Perriello's Book Review, JFK and Obama

Yesterday, Rep. Perriello reviewed the book The Making of a Catholic President, by Shaun Casey, for the Washington Post. In the review, Perriello relates some of his campaign experiences, especially those revolving around the excitement of electing the first African-American President, with Casey's portrayal of the nation's interest in electing the first Catholic President. Money quote:

The brilliance of the Obama and Kennedy campaigns may have been each candidate's ability to ask voters to put their faith in what they might not be ready for; to make them wonder if Americans could transcend bigotry; and then to convince them that, in order to face the daunting future, they must.

The Best Anti-Perriello, Anti-ACES Editorial Ever (updated)

Thank you, John Barnhart (Bedford Bulletin), for this awesome editorial. Any column that uses an anectdotal conversation and Facebook statuses to support its over-arching claim is priceless. Money quotes:

Thank you Tom Perriello — for stabbing the working people of the 5th District in the back.

On June 29, 41 House Democrats had the courage to stand up to Supreme Leader Nancy Pelosi. They voted against her cap-and-trade energy bill. Congressman Perriello was not one of them. He voted for this nightmare, which narrowly passed the House of Representatives by seven votes.
[...]
Don Perriello de la Mancha, seems to think all these unemployed workers will find jobs, just as good as the ones they lost, building windmills. However, the “green” jobs that Congresman Perriello envisions may never develop, or they may not develop in Virginia’s 5th Congressional District. Then, there is the issue of retraining displaced workers. Workforce development programs have to train workers for jobs that actually exist, or they are worse than worthless.

So, thank you Tom Perriello for supporting the ideology of your party’s well-heeled elite instead of the economic interests of the 5th District’s working people.

Good times. Good times.

Now, I good for a legitimate discussion on this issue, but this editorial precludes any serious dialogue.

Update: Mark Brooks responds to Barnhart's editorial.

Palin, Polls, and the Common Good

Gallup today released a poll surveying people's voting attitudes towards Sarah Palin after her surprise resignation last week. 43% of the electorate are somewhat likely or very likely to vote for Palin if she were to run for President. 72% of Republicans would vote for her, while only 44% of Independents and 17% of Democrats would vote for her. According to Gallup, voter's opinions have not yet changed regarding Sarah Palin since her announcement. The opinions might not have (yet) changed, but the numbers are not, on the whole, presidential level numbers. Outside of the GOP base, the numbers are abysmal.

Other recent evidence reinforces my point. Also in light of Palin's resignation, ReligionDispatches offered a great post-election analysis, picked up by Nate Silver, on how Sarah Palin affected John McCain and the GOP ticket. Money quote:

A look at other national data reveals that on balance, John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin hurt him more than it helped across most segments of the American electorate. The data also reveals a lesson that is often forgotten among political operatives: voters want more than a candidate who holds certain positions or values; the character, tone, and competency of candidates also matter. Voters can and do distinguish between someone who shares their values and someone who would serve the public well.

Interestingly, while many religious (other than white evangelicals) voters identified with Palin's values, they did not consider voting for her. The reason:

Part of the explanation certainly has to be her many now-famous stumbles, public gaffes, and lack of knowledge about key policies. But there is another important explanation. There is mounting evidence that the American electorate is turning away from so-called “values voter” wedge politics that Palin represented ....

In our post-election survey, an overwhelming majority (73%) of American voters agreed that “people of faith should advocate for policies that protect the interests of all and promote the common good” compared to only 22% who preferred pursuing “policies that protect their values and way of life.” By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, those favoring a common good politics said Palin’s addition made them less likely to support the GOP ticket (27% less likely vs. 15% more likely).

While I don't necessarily agree that we have moved past wedge politics, though I wish it so, the part about how religious voters are more concerned with the "common good" is provocative. To which the authors conclude:

But the numbers reveal her limitations as a national political figure, and her serious liabilities among virtually every religious and demographic group outside of the GOP base. Moreover, the numbers reveal that voters across the political spectrum are looking not only for candidates who share their values, but for candidates who can ably serve the common good. (emphasis mine)

On a related note, in light of these numbers, it isn't surprising to me that Republican gubernatorial nominee, Bob McDonnell, has a Palin problem: she is wildly popular among the conservative base while simultaneously unpopular with moderate and independent voters. To campaign with her or to not campaign with her?

Tom, Joe, and Mika

Today, Rep. Perriello was on "Morning Joe," where he talked to Joe and Mika (not exactly progressive poster children) about his ACES vote, budget deficits, and healthcare reform. Watch this clip to the end to see how the hosts raved about Perriello afterward.

Positive Ratings For Sotomayor by Prominent Church-State Group (updated)

Today, several prominent groups offered their reviews on the qualifications of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the nominee for the Supreme Court. First, the American Bar Association (ABA), in a unanimous opinion, rated Sotomayor as "well qualified," their highest possible rating.

While the ABA's rating is important indeed, personally, I am more concerned with another group's opinion. The Baptist Joint Committee (BJC), a prominent organization for the separation of church and state, also offered their review of Sotomayor. Basically, while there isn't an abundance of her opinions on the subject to sort through - there is not a complete picture - the BJC generally likes what they see:

While Sotomayor’s written record raises no red flags, it also fails to provide complete assurance to those who are most concerned about our fragile religious freedom rights. In the free exercise cases, she displays careful attention to protecting religious rights, including in prisons where courts generally give deference to government officials. Likewise, these cases demonstrate an emphasis on the importance of assessing the individual’s specific religious claim. This approach illustrates an expansive view of religious freedom that does not depend on the approval of the majority. Her religious display cases demonstrate the fact-sensitive nature of such disputes, but tell us little about where she would draw the line between permissible acknowledgements of religion and unconstitutional displays that send a message of endorsement of religion by the government. Beyond those cases, her record gives little indication of her views of the Supreme Court’s various Establishment Clause standards or how she is likely to decide such cases.

Sotomayor’s writings include few if any statements articulating how the First Amendment protects religious liberty, promotes the voluntary nature of religion, prevents governmental interference in religion and tends to reduce conflict among religions. Still, her record offers positive signs that she will be a thoughtful, fair-minded jurist in protecting religious freedom. (emphasis mine)

Two esteemed organizations, two positive reviews. Count me convinced.

Update: The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission believes that Sotomayor will "redefine the law":

"After carefully examining her record as a lower court judge, we believe that Sotomayor should not be confirmed to serve on the nation’s highest court," Land said in the e-mail. "Sonia Sotomayor’s record reveals that she is perfectly willing to lift the blindfold of justice to achieve her desired result. She is a judge with a terribly flawed view of the judicial system at best or a judge who simply doesn’t care what the law says at worst. She has constantly shown her lack of deference to the Constitution. She is the type of justice who instead of applying the law neutrally will redefine the law to conform to her policy preferences."

So, two organizations for religious liberty, two opposing view points.

Follow-up: Perriello Unveils Energy Plan

Yesterday, I mentioned that Rep. Perriello held a press conference unveiling his new energy plan for the district. Today, his office released more details on the subject. Money quote:

"Southern and Central Virginia stand poised to lead the nation towards energy independence, and this new commitment is the kind of game-changer our area has needed to regain our competitive edge. Our local entrepreneurs are already the best in the nation at energy efficiency modular homes, bio-fuels, bio-refineries, and nuclear energy. If we have the courage to move from merely surviving to thriving as a region, this can be a homerun for our farmers, advanced manufacturers, and construction industries," said Perriello.

Perriello's "clean energy blueprint" outlines how and why this district can lead the nation in the new energy economy. The plan also offers a vision of a clean energy economy in the Fifth District, as well as offering the benefits of this approach to energy independence. Perriello plans to distribute the document to local elected leaders, administration officials, and entrepreneurs and businesspeople to lobby for bringing investments and jobs to the district. Importantly, the ideas in the plan were the result of the "New Energy Summit" earlier in the year.

The plan, entitled "New Energy for the Fifth District: A Blueprint for putting Southside and Central Virginia at the Forefront of the Clean Energy Economy," can be downloaded here. Please download it and read it! Good stuff.

The Church, 25 Years From Now

Collide Magazine offers their thoughts on what the Church will look like in the next 25 years. By following certain media and technological trends, they posit their thoughts on the size of church communities, church networks and sermons, music, and the multimedia experience. Sometimes verging on the absurd, with androids and holographic projections, I think their insights offer an overly accommodationist approach to technology, in my opinion, loosing the meaning and purpose of the worship experience while simultaneously exacerbating our idolatrous supplication to technology. For example:

The Church in 2034 ministers to people who have mostly embraced the ubiquity of technology in their lives. As a result, the Church in 2034, for the most part, has done what it can to facilitate the kind of weekend multimedia experience that people expect. If electronic media is the language of culture, most churches in 2034 have few, if any, reservations about speaking that language in every aspect of church life.

Their conclusion (below) that the church will become a community focused group is aspirational and hopeful, but unless for a cataclysmic shift in mission, I don't think that current trends are leading in that direction, especially given the flight of the younger generations:

Christians in 2034 are beginning to associate the term “church” with a group of people more than a building or a weekend experience.
[...]
Christians of all shapes and sizes embody a renewed emphasis on deep connection with one another. The majority of the faithful appear to realize that resources, multimedia, and production are wonderful tools for weekend services but poor substitutes for authentic, missional community. In the Church of the future, this kind of community is increasingly facilitated and shaped by new technology ...

Overall, while this is an exercise in pure speculation, there is some value to it:

As we live in the here and now, I think we owe it to ourselves and the generations of Christians that will come after us to imagine the future. We must think carefully and critically, even if we can’t see the future clearly, and we must do our best to consider the long-term implications of the way we do church today for the sake of the church tomorrow.

I encourage you to read the article, but don't invest too much stock into their ideas.

Virgil Being Virgil (updated)

Last month, Virgil Goode headlined the Constitution Party's national meeting, and thankfully, someone scored a video of his speech. Here, Goode, in classic fashion, talks about how he is scared and concerned with illegal immigration. Check it.

Update: It was brought to my attention that I had just posted Part 2 of a three part series. So, here I add the other two parts. Just as delicious.

Danville Register & Bee Chides TEA Party Movement

The Danville Register & Bee, generally understood, is a moderate, right-of-center daily. Today, the newspaper published a great editorial chiding the arguments employed at Danville's TEA Party rally, a rally attended by 400 people this holiday weekend. Conceding that the government is spending money at an uncontrollable rate, the editorial staff, after sorting through other inane arguments, points out the ideological dissonance inherent within the movement. Money quote:

The best arguments made — that federal government spending must be brought in line with revenues and that existing programs have to work as well as possible before the public can be confident of adding new ones — sometimes got lost in the white-hot rhetoric.

Even the TEA Party’s timing — coming to life after the Democrats won power in the last election — says a lot about the ideological dead weight this group is carrying around.

Where was this group when previous conservative governments were running up ever-growing budget deficits? Why was it OK to borrow money to rebuild Baghdad but not Danville? (emphasis mine)

I love that question. Anyways, according to the editorial board, with all of the focused anger against the government, some of the tea party-goers did admit to the positive benefits of the government (i.e., healthcare and social security). To which they conclude:

That’s why reforming the existing system makes a lot more sense than all the tough talk that could lead America down a road few have the stomach to travel.

Not only do we not have the stomach to travel down this road, but America has moved past the debate of the size of the government. Now we are onto debating the role of the government. But I digress.

Quote of the Day

John Calvin, who's 500th anniversary of his birthday is this upcoming Friday:

"It is the common habit of mankind that the more closely men are bound together by the ties of kinship, of acquaintanceship, or of neighborhood, the more responsibilities for one another they share. This does not offend God; for his providence, as it were, leads us to it. But I say: we ought to embrace the whole human race without exception in a single feeling of love; here there is no distinction between barbarian and Greek, worthy and unworthy, friend and enemy, since all should be contemplated in God, not in themselves. When we turn aside from such contemplation, it is no wonder we become entangled in many errors. Therefore, if we rightly direct our love, we must first turn our eyes not to man, the sight of whom would more often engender hate than love, but to God, who bids us extend to all men the love we bear to him, that this may be an unchanging principle: Whatever the character of the man, we must yet love him because we love God."

Chilling how much this quote parallels Bob Wright's thoughts on non-zero sum interaction, cultural evolution, and a moral trajectory undergirding (human) history culminating in an ethic of universal love and toleration.

(h/t Andrew Sullivan)

Perriello Unveils Energy Plan

This past weekend, Rep. Perriello unveiled his energy plan for the district, covered by both the Martinsville Bulletin and the Franklin News Post. Perriello's plan is premised on three principles: maximize efficiency, revolutionize energy sources, and decentralize energy production. With these principles in mind, the Southside is well positioned to be a national leader in the new energy economy:

• There is an abundance of farmland for the production of bioenergy, and post-industrial sites are available and ideal for developing clean energy technologies.
• Entrepreneurs and farmers in the region are ready to become leaders in the struggle to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.
• The region is home to world-class research centers and is positioned to leverage funds provided by the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission.
• The recently approved American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the American Clean Energy and Security Act are providing federal funds for investments in clean energy.

Perriello money quote:

“We will not turn this economy around by hiding from our problems, but by having the courage to reinvent our competitive advantage,” he said.

Goode running for another office? Doubtful

A local Martinsville radio host, Bill Wyatt, believes that former Rep. Goode is not finished with public service. To Wyatt, if Goode does not decide to run against Rep. Perriello - announcement forthcoming - then Goode might consider other office. Saith Wyatt:

So the question is; Will Goode call for a rematch against Periello, or will he run for another political office? If he were to, I wonder what it would be? Either way, I don’t think Virgil is done with politics yet. Whether he runs for the 5th or whether he goes for something else I think we will see Virgil Goode in an elected capacity somewhere again.

Nevermind the assumption of victory, that Goode will be elected again. I do not know whether Wyatt has insider information or if he is merely speculating on this issue. On this very subject, however, last winter Goode, during a post-election interview, contemplated and dismissed the possibility of running for higher office, especially the governorship:

He has no immediate aspirations to seek another political office.

Being governor would be “the best job you could have” in the state, Goode mused.

But he is not considering running for that post. He said he thinks his years in the General Assembly promoting the needs of Southside and other rural areas of Virginia put him at odds with lawmakers from Northern Virginia.

Now a lot could have happened since last December, but I just don't see it. If Goode doesn't challenge Rep. Perriello, I suspect his career as a public official is over, that he opted for political retirement. Until then, however, let's take Goode at his word.

Worship and Web 2.0

I had a great discussion with several pastors last month about using social networking sites as a way to do community outreach. This conversation is endemic of the church's overall struggle with Web 2.0, a struggle highlighted in yesterday's New York Times article. Money quote:

Still, many clerics admit to an uneasiness about the merger of worship and electronic chatter.

In online debates and private discussions, leaders of all faiths have been weighing pros and cons and diagramming the boundaries of acceptable interactions: Should the congregation have a Facebook page, or should it be the imam’s or priest’s? Should there be limited access? Censoring? Is it appropriate for a clergy member to “friend” a minor?

Some recoil at the informality and unpredictability of the crowds marshaled by social media, and at their seeming immunity — even hostility — to the authority of established institutions. More deeply, some in the clergy see a basic tension between the anonymous world of online life and the meaning of religious community.

While the church debates over the proper utilization and the theological function of social media, one thing is certain: like it or not, it's here to stay.

The American Patriot's Bible

Another day, another study bible. This time, the American Patriot's Bible. Amazon offers this product description:

THE ONE BIBLE THAT SHOWS HOW 'A LIGHT FROM ABOVE' SHAPED OUR NATION. Never has a version of the Bible targeted the spiritual needs of those who love our country more than The American Patriot's Bible. This extremely unique Bible shows how the history of the United States connects the people and events of the Bible to our lives in a modern world. The story of the United States is wonderfully woven into the teachings of the Bible and includes a beautiful full-color family record section, memorable images from our nation's history and hundreds of enlightening articles which complement the New King James Version Bible text.

The USA Today, picks up on its creation, detailing its background and reaction to its formation. Money quote:

Americans looking to combine love of God with love of country this July 4th can quote the new American Patriot's Bible, which says God has influenced America through godly Founding Fathers, presidents and soldiers.

"This Bible is designed for the decent, hardworking core of America, the ordinary man or woman who loves this nation and believes it springs from godly roots," says Richard G. Lee, a Southern Baptist pastor from Georgia who served as the Bible's general editor.

Lee believes that conservative values are under assault in our current political context, and as such this study bible is necessary:

In his introduction, Lee writes that "America stands without equal as a beacon of hope and freedom in a hurting world." The Patriot's Bible, he says, speaks to Americans who feel their conservative theology, politics and morals are under assault.

"We are at our lowest ebb at this particular time," he said in an interview. "Judeo-Christian principles are being beaten down. They're actually under attack. This has never happened before."

However, not all conservative evangelicals celebrate this "non-partisan" publication. Some are disgusted with the unabashed and intentional fusion of Christianity and patriotism:

"Get thee behind me, Satan," wrote "Crunchy Con" blogger Rod Dreher on Beliefnet. "To the extent that this Bible's publishers conflate serving Christ with patriotism … they are corrupt, and corrupters."

Evangelical author and pastor Greg Boyd's lengthy critique, posted on Christianity Today's website, calls Lee's Bible "idolatrous," saying, "There's not a single commentary in this Bible that even attempts to shed light on what the biblical text actually means."

Importantly, it is relatively commonplace to have a study bible conform to a certain, sometimes secular, ideological agenda. Take, for example, the Green Bible. But, I too have a major problem with retrofitting and redacting our sacred texts with imperial nationalism; as if to be true Christians or true Americans, you must believe a certain way, and failure to do so invalidates your religious and patriotic credentials. At best this is unhealthy - at worst, harmful - to our religious and political identities.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Danville Register & Bee Defends Rep. Perriello (updated)

Two days ago, the Roanoke Times applauded Rep. Perriello for his "principled stand" on ACES, and today, the Danville Register & Bee defended Perriello for his vote. The Letters to the Editor against him have been relentless, and the editorial staff shares these writers concerns. But:

But anyone who thinks Perriello — a man who has worked in this community’s soup kitchens — would blindly support a bill that would add hundreds or even thousands of dollars to our energy bills just doesn’t know our congressman. No member of Congress would vote to do that.

This bill, continues the editorial staff, would create and foster a new green energy economy, already budding in parts of Southside. The NRCC, "smell[ing] political blood," won't mention these local projects; they are obfuscating the truth with "wildly fluctuating costs estimates" and the fear of a national energy tax. Concludes the Register & Bee:

It took a lot of political courage — and guts — for Perriello to support a bill that’s so widely misunderstood. Maybe voting to give money to NASA in 1962 cost some congressmen their jobs, too.

How smart was that?

Update: The Bedford Bulletin offers their opinion on the matter. While I can not claim to be an expert whatsoever on ACES, this opinion is utterly devoid of both basic background knowledge of the legislation and its positive effects for Southside. Wow. Just wow.

Happy Independence Day

Declaration of Independence, signed July 4th, 1776:

When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

British Poll: Compatibility of God and Evolution?

The British Council and a marketing research firm, Ipsos MORI, asked 10,000 individuals in ten different countries asking, among other things, whether or not one can believe in God and evolution simultaneously (data here). Press release money quote:

Dr Fern Elsdon-Baker, Head of the British Council Darwin Now programme, said: ‘The international Darwin survey has thrown up some very interesting results, especially as it includes data from countries not previously covered before. The most encouraging aspect of the survey shows that whilst there are diverse views on Darwin’s theory of evolution, there appears to a broad acceptance that science and faith do not have to be in conflict. Whilst the results show that there is some way to go in communicating the evidence of evolutionary theory to wider audiences, it is evident that there is clear space for dialogue on this sometimes complex area of debate.’ (emphasis mine)

According to the results, 53% of Americans believed that it is possible to believe in God while believing life has evolved over time. 27% think that these beliefs are irreconcilable, obviously those from either creationistic or scientific backgrounds. India overwhelmingly believes in the compatibility of these belief systems, while Egypt is almost evenly split. Importantly, in each of the countries polled, a majority of respondents stated that the belief in God can co-exist with the belief in evolution.

The blog Science and the Sacred argues:

While surveys are not always accurate representations of a larger population, the results of this study offer some interesting ideas about the international debate over religion, evolution, and origins.

On one of those interesting ideas, like Elsdon-Baker, I think that these results, overall, underscore the general (and international) acceptance that science and faith can co-exist, can offer each other fruitful guidance and dialogue.

Palin: Unorthodox Presidential Maneuver? Quitter? Scandal Ridden? Tired?

By now, you have most likely heard the news that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has resigned her position (text here). She says that she can best help Alaskans outside of the political system. Pundits and commentators, however, are less certain, utterly baffled, and without clear answers, speculation is ensuing. Marc Aminder, Nate Silver, and Mark Halperin each offer their theories, but by reading and listening to the news, several theories seem to have emerged.

Some are suggesting that Palin resigned so that she could better position herself for a run at the presidency. Here, she would need to stay visible and need to start putting together a national campaign team in order to focus full-time on the 2012 presidental nomination. Even throughout the recent drama, her favorable ratings among Republican activist is still high. Here, she can ride her popularity, without the confines of the governorship, into a strong position for the Republican nomination. Importantly, Alaska is too far away to effectively campaign in Iowa, New Hampsire, and South Carolina, and this resignation allows her to campaign more efficiently, clearing away the field of flawed GOP contenders.

But, as someone who has been criticized as a political novice, unprepared for the prime time, she foolishly truncates her political development. You don't run for higher office while resigning, especially this early, your current office. In effect, she quit. Palin quit on Alaskans and as such, she dashed any aspirations of higher office. She's finished.

Or, has something happened in the last few days, prompting her to resign the office? Are we going to see an ensuing investigation in the near future? An indictment? Some other type of scandal? The recent article in Vanity Fair has caused a storm of Republican in-fighting. But, are these leaked stories prelude to something larger?

Or, Palin could just be tired of public office. Here, the constant barrage of negative media wore Palin and her family down. That level of scrutiny, certainly, is tough for one person to handle, not to mention her family.

We are all speculating, and as Waldo states, this is a futile exercise. The truth is, at this point in time, we don't know Palin's motivations. More information, surely, will be forthcoming.

What are your thoughts? Got any ideas?

Faith Groups respond to ACES (updated)

On the note of ACES, I wanted to highlight how differing faith communities are responding to the legislation. Naturally, reaction to the bill divides down the conservative-progressive fault-line, centered around the belief or disbelief of the existence of human-made global warming. While important and theologically significant, the derivative claims of taxes and jobs only serve as supportive justification to the group's overall stance on the issue.

Citing skepticism of global warming and a regressive tax, conservative Christians are "sounding the alarm bells":

[T]he Cornwall Alliance – a conservative Christian coalition – has described its cap and trade provisions, which allow companies that pollute less than their limit to sell some of their permits to others struggling to meet such green requirements, ”as the largest tax hike in history.” Analysts have said such arguments may appeal to voters especially against the backdrop of the current recession.

Conservative Christians are distributing an online petition called We Get It! which reads in part: “Our stewardship of creation must be based on Biblical principles and factual evidence. We face important environmental challenges, but must be cautious of claims that our planet is in peril from speculative dangers like man-made global warming.”
[...]
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and a leading figure in the social conservative movement, devoted much of his nationally syndicated radio show on Saturday to the topic, calling cap and trade a “regressive tax to the max.” Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said in his blog last week that it “would increase an already staggering national debt by 26 percent by 2035” — a figure taken directly from the Cornwall Alliance’s estimates.

Progressive faith groups, on the other hand, are lauding the legislation. For example, a couple of Jewish groups hail the bill's passage:

"This is a crucially important issue -- the most important issue for the whole planet," said [Jewish Council for Public Affairs] Washington director Hadar Susskind. "If we don't do this, none of the others matter."

Rabbi David Saperstein, the director of the Religious Action Center, said that while the measure does not go far enough, it "creates an important framework for drastically reducing global warming pollution, creating hundreds of thousands of good, green jobs and increasing access to clean energy."

After lobbying for and winning the insertion of a provision to allow retrofitting to faith-based and other nonprofits, one influential coalition of religious groups is also content.

Update: According to the Wall Street Journal, several other progressive religious coalitions are going up on the airwaves, television and radio, to raise awareness of climate change, underscored by a biblical perspective. In the article, Rep. Perriello is quoted:

"It's important for people to see that it's not just [Democrats] saying this is important, but people who are coming at it from a moral background," said Rep. Tom Perriello ....

Perriello, ACES, Response, Counter-Response (updated)

As you well know, Rep. Perriello voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), and the NRCC responded by cutting a television ad hitting Perriello for his vote (ad here). The Danville Register & Bee caught up with Perriello and asked his thoughts on the ad:

"I think it’s hogwash and cowardice,” Perriello said of the new television ad. “We have had an oil dependence probably since the day I was born and I think this bill is going to be a big winner for central and Southside Virginia. For biofuel, for our farmers.”

Perriello supported converting tobacco farms into future biomass producers and turning farm and municipal waste into power. The bill aims to create millions of green jobs through alternative energy sources, but Republicans claim the legislation would actually cut jobs and depress real estate prices.

“It’s just false,” Perriello said. “We’re already losing the jobs. This is what (critics) don’t get. We are hemorrhaging jobs in the energy sector. The status quo that they support is a job-loss strategy. We have a job-winning strategy by making investments in the future of technology.”

Not only does Perriello find the ad false, but one important non-profit group supports his claims. Importantly, FactCheck.org, ya know, checked the facts and declared, "[T]he NRCC is wrong," especially regarding the household costs. In light of these claims, one Roanoke television station, WDBJ-TV, decided that it won't run the attack ad, citing factual inaccuracies.

Other feedback has been positive for Perriello. The Environmental Defense Fund themselves made an ad, thanking Perriello for his vote (ad here). And, this morning, in the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne wrote a positive editorial on why Perriello and other vulnerable Democratic representatives voted for the bill. Money quote:

Hours before the House passed its cap-and-trade bill last week, freshman Democrats Tom Perriello and Frank Kratovil were pondering the political fallout of the votes they were about to cast in favor of a plan Republicans were denouncing as "cap-and-tax."

"Maybe we should be called the conscience caucus," said the 34-year-old Perriello ...

Update: Today's Roanoke Times editorial applauds Perriello for his principled stand. The Politico is also running a story in which Tom is selling his vote to Southside business leaders and farmers.