John Hagee (the anti-Catholic reverend whose endorsement McCain sought and then rejected) just had his lawyers remove dozens of YouTube videos featuring him — videos he says violate copyright law, and videos bloggers say make him look like a bigot.  The move has outraged vloggers and pushed discussion of news suppression into the digital age.

Hagee’s lawyers arranged to have more than 120 videos removed from YouTube, including one called the “God Sent Hitler” video.  According to The Cutting Edge News, Hagee’s attorneys said they only removed videos that fit a specific criteria: “1) Any and all pre-recorded material garnered from works owned and distributed by JHM or John Hagee Copyrights; 2) Any material depicting a JHM or John Hagee copyrighted service or performance of the service or sermon, and 3) Any material that is no longer free use material by having been effectively made into a derivative work using materials mentioned above.”

Bloggers, however, question the timing and are crying censorship.  On the Huffington Post, Sam Stein noted that some of the clips had been up for over a year and that the firm’s spokesperson didn’t have an answer as to why Hagee wanted the sermons removed now. 

According to Max Blumenthal, his video contained no copyrighted material – only the footage he had taken himself.  Blumenthal said, “It became apparent to me that Hagee’s minions were guided by ulterior political motives. Instead of guarding their copyrights, they sought to stifle legitimate reporting on Hagee’s far-out End Times ideology.”

Bruce Wilson wonders why John Hagee would suddenly want to limit the dissemination of a sermon he broadcast he around the world and says, “In caving to the demands of John Hagee Ministries, YouTube has censored what clearly is political speech.”  The Independent Conservative writes, “Team Hagee claims they went after anything that featured sermons by Hagee, CUFI activities or John Hagee Ministries events. If that is true, why are all these other John Hagee videos still on YouTube?”  (See here.)      

With big political stories breaking — and endlessly looping — on the Internet now, public figures embarrassed on YouTube may try similar methods to salvage their reputations.  Bloggers, however, aren’t giving up that easily.  Hagee opponents are filing appeals with YouTube to get their videos back up on the website. 

In the latest round of serious reporting on the presidential election, the Associated Press has taken upon itself to find out how pet owners feel about the presidential candidates. 

The news looks good for McCain, who is a devoted pet-owner, and less great for Obama, who has simply promised his daughters a dog once the election ends.  Pet owners, who make up 63% of American homes, favor McCain over Obama 42 % to 37%.  Dog owners are especially ardent for McCain (43% to 34 %), while cat owners display a more ambivalent enthusiasm (41% for McCain and 38% for Obama).

Talking Points Memo ridicules the poll.  Wonkette says it all makes sense: “Obama owns no pets because he hates domesticated beasts. But … John McCain owns a ‘veritable menagerie’ of creatures. Sexy!” 

AP’s detailed analysis finds that the dog owner demographic favors McCain.  Dog owners tend to be married and white — two categories that tend to support McCain.  If the prevailing stereotypes are any indication, cat owners tend to be neurotic and embittered single females — a demographic that, according to CNN, “could be for the Democrats what evangelical voters were for the Republicans in the last presidential election.” 

But as CNN also notes, single females are less likely to vote.  Do dog owners display more political fervor?  Dog Politics attempts to mobilize “a new breed of voter” – one that is conscious of the political debates that affect dog-lovers.  The site is complete with a category for Politicians Who Get It and yet more riveting polls: “Would you vote for a candidate that supports breed-specific mandatory spay-neuter?” 

No word on that issue from either the suddenly humanized, “more compassionate…. caring, giving, trustworthy,” pet-owning McCain, or the animal-loathing Obama. 

More than 90 evangelical leaders met in Denver last week to wrestle their way to a consensus on the 2008 election.  They reached an unstartling one: They may not be thrilled with cCain, but they’re scared stiff of Obama.

Leaders included Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values, Steve Strang of Charisma Magazine, and David Barton of Wallbuilders.  According to Charisma Magazine, Schlafly said, “The alternative is so bad we must support John McCain.”  Burress echoed the sentiment: “If Obama wins I need to be able to get up on November 5th, look at myself in the mirror, and when I pray, say, ‘Lord, I did all that I could.’”

David Brody called it a “key turning point for McCain.”  But as dissenting voices get louder and Obama makes gestures of peace toward religious voters, this crowning of McCain may mobilize other evangelicals to distance themselves from McCain’s endorsers.

Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell has gathered the signatures of over 10,000 people who say they are “standing up for our Christian faith and supporting Barack Obama.”  In the Des Moines Register, Rev. David Bjorlin objects to what he calls the hijacking of the word “Evangelical:” It “puts me in a place where, as an Evangelical, I must vote Republican, never question the government, always support war, believe that tax cuts are a great concern of Jesus, disavow science and accept all the other beliefs that have been thrown upon the stinking heap of the already-soiled Evangelical name.”

Participants in the Denver meeting also signed a Declaration of American Values, echoing the language of the Declaration of Independence.  This Declaration affirmed values like the sanctity of life, marriage, and parental rights, along with gun rights, secure national borders, federalism, and a tax system that encourages limited government and free enterprise.

It may be difficult for anyone with a sense of irony not to side with the gays on this one: Larry Craig and David Vitter co-sponsoring a Marriage Protection Amendment?

If ratified, it would amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman.”  Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) introduced the amendment at the end of June, collecting a list of 10 co-sponsors that includes upstanding Senators like Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Wayne Allard (R- Colo.), along with Craig (the senator busted for soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom) and Vitter (the senator implicated in a prostitution scandal).

Right Wing Watch helpfully notes that Craig and Vitter are “not exactly the poster boys of the family values crowd or particularly upstanding examples of the supposed sanctity of the ‘union of a man and a woman.’”  Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, also noticed the irony and took the opportunity to call the senators “perfect spokespeople for this cause because they are showing the same contempt for the Constitution that they showed for their own marriages.”

On the Huffington Post, Dan Sweeney calls it “chutzpah defined” and says it “takes the hypocritical cake.”  Mike Lillis provides a tongue-in-cheek defense on the Dept. of Irony: “If this amendment had been in place, of course, neither episode would have happened.”

Vitter defends himself: “I strongly oppose attempts by liberal judges to redefine marriage, and so do a very large majority of Louisianans. … As I’ve said, I am deeply remorseful over having sinned in my past. But I don’t think walking away from my beliefs is the way to make up for that.”  Craig seems unwilling to comment.

In the Guardian, Damon Linker says part of George Bush’s “pernicious legacy” is to “inject a potent form of Christian piety into the political life of the nation.”

Linker points to Obama’s determined efforts to gain religious votes and says Bush and Karl Rove transformed the electoral landscape “by encouraging and rewarding political activism among intensely religious Christians.”  So Obama “now views it, perhaps rightly, as politically necessary to make a dramatic display of his fealty to faith.”

Linker is correct that it’s new for a Democratic candidate to make a “dramatic display” of faith and he may be right to thank Bush for it — but is it because Bush rewarded Christian political activists or because he disappointed them? Did Bush help close the “God gap”?

Back in the primary season, David Kuo wondered if Bush made evangelical leaders rethink the assumption that a candidate’s faith is all that matters, contributing to the infamous ‘evangelical crackup.’ Town Hall columnist Bill Bunkley lately noted the disillusionment some evangelical voters have with Bush and the Republican party.

In 2004, Bush got 78% of the evangelical vote and had a 72% approval rating among evangelicals.  His approval rating among white evangelicals plummeted to 54% after Hurricane Katrina, climbed a bit in 2006, but sunk to 57% just before the 2006 election.  There was a burst of support on Election Day in 2006, but by August of 2007 his evangelical approval rating was down to 44%.  His approval ratings declined even more sharply among young evangelicals.

In 2004, Bush won the Catholic vote from Kerry – a swing group that has picked eight out of the last nine presidents.  The Weekly Standard says McCain has a natural advantage with Catholics, but Obama seems to be overcoming his earlier problems winning Catholic votes.  He and McCain are virtually tied for the Catholic vote.  The Bush administration’s positions on issues like torture, immigration and the Iraq war have mobilized organizations like Catholics United.  The New York Times reports that the same issues are making some evangelicals rethink their Republican votes.

Christians may squirm at the idea of researchers reducing their beliefs to naturalistic causes — searching for a gene that predicts religious belief or providing a crass explanation for why people attend church.  But Christians might squirm less if they thought about why scientists are so fascinated by religion — because they can’t quite explain it.

Take evogod for instance – a computer program created by anthropologist James W. Dow.  Dow set out to answer a question that baffles evolutionary scientists: Where does religion get its staying power?  If religious people live in a dream-world and only the hard-headed and fit should survive in the real world, why doesn’t nature cut short the lives of religious people?  How do these dreamers stick around and why do they thrive?

In Dow’s own words, believing in the existence of the unseen “makes no sense from an common evolutionary point of view” because anyone who is “out of touch with reality should be eliminated by natural selection.”

Dow uses the program to conclude that believers depend on non-believers for survival.  Dow says it’s the non-believers’ hard-headed realism – and their decision to look out for the dreamers – that keeps the dreamers alive.

Evogod doesn’t explain why the non-believers would choose to protect the believers, though.   Another anthropologist,  Richard Sosis, theorizes that non-believers protect believers because religion can create a sense of solidarity and cooperation.  Dow says maybe the sacrifices of believers inspire the non-believers to sacrifice for the community.

As “progressive Christian” blogger Jeff Beamsley puts it, evogod shows that “We may be hardwired at a very basic level to respect and admire the beliefs of others, even if we don’t share those beliefs.”  In other words, maybe there’s something about religious belief that can attract and even inspire those who don’t believe – perhaps including the scientists who keep trying to wrap their brains around belief.

Women from the busted polygamist sect in Texas are turning their publicity to profit.  They’ve started a website selling “quality, handmade, modest, affordable” clothing in their own Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (FLDS) style.  They report “a flood of interest.” 

Their clothing choices —- pompadour hair, long dresses in pastel colors, capacious sleeves — attracted fascination earlier this year.  Project Runway’s Tim Gunn demanded, “Who’s talking about their crimes against fashion?”  The Associated Press called their clothes a fashion statement for modesty, conformity, unity and femininity.   

Oddly, some of their choices (in a … slightly more modern silhouette) are actually trendy.  The floor-length maxi dress is in, along with puffed sleeves and pastels last spring.  The AP article says, “It’s not outlandish to imagine the prairie look influencing today’s styles, given that trends can come from unexpected places. … You can already find blouses with high necks and ruffles in stores, and puffed shoulders on short and long-sleeved shirts.”

FLDS competition includes sites like modestclothing.com, www.tznius.com (which even boasts a Hollywood collection), www.hannahlise.com and www.justdenimskirts.com.  If FLDS ladies want to beat out the competition and “make a living” on this, they might want to lower their prices, which run about the same as a pricey Brooklyn children’s clothing boutique I stepped into day — sixty bucks for a newborn baby’s jumpsuit. (Modestclothing.com’s bungee skirt is a far more affordable $29.95.)

They also might want to listen to Gunn’s tactful suggestions on how to make the prairie dress chic: chop off the sleeves, lower the neckline to show some cleavage, shorten it by a foot and accesorize with a wide patent leather belt and metallic ballet flats.  “It’s not gonna say high fashion,” Gunn admitted.  “Who knows?  Next year on Marc Jacob’s runway?  You never know!”

While McCain meets with evangelical venerables like Billy and Franklin Graham in an attempt to smooth his awkward relationship with evangelicals, Obama seeks a demographic that CNN is now calling “an important swing voting bloc” —- young evangelicals. 

They’re more pro-life than their parents, but they’re breaking with the religious right and the GOP.  Some of them are more interested in the environment, the war, and health care than they are in gay marriage or stem cell research.  Even decided voters can be difficult to categorize.    

Diana Smith, 27, is a New York resident who is actively involved in her Presbyterian church.  She supported Clinton but now she’s “slowly going for Obama.”    

Her registration: Democrat, because she read they send out less junk mail.  “I’m not like a clear-cut Democrat or a clear-cut Republican.  But in this world they make you pick a party, so if push comes to shove I feel more close to Democrat I guess … but fiscally I’m very Republican.” 

Her top three issues: The environment, poverty and health care, the issues she says affect her most and the issues she thinks Jesus would care about, too.  “I know that Jesus said visit the sick, feed the hungry. … I feel like I’m not going against my faith by putting those issues at the forefront.”

Abortion: “I think that comes down to a woman and her doctor. … I’m very pro-life.  I believe abortion’s killing and it’s wrong but I don’t think it’s the government’s place to step in and say you can’t do this,” until the baby can live on its own without its mother. 

Gay marriage: She doesn’t think opposing it would be at the top of Jesus’ priority list: “Jesus never mentioned homosexuals at all.”

McCain: “More of the same.”  She respects his competency and his military record, but “He’s older.  He’s in his seventies.  And at this point we need drastic change.”

Ben Stafford, 23, lives in Parma, MI, and even identifies himself as a Presbyterian, too.  But he describes his politics as libertarian and he’s definitely not voting Obama. 

His registration:  Independent, although he once started a Teenage Republicans group and volunteered as a page at the 2004 GOP National Convention.  Now he thinks the GOP has lost its commitment to Constitutional principles: “I’d rather work to advance ideas and principles of liberty than work to advance candidates who will become corrupted by the game of politics.”

His top three voting issues: Free market economics, abortion, and limited government spending.

His faith and politics: “I don’t like to use politics to advance my faith,” but he says his political beliefs come from reason and a Christian worldview.  If we’re all God’s image bearers and are unique, “How can the government go around making decisions for us and trying to decide things for our lives?” he asks.  “The depravity of man tells us that government can’t solve things for society no matter how hard it tries.”    

His candidate: McCain.  “I’m just not a big fan of him but I think he’s much better than the alternative.  He knows nothing about economics.  He’s limited free speech with the McCain-Feingold bill.  He’s wishy washy on the Bush tax cuts.”

The religious right: “It appears they’re trying to accomplish their agenda through politics, not the church of Christ, which surprises and disturbs me.  … They do seem really single issue and I think that turns a lot of people off.  They want to pop the baby out of the womb and then they seem to stop caring about it.  They forget about the next 70, 80 years of the baby’s life. .. There’s more to good government than abortion.”

Conservative Anglicans have spurned their denomination’s Lambeth Conference and are holding the Global Anglican Future Conference this week, to protest homosexual ordinations and same-sex blessings.  The conservatives (1,200 leaders from 29 countries) claim that they’re not seeking schism.  But is avoiding schism possible?

Peter Jensen, chairman of GAFCon’s organizing committee and Archbishop of Sydney, told Christianity Today, “I don’t hear much interest in breaking up the Communion or splitting it or dividing it further than it is divided.” In a press conference, Jensen corrected media assumption that conservatives want to split: “What GAFCON is doing is saying that given that new state of affairs, how now can we live together and how can we sustain the highest level of communion and work well together.”  As Archbishop Peter Akinola puts it, “We have no other place to go, nor is it our intention to start another church.”  

Instead, there has been talk of forming a new organization within the Anglican Communion for those opposed to homosexual practices.   But demographic and ideological divides will make that difficult.

According to a Pew Forum analysis, the geography of Anglicanism has shifted south.    Today 55% of Anglicans live in sub-Saharan Africa, and they’re far more theologically conservative than their northern counterparts.  The minority (33%) that lives in England is also barely committed — only 1 million (4% of the Anglican population) actually attend church.

This demographic divide may make unity more difficult.  According to Pew, “Now that the Anglican Communion is majority African, and the vast majority of African Anglicans are theologically conservative, there is a real question as to whether the historical ties of the Anglican Communion are strong enough to counter the forces that seem to be pushing the church toward schism.”

The ideological divides will be hard to patch, too.  Archbishop Greg Venables, GAFCon attendee, says it comes down to two different types of Christianity – original and postmodern: “So in terms of what we believe, you’ve already got two — I won’t say two churches — but there is definitely a split.” On Crunchy Con, guest blogger Erin Manning adds, “I don’t see any possibility of common ground or compromise between these two disparate notions of what it means to be a follower of Christ, so I don’t see how schism can be averted in the long run.”

The truth is out: People go to church for the sex.

This is according to an Arizona State University study that analyzed questionnaires from 22,000 mainly Christian Americans.  The study found that sex-related factors – marital status, number of children, preferred family size, views on adultery and contraception – showed the strongest links to churchgoing.  Moral views on sex were more strongly linked to church attendance than moral views on other issues.

In the researchers’ view, “A central function of religious attendance in the contemporary United States is to support a high-fertility, monogamous mating strategy. “  If you’re going to have a lot of kids, you want a partner who will help you take care of them.  The NewScientist.com quotes study author James Weeden: “You surround yourself with people who strongly believe that one of the worst things you can do is to abandon your spouse or sleep around.”

It seems dubious to completely reduce church-going to sexual factors (the study doesn’t seem to ask about little things like belief in God), but is it actually true that church attendance supports a “high-fertility, monogamous mating strategy”?

When it comes to a high-fertility mating strategy, a Gallup poll last year found that Americans who attend church weekly or almost weekly are actually divided on the ideal family size.  Some 47% said two or fewer children is ideal, and 41% favored a family size of three or more.  Among those who attend church less often, a solid majority favored a family size of zero to two.    

When it comes to marriage and divorce, the Barna Group recently found that 84% of “born-again Christians” get married – a higher percentage than atheists, agnostics, and those who adhere to non-Christian faiths.  Evangelicals (26%) were among the born-again Christians least likely to have been divorced, but born-again Christians as a whole were just as likely (32%) to have been divorced than non-born again Christians (33%).

But these statistics look at religious belief, not church attendance.  According to sociologist Brad Wilcox in Christianity Today, “This idea that Christians are just as likely to divorce as secular folks is not correct if we factor church attendance into our thinking. Churchgoing evangelical Protestants, churchgoing Catholics, and churchgoing mainline Protestants are all significantly less likely to divorce.”