Harvard

Norman Lear: An iconic mass-media seeker who evolved past secularism

Norman Lear: An iconic mass-media seeker who evolved past secularism

Early in the premier of Norman Lear's sit-com "Sunday Dinner," the beautiful environmentalist T.T. Fagori raised her eyes to heaven and, with a sigh, entered a spiritual minefield.

"Chief?", she asked God. "You got a minute?"

In addition to praying out loud in prime time, this character offered a theological reverie at dinner while meeting the family of her fiancé, a 56-year-old widower nearly three decades her elder. The problem: His granddaughter heard Fagori mention God during a science lecture.

"You see, I talk about extending 'love thy neighbor' to include animals, plants, stuff like that. I say that the natural world is the largest sacred community to which we all belong," Fagori explained. "I talk about cosmic piety because the same atoms that form the galaxies are in all of us and it's the universe that carries the deep mysteries of our existence within itself.

"You see how all that sounds pretty spiritual. … So, when the kids hear me say these things, some of them think they hear the word 'God,' but they don't. I don't actually mention it. Interesting, huh?"

This 1991 comedy flopped, but it was an important statement from Lear, whose December 5 death at 101 years of age closed his career as lightning rod in popular culture and politics.

For decades, Lear described himself as a cultural Jew who didn't practice any traditional form of faith. He also founded People for the American Way, an old-school liberal advocacy group on church-state issues. But this television icon became more and more intrigued with religious faith, both as a force in American life and as a topic ignored by Hollywood.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Finding religion ghosts in the Ivy League wars, with help (sort of) from Andrew Sullivan

Finding religion ghosts in the Ivy League wars, with help (sort of) from Andrew Sullivan

If you have been following the horror shows at Ivy League schools, you know how agonizing this situation has become for old-school First Amendment liberals.

Are the tropes of anti-Semitism still protected forms of speech? Back in the 1970s, ACLU lawyers knew the painful answer to that question when Nazis wanted to legally march through Skokie, Illinois, a Chicago-area community containing many Holocaust survivors.

America has come a long way, since then. Today, the illiberal world considers a stunning amount of free speech to be violence, except in myriad cases in which speech controls are used to prevent “hate speech” and misinformation/disinformation in debates when one side controls the public space in which free debates are supposed to be taking place.

Clearly, death threats, physical intimidation and assaults are out of line. But what about a slogan such as, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”? Is that automatically a call for genocide? The Associated Press has this to say:

Many Palestinian activists say it’s a call for peace and equality after 75 years of Israeli statehood and decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians. Jews hear a clear demand for Israel’s destruction.

Ah, but what does Hamas say? The same AP report notes:

“Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” Khaled Mashaal, the group’s former leader, said that year [2012] in a speech in Gaza celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas. “There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”

The phrase also has roots in the Hamas charter.

The key is that Hamas opposes a two-state solution allowing Israel to continue as a Jewish homeland. How is Israel eliminated without the eliminating, to one degree or another, millions of Jews?

This brings us back to the Ivy League. At this point, I think that it’s time for someone to ask if other minorities on Ivy League campuses have — in recent decades — experienced severe limitations on their free speech and freedom of association. To what degree are other minorities “ghosts” on these campuses? Do they barely exist? Has the rush to “diversity” eliminated many religious and cultural points of view?

Ah, but the Ivy League giants are private schools. They have rights of their own.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Israel's war brings focus on presidential candidate Cornel West, a key Religious Left voice

Israel's war brings focus on presidential candidate Cornel West, a key Religious Left voice

Never assume that America’s third parties don’t matter. Especially in a topsy-turvy political season like this one.

After all, some figure that Jill Stein’s 1% in three swing states produced Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, or that Ralph Nader’s 1.6% in Florida elected Bush 43 in 2000, or that Ross Perot’s 19% elected Clinton over incumbent Bush 41 in 1992.

More obviously, Republican rebel Theodore Roosevelt’s 27.4% meant Wilson beat incumbent Taft in 1912. The newborn Republicans were kind of a third party in the crucial 1860 election when Abraham Lincoln managed to win the White House with only 39.9%.

Last week, a CNN poll showed this current four-way split for 2024: Trump 41%, Biden 35%, Robert Kennedy Jr. 16%, and Cornel West 4%.

Might the two independents determine which of the other two wins? Also, Stein is back in it now that West has quit his Green Party flirtation. Who knows what Sen. Joe Manchin or his No Labels pals will do?

America’s painful, binary voting-booth vise is clearly under attack.

The Guy puts the focus on West, a rich topic for coverage as a celebrity of the Religious Left due to multi-media activities. West suddenly becomes more significant with the Hamas terrorists’ slaughter of civilians and Israel’s furious military response in Gaza, where civilians are trapped next to, or above, Hamas military outposts.

West’s campaign will presumably help focus sympathy for the Palestinian cause among fellow Black and liberal Protestants — even as some other Americans’ anti-Israel stance turns to antisemitism.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Overlooked voting trend: Atheists and agnostics are a growing force for Democrats

Overlooked voting trend: Atheists and agnostics are a growing force for Democrats

It’s hard to remember now, given the attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, but the day after votes were cast, one theme stood out — voter turnout.

Every state in the nation saw higher turnout in 2020 than 2016, according to an analysis from the Pew Research Center. Overall, there were more than 158 million votes cast, according to the Federal Election Commissionnearly 22 million more than just four years prior.

Turnout will likely play an outsize role in the 2022 midterms, too, as voters determine what political party will have control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate in January 2023.

As a political scientist who studies the intersection of religion and politics, I am interested in which groups may have a strong impact on the balance of power. And if the data is any guide, there are two key communities political analysts often overlook — atheists and agnostics. Journalists need to be paying attention to these trends, as well.

In 2008, almost 8% of the entire U.S. population claimed to be atheist or agnostic, according to my analysis of data from the Cooperative Election Study, or CES — an annual survey coordinated by a team at Harvard University. Atheists believe that there is no higher power in the universe, while agnostics contend that a higher power may exist but it’s impossible to know for certain.

By 2021, that share had risen to just about 12%. But atheists and agnostics are often left-leaning in their political persuasion, and their rapid ascendance in the American religious landscape is proving much more consequential to the Democratic Party than the GOP.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What is 'Fundamentalism'? Name 666 or so examples from recent news coverage ...

What is 'Fundamentalism'? Name 666 or so examples from recent news coverage ...

THE QUESTION:

What is “Fundamentalism?”

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

After the Presbyterian Church in America decided in June to depart from the National Association of Evangelicals, The Religion Guy wondered in print whether some “evangelicals” are becoming “fundamentalists.” That raises how to define these two similar and historically interrelated versions of conservative Protestantism.

Back in 2019, a New York Times Book Review item by a Harvard Divinity School teacher called Jehovah’s Witnesses “fundamentalists” several times. Well, Witnesses do share certain “fundamentalistic” traits with actual “fundamentalists,” but the label was mistaken because it ignored Witnesses’ beliefs.

If the Ivy League theological elite and such an influential newspaper don’t understand the definition, we have a problem.

Yes, “fundamentalist” can apply in a generic sense to any old group with a certain hard-core outlook. But in any religious context it should designate only a specific movement of orthodox Protestants, prominent especially in the United States. The religious F-word should be applied carefully because, as The Associated Press Stylebook correctly cautions, it has “to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations.”

So here is the Big Idea: The AP advises, “in general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is irritated when offshoots that perpetuate its founding prophet Joseph Smith Jr’s polygamy doctrine are called “Mormon fundamentalists,” and now seeks to abolish its own “Mormon” nickname. Scholars of Islam similarly reject the common “Muslim fundamentalist” label for terrorists and political extremists.

Back to Protestants.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

In post-pandemic America, will sagging church health damage public health? 

In post-pandemic America, will sagging church health damage public health? 

America's religious congregations have, over all, suffered steady erosion in attendance, membership and vitality since around 2000.

Analysts fret that worse may occur after the current COVID-19 emergency finally subsides because myriads of members are now accustomed to worshiping online rather than in person or they may skip services altogether.

At the same time, there is evidence that, while decline is common, a majority of congregations report that they have survived or even grown during the past two years. This is a complex subject. As a recent Associated Press story noted:

Gifts to religious organizations grew by 1% to just over $131 billion in 2020, a year when Americans also donated a record $471 billion overall to charity, according to an annual report by GivingUSA. Separately, a September survey of 1,000 protestant pastors by the evangelical firm Lifeway Research found about half of congregations received roughly what they budgeted for last year, with 27% getting less than anticipated and 22% getting more.

This is an important news topic, no matter what. Even secularized news consumers should be interested when social science researchers tell us that sagging participation could not just damage religious institutions but create a public health "crisis." In our age of solitary, do-it-yourself forms of spirituality, research indicates, regular in-person attendance at worship services is central to the well-being of children, adults and society.

This important assertion does not come from religious propagandists but Harvard's Institute for Quantitative Social Science. Building upon two decades of scholarship, the institute in 2016 launched its distinctive "Human Flourishing Project" to focus on the impact the family, workplace, education and religion have on peoples' well-being. Their survey samples are large and they say their methodology improves upon past research.

Key findings document differences between Americans who regularly attend worship versus those who never attend.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

The New York Times looks at QAnon leader who is, wait, a Manhattan mystic from Harvard?

The New York Times looks at QAnon leader who is, wait, a Manhattan mystic from Harvard?

It would have been hard to have consumed mainstream press coverage during the 2020 race for the White House without hearing quite a bit about the impact of QAnon and other conspiracy theories on the most dedicated followers of Donald Trump. Conspiracy theories on the other side of American life? Not so much.

At the same time, for totally valid reasons, it was impossible to read about QAnon and other conspiracy theories without hearing about their impact in church pews, as well as blue-collar bars. In some media reports, QAnon was presented as an “evangelical” Christian movement, pure and simple.

Here at GetReligion, we have argued that the impact of QAnon in grassroots evangelical culture has been obvious and that this is an important story. (See this post, in particular: “Thinking about QAnon — Joe Carter sends strong warning to evangelicals about new heresy.”)

At the same time, it has been hard — so far — to argue that there is evidence that major institutions, denominations and leaders at the heart of evangelical culture have been sucked into this tragedy. (See this podcast and post, in particular: “New York Times says 'Christian nationalism' tied to white 'evangelical power'.”)

At this point, I am convinced that QAnon is, to use Joe Carter’s term, a “political cult” led by social-media activists who clearly know how to rattle the chains of evangelicals who are obsessed with speculating about the End Of All Things.

With all of that in mind, I was interested to dig into the recent New York Times multi-media feature that ran with this dramatic double-decker headline:

A QAnon ‘Digital Soldier’ Marches On, Undeterred by Theory’s Unraveling

Valerie Gilbert posts dozens of times a day in support of an unhinged conspiracy theory. The story of this “meme queen” hints at how hard it will be to bring people like her back to reality.

I assumed that this story would contain some religious content, if not clouds of speculation about evangelical involvement in QAnon.

So who is Gilbert?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Beyond lingo, journalists must keep current on the frontiers of sexuality and reproduction

Modern sexuality poses continual challenges for writers as they navigate changing sensitivities on verbiage. One example broke into the news last week when Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was chastised for assuring a U.S. Senate hearing that she "would never discriminate on the basis of sexual preference."

Hawaii Democrat Mazie Hirono accused Barrett of uttering an "offensive" word. Barrett responded that she never meant to offend and "if I did I greatly apologize." Immediately, Merriam-Webster, a standard arbiter of proper word usage, announced that "preference" is now labeled "offensive" because it suggests "a person can choose who they are sexually or romantically attracted to."

When the all-consuming U.S. political campaign has ended (thankfully!), the media need not only to ponder such evolving word choices, but to keep current on the frontiers of human sexuality and reproduction in science, ethics and politics, such as the following potential story themes. All of these issues raise moral issues that will cause discussions, debates and even conflict in various religious traditions.

Fertility equality — The New York Times has surveyed at length this new movement, a.k.a. "the right to a baby." This is an extension off of "marriage equality," that is, legalized same-sex marriage. Exponents now contend that the ability to have children and create a family should no longer be determined by "sexuality, gender, or biology."

Same-sex couples or singles who cannot conceive offspring biologically are said to suffer "social infertility." Instead of adopting children, they may hire surrogate mothers or employ in-vitro fertilization and newer reproductive technologies to have children who perpetuate their own genetic heritage. This movement works for the end of legal limitations and for public funding, since these processes can be expensive and are not normally covered by medical insurance.

Advocates include Men Having Babies, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Fertility Within Reach and Affordable Families. For global contexting, see "The Pink Line: Journeys across the World's Queer Frontiers" by Mark Gevisser.

There's interesting hostility from some feminists, including Gloria Steinem and Deborah Glick, the first lesbian in the New York State legislature. They oppose legalization and liken the purchase of surrogate births to slavery as patriarchal exploitation of women that lowers their status.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Farewell to 'Diogenes,' a witty, conservative Jesuit with a very sharp pen

Farewell to 'Diogenes,' a witty, conservative Jesuit with a very sharp pen

For millions of Americans, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" is as familiar as the national anthem and much easier to sing.

Few would need help with: "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored. He has loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword. His truth is marching on! Glory, glory, Hallelujah! … His truth is marching on!"

During 1990s fights over updated Catholic liturgies, a Semitic languages professor at Rome's Pontifical Biblical Institute wrote a Battle Hymn for modernists.

This "sanitized" text -- "chanted to no tune in particular" -- declared: "I see God's approach; it is good. God makes wine with God's feet. … Brightness flashes from the decision-making apparatus. God's worldview is currently earning widespread respect. Give honor repeatedly to the god of our tradition. We have owned our values."

Father Paul V. Mankowski put his own name on that First Things piece, since it didn't lance specific institutions or leaders. For decades, Catholics seeking his satirical work learned to look for "Diogenes" at CatholicCulture.org or "Father X" elsewhere.

Mankowski died on September 3 at age 66, felled by a ruptured brain aneurysm. Raised in a middle-class Rust Belt family, he worked in steel mills to pay tuition at the University of Chicago. His advanced degrees included a master's from Oxford and a Harvard University doctorate.

Many researchers, politicos and journalists (like me) knew him through telephone calls and emails, usually seeking documents and statements from nearby Catholic leaders. He was a rarity in the modern age -- a Jesuit conservative -- and his superiors eventually ordered him not to address church controversies. Much of his work was published anonymously or using pen names.

Princeton University's Robert P. George blitzed through years of emails, after hearing about Mankowski's sudden death.

"There are some doozies -- especially the spoofs, send ups and parodies," said George, on Facebook. "His wit was a massive quiver full of poison-dipped arrows, and he was a master archer.


Please respect our Commenting Policy