Obama proceeded to recite the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer in Arabic, with what Nicholas D. Kristof called a “first-rate accent.” Obama described this chant as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

This text, in one English translation, proclaims: “Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! … I testify that there is no god but Allah! … I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” These lines are known as the Shahada — from the Arabic verb, “to testify” — and reciting them, in public, with the intent of becoming a Muslim, is a crucial act in entering and then practicing the faith.

This is the kind of biographical detail that keeps complicating matters for journalists who try to make sense of the poll from the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life indicating that 18 percent of Americans think Obama is a Muslim, as opposed to 11 percent in March 2009.

Only 34 percent of those polled said Obama is a Christian and a stunning 43 percent did not know his current religion. Among his strongest supporters, 43 percent of blacks and 46 percent of Democrats said he is a Christian.

These numbers are strange in light of Obama’s public testimonies about his conversion to Christianity, after years of spiritual struggle.

In his memoir, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama confessed that as a young social activist he realized, “Rich, poor, sinner, saved, you needed to embrace Christ precisely because you had sins to wash away — because you were human. … I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. … Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

This was an open confession of faith, even if many conservative Christians choose to reject the liberal beliefs he has articulated through the years. During the campaign, the Rev. Franklin Graham asked Obama if Jesus was the only way to heaven. “Jesus is the only way for me,” he responded.

Meanwhile, the Obama team has had difficulty communicating a clear message about his faith history. Campaign aides, at first, said he had never been a Muslim, but later stressed that he had never been “a practicing Muslim.”

Obama’s family history is hard to describe. His father was a Muslim from Kenya who became an atheist. His stepfather was a Muslim who, in Obama’s words, was raised in an era in which Indonesia offered a tolerant approach to Islam that blended with “remnants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and ancient animist traditions.” His mother was raised as a Christian, but adopted her own mix of secularism and spirituality.

While in Indonesia, Obama attended what he has called a “Muslim” public school and also a Catholic school. At both schools, according to educators interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, his faith was listed as “Muslim.” School friends recalled that they often went to the mosque together.

Nevertheless, there is no single, definitive Islamic approach to questions about the role of birth and upbringing in establishing a person’s religious identity.

Franklin Graham was only partially right when he told CNN: “The president’s problem is that he was born a Muslim. His father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father. … His father gave him an Islamic name.” Graham added that Obama has “renounced Islam and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That’s what he says he has done. I cannot say that he hasn’t.”

This view of Islamic tradition is much too simplistic, said Stephen Prothero of Boston University, author of “God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World.” There is more to this debate about faith and identity than DNA, he stressed.

“As a matter of jurisprudence, however, there is a presumption that a child born to a Muslim father is Muslim,” said Prothero, in an email exchange. “This needs to be followed up with ACTION, however. …

“Like Christianity, Islam is a matter of choice, not inheritance.”

   Send article as PDF to

Under the headline “Super Bowl Censorship,” it defended the Christian group’s right to buy a prime chunk of airtime, even if the ad focused on the decision by an ailing Pam Tebow to ignore her doctors’ advice to abort her fifth child — a son named Tim. Protests by the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America and others, it said, were “puzzling and dismaying.”

“The would-be censors are on the wrong track,” proclaimed the Times. “Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about. … Viewers can watch and judge for themselves. Or they can get up from the couch and get a sandwich.”

Where should Focus on the Family President Jim Daly place this memento? After all, it represents a major event during the final days of founder Dr. James Dobson, the child psychologist who over three decades built one of America’s most powerful radio franchises and evangelical ministries. Dobson’s farewell broadcast was Feb. 26th.

Daly, who became Focus on the Family president in 2005, is thinking about putting the framed editorial between two photos. In one, Daly is standing with President George W. Bush. In the other, he is standing with President Barack Obama.

“I’ll find a spot,” he said. “That would be a rather symbolic place to put it.”

Daly has worked for Focus on the Family for two decades, focusing on building a global audience of 200 million listeners. He is well aware that some loyalists on the legendary Focus on the Family mailing list — a major resource when raising money or inspiring grassroots support on hot issues — are worried about recent strategic moves.

Take, for example, Daly’s decision to attend an Obama White House conference on fatherhood. Some also questioned the decision not to fight CBS over the right to explicitly mention abortion in the Super Bowl ad.

“I don’t want to underestimate their concerns,” said Daly. “There are people who want to see more of the hard-hitting approach. The thing is, I’m not sure that approach still works today.”

While it’s impossible to say if Focus on the Family will take another Super Bowl plunge, the mainstream-media approach used in the Tebow family ad is a sign to what lies ahead, and not just because the Heisman Trophy winner will soon be playing in nearby Denver.

The goal all along was to use the brief advertisement to point viewers toward a longer version of the Tebow story at FocusOnTheFamily.com, said spokesman Gary Schneeberger. Thus, the crucial post-Super Bowl numbers were these — 92 million of the 106 million who watched the game told researchers they saw the Tebow ad. Among those who did, 6 percent said the spot and the furor surrounding it made them think twice about their beliefs on abortion. In all, about 1.5 million people went online to watch the more detailed Tebow feature.

Daly and Schneeberger insisted that there was no sneaky, brilliant strategy to hide the ad’s contents, other than their desire to keep pressure off Tebow as he prepared for his final college bowl game. Nevertheless, a giant media storm was triggered by an early report that Focus on the Family was planning a Super Bowl ad, coupled with a later wire-service story that the Tebows were involved. The result, said Schneeberger, was the equivalent of $32 million worth of free ink and airtime in national media.

“The people who didn’t approve of the ad that they had never seen ended up doing all of our talking points for us,” he said. “We didn’t have to say anything else.”

The key lesson, agreed Daly, was that it’s possible to “reach out and hold a dialogue” with an audience larger than the Focus on the Family mailing list. The Super Bowl project proved that the ministry could frame a message in such a way that “people outside of our niche had a chance to catch it and it does appear that some caught it. We think that’s progress.”

   Send article as PDF to

Both men quoted the Psalms. Both concluded with visions of eternal life and heavenly reunions. Both referred to familiar songs that offered comfort.

Facing those gathered in Beckley, W.Va., to mourn the loss of 29 miners, President Barack Obama asked them to remember a rhythm and blues classic — “Lean on Me” — that had its roots in coal country life.

Songwriter Bill Withers wrote: “Sometimes in our lives, we all have pain, we all have sorrow. … Lean on me, when you’re not strong and I’ll be your friend. I’ll help you carry on, for it won’t be long ‘til I’m gonna need somebody to lean on.”

The Rev. Billy Graham was more daring at the 1995 prayer service for the 168 victims of the bombing at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The world’s most famous evangelist even quoted an explicitly Christian hymn.

“The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose I will not, I will not desert to its foes,” claims “How Firm a Foundation,” in its final verse. “That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake, I’ll never, no, never, no, never forsake!”

There is no way to know if Obama and Graham talked about heaven, hell and eulogies when they held their first face-to-face meeting, just a few hours before the president traveled to West Virginia.

Reporters were not allowed to witness the 30-minute session, the kind of confidential meeting that Graham has held with every president since Harry Truman. Obama was the first to meet with the evangelical statesman at his log home on a mountainside above Montreat, N.C.

Graham’s career has been defined as much by these moments of civil religion as by the decades of crusades in which he preached to millions. Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton told reporters that Graham is a “treasure to our country” and that, while the 91-year-old preacher has “some of the creaks that come with advancing age,” he remains as “sharp as he ever was.”

Some details of the meeting were relayed to the Associated Press by the Rev. Franklin Graham, the outspoken heir to his father’s ministry. Billy Graham gave Obama two Bibles, one for him and one for First Lady Michelle Obama. The evangelist prayed for America and for wisdom for the president. Obama offered a prayer thanking God for Graham’s life and ministry.

Franklin Graham’s presence guaranteed the discussion of at least one sensitive subject, since the Army recently rescinded his invitation to speak at a Pentagon prayer service. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the younger Graham called Islam an “evil and wicked religion” and he still insists that Muslims need to know that Jesus died for their sins.

When they discussed the Pentagon’s approach to religion, Franklin Graham said that Obama promised “he would look into it.”

That’s the kind of theological terrain that presidents strive to avoid. Thus, Obama remained safely vague when using God language in West Virginia. If there is comfort in the wake of the mine tragedy, he said, “it can, perhaps, be found by seeking the face of God, who quiets our troubled minds, a God who mends our broken hearts, a God who eases our mourning souls.”

Obama concluded with an appeal for safer mines, blending spiritual concerns into the politics of rock and coal.

“We cannot bring back the 29 men we lost. They are with the Lord now,” he said. “Our task, here on Earth, is to save lives from being lost in another such tragedy; to do what must do, individually and collectively, to assure safe conditions underground. … We have to lean on one another, and look out for one another, and love one another, and pray for one another.”

In Oklahoma City, Graham had closed with an openly evangelistic appeal, the kind of spiritual warning he has urgently voiced for decades.

“This event,” he said, “reminds us of the brevity and uncertainty of life. It reminds us that we never know when we are going to be taken. I doubt if even one of those who went to that building to work or to go to the children’s place ever dreamed that that was their last day on earth. That is why we each need to face our own spiritual need and commit ourselves to God.”

   Send article as PDF to

That’s true in the current debates about health care, poverty and even gay marriage, he said, at the recent National Prayer Breakfast.

“Surely we can agree to find common ground when possible, parting ways when necessary,” said Obama. “But in doing so, let us be guided by our faith and by prayer. For while prayer can buck us up when we are down, keep us calm in a storm, while prayer can stiffen our spines to surmount an obstacle — and I assure you I’m praying a lot these days — prayer can also do something else. It can touch our hearts with humility. …

“Through faith, but not through faith alone, we can unite people to serve the common good.”

But while the president preached unity, this year’s National Prayer Breakfast was surrounded by controversy. There were signs this event on the semi-official Washington, D.C., calendar may no longer be able to serve as a safe forum in which a wide variety of religious and political leaders can unite their voices. The breakfasts began in 1953 and every president since Dwight Eisenhower has taken part.

Before the event, the leaders of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the White House and to Congressional leaders calling for a boycott. They also urged C-Span not to televise the breakfast. Meanwhile, a coalition of gay-rights activists and religious liberals announced a series of alternative “American Prayer Hour” events in Washington and other cities nationwide.

Both groups focused intense criticism on The Fellowship, the nondenominational Christian organization that sponsors the prayer breakfast and similar networking events in Washington and around the world. The key is that numerous Ugandan leaders are active in Fellowship activities in that country, including the politician who introduced anti-gay legislation that includes capital punishment for some offenses.

The ethics group’s letter accused this organization — often called “The Family” — of being a “cult-like secret society with unknown motivations and backing” that preaches an “unconventional brand of Christianity focusing on meeting Jesus ‘man-to-man.’ ” The American Prayer Hour coalition simply called it a “secretive fundamentalist organization.” The New York Times noted that the group has no “identifiable Internet site, no office number and no official spokesman.”

However, some religious conservatives have also expressed doubts about The Fellowship. In an investigation of its property holdings in and around Washington, World magazine called attention to The Fellowship’s “muddy theology,” its “distain for the established church” and an emphasis on privacy that “grew into an obsessive culture of secrecy.”

Describing the participants in Fellowship events, Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma told World: “Some of them are Muslims. Some of them are Christians. But they meet in the spirit of Jesus, so it’s not a denominational thing, it’s not even a Christian thing, it’s a Jesus thing.”

The ultimate issue is that this organization needs to admit that it exists and talk openly about its activities and goals, said journalist Jeff Sharlet, author of “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.” It’s a sign of progress, for example, that many Americans who are active in the organization have rejected the Ugandan legislation and communicated their dismay to their contacts in Uganda.

When it comes to the National Prayer Breakfast, the Fellowship’s leaders “should go completely public,” said Sharlet, by email. They should “acknowledge their existence, the fact that this is their event, make their account of it accountable (it was not Ike’s idea), explain the process by which people are invited and … make explicit that this is about consecrating leadership to Jesus. Everybody is welcome, but it’s about Jesus.”

This kind of transparency might accelerate what already seems to be happening. Some leaders — on the left and right — might reject the big-tent approach offered by the National Prayer Breakfast and create their own events, which could focus on more explicit messages about faith and politics.

If the Fellowship’s leaders are truly “serious about what they’re about,” noted Sharlet, this “would be great by their lights. They would lose a lot of clout, but the prayer breakfast movement would at last become an actual movement, of many strands.”

   Send article as PDF to

Consider, for example, this reference to health care in its chapter on the biblical instruction, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

“Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God,” notes the catechism. “Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment and social assistance.”

The implication is that governments — as a matter of social justice — should help citizens obtain basic health care, according to a letter sent to Congress and the White House by the Domestic Justice and Human Development Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Health care is a human right, not a privilege, argued Bishop William F. Murphy.

“All people need and should have access to comprehensive, quality health care that they can afford, and it should not depend on their stage of life, where or whether they or their parents work, how much they earn, where they live, or where they were born,” wrote Murphy.

But there’s a problem. The letter stresses that the church will support accessible, affordable, universal health-care reform if it “protects and respects the life and dignity of all people from conception until natural death.”

Try telling that to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, surgeon general nominee Regina Benjamin, Vice President Joe Biden and other Catholics who play strategic roles in Washington, D.C., right now — while rejecting Catholic teachings on many critical health-care issues.

That’s the political reality that the bishops are facing, said Leonard J. Nelson III, a health-care law specialist at the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University.

For the bishops, Catholic teachings on the sanctity of human life are crystal clear, from birth to death, from abortion to euthanasia. Yet the bishops also support health-care for all — rich and poor. It’s getting harder and harder to keep these issues woven together.

“The bishops have been talking about social justice and health care for years and years and now the political climate has changed around them,” said Nelson, author of the new book, “Diagnosis Critical: The Urgent Threats Confronting Catholic Health Care.”

“The politicians who are in command are ready to pass some kind of health-care reform and they have all kinds of reasons to include abortion in that package. … That’s the fix that the bishops are in.”

Meanwhile, he said, leaders of Catholic hospitals and health-care systems will almost certainly face challenges in the near future.

For starters, they could be pressured to join networks and cooperatives that have no reason to follow the bioethical guidelines detailed in the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” adopted by the U.S. Catholic bishops. It will be hard for Catholic leaders to cooperate with government approved health-care programs and receive government funds while declining to offer services such as contraception, sterilizations and referrals for abortions.

Catholic leaders also know that another life-and-death issue looms in the background. As President Barack Obama noted in a recent New York Times interview, it’s impossible to cut or control costs without government efforts to shape health care in the final years of life.

“That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” said Obama. “But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.”

The Catholic bishops, noted Nelson, have not addressed these end-of-life scenarios — yet. Will government agencies or advisory boards be given the power to decide whether patients facing Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease receive expensive medications? Who will decide whether elderly patients have a high enough “quality of life” to continue receiving medical care?

“Productive people in the middle years of life are always going to get the health care they need,” said Nelson. “The big threats to the sanctity of life come at the very beginning and at the end. If you’re going to defend the church’s teachings on health care, you have to focus on those threats. The bishops have to find a way to do that.”

   Send article as PDF to

That wasn’t the kind of reassurance Dodd wanted, as a University of Notre Dame senior weeks away from her graduation ceremonies. When she returned to campus, Dodd headed straight to Notre Dame’s grotto — a small cave modeled after the famous Marian shrine in Lourdes, France.

“I knew this: No amount of shame or embarrassment would ever lead me to get rid of my baby. Of all women, Our Lady could surely feel pity for an unplanned pregnancy,” wrote Dodd, in an essay aimed at Father John Jenkins, the university’s president. The text was posted online by the journal First Things.

“In my hour of need, on my knees, I asked Mary for courage and strength. And she did not disappoint,” she added. “My boyfriend was a different story. He was also a Notre Dame senior. When I told him that he was to be a father, he tried to pressure me into having an abortion. … ‘All that talk about abortion is just dining-room talk,’ he said.”

Family and friends stood by Dodd’s side. Today, a decade later, she is a single mother and her daughter’s name is Mary. Dodd serves on the board of Room at the Inn, an organization working to build an on-campus facility for pregnant unwed students at Belmont Abbey College, near Charlotte, N.C.

The timing of Dodd’s essay — “Notre Dame, My Mother” — is, of course, linked to her alma mater’s decision to invite President Barack Obama to deliver its mid-May commencement address and to receive an honorary doctor of laws degree.

Throughout his political career, Obama has opposed all restrictions on abortion rights, even in late-term procedures. But he has also reached out to Catholic and evangelical voters by pledging to help lessen the need for abortions, through government efforts to aid needy mothers and their children.

Catholic traditionalists and many Notre Dame alumni argue that honoring Obama in this way violates a 2004 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops policy that said: “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Three years later, the bishops underlined the importance of this issue, arguing that the “direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many.”

However, a recent online count found that only 66 bishops, out of 195 dioceses nationwide, have issued public comments critical of Notre Dame’s decision. So far, the Vatican has remained silent on the issue.

Meanwhile, a Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life poll found that 50 percent of American Catholics approve of Notre Dame’s decision to “invite” Obama, while 28 percent disapprove. However, only 37 percent of white, non-Hispanic Catholics who attend Mass weekly agreed with the Notre Dame decision, compared with 56 percent of those less active in the church. This parallels that fact that 61 percent of these “attend less often” Catholics support abortion rights in all or most cases, as opposed to 30 percent of the “attend weekly” Catholics.

Alumni and current students know that these kinds of divisions also exist at Notre Dame, said Dodd. Notre Dame students also face crisis pregnancies and some young women there are convinced that they must have abortions in order to stay in school.

While others focus on the political implications of honoring Obama, Dodd said she worries about the impact of this symbolic event on women in the commencement audience who are wrestling with the same secret she faced 10 years ago.

Thus, she ended her essay with this question to the priest who currently leads Notre Dame: “Who draws support from your decision to honor President Obama — the young, pregnant Notre Dame woman sitting in that graduating class who wants desperately to keep her baby, or the Notre Dame man who believes that the Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is just dining-room talk?”

These kinds of influences make a difference, said Dodd.

“I think that Notre Dame needs to be in the lead when it comes to supporting women who face unplanned pregnancies,” she said. “Notre Dame needs to be on their side — always.”

   Send article as PDF to

Consider this hypothetical landmine: Would it be discrimination for a Christian AIDS hospice to refuse to hire a worker who believes AIDS is a sign of God’s wrath?

Ponder these scenarios. Can a Muslim school fire a teacher who converts to Christianity? Can a Jewish pre-school discriminate against a job applicant who is active in Jews for Jesus?

Wait, there’s more. Is it job discrimination for an evangelical shelter for parents and children to refuse to hire someone who rejects centuries of Christian teachings on sex and marriage? How about forcing a Catholic hospital to hire doctors and nurses who reject the church’s doctrines on abortion?

These are the kinds of questions swirling around the White House as Obama tries to find a way to embrace a wide variety of religious groups and the faith-based ministries they operate — while rejecting some of the ancient doctrines that guide their work.

“There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same,” said Obama, at the National Prayer Breakfast in which he promoted his Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. “We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we’re going next — and some subscribe to no faith at all.

“But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being.”

Then, citing a variety of faith traditions, he said one law can bring unity, which is “the Golden Rule — the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.”

The audience said, “amen.” But church-state lawyers and packs of social activists began murmuring about the details. There are, after all, secular and religious groups that believe President George W. Bush’s team erred when it allowed many faith-based ministries to receive government funds, while hiring only employees who affirmed their doctrines and mission statements.

These tensions remain, because Obama has decided — for now — to allow this practice to continue, while stressing that the Justice Department will review complaints on a case-by-case basis.

The ground is moving. For decades, a guiding principle of church-state law has been that state officials must avoid becoming “entangled” in doctrinal questions that allow the government to favor some faith groups over others.

In his prayer breakfast speech, the president said his initiative would not “favor one religious group over another — or even religious groups over secular groups.” But will some ministries get to hire according to their doctrines, while others will not, with the government separating the sheep from the goats?

“I really don’t have a clue” what the case-by-case language means, said Stanley Carlson-Thies, who worked with the Bush White House and now leads the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance. “I think they are trying to get out of the fix they’re in. Obama’s people have told so many religious groups that they’re not going to hurt what they do. Yet they have also told groups on the other side, ‘Of course we stand with you. This is discrimination and we’re not going to allow it.’ “

As recently as the 1990s a broad coalition of church-state experts — from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Christian Coalition — managed to work together on some crucial religious liberty issues. The goal was to promote free speech, freedom of association and “equal access” for believers and nonbelievers in the public square.

But today, driven by conflicts over gay rights, the spotlight is on what candidate Obama consistently called “religious discrimination.” The White House must choose between armies of religious believers who follow radically different sets of doctrines.

In the end, it’s impossible to separate the power of faith from the doctrines and traditions that inspire these believers, said Carlson-Thies.

“The faith is where the passion comes from, it’s where the witness is,” he said. “It’s clear that the president admires many of these faith groups and the work they do. The question he faces now is, ‘Do you want to work with them or not?’ “

   Send article as PDF to

The problem was that she didn’t hear much in the way of traditional prayer, in terms of clergy offering words of praise and petition to God. Instead, the prayers sounded like lectures or mini-sermons aimed at the masses on the National Mall.

“Did I think the official prayers were disasters? No,” said Tickle, author of, among many relevant works, “Prayer Is a Place: America’s Religious Landscape Observed.”

“I just thought that they lacked the majesty of a psalm before the throne of God, substituting instead … the mundane and plebian commentary of a human being to other human beings about an established lists of errors and of desirable aims, with a little advice to God thrown in. … I’m not sure why preachers think they have to do that.”

The clergy in the rites surrounding the inauguration, of course, faced the challenge of praying in a political minefield. On one side were the atheists and secularists whose lawsuits failed to keep religious language out of the proceedings. On the other side were religious activists — liberals and conservatives — poised to judge whether the prayers made the grade, politically and doctrinally.

Pity the poor shepherd who has to please his own flock, as well as the New York Times editorial page.

Most of the early analysis focused on the decision to invite the Rev. Rick Warren — an evangelical leader who rejects Obama’s support for abortion and gay rights — to offer the invocation. Warren opened by blending a theme from his own bestseller, “The Purpose Driven Life,” with snippets of Jewish and Muslim prayers.

“Almighty God, our Father, everything we see and everything we can’t see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you. It all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory. History is your story,” he said. “Scripture tells us, ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is One.’ And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.”

The prayer also included words of thanksgiving for the election of an African-American president, an appeal for economic justice and concern for the environment. The California megachurch pastor then dared to close with clear references to Jesus — in Hebrew, Arabic, Spanish and English — and the Lord’s Prayer.

The benediction was by the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a strong voice from the Civil Rights Movement. He began with the poetic final lines of the “Negro National Anthem,” the classic “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” and then ended with an edgy poem based on the work of blues singer Big Bill Broonzy.

“Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning,” he concluded, “we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right. Let all those who do justice and love mercy say, ‘Amen.’ “

In between, Lowery offered sharp shots of political commentary, including a pronouncement that America has recently “sown the seeds of greed,” blown by the “wind of greed and corruption” that have caused the nation to “reap the whirlwind of social and economic disruption.” Thus, he asked God to “help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance.”

None of this, stressed Tickle, was all that unusual. Prayers written for use in these kinds of giant civic events are almost always “rather didactic” and “content driven.” As a rule, they also tend to be long.

On this historic inauguration day, anyone seeking the most fervent expressions of faith, hope and love needed to hear the voices in the crowd, not the leaders in the pulpit.

“The real prayers were written by the people on that mall and across the nation, with their bodies, with their voices, with their cries and with their tears,” said Tickle. “That was the religious experience that really mattered on that day.”

   Send article as PDF to

As Aretha Franklin finished singing “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee,” the queen of soul did what she has done for decades — she improvised.

The result was a soaring bridge between the inauguration of President Barack Obama and a sermon 45 years ago at the Lincoln Memorial.

“Our fathers’ God, to thee, author of liberty, to thee we sing. Long may our land be bright, with freedom’s holy light, protect us by thy might,” sang Franklin, before adding words that echoed some of the final cadences the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., added to his “I Have A Dream” address.

“Let freedom ring … From the red clay of Georgia, all the way to the Allegheny Mountains. … Let freedom ring.”

If anyone ever doubted that themes from the Civil Rights Movement have been blended into America’s “civil religion,” it’s time for those doubts to fade.

Presidential inaugurations are the “high feast days” of the vague, but powerful, faith that binds together a nation of many races and creeds. To no one’s surprise, religion played a major role in the rites for Obama, said Darrin M. Hanson, a political scientist at Xavier University of Louisiana.

“Obama has a preacher’s emotional style of speaking and he uses that to bring people together. It’s a skill he will need in the days ahead,” said Hanson, who will be analyzing the 2009 address as part of his research into the role that presidents play in America’s civil religion.

In this speech, Hanson said, Obama wanted to deliver a few sobering, “prophetic” messages as well as offer “priestly” words to encourage the million-plus people on the National Mall and the millions more watching from coast to coast and worldwide.

Thus, the new president told his listeners: “Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.”

Obama then used religious images — aimed at left and right — to describe bitter divisions in the body politic.

“On this day,” he said, “we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.”

When scholars describe “civil religion,” they discuss words and rituals that try to accomplish four major goals, argued Hanson, in an essay entitled “The High Priest of American Civil Religion: Continuity and Change.”

First, American “civil religion” attempts to promote unity while accepting religious pluralism. Second, this faith must remain separate from both the state and any specific religion, he said. However, if it ever favors a particular creed, it does so in defense of fundamental human rights. Finally, this “civil religion” provides unity by appealing to shared values and beliefs, acted out in common rites that are acceptable to most believers.

In one passage, the new president managed to combine a number of “civil religion” themes, while also evoking deep emotions at the heart of the Civil Rights Movement and his own personal pilgrimage.

“This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny,” said Obama. “This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed, why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall. And why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.”

The key, said Hanson, is that Obama managed to hit a few hard topics — from global terror to an economic recession — while emphasizing words of hope.

“If you are trying to bring people together, you can’t be too specific when you talk about the things that drive people apart,” he said. “Inaugural addresses, and I’ve read them all, are supposed to be vague — but inspiring. …

“In the end, it’s easier to be a priestly and successful president than it is to be a prophetic and successful president. It’s hard to tell people, ‘We have really messed up and all of us are going to have to change.’ “

NEXT: The politics of prayer, in two dramatic acts.

   Send article as PDF to

Pope Gregory XVI proclaimed that “no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favor to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold and devoted sometimes to the hardest labor.”

Nevertheless, the first bishop of Charleston, S.C., attempted to soften the blow. Quoting scripture and Catholic doctrine, Bishop John England wrote a series of letters arguing that the pope didn’t mean to attack those — including Catholics — who already owned slaves.

“Bishop England was not a bad man. He was not personally in favor of slavery, nor was he a racist,” noted Father John Raphael of New Orleans, at a rally organized as an alternative to the University of Notre Dame’s graduation rites.

“In fact, Bishop England exercised a cherished and personal ministry to black Catholics,” he added. “But in the face of strong, anti-Catholic sentiment and prejudice, he simply wanted to show his fellow antebellum Southerners that Catholics could be just as American as everybody else and that tolerance of their cherished institution — slavery — was not in any way opposed by the Catholic church.”

It was wrong for Catholics of that era to seek any compromise on slavery, stressed Raphael, who serves as principal of St. Augustine High School, one of Louisiana’s most prominent African-American institutions. It is just as wrong, today, for Catholic leaders to compromise on abortion. At least the slaves were allowed to live, to be baptized and to receive the sacraments, he said.

The symbolism was obvious, since the priest is a prominent African-American graduate of Notre Dame.

The symbolism was more than obvious, since he was speaking at a rally protesting Notre Dame’s decision to grant President Barack Obama an honorary doctor of laws degree, clashing with a U.S. Catholic bishops policy that states: “Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

The Mass and rally on Notre Dame’s south quad followed hours of prayers in the university’s Alumni Hall and famous Marian grotto. These solemn, peaceful events received little media attention, even though they drew several hundred or several thousand participants, depending on who did the counting, as well as 25 Notre Dame faculty members, 26 graduating seniors and Bishop John D’Arcy of the Catholic Diocese of Ft. Wayne-South Bend. A louder standoff between police and 100 off-campus activists — led by anti-abortion leader Randall Terry — received most of the news coverage.

During the actual commencement address, a few protesters yelled, “Stop killing our children.” Most of the graduates booed the protesters, then chanted, “Yes we can,” Obama’s campaign slogan, and “We are ND” as they were removed.

Notre Dame President John Jenkins stressed that Obama accepted Notre Dame’s invitation knowing that “we are fully supportive of church teaching on the sanctity of human life and we oppose his policies on abortion and embryonic stem cell research.”

“President Obama is not someone who stops talking to those who differ with him,” stressed Father Jenkins. Then he added, “Mr. President, this is a principle we share.”

Meanwhile, many of the speakers at the “Notre Dame Rally for Life” openly criticized Obama’s policies, but consistently focused their harshest words on the actions of the current Notre Dame administration.

“Faith without works is dead, words without actions are meaningless,” said Father Raphael. “If, as we have been told, a dialogue is actually taking place … between the presidents of Notre Dame and the United States, between the university and the nation, then, for the university at least, that dialogue must be shaped by truth and charity, and protecting the sanctity of all human life, as the church understands life, must be its goal. …

“Actively building a culture of life at Notre Dame must become central to the university’s witness and mission to the nation and to the world.”

   Send article as PDF to