Evangelicals

Thinking about evangelicals and COVID-19 vaccines: Wait! The numbers show WHAT?!?!

Thinking about evangelicals and COVID-19 vaccines: Wait! The numbers show WHAT?!?!

The last 14 months have given the world a series of public health challenges that it has never had to grapple with before.

Will people willingly disrupt their lives in order to contain the spread of a potentially lethal virus? Can drug manufacturers develop and test a vaccine in a very short period of time that is effective against COVID-19? Will those same pharmaceutical companies be able to ramp up manufacturing capabilities quickly enough to satisfy the demand for those vaccines?

In terms of vaccine creation and distribution, there’s no doubt that it’s been an unqualified success. Every estimate indicates that the United States will be awash in vaccines by May. However, the question that is looming on the very near horizon is the most important and difficult to answer: will the United States be able to vaccinate enough of the population to get to a state of herd immunity and finally put an end to this year long nightmare?

It’s not the hard sciences that are under the microscope, it’s the social sciences. To reach herd immunity, most experts believe that a country needs to get at least 75% of the population fully vaccinated as a minimum threshold. Will that even be possible? Are societal factors like religion actually making the goal of herd immunity even more difficult?

The organization Data for Progress has been putting a poll into the field since the very beginning of the pandemic in March of 2020 as a way to get a sense of what percentage of the public is engaging in risky behaviors and how they feel the government is handling the crisis. Since January they have begun to ask respondents questions about their receptiveness to the vaccine. What these results indicate is that there are some reasons for hope, but there is also ample evidence that getting shots into arms may prove to be a lot more difficult in the very near future.

The survey asked respondents if they had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. As can be quickly inferred, those shots were in short supply in January. Just about 6% of the entire sample indicated that they had gotten the vaccine at that point. However, things improved rapidly from there and the share of Americans who had been inoculated essentially doubled every month from January through early April, when 44% of the population had gotten a dose of the vaccine.

However, when the sample is broken down into the three of the largest religious groups: White evangelicals, White Catholics and the religiously unaffiliated, some disparities begin to emerge.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Religious wars over vaccines? They're more complex than those headlines

New podcast: Religious wars over vaccines? They're more complex than those headlines

Once again, it’s time for some time travel on the religion beat — as we ponder the current state of news coverage about the COVID-19 mask-and-vaccine wars.

Think back to Easter a year ago. Church leaders were wrestling with the real possibility that they would not be able to worship during Holy Week and on the holiest day on the Christian calendar. This was got lots of ink from the press, with good cause. There appeared to be two camps: (1) Crazy right-wingers (many journalists saw Donald Trump looming in the background) who wanted face-to-face worship at any cost and then (2) sensible, sane clergy willing to move to online worship and leave it at that.

The reality was more complex, especially since some (not all) government leaders seemed to think that worship was more dangerous than other forms of public life. During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), host Todd Wilken and I discussed how it’s easy to see the same patterns in news reports on bitter battles over COVID-19 vaccines. For some on the left — see this fascinating Emma Green piece at The Atlantic — super-strict coronavirus rules have evolved into faith-based dogma.

Now for that early COVID-19 flashback. In a post and podcast a year ago, I argued that this wasn’t really a simplistic story about two groups (good churches vs. bad churches), but one in which there were at least five camps to cover:

Those five camps? They are (1) the 99% of religious leaders who cooperated and took worship online, (2) some religious leaders who (think drive-in worship or drive-thru confessions) who tried to create activities that followed [government] social-distancing standards, (3) a few preachers who rebelled, period, (4) lots of government leaders who established logical laws and tried to be consistent with sacred and secular activities and (5) some politicians who seemed to think drive-in religious events were more dangerous than their secular counterparts.

Say what? … Why were drive-in worship services — with, oh, 100 cars containing people in a big space — more dangerous than businesses and food pantry efforts that produced, well, several hundred cars in a parking lot?

These five camps still exist and we can see them in the vaccine wars.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Did mainstream media distort America's religion-and-politics divide? Are they still doing so?

Did mainstream media distort America's religion-and-politics divide? Are they still doing so?

While culling files from decades of religion-beat work, The Religion Guy has come across a forgotten and seminal article from 2002 that contended the media were distorting public understanding of American politics. It said "religious right" Republicans were blanketed with coverage and turned the tables, contending that "the true origins" of cultural conflict were found in increased "secularist" influence in the Democratic Party.

As journalists contemplate the tumult of the succeeding two decades, ask what the article in question might say about media performance, past and present.

Consider the hostility toward openly religious nominees expressed by Senators Schumer, Feinstein, and Harris (now vice president and prospective future president). Or contrast the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which passed the Senate 97-3 in 1993, with current House Democrats' unanimous vote for the pending Equality Act, which would forbid practical applications of that very law.

Customary political history emphasizes such landmarks as the Rev. Jerry Falwell (Senior) launching Moral Majority in 1979, Ronald Reagan's Republicans cultivating conservative Christians in the winning 1980 campaign or the Rev. Pat Robertson founding Christian Coalition in 1989 after his Republican run for president.

These events were important, of course. But what about Democrats and the other half of what was happening?

That's the focus of the 2002 article, by political scientists Louis Boice and Gerald De Maio from the City University of New York's Baruch College, drawn from their 2001 presentation at an academic conference. The piece appeared in the conservative journal The Public Interest, which is now defunct, but fortunately the American Political Science Association archive has posted the text (.pdf here). Also, click here and then here for tmatt columns on this duo’s work.

In their telling, 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, was the pivot point for Democrats' shift on emotion-laden social issues away from cultural conservatism and an "accommodation" policy toward religion.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Donald Trump enthroned with the angels: Why are media missing this story?

Donald Trump enthroned with the angels: Why are media missing this story?

This just in: Former President Donald Trump not only has an angelic host surrounding him — he’s also seated on a throne with a golden crown and holding a golden scepter.

You’ve not heard about this edgy hook for a news story?

Then you’re not attuned to “Prophet Wars,” my name for the fistfight going on between powerful factions of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement over whether the 45th president will be restored to the White House sometime soon.

I’ve been amazed at how this large Pentecostal chunk of American Christianity — and there are roughly 65 million Americans that belong to this group — is being ignored by much of the media. Trump’s spiritual advisor, the Rev. Paula White-Cain, is part of this segment, so it’s not an obscure bunch.

Last week, I wrote a piece for ReligionUnplugged on a group of 85 leaders in this movement who were fed up with the “Trump prophecies;” predictions from dozens of people to the effect that Trump would coast his way into the White House last November. When that didn’t happen, several leaders began apologizing for their false prophecies; a phenomenon I covered for GetReligion here.

I followed this with a lengthy story in Politico. Ruth Graham of the New York Times wrote a similar piece here.

Then we all waited for a few months. Most of the false prophets did not retract their prophecies. Meanwhile, as detailed in the ReligionUnplugged story, a group of charismatic leaders drafted a four-page document of “prophetic standards” spelling out what biblical prophecy is — and is not — and suggesting that those who prophesy falsely, especially in a public forum, need to apologize when they get it wrong. Those who refuse to do so won’t be allowed on their social media platforms.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: COVID-19 vaccines are still creating buzz on religion beat -- pro and con

Plug-In: COVID-19 vaccines are still creating buzz on religion beat -- pro and con

After sticking close to home for over a year, I’ve returned to in-person worship at my church in Oklahoma.

I’ve joined my sons and 2-year-old grandson in watching a game at my beloved Texas Rangers’ splashy new ballpark.

I’ve boarded an airplane and — for the first time since the pandemic hit — made a reporting trip (to Minneapolis this past weekend after Derek Chauvin’s conviction in George Floyd’s murder).

For millions, the COVID-19 vaccines have brought joy and hope, and I count myself among them after receiving my two Moderna shots.

Weekend Plug-in has covered various angles related to the vaccines and religion — from whether the shots are “morally compromised” to efforts to overcome skepticism among wary African Americans.

Still, the topic remains timely and important, as evidenced by interesting stories published just this past week:

COVID-19 has hit the Amish community hard. Still, vaccines are a tough sell (by Anna Huntsman, NPR)

Francis Collins urges evangelicals: ‘Love your neighbor,’ get COVID-19 vaccine (by Adelle M. Banks, Religion News Service)

At Orange County mosques, they come for the halal tacos and stay for the vaccination (by Alejandra Molina, RNS)

Churches, Christian universities hosting COVID-19 vaccine clinics (by Chellie Ison, Christian Chronicle)

For evangelical leader Jamie Aten, advocating for vaccines led to a death threat (by Bob Smietana, RNS)

Also, in case you missed it last week, Ryan Burge offers fascinating analysis here at ReligionUnplugged on data showing White evangelicals and Catholics are more likely to get the vaccine than religious “nones” and the general public. Yes, you read that right.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Should religious leaders and the cultural right applaud lousy Oscar ratings?

New podcast: Should religious leaders and the cultural right applaud lousy Oscar ratings?

Pick a headline, just about any Oscar headline.

The ratings for the 2021 Academy Awards were bad. How bad? Here’s the take from the world-weary folks at Entertainment Weekly: “Oscars hit another historic low in ratings.”

The New York Post has been known to produce blunt headlines. Thus: “Oscar ratings drop to an all-time low with unwatchable show.”

But what matters, of course, is what runs in prestige settings such as The New York Times. The big business-desk headline there provided some extra, rather acidic, context:

Oscars Ratings Plummet, With Fewer Than 10 Million Tuning In

Sunday night’s pandemic-restricted telecast drew 58 percent fewer viewers than last year’s record low.

Wait, there’s more bad news:

Among adults 18 to 49, the demographic that many advertisers pay a premium to reach, the Oscars suffered an even steeper 64 percent decline, according to preliminary data from Nielsen. …

[The] Oscars have been on a slide since 1998, when 57.2 million people tuned in to see “Titanic” sweep to best-picture victory.

What’s the religion-news hook in this story, other than the semi-religious role that the Oscar rites play in the cult of Hollywood? That was the subject of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast. Click here to tune that in or head over to Apple Podcasts to sign up for a weekly feed.

Let’s walk through this.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What do you know? Doctrinal-covenant fights can occur on an Orthodox Jewish campus

What do you know? Doctrinal-covenant fights can occur on an Orthodox Jewish campus

By now, GetReligion readers are probably aware that some journalists have their doubts about whether the First Amendment actually protects religious doctrines and the “free exercise thereof” by believers.

The problem is that the old-liberal defense of “religious liberty” — inside the usual “scare quotes” — now clashes with the evolving doctrines of the Sexual Revolution. This leads to fights on religious campuses in which journalists pit bad religious believers who defend ancient doctrines against good believers who want those bad doctrines to evolve to mesh with the good teachings of the New York Times and other sacred texts.

The key in most of these clashes is whether students, faculty and staff sign a “doctrinal covenant” when they choose to work or study at one of these private schools. Private schools — liberal and conservative — have a right to defend the doctrines of the religious groups that founded them. As GetReligion readers know (explore this file), journalists often ignore the content of these covenants and fail to ask progressive activists whether they read these covenants before signing them.

Most of these stories focus on disputes at evangelical and Catholic schools. If you ever wondered how an education-beat newsroom would handle one of these stories in an Orthodox Jewish context, now you know — care of an Inside Higher Education report under this double-decker headline:

Students Sue Over Denial of LGBTQ+ Club Recognition

A lawsuit accuses Yeshiva University of violating New York City human rights law in its long-standing refusal to recognize an LGBTQ+ student group

The reader who forwarded this URL was rather blunt, stating that the article is “a mess. Journalistically speaking, it's biased, lopsided, and incurious.”

As usual, there is no way to know whether the school’s admission documents include a doctrinal covenant, since the reporting is sketchy, at best, on that subject.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

2020 revisited: Repeat after me, White Catholic voters, White Catholic voters ...

2020 revisited: Repeat after me, White Catholic voters, White Catholic voters ...

The two main November exit polls showed Joseph Biden, the first Catholic elected U.S. president since John F. Kennedy, won either 52% or 49% support among Catholics over-all.

That's quite the plummet from 1960, when the Gallup Poll found J.F.K. scored 78 percent.

Reporters covering either politics or religion pay heed: Other remarkable data appear in the first batch of 2020 findings from the Harvard University-based Cooperative Election Study (CES), with more due in July. Though Hispanic and other minority Catholics went only 30% for Donald Trump (up from 26% in 2016), white Catholics gave the Republican impressive 59% support over their fellow church member, up a notch from 57% in 2016.

The massive CES sample of 61,000 allows good breakdowns by religion (also a highly useful feature with many Pew Research surveys). The CES data were explored for Religion Unplugged by ubiquitous political scientist Ryan Burge, a GetReligion contributor.

The Guy once again preaches to the U.S. media that those white Catholics are the nation's largest chunk of swing voters who can decide competitive elections except in Protestant tracts of the Southeast, and that they deserve more attention than the lavishly covered white "evangelicals," perennial knee-jerk Republicans who may edge up or down but never "swing."

That was true in 2016. It was true again in 2020. It’s especially interesting to look for patterns among generic “Catholic voters” and voters who are active, Mass-attending Catholics.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Zero objectivity: Seattle Times report on Franklin Graham-backed police dinner hits new low

Seattle is in trouble.

People don't feel safe taking their kids into downtown Seattle, even the public parks (they support through taxes). The place is dirty. Mentally ill people wander about. Drug use and crime and widespread. And in the middle of it all are the demoralized Seattle police, who saw one of their precinct stations closed by rioters for three weeks last summer during the infamous CHOP occupation.

So, you’d think that an event honoring these same police would get some good press.

Not so fast. According to the Seattle Times:

The invitation to a free dinner at a four-star hotel in Bellevue starts out by thanking law enforcement officers for their bravery and service and goes on to promise an uplifting message, fellowship and practical wisdom from God’s word.

That invitation showed up in the inboxes of Seattle Police Department employees on Wednesday, according to a copy of the department wide email obtained by The Seattle Times. On Friday, police Chief Adrian Diaz revoked the email invitation because the dinner, billed as a law-enforcement appreciation event, is reportedly hosted by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The invitation was signed by the association’s CEO, Franklin Graham, a conservative, second-generation Christian televangelist who has a history of opposing LGBTQ rights.

Some of you may remember that Graham got negative press treatment this time a year ago for setting up a tent in Central Park that had the temerity to treat COVID-19 patients. Largely ignored was the fact that a local health organization, Mount Sinai Health System, contracted with Graham to set up the tent. Most reports in the local media made it sound like it was as if Adolf Hitler had set up shop.

Despite his organization’s policy that only the caregivers, not the recipients of care, affirm centuries of Christian doctrine that marriage is only between a man and a woman, Graham was demonized as an anti-gay bigot. He couldn’t win; if he didn’t help out, he was neglecting the masses; if he did, he was imposing his beliefs on others.

I am curious if the Seattle Times reporter read this New York Times interview with Graham that said that New York City’s Commission on Human Rights found no evidence that Graham had discriminated against patients and included a link from the editor of a Jewish publication slamming local politicians for their own bigotry.

Now we’re moving the media-bias battle to Seattle. Back to the Times:

The email to SPD employees was sent by the department’s Wellness Unit after being approved by the unit’s lieutenant, according to the original email.

Diaz sent his own department-wide email just after 4:30 p.m. Friday and a message was posted on the department’s online blotter, stating that based on “Graham’s history and affiliations,” concerns had been raised that SPD does not fully support the community’s LGBTQ members.

The article then runs through the usual PR comments by various police officials, a withering quote by Seattle City Council President M. Lorena González (thanks to the council’s defund-the-police actions, a record number of 144 officers have left in the past year), an angry police officer (no doubt the source for the email being forwarded to the Times), an openly gay police officer and so on.

As someone who lives in the Seattle suburbs, the hypocrisy of it all stuns me. Here’s a city that’s overrun with homeless, whose tents are smack in the middle of major tourist attractions (like the city’s gorgeous waterfront), plus crime is surging and even Amazon is decamping for neighboring Bellevue and the media-friendly culture warriors are upset about this?

The police officers are telling local TV stations they are refusing to work for “this socialist city council” and when an outside organization tries to hold an appreciation dinner for the stoic officers who remain, the best the Seattle Times can do is a one-sided report?

Contrasted to the five sources that trashed Graham and his organization, the Times ran no balancing quotes from any local leaders who would offer an opposing point of view.

A sentence saying that Graham’s group didn’t answer an email sent the day before doesn’t cut it. The sponsoring Billy Graham Evangelistic Association is based in Charlotte, N.C., which is three time zones ahead of Seattle. The chances are good that the email arrived too late for anyone in charge to take a look.

Plus, when the reporter can’t find a quote from a prime source, she’s supposed to look for one from a secondary source. Evangelical organizations and churches do exist in Seattle and I can’t believe she couldn’t find a pastor in one of them who could have offered some kind of defense for Graham. Sadly, the Times did away with its religion beat years ago, so apparently the newsroom has no one with the local religious contacts.

Hint: There are plenty of evangelical organizations in town: (World Relief, Union Gospel Mission, Seattle Pacific University, Northwest University for starters) who’ve got talking heads. Start cultivating them.

To get right to the point: The Fellowship of Christian Peace Officers has a Seattle affiliate. I found a contact name and phone number in less than 30 seconds.

Plus, Graham himself recorded a video several months ago explaining why he wants to do these police appreciation dinners in places like Seattle, Portland and Kenosha, Wisc. Surely, a quote could have been lifted from that.

But no. Here we see “Kellerism,” a term created by a GetReligion reader after former New York Times editor Bill Keller implied in a speech there’s no need for balance or fairness when the reporting is about morality, culture, religion, etc. You can read the Keller quotes for yourself right here.

To find the other side of the story, I didn’t need to look much harder than this column by KTTH Radio show host Jason Rantz, who said that Gonzalez’ anti-cop views were at the base of it all. He said in part:

Gonzalez frames her concern over LGBTQ issues, calling out Graham’s religious views as anti-gay. But her concerns are contrived. This is about getting in the way of supporting police officers. In the process, she wins some plaudits from anti-police activists upset she hasn’t done enough to abolish the police.

The event is free for law enforcement officers. It offers appreciation for the work law enforcement does in a city where the Council and a loud activist community turn cop-hating into a sport. It’s also religious in nature, as the invite promises an “uplifting message, encouraging and practical wisdom from God’s Word, live music, and fellowship with other law enforcement officers.”

But because of its religious nature, and Graham’s religious objection to gay marriage, Gonzalez feigned outrage.

Now what the Times and the above column did add is that the event was sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, not by Franklin Graham’s organization Samaritan’s Purse. Yes, the younger Graham signed the invite, but that was his only involvement. But folks out here in western Washington are going to punish him if that’s the last thing they do. The dinner will occur in mid-May and The Stranger, a local lefty site, is encouraging folks to bring their cameras and take photos of whichever police officers decide to attend.

But hey, doxxing is OK when the group is related to Franklin Graham.

I get that journalists can’t help the craziness that reigns in the Emerald City at present. But when it comes to reporting on something like this, at least try — try to include an opposing point of view. Show some respect for people on both sides of public debates. It’s called “journalism.”

I know it’s a stretch. But it can be done. Trust me.


Please respect our Commenting Policy