicans. Thirty-one percent of Ohio voters this year were white evangelicals, as compared with 30% in 2008. In 2008, the President lost Ohio Catholics, 52%-47%. This year, he lost them by a 54%-44% margin.

COLORADO — Colorado white evangelicals’ candidate preferences (77% for Romney, 22% for President Obama) aligned closely with white evangelicals nationwide, a small change from McCain’s 76%-23% advantage and less of a swing than the white vote overall. White evangelicals made up 25 percent of the state’s electorate in 2012, compared to 21 percent in 2008.

VIRGINIA — White evangelicals favored Mitt Romney over President Obama by a margin of 82% to 18%, compared to John McCain’ 79%-20% advantage in 2008. White evangelicals comprised a declining share of the state’s electorate, decreasing from 28% in 2008 to 23% in 2012.

Last night three states passed ballot initiatives in favor of same-sex marriage, and a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage was defeated in Minnesota. Religious crosstabs are not yet available. Support for same-sex marriage has increased among every religious demographic in recent years, but before last night opponents had won all 32 state-level ballot question on the issue. Supporters of marriage for same-sex couples conducted extensive outreach and messaging to the faith community, and religious opponents also invested heavily into these campaigns.

In Florida and California, faith-based community organizing groups mounted victorious campaigns against anti-tax ballot initiatives. PICO National network affiliates helped advance sound fiscal policies that reject austerity and ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. In Florida, voters resoundingly rejected by a 58% to 42% margin Question 3, a constitutional amendment that would have decimated public education and social services in the state. And in California by a 54% to 46% margin, voters approved Prop 30, which will raise an estimated $6 billion in revenue for schools and social services in the state through a tax increase on people earning over $250,000 and a small temporary increase in the sales tax. The clergy and congregations of PICO organizations played key roles in these fights, contacting over 1.6 million voters.

With unemployment hovering near 8%, the political environment was much more challenging for President Obama than in 2008. While his share of key religious demographics declined, his overall margin of victory was also smaller. He also faced highly organized conservative religious opposition.

The battle for the Catholic vote was particularly fierce, and the slim margin of victory Obama achieved with Catholics reflect that sharp division. “A diverse coalition of social justice Catholics, especially Latinos, helped tip the scales this year,” said John Gehring, Catholic Program Director at Faith in Public Life. “While bishops doubled down against same sex marriage and demonized President Obama as an enemy of religious liberty, they were clearly out of touch with many Catholics. If the GOP has some reflecting to do about its inability to reach an increasingly multicultural country, Catholic leaders could benefit from similar soul searching when it comes to their own diverse flock.”

U.S. Catholic bishops mounted a highly politicized confrontation with the Obama administration over contraception coverage and religious liberty. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops launched a nationwide, two-week “religious freedom” campaign over the summer that made national headlines as part of their fight against the Obama administration’s contraception coverage requirements under the Affordable Care Act. In Kansas, the state’s Catholic bishops sponsored a rally at the state capitol that featured Republican Governor Sam Brownback. Shortly before the election, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, IL, and Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, IL, issued statements implying that voting for Democrats put Catholics’ salvation at risk.

However, other Catholic leaders declined to take part in the bishops’ offensive and mobilized around economic issues. Catholic nuns responded strongly to Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s erroneous claim that his federal budget plan — which includes steep cuts to programs for the poor such as Medicaid and food stamps, as well as tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans — was consistent with Catholic social teaching.

NETWORK, a national Catholic social justice group led by Sister Simone Campbell, organized “Nuns on the Bus”, a nine-state tour through Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states highlighting the work of Catholic-sponsored social service agencies that serve those on the economic margins and stand to be harmed by Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal.

With tremendous grassroots support and media attention across America (and additional tours in the following months through Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, New York and Michigan), “Nuns on the Bus” successfully reaffirmed the unique contribution of women religious to America’s social fabric and refocused the public debate on the critical moral choices facing voters in November’s presidential election and beyond. These efforts highlighted the religious aspect of the economic and fiscal debates that dominated the Presidential campaigns.

On the Religious Right, Ralph Reed boasted that his Faith and Freedom Coalition would register and turn out record numbers of socially conservative Christians on election, turning the tide for Mitt Romney. While his efforts received copious media attention, evidence of results are lacking. White evangelicals’ share of the electorate was identical to 2008, and their movement toward Romney mirrored that of white voters as a whole.

Last week members of Bend the Arc, an innovative new Jewish social justice group, kicked off their eight-state “If I Were a Rich Man” tour to confront Members of Congress from both parties who are personally wealthy and support tax breaks for the richest Americans that hamstring our ability to preserve an adequate safety net as we pay off the debt. This campaign not only highlights the faith community’s commitment to tax fairness as a moral issue, but also raises important questions about individual lawmakers’ biases in favor of the wealthy.

When President Obama made the long overdue decision this summer to defer prosecution of young undocumented immigrants who qualify for the DREAM Act, faith leaders rejoiced. But the pronouncement alone didn’t bring relief to those trapped by our broken system. In order to qualify for the chance to stay, they must complete a complex application process. Religious groups are stepping up to help young people navigate these difficult waters. Churches are hosting legal clinics for thousands who want to contribute to our nation’s future and are in violation of immigration law through no fault of their own, and faith-based immigration reform advocates are providing hands-on assistance. (On a side note, take a look at these inspiring images of thousands of people lining up to apply to stay in America.)

Grassroots faith leaders are also mobilizing to affect crucial state-level debates. In Missouri, a religious coalition is fighting for economic fairness and justice by working to pass ballot initiatives raising the minimum wage and capping the interest rates predatory payday lenders can charge. Next month Catholic sisters will conduct a statewide Nuns on the Bus tour to call attention to the Ryan budget’s devastating effects on communities across Missouri.

I’m proud of the impact the faith community is making this year. From shaping national media narratives on the economy and taxes to helping immigrants take advantage of important new opportunities to come out of the shadows, we’re demonstrating for all to see that religion is a powerful force for justice.

The Supreme Court did the right thing for American families by upholding the Affordable Care Act. Faith leaders worked tirelessly to pass this legislation because ensuring that all Americans have quality, affordable healthcare is a moral responsibility. The religious right needs to halt their misguided campaign to repeal this law. Human life is too sacred to be jeopardized by partisan crusades.

This defense was just one part of a multipronged retort to his critics. Ryan also penned an op-ed defending his budget in the friendly pages of the National Catholic Register. Unfortunately, in addition to offering his usual highly selective doctrinal arguments, Ryan’s essay contains numerous claims that fail to live up to his aspiration of a “fact-based conversation.” Here’s just a few of the many misleading claims that caught my eye:

• “The debt is weighing on job creation today.”

Au contraire. The primary drags on job growth right now are weak demand and public-employee layoffs caused by government budget cuts. I suppose Ryan’s argument here is a little too vague to dismiss altogether, but the primary way debt retards growth and jobs is by forcing up interest rates. That’s just not happening right now.

•  “As a result, more and more of society’s most vulnerable remain mired in public-assistance programs whose outdated structures often act as a trap that hinders upward mobility.”

Although Ryan doesn’t name specific programs here, it’s safe to assume he’s talking about ones he intends to slash, such as food stamps and Medicaid. However, neither of these programs fit Ryan’s description. I’m curious about how Ryan thinks making food and healthcare unaffordable for the working poor, children, seniors and the unemployed increase their upward mobility? Hunger and sickness aren’t exactly conducive to success.

• “For example, in a misapplication of solidarity, politicians in both parties expanded big government for decades. These policies have had dismal results. One out of every six people in the United States is now living below the poverty level — the largest number of poor people on record.”

Clever, but mendacious. If you’re going to argue that “big government” is the reason 1-in-6 Americans is in poverty, offer some credible evidence. If anything, “small government” ideology – as manifested in laying off public employees instead of raising new revenues, Wall Street deregulation that led to the economic crisis, and blocking economic stimulus such as the American Jobs Act – is what’s yielded “dismal results.”

• “Our budget builds on the successful welfare reforms of the 1990s, using federal subsidium to empower state and local governments, communities and individuals — those closest to the problems of society.”

Wrong again. As Ed Kilgore deftly pointed out, Ryan’s budget cuts are completely different than welfare reform. Leaving aside the long-term failure of welfare reform for a moment, at least that program replaced one form of assistance (AFDC) with another (TANF and expansion of food stamps). By simply slashing protections for the poor, Ryan is replacing something with nothing.

• “President Barack Obama’s health-care law puts a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of cutting Medicare. This is wrong. I do not believe we should turn the fate of our parents and grandparents over to an unaccountable board and let it make decisions that could deny them access to their care.”

This one’s just a plain old lie. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, which Ryan is referring to here, explicitly does not have the power to cut Medicare. It can only make recommendations, which Congress either accepts or rejects. This distortion is merely a gentler version of the “death panels” attack on the IPAB during of the health care debate.

• “Our budget has been criticized for giving tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It does no such thing.”

Ryan’s budget gives people with incomes over $1 million an average tax cut of $265,000, and over 60% of its spending cuts are to programs that serve low-income people.

• “But revenue would still rise every year under our budget because our economy grows and because our budget proposes to eliminate special-interest loopholes that go primarily to the influential and well-off.”

Shenanigans. Ryan refuses to say which of these loopholes he’d close and explicitly rejects closing the preferential tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which allow people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett to pay lower taxes than I do.

In addition to all he does say about the debt, Ryan continues his pattern of omitting the significant role the Bush tax cuts have played in ballooning the deficit and the debt. Ryan’s consistent silence on this amounts to simply pretending these budget-busting, 1%-centric tax cuts didn’t happen, and his failure to even entertain the possibility of increasing revenues shows that he isn’t serious about responsibly addressing the debt. Rather, he’s serious about using the debt as an excuse to enact a radical agenda that brings more money for the richest Americans, more suffering for the poor, and less security for the middle class.  For the life of me, I cannot understand why Ryan is treated as such a morally serious leader.

“I want them to take a bigger look,” Boehner said. “And the bigger look is, if we don’t make decisions, these programs won’t exist, and then they’ll really have something to worry about.”

Boehner gave a detailed defense of the GOP plan, which to achieve most of its savings would cut billions from programs helping poor Americans.

“What’s more of a concern to me is the fact that if we don’t begin to make some decisions about getting our fiscal house in order, there won’t be a safety net,” Boehner said.

“There won’t be these programs, and I don’t know how often some of us have to talk about the fact that you can’t spend $1.3 trillion more than what you bring in — that’s what’s going to happen this year, $5 trillion worth of debt over the last five years — and think that this can continue,” Boehner said.

“When you look at the fact that we have to make hard decisions, it’s about trying to make sure that we’re able to preserve these programs that are critically important for the poorest in our society.”

Absent from Boehner’s response is acknowledgement of debt-reduction policy options other than gutting the safety net, such as raising revenues or reining in military spending – both of which the Catholic bishops have mentioned as critical elements of a morally responsible debt-reduction plan.

Boehner seems to be telling the bishops we face an inescapable choice between slashing the safety net now and decimating it later. He knows it’s a losing argument to claim that tax breaks for rich people are more important than programs that feed poor children, so he simply pretends the possibility of ending those tax breaks doesn’t exist.

The Ryan budget gave Boehner a clear choice between the social teachings of his Catholic faith and the radical values of Ayn Rand. By voting yes he chose the latter. He should spare us his crocodile tears about the poor.

In a letter to the House Agriculture Committee, the bishops say the budget fails to meet certain “moral criteria” by disproportionately cutting programs that “serve poor and vulnerable people.”

A second letter sent Tuesday to the Ways and Means Committee criticizes a provision that makes it more difficult for illegal immigrants to claim child tax credits. The Bishops called the credit “one of the most effective antipoverty programs in our nation.”
…
In their letter, the bishops urged lawmakers to reject “unacceptable cuts to hunger and nutrition” programs for “moral and human reasons.” They said spending cuts should instead be made to subsidy programs that “disproportionately go to large growers and agribusiness.”

Lawmakers should “protect essential programs that serve poor and hungry people over subsidies that assist large and relatively well-off agricultural enterprises,” said the letter, signed by Bishop Stephen E. Blaire.

“Cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong.”

This is a strong step toward holding lawmakers accountable for aggressively pushing a budget that brings more suffering for the poor, less security for the middle class, and more money for the richest Americans – especially in light of Rep. Paul Ryan’s attempt to justify this agenda on Catholic theological grounds.

It’s crucial for prominent leaders such as the bishops to speak out against this cruel, cowardly vision. As church leaders have demonstrated on other issues, they are capable of exerting considerable political pressure. Hopefully today’s letters to Congress presage a forceful campaign to rebuke the GOP’s immoral budget priorities.

This post has been updated to reflect an update of Easley’s story.

His comments exemplified many flavors of the cynicism and incivility that plague our discourse: racially coded language; false accusations; impugning other people’s motives; accusing others of divisiveness while engaging in it yourself; plain old name-calling. Perhaps this shouldn’t be that surprising, though, since Land apparently lifted his remarks rather directly from a right-wing columnist (without giving any credit).

Fortunately, Land is facing pushback from fellow Southern Baptist Convention leaders. The AP has the story:

Last year, the denomination for the first time elected a black pastor to its No. 2 position of first vice president, and the Rev. Fred Luter is expected to become the first black president of the Southern Baptist Convention at this year’s annual meeting in June.

When asked about the concern that Land’s comments hurt the effort to attract non-white members, Luter said, “It doesn’t help. That’s for sure.”
…

“I think his (Land’s) statements will reverse any gains from the rightful election of Fred Luter,” said the Rev. Dwight McKissic, a black pastor at the SBC-affiliated Cornerstone Baptist Church is Arlington, Texas.

McKissic said he plans to submit a resolution at the SBC’s annual meeting asking the convention to repudiate Land’s remarks.

“If they don’t, we’re back to where we were 50 years ago,” he said.
…

Jonathan Merritt, a white Southern Baptist minister whose book, “A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars” is due out this month, said Land’s comments turn off not only minorities, but also many young believers who are “disappointed with culture war Christianity and want to move beyond name-calling.”

Establishing civility across ideological divides is a difficult endeavor. It would be a lot easier if Land didn’t talk out of both sides of his mouth.

H/t Right Wing Watch.

UPDATE: In an interview with USA Today’s Cathy Lynn Grossman late yesterday afternoon, Land attempted to explain his failure to attribute his remarks to the columnist whose work he copied, and offered an apology of sorts for his remarks:

I obviously overestimated the extent of progress that has been made in slaying the racial dragon of our past. I should have remembered that whenever we have a discussion about race, the ghosts of our ancestors are in the room with us. And I underestimated the need to be extremely careful in how you address any controversial issue that involves race as a factor.

I am grieved that anyone would feel my comments have retarded in any way the Southern Baptists’ march toward racial reconciliation, which I have been committed to for the entirety of my ministry, since 1962.
…

I certainly apologize to anyone who was hurt or offended by my remarks.

While Land deserves some credit for trying to close the wound, his apology is incomplete. Rather than taking responsibility for his mean-spirited name-calling and accusations of ill intent, Land merely regrets being insufficiently sensitive to the feelings of those who are offended. Land wasn’t just tone-deaf though, he was actively accusing others of rank cynicism. But the most important part of an apology is whether it’s backed up with improved behavior. If Land refrains from such ugly rhetoric in the future, our discourse will be better off and he’ll deserve commendation.

Meanwhile, they continue to shy away from the federal budget debate even though budget author Paul Ryan blew off their request that crucial safety net programs be preserved and is distorting  church teaching by publicly defending his budget on Catholic theological grounds. If that doesn’t amount to thumbing his nose at the bishops, I don’t know what does.

But still they’ve said little. The disparity between their response to Ryan and their response to the contraception coverage rulings reflects their priorities and reveals just how much impact they could make. Here’s a primer on what they’ve done:

Contraception coverage mandate                                                   Ryan 2013 federal budget

1. Issued numerous press releases                                                    1. Sent Congress a letter
2. Spoken on the record with countless reporters                                 2.  TBD
3. Discussed it on Meet the Press and Face the Nation
4. Ran full page ads in the New York Times and Washington Post
5. Circulated bulletin inserts in parishes nationwide
6. Preached about it in pulpits nationwide
7. Organized fasts and rallies nationwide
8. Aggressively lobbied the Obama administration
9. Accused the Obama administration of unfair negotiating
10. Testified at high-profile Congressional hearings
11. Endorsed the ludicrous Blunt Amendment
12. Condemned specific policies in dismissive terms

The Catholic Church has always been a powerful leader in the fight to protect the most vulnerable, and in past decades (especially the 1980′s) Catholic bishops were at the forefront of debates over economic issues. Just last year they lobbied behind the scenes and were leaders in the Circle of Protection which publicly spoke out against immoral budget priorities.

But right now one of the most powerful Catholics in American politics is publicly claiming that church teaching says his plan to take food and health care away from millions of vulnerable Americans is the right thing to do — and the bishops are remaining silent.

Their all-out effort to make sure Catholic Taco Bell owners can deny their employees contraception coverage, by contrast, shows just how forceful they can be. As the moral debate about economic fairness and budget priorities takes center stage in the 2012 election, I hope they will summon their moral leadership to put some real resources and political capital into rejecting Paul Ryan’s cruel, cowardly agenda for America’s future.

…as the fallout of this tragedy shows, we don’t all mourn when the innocent die. National opinion polls, media sensationalism and offensive rhetoric reflect that the death of this young man has become a flashpoint for division rather than a call to reconciliation among too many Americans.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Not too long ago, lynchings were commonplace, entire towns were off-limits to people of color, and police brutally enforced segregation. But the Civil Rights Movement showed that the teachings of our faiths can foster the peace, love and courage that break down barriers, change people’s hearts and build a more just society.

We can bring about the day when being the wrong race in the wrong place at the wrong time isn’t a life-threatening circumstance. But progress will take an honest acknowledgement of how much work we have to do, and an earnest desire to do it. We owe Trayvon Martin and the countless others who are killed on our streets and in our communities every day our best effort. The teachings of our faith demand nothing less.

Having racially diverse clergy speak out as the tension escalates in the media and in the community where Trayvon was killed is important right now. Read the whole thing here.