Politics

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

The Sanders speech at Liberty U: Did it lead to any debates on that campus?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
The Sanders speech at Liberty U: Did it lead to any debates on that campus?

So gentle readers, raise your hands if you are already tired of the numbingly predicable acts of political theater that are being called "debates." 

My hand is way up. I realize that the CNN ratings were really high for the recent GOP gabfest, but that doesn't mean that -- other than in their opening statements -- the candidates actually said much that would help citizens grasp their stands on real issues.

But something did happen the other day that served as a brief ray of sunshine in national political discourse. I am referring to the visit that Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont made to Liberty University. It isn't every day that a self-proclaimed socialist, and secular Jew, pops in to speak during convocation at one of America's most symbolic evangelical -- or even small "f" fundamentalist -- universities, one founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell.

I wrote a GetReligion post about some of the coverage of the Sanders speech and it also provided the hook for this week's "Crossroads" podcast with host Todd Wilken. Click here to tune in on that.

During that podcast, I wondered if Sanders asked to speak there or if Liberty leaders asked him to speak in convocation. As it turns out, it was Liberty that -- to its credit -- extended the invitation. Bravo for that invitation and for the candidate's decision to accept it.

As you would expect, the text of the Sanders speech -- click here for The Washington Post annotated version of that -- was packed with biblical references making a case for common ground on issues of economic and social justice. He also was very blunt in stating that he hoped for civil discourse on these matters, even though he completely disagreed with Liberty, and traditional Christian doctrine in general, on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

However, I thought that the most interesting moment came in the question-and-answer session when the candidate was asked (this inquiry drew a wave of applause) why his concerns for children didn’t extend to those in the womb.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

About UFOs, Trump and that poll showing lots of Americans still believe Obama is a Muslim

, , , ,

So, President Barack Obama's faith is back in the news.

Precisely, the headlines concern a new poll showing a surprising (or not?) number of Americans still believe Obama is a Muslim.

USA Today boils down the latest news this way:

Despite a Hawaii birth certificate and repeated professions of his Christian faith, fairly large numbers of Americans still believe President Obama is a Muslim born outside of the United States.

Over at the Washington Post, Godbeat pro Sarah Pulliam Bailey offers this rundown of the poll numbers:

Even though President Obama nods to his Christian faith regularly in both serious and light-hearted settings, a large number of Americans still believe he is a Muslim. According to a new CNN/ORC poll, 29 percent of Americans say they think that Obama is a Muslim, including 43 percent of Republicans.
Sixty-one percent of Democrats say Obama is a Protestant, compared with 28 percent of Republicans and 32 percent of independents. Also, according to CNN, 54 percent of those who support Donald Trump say they believe Obama is a Muslim.
Education comes into play: 63 percent of college graduates believe Obama is a Protestant compared with just 28 percent of those who do not have college degrees.
Among all adults, 39 percent say they believe Obama is a Protestant or another kind of Christian, another 11 percent say he’s not religious, and 14 percent that they just don’t know. Of those who took the survey, 4 percent believe he is Catholic, 2 percent think he is Mormon, 1 percent believe he is Jewish, and 1 percent think he is something else.
The number of Americans who believe Obama is a Muslim appears to have jumped since polls from earlier years of his presidency.

Keep reading, and former GetReligionista Bailey does a really nice job of providing insight and background related to Obama's faith and what he has said about it.

But here's my question: Are these poll numbers related to the number of Americans who believe Obama is a Muslim really "surprising" or "startling," as news reports described them?

 


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

Shocking! NPR talks to actual evangelical leaders about Donald Trump and ...

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

Talk about a bad headline! What do you think when you read a headline like this one on the National Public Radio website? A recent "It's All Politics" feature proclaimed: "True Believer? Why Donald Trump Is The Choice Of The Religious Right."

For starters, the "Religious Right" label says more than "evangelical voters." It implies that top leaders on the moral right are jumping onto the Trump mini-bandwagon (with 30-plus percent in polls) in the swarm of GOP White House candidates. It implies, at the very least, that some leaders of big evangelical organizations -- think Concerned Women for America or groups linked to the Southern Baptist Convention -- must be offering muted praise for Trump.

Thus, I assume that this NPR feature was simply the latest in a mainstream media wave linking the vague term "evangelical" with Trump's early surge, a trend I wrote about in a recent "On Religion" column for the Universal syndicate (and the "Crossroads" podcast is here).

That's kind of how this NPR report began, with more of the same old same old.

... Trump is winning over Christian conservatives in the current Republican presidential primary. That's right -- the candidate currently leading among the most faith-filled voters is a twice-divorced casino mogul, who isn't an active member of any church, once supported abortion rights, has a history of crass language -- and who says he's never asked God's forgiveness for any of it.
If that sounds like an Onion story, it's not. His blunt talk against a broken political system in a country rank-and-file evangelicals believe is veering away from its traditional cultural roots is connecting. He pledges to "Make America Great Again," a positive spin on the similar Tea Party refrain of "Take Our Country Back."
That redeeming message -- and his tough talk on immigration, foreign policy and the Republican establishment -- is quite literally trumping traditional evangelical concerns about a candidate's morality or religious beliefs.

Note that the report claims that Trump is "winning over Christian conservatives," as opposed to winning with some Christian conservatives at the local level.

So what does the rest of this NPR report actually show?


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

One polite, calm political story: Bernie Sanders welcomed at Liberty University

, , , , , , , ,

Talk about a cross-cultural event.

No, I am not talking about the fact that Sen. Bernard Sanders spoke at a convocation at Liberty University, which must have been educational both for the speaker and for those in the congregation. I'm talking about the efforts of mainstream reporters to cover this unlikely scene early in the race for the White House.

If you watch the video of the Sanders speech, it is pretty apparent that the socialist from Vermont did his homework and was prepared to seek -- as best he could -- common ground with faculty, students and staff on the campus founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. And reporters, as a rule, did a solid job of handling what Sanders had to say.

What I found interesting were the journalistic attempts, or the lack thereof, to interact with the locals. Take this early passage from the coverage in Roll Call:

Before Sanders entered the campus’ Vine Center to an introduction by Liberty President Jerry Falwell Jr., a campus band played Christian rock songs about the resurrection, including one with the refrain: “I have decided to follow Jesus. No turning back. No turning back.” Not the typical introduction for a Jewish socialist from Vermont during Rosh Hashanah.
Unlike when conservative Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas appeared at the same venue earlier this year to launch his Republican White House bid, there were no real disruptions for outbursts of applause or standing ovations. But neither were there abundant boos or signs of ridicule.
“For me personally, it wasn’t very awkward,” said sophomore engineering student Joe Sobchinsky. “I actually was very happy that Bernie Sanders was coming because college is supposed to be about learning different viewpoints, and even if you don’t agree with someone, I would absolutely listen to them and hear what he has to say, hear his viewpoints.”

There's quite a bit of background in that passage. However, I think it was interesting that the reporter thought "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus" was some kind of trendy "Christian rock song," since that folk hymn from India originated in the 19th Century and became popular at crusades led by the Rev. Billy Graham in the 1950s.


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

Pope Francis and the Republicans: AP story has little interest in the pope and Democrats

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Republicans are jockeying to share the spotlight with Pope Francis when he comes to America this month. Democrats? (shrug)

That's a logical takeaway from an Associated Press story on views of Pope Francis by seven of the GOP's presidential candidates.

And before you can say, "Hey, wait a minute," the story fires a shotgun blast of paragraphs:

To some Republican presidential candidates, it's better to be with the popular pope than against him.
Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have deep policy differences with Pope Francis, but the senators will break off campaign travel to attend his address to Congress later this month, a centerpiece of his eagerly anticipated visit to the United States.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a devout Catholic, will attend Mass with Francis in Washington. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another Catholic candidate, plans to attend one of the pope's East Coast events.

AP does nuance that a bit. It explains that Francis has drawn popular admiration, not only for his kindly manner, but also for his "humility and efforts to refocus the church on the poor and needy." It also says he has waded into "numerous hot-button political issues" like immigration, climate change, the Iran nuclear deal and diplomatic relations with Cuba.

So the article has Bush applauding Francis as an "amazing man" with a "gentle soul." And Rubio honors Francis as a "moral authority" but adds, "I'm a political leader and my job as a policymaker is to act in the common good."

The story also reports sidesteps by Scott Walker and Rick Santorum, who say they’ll be out of town when the pope visits Washington. That strikes me as odd to single out those two but not, say, Ben Carson, named last week in a CNN poll as GOP's current front runner.

More glaring is the omission of Donald Trump, whose religious talk has often raised eyebrows. Last month, Trump said this to CNN's Chris Cuomo:


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

Washington Post gets crucial Kim Davis compromises into new front-lines report

, , , , , , , ,

The latest from Rowan County, Kentucky? Sure, why not.

But before we look at some of the coverage of clerk Kim Davis and her first day back on the job, let's review the primary journalistic point that your GetReligionistas have been making, over and over, about this media circus.

Most of the national coverage, has portrayed this dispute as a clash between two national armies -- with the Religious Right on one side and gay-rights supporters on the other.

We have argued that this is too simplistic and that, to anticipate where the story is going, reporters need to focus on the actual laws in Kentucky and the ground-level efforts to realign them with the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 Obergefell decision to back gay marriage. At the very least, there appear to be four camps involved in this sad circus. 

(1) Cultural conservatives whose primary goal is to reject same-sex marriage.

(2) A coalition of state political leaders -- Democrats and Republicans -- seeking to comply with the Supreme Court ruling and recognize the rights of gay couples who seek marriage licenses. However, these officials and activists also want, in a way consistent with past legal efforts to offer "work around" accomodations for officials caught in conflict-of-interest binds, to recognize the religious-liberty rights of traditional Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who cannot endorse same-sex marriage.

(3) Activists of various kinds who want to defend religious liberty, but who believe Davis has hurt their cause, in the long run, by going to jail rather than either (a) resigning or (b) allowing others to distribute marriage licenses in her name until the state legislature acts to amend state laws in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. (See this earlier Bobby Ross Jr., post.)

(4) Activists on the secular and religious left whose primary goal is to force public officials whose duties touch same-same marriage to either resign or endorse, with their actions, the Obergefell decision.

Every now and then, The Washington Post team has included in its coverage details that point toward this complex four-level drama at the state level -- such as the fact that Davis herself supports compromises that would allow gay marriages to proceed (such as the legislature approving the removal of the clerk's name from the license or allowing couples to seek licenses through other government sources).


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Religious liberty advocates split on Kentucky clerk's stance? Yes, Associated Press reports

, , , , , ,

Tmatt has been all over the lack of media reporting on efforts to forge a Kentucky compromise that would protect the rights of same-sex couples and traditional religious believers.

Along those same lines, much news coverage has failed to reflect the disagreement among many same-sex marriage opponents themselves over the stance taken by Rowan County clerk Kim Davis.

That's why I was pleased to see a weekend story by Associated Press writer Travis Loller highlighting that split among religious liberty advocates.

Loller even quotes Rod "Friend of this Blog" Dreher:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has become a hero to many conservative Christians who see her refusal to issue marriage licenses after the Supreme Court effectively legalized same-sex marriage as a litmus test for religious liberty in an increasingly secular culture.
But lost in the uproar are the voices of Christians, some equally conservative, who disagree with Davis' stance and worry that holding her out as a martyr will ultimately hurt the cause of religious liberty.
"I think she's wrong on the merits, wrong theologically and her stance is harmful to Christians both in the religious liberty debate and in trying to present Christianity to the watching world," said Peter Wehner, a Christian commentator who served in the last three Republican presidential administrations.
Many religious conservatives have shifted their focus in recent years from trying to stop the legalization of same-sex marriage to carving out protections for those who object to it on religious grounds. A Washington florist who was fined over her refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding is celebrated by conservative Christian leaders across the U.S. who point to her story as an example of government overreach they fear will only grow.
But Davis' position as a government official has some of those same conservative leaders warning that she may not be the ideal figure to rally around. As Rod Dreher, a senior editor at "The American Conservative," put it in a recent essay, Davis' case is "not the hill to die on." Rather, a line in the sand should be drawn "when they start trying to tell us how to run our own religious institutions - churches, schools, hospitals, and the like - and trying to close them or otherwise destroy them for refusing to accept LGBT ideology."


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

Bottom line in busy days ahead: Look for full texts when Pope Francis speaks

, , , , , , , , , ,

In the days ahead, prepare for wave after wave of information about what Pope Francis does or does not believe and what his words and actions, during his visit to the all-important Acela zone that is home of all of our nation's media that, you know, really matter.

Traditional Catholics already know that it will be risky to read most of this coverage on their computers while drinking coffee, because the keyboards could be at risk. 

As for me, I will follow the usual suspects (as in the full papal texts at Whispers in the Loggia and the omnipresent John L. Allen Jr.). However out in flyover country, most of the nation;s news consumers will have to settle for cable television coverage and the Associated Press.

The trends there, alas, are not good -- unless the networks hire some quality liberal and conservative insiders who can hold meaningful debates. I cannot stress this too highly: Reading the actual papal texts will be even more crucial than ever, this time around.

We can the usual editorial templates in effect already, in some of the explainers that are beginning to turn up in the press. Take, for example, the following chunk of the Associated Press pope guide that ran under this headline at The Oregonian: "Where does Pope Francis stand on gays, women, immigration? His views, explained."

Abortion
Francis has upheld church teaching opposing abortion and echoed his predecessors in saying human life is sacred and must be defended. But he has not emphasized the church's position to the extent that his predecessors did, saying by now the church's teaching on abortion is well-known.


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

A must-read weekend think piece: Trying to find compromise in Kentucky laws

, , , , , , , , ,

So, journalists interested in covering the real legal issues at stake in the Kim Davis case, did you read the piece that the editorial pages team at The New York Times -- in a moment of intellectual diversity that is worthy of applause -- ran by Ryan T. Davis on the framework for a compromise that benefits gay couples and traditional religious believers?

It you did not read it, now is the time. Read it all.

Now, this essay is directly linked to the key facts on the ground in Kentucky. While the mainstream press has focused on screaming armies on the cultural left and right, actual legislators in that state -- Democrats and Republicans -- have been trying to get to Democratic governor to call a special session so that they care respond to the 5-4 Obergefell decision at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The centrist goal -- this is the story, folks -- is to find a centrist compromise that give gay couples marriage licenses, with no hassles or penalties of any kind, while also giving traditional Christians, Muslims and Jews the same kind of conflict-of-interest "work around" accommodations as thousands of other public servants on other issues.

That's what this Times op-ed is all about. It is not part of a campaign to deny LGBT people their rights. It is about an effort to promote compromise. Again, one does not have to agree with these liberal and moderate people in the middle to recognize that this effort to craft the ACTUAL LEGISLATION in Kentucky is a key element of the real news story. Right?

So here is a crucial chunk of the Anderson essay. 

Some on the left say that you must do every aspect of your job, despite your beliefs, or resign. But this has never been the practice in the United States. We have a rich history of accommodating conscientious objectors in a variety of settings, including government employees. Do we really want to say that an otherwise competent employee must quit or go to jail if there is another alternative?


Please respect our Commenting Policy