Religious Right

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New take on culture wars? American Muslims clash with the Sexual Revolution

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New take on culture wars? American Muslims clash with the Sexual Revolution

In terms of Islamic doctrine, alcohol is "haram," or forbidden, and the Quran is blunt: "O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork."

But it isn't hard to find Muslims that never boarded that bandwagon.

"There are Muslims who drink and get drunk. That's a fact, but that doesn't mean they can change what Islam teaches," said Yasir Qadhi, dean of the Islamic Seminary of America, near Dallas. "That's a sin. We all sin. But we cannot change our faith to fit the new norms in society."

Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't be controversial for Islamic leaders to affirm that their faith teaches absolute, unchanging truths about moral issues -- including subjects linked to sexuality, marriage and family life.

But Muslims in America never expected to be called "ignorant and intolerant" because they want public-school leaders to allow children to opt out of academic work that clashes with their faith. But that's what is happening in Montgomery County, Maryland, and a few other parts of the U.S. and Canada, where Muslim parents have been accused of cooperating with the cultural right, said Qadhi.

"That is so painful. … Truth is, we are not aligning with the political left or right," he added. "You cannot put Islam into a two-party world, where you have to choose the Democrats or the Republicans and that is that."

On the legal front, a Maryland district court recently ruled that parents do not have "a fundamental right" to avoid school activities that challenge their faith. The legal team for a coalition of Muslims, Jews, Orthodox Christians, evangelicals and others quickly asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the Mahmoud v. McKnight decision.

At the same time, Muslim leaders are debating a May 23 statement -- "Navigating Differences: Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam" -- signed by more than 200 Muslim leaders and scholars, representing a variety of Islamic traditions.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Still news? Media silent on pronouncements from World and National Councils of Churches

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Still news? Media silent on pronouncements from World and National Councils of Churches

Who is listening?

Preachers face that question every weekend and it’s vital for strategizing by religious organizations -- or should be. The Religion Guy has lately been pondering a long-running religion-beat puzzle that possibly warrants some analytical articles, or at least reflection on the part of journalists.

Why do U.S. power-brokers, and journalists themselves, pay little or no heed to ardent pronouncements by the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. (NCC)? After all, the WCC says it represents 352 church bodies in 120 countries that encompass 580 million Christians. The NCC reports its 37 American member bodies include more than 30 million members in 100,000 congregations.

Last year, a Religion Guy Memo promoted media attention to the WCC’s upcoming global Assembly in Germany at the start of its 75th anniversary year. 

Journalists could not have asked for a stronger news peg. Russia’s bloody invasion of Ukraine was proceeding with hotly disputed blessings from the Moscow leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church, by far the WCC’s largest member body, which created a vast humanitarian crisis for fellow Christians in Ukraine.

(That Memo put special focus on the plight facing Metropolitan Hilarion, the Moscow patriarchate’s well-known ecumenical officer and foreign envoy. There were signals that his views on the invasion were quite different than those of Patriarch Kirill, and was soon abruptly “released from his duties” and reassigned to Hungary. Follow-up, anyone?)

The September Assembly stated that it “denounces this illegal and unjustifiable war” and (without naming Russian Orthodoxy) that delegates “reject any misuse of religious language and authority to justify armed aggression.” The meeting also called for “an immediate ceasefire” and “negotiations to secure a sustainable peace” — though at the time some critics figured that stance would undercut Ukraine’s position.

The situation facing the WCC and its Orthodox members surely counts as news, and still does.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Pat Robertson: Was he an influential religious broadcaster or some kind of 'evangelicalist'?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Pat Robertson: Was he an influential religious broadcaster or some kind of 'evangelicalist'?

I must admit that I have not had the time to dig into the 666 million words or so (that’s an estimate) of news and commentary dedicated to the death of the Rev. Pat Robertson. It’s hard to do much reading when at the wheel of a car for about 1,400 miles (and that was the return trip).

But I do have some thoughts on the passing of the charismatic quote machine that journalists loved, loved, loved to hate (see my 2005 commentary for the Poynter Institute). If Robertson didn’t exist, blue-zip-code pundits would have created him ex nihilo.

Truth be told, I never met the man — even though, technically speaking, I briefly worked for him during a failed 2000 attempt to build a D.C. beltway-based master’s degree journalism program for Regent University.

How to describe Pat Robertson?

First and foremost, he was a media maven and entrepreneur, creating the Christian Broadcasting Network in 1960. Years later, he sold the Family Channel for something like $2 billion. Love it or hate it, the niche-news and commentary DNA of The 700 Club can be found all over the place on cable television.

For journalists, he was mainly a political activist — playing a major role in the creation of the Christian Coalition. In 1988 he made a surprisingly relevant attempt to win the White House, seeking the Republican nomination. He was the son of a U.S. senator and, before jumping into media work, graduated from Yale Law School and New York Theological Seminary.

The media entrepreneur poured millions of dollars into academica, with the creation of Regent University — which only offered graduate-school degrees in subjects that Robertson considered culturally significant (such as law and mass communications).

Robertson was a bestselling author, with the help of numerous ghost writers (including a major gay-rights pioneer).

I would argue that his most significant achievement was helping merge the charismatic movement into mainstream evangelical Protestantism, adding doctrinal elements of Pentecostalism into the rapidly growing world of post-denominational Christianity in America and around the world.

But here is the big journalism question: Why do so many mainstream journalists call Robertson an “evangelist,” even though crusades and public preaching of that style were never part of his life and work?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Religious Right? Those true believers are nowhere near as politically active as atheists

, , , , , , ,
Religious Right? Those true believers are nowhere near as politically active as atheists

The last 40 years of politics and religion has been focused squarely on the ascendancy of the Religious Right.

I must admit that I’ve probably contributed my fair share to that discourse, as well.

A motley crew of white evangelicals and traditional Catholics locked arms on some social issues, started voting in large numbers for Republican candidates, and changed American politics forever.

But I think that era of religion and politics is rapidly coming to a close. The Religious Right is no longer a primarily religious movement — from my point of view it’s one about cultural conservatism and nearly blind support for the GOP with few trappings of any real religiosity behind it.

Here’s what I believe to be the emerging narrative of the next several decades: the rise of atheism and their unbelievably high level of political engagement in recent electoral politics. Let me put it plainly: atheists are the most politically active group in American politics today and the Democrats (and some Republicans) ignore them at their own peril.

The data is clear and unequivocal on this point - no one gets involved in the political process to the level of the average atheist.

The Cooperative Election Study always asks a nice little battery of questions about political engagement. It’s phrased simply as: have you done any of the following activities in the previous month? Because the CES is fielded in the height of election season, if someone was going to get politically active, they would be doing so in October or November of an election year.

The group that is most likely to contact a public official? Atheists.

The group that puts up political signs at the highest rates? Atheists.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What's missing from that 'conservatives pounce' New York Times sermon on trans fights?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
What's missing from that 'conservatives pounce' New York Times sermon on trans fights?

At this point in journalism history, does anyone expect to read New York Times coverage of events and trends on the Religious Right and find a single sentence that presents interesting, provocative information — drawn from interviews with cultural conservatives — that supports that point of view?

OK, #TriggerWarning. This post assumes that, when dealing with hot-button issues, journalists should present information that accurately represents the views of people on both sides of those debates. Here is another way of stating that: Stories about controversial, divisive issues should contain information that make people on each sides uncomfortable.

This brings us to that recent Times piece with this headline: “How a Campaign Against Transgender Rights Mobilized Conservatives.” This is a classic case of the “conservatives pounce” trend in which news stories are defined in terms of conservative responses to a national trend, with next to zero discussions of the origins and nature of the trend itself.

Before we get to the Times sermon on this topic, let’s back up a bit and consider some background information. Here is a byte from a Reuters report:

In 2021, about 42,000 children and teens across the United States received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, nearly triple the number in 2017, according to data Komodo compiled for Reuters. Gender dysphoria is defined as the distress caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and the one assigned to them at birth.

Overall, the analysis found that at least 121,882 children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria from 2017 through 2021.

Here’s another look at the general trend, which includes a few hints at the wider debates:

The number of young people who identify as transgender has nearly doubled in recent years, according to a new report that captures a stark generational shift and emerging societal embrace of a diversity of gender identities.

The analysis, relying on government health surveys conducted from 2017 to 2020, estimated that 1.4 percent of 13- to 17-year-olds and 1.3 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds were transgender, compared with about 0.5 percent of all adults. Those figures illustrated a significant rise since the researchers’ previous report in 2017, though the analyses used different methods.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

OK, we get it: That whole 'Christian nationalism' thing is hot, right now. But what is it?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
OK, we get it: That whole 'Christian nationalism' thing is hot, right now. But what is it?

By all indications, urgent warnings against “Christian nationalism” (CN) will continue as a major media theme through Election Day 2024.

Journalists will need to be careful with a tricky label that’s mostly shunned by supposed participants in the CN movement and employed by opponents (as with “fundamentalist” or “ultra-“ or “cult”). How complex is the fighting about this term? Click here to tune in some of the YouTube debates.

Critics’ typical definition comes from attorney Amanda Tyler, who leads Christians Against Christian Nationalism (with a large “N”) and the proudly progressive Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. She says CN “seeks to merge American and Christian identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy.” Its “mythological” view of founding of a “Christian nation” means America is singled out “to fulfill God’s purposes on earth.” Further, CN “demands a privileged place for Christianity in public life, buttressed by the active support of government at all levels.”

Writers could pursue this sort of theme sideways by reviewing or collecting pro and con reactions to “How to Be a Patriotic Christian: Love of Country as Love of Neighbor,” the latest book by middle-roading evangelical Richard Mouw of Calvin University, formerly president of Fuller Theological Seminary.

Otherwise, here's a rundown to guide journalists on some of the notable CN chatter since The Guy took a whack at the definition issue last year year at GetReligion.

Hang on, because this gets complex. For starters, ambiguity abounded in an October Pew Research survey.

Some 60% of adults think -- yes -- the founders intended the U.S. to be a “Christian nation,” and 45% think it actually “should be” such, though for many that means only generalized moral guidance while only 18% think the phrase indicates Christian-based governance. Importantly, a 54% majority had never even heard of CN.

That belief the U.S. “should be” a Christian nation was favored by fully 65% of Black Protestants (compared with e.g. only 47% of Catholics). Yet University of Texas political scientist Eric McDaniel wrote for TheConversation.com that CN believes the only “true” Americans are “white, Christian and U.S.-born and whose families have European roots.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Flashback: The late, great Walter Cronkite did some thinking about religion news

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Flashback: The late, great Walter Cronkite did some thinking about religion news

Did you know that the late, great CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite, one of the most important news icons of all kind, once worked as a “church editor” for a mainstream newspaper in Houston (apparently the old Houston Press)?

That was a detail from his life that I missed. I had read, long ago, that he was a “cub reporter” after his college years, yet before he broke into broadcasting. But time as a “church editor”? That’s a journalism title from the old, old days, one that is even more condescending than the more common and inaccurate label “religious editor (as opposed to “religion” editor.

Anyway, a religion-beat friend recently send me a photocopy of a 1994 interview with Cronkite that ran in The Christian Century, the influential mainline Protestant journal. I can’t find it online, although it was quoted by Religion News Service in an a short obit — “And that’s the way he was” — in 2009.

Encountering that “church editor” label reminded me of the old “Lou Grant” show episode that I used as the opening for my graduate project at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, which ran — in a much condensed form — on the cover of The Quill in 1983. The headline on that journal essay was: “The religion beat: Out of the ghetto, into the mainsheets.”

The “ghetto”? That was the “church page.” The overture of that Quill piece is long, but it will provide some context for the Cronkite remarks that I will share here:

As was often the case, Lou Grant was working on two problems at once. At first the problems seemed unrelated.

The Los Angeles Tribune had lost its religion editor. City editor Grant had searched far and wide and, of course, no one was interested in the position. After all, what self-respecting journalist would want to be stuck with the religion beat?

Problem number two was how to get rid of lazy, often-drunk, no-good reporter Mal Cavanaugh. All through this episode of Lou Grant the management of the Trib had been trying to find a way to get Cavanaugh to resign.

Then, a spark of inspiration. The script is simple:

LOU: Congratulations, Mal. You're the Trib's new religion editor.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: More ink about crazy churches sinking down (maybe) into partisan politics

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: More ink about crazy churches sinking down (maybe) into partisan politics

I’m hiding in a different set of mountains this week, but it’s my understanding that important political stuff has happened. Was that the midterm elections or something like that?

I also understand — based on reading stories on my smartphone — that those nasty evangelical churches had a bad week, in terms of getting “their candidates” elected. I know that because I wrote a post about that topic earlier this week, right before I fired up the electric car and rushed off to hide in the hills. That headline: “Crazy political stuff happening in churches right now, but which events get the elite ink?”

We revisited that topic in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), as a way of dipping a toe into the churning midterm waters. The key to the discussion was trying to discern whether political-beat reporters — religion-beat pros tend to do much better work — understand what religious leaders are allowed to do when talking about “political” topics and politicos who are running for office.

This happens on the Religious Right and (#triggerwarning) even more on the Religious Left (click here for more on that from Baptist progressive Ryan Burge). But most of the political-beat coverage is built on scary passages like this one from a piece at The Guardian that ran with the headline, “He was chosen’: the rightwing Christian roadshow spreading the gospel of Trump.” The coverage focus on the ReAwaken rallies that blend lots of Donald Trumpian talk with nondenominational evangelical-speak. That sounds like this:

Mark Trudo, who runs his own swimming pool construction company near St Louis, is more optimistic, saying: “Right now I’m hopeful, I think things are going to turn around, a great awakening is taking place.”

Like most of his ReAwaken peers, he sees the current politics in apocalyptic terms: “The country is being taken away from us from within. This is good versus evil.”

Actual evil? As in satanic evil?

“Is God real, is Satan real? Yes, I believe they are,” he says.

Is Biden satanic?


Please respect our Commenting Policy