Politics

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

New York Times goes looking for 'conservatives' in Big Apple, but ignores pews

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

To no one's surprise, The New York Times decided to follow up on the Sen. Ted Cruz vs. Donald Trump row over "New York values" and the question of whether many "conservatives" come out of New York City.

But before we get to that story -- "Young Republicans in New York" -- let me make a few comments that are central to my take on this Times feature.

When if comes to "values" issues, not all Republicans are "conservatives." At the same time, not all values "conservatives" are Republicans. There are still a few cultural conservatives in the Democratic Party and many of them are people of color.

Meanwhile, not all religious believers are Republicans or "values" conservatives. It is quite easy, these days, to find young evangelicals who are not "values" conservatives, or at least not on every issue. It is very hard to fit pro-Catechism Catholics into either major political party these days.

To name one specific policy complication linked to this Times story: There are many conservative religious believers who support same-sex marriage, or same-sex civil unions, but also support efforts to protect the First Amendment and the free exercise of religious beliefs in settings outside the doors of religious sanctuaries.

So with all of that in mind, does it surprise you to know that the one and only place the Times team when to find New York City "conservatives" on "values" issues was a political gathering? This is especially tragic in light of the fact that New York City is, these days, a vibrant city in terms of religious congregations appealing to young believers.

But first, here is the overture:


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

That same old question for 2016: What is an 'evangelical,' anyway?

, , , , , , , , , ,
That same old question for 2016: What is an 'evangelical,' anyway?

The Carson- Cruz- Rubio-Trump piety sweepstakes aimed at the vital “evangelical vote” in Iowa has produced recent news that would have been unthinkable a generation ago:

* Businessman Donald Trump brags that “Franklin Graham said incredible things about me” (the evangelist isn’t endorsing anyone), then targets Senator Ted Cruz: “In all fairness, to the best of my knowledge not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba, OK?” Unclear what that means, but it followed Trump’s previous slap at surgeon Carson’s Adventist church after Carson questioned Trump’s faith.

* Preacher’s kid Cruz tells a church rally, “Keep this revival growing. Awaken the body of Christ that we might rise up to pull this country from the abyss,” and quotes the favored Bible verse of evangelical activists, 2 Chronicles 7:14 (“If my people ...”).

* Not to be outdone, Senator Marco Rubio states in an online ad, “Our goal is eternity, the ability to live alongside our Creator and for all time, to accept the free gift of salvation offered to us by Jesus Christ. ... The purpose of our life is to cooperate with God’s plan...“ The Catholic candidate also appoints 15 evangelical, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Orthodox Jewish notables (e.g. law Professor Michael McConnell, Pastor Rick Warren) as advisors on future religious liberty issues.

* An e-mail blast from Eric Teetsel, late of the Manhattan Declaration now running Rubio’s “faith outreach,” quotes Southern Baptist social-issues spokesman Russell Moore on evangelical constituencies: “Ted Cruz is leading the Jerry Falwell wing, Marco Rubio is leading the Billy Graham wing and Trump is leading the Jimmy Swaggart wing” (the latter a scandal-scarred  televangelist).

Political nose-counters note that in 2012, 57 percent of Iowa voters identified as evangelicals (vs. 22 percent in New Hampshire, the second lowest percentage among states behind only Senator Sanders’ Vermont). Iowa polls show Cruz moving well ahead of Carson and Trump in evangelical support, while CNN says nationwide Trump leads Cruz by 45 to 28 percent among white evangelicals. And the Wall Street Journal reports the Cruz camp thinks there are  90 million U.S. evangelicals (!) of whom 54 million didn’t vote in 2012(!!).

Obviously, both politics and religion reporters need to pursue that ever-challenging question, What is an “evangelical”?


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

Think piece meets podcast: Spot the dividing lines between evangelical voters in 2016

, , , , , , , , , , ,

As a rule, here is what happens every week when "Crossroads" host Todd Wilken and I do a radio broadcast or taping session that turns into a podcast. First we pick a GetReligion post, or perhaps my Universal syndicate column for that week, in which we think there are angles to update or explore. Then he asks me a bunch of questions and then we chat.

However, I tried to turn the tables on Wilken in this week's podcast (click here to tune that in), in which we dug deeper into the material I explored in the post that ran with this headline: "Seriously? New York Times story on GOP schism is silent on 'pew gap' issues." He asked me a question and then I turned around and asked the audience -- that would be you guys -- a series of questions.

What were they? Well, many political journalists are starting to realize that Donald Trump is not the official candidate of American evangelicalism. Thus, I asked these three questions:

 * Who are Donald Trump's evangelicals?

* Who are Sen. Ted Cruz's evangelicals?

* Who are Sen. Marco Rubio's evangelicals?

Thinking back over our conversation, I now realize that I could have asked some pushy follow-up questions.


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

Religion in schools: Tampa Bay Times talks to everyone except church people

, , , , , , , , ,

One of the good and bad parts of a job like GetReligion is writing about recurring issues.  It's good because you develop some experience in your work. It's bad because you keep writing about similar problems.

Here we go this week with the Tampa Bay Times, which wrote about religious groups, and talked to others about the groups, yet didn’t talk to the groups themselves. As I've said before, this is like talking about someone while they're standing right there.

The Times has been monitoring the school superintendent's friendly treatment of a couple of Christian organizations. Here's how the paper dealt with it on Tuesday:

TAMPA --Hillsborough County school superintendent Jeff Eakins reaffirmed his support Tuesday for a Christian organization that aims to expand its presence in the public schools.
Addressing First Priority Tampa Bay --which has grown to serve dozens of local schools in the past six years, with the goal of helping students share the message of Christ --Eakins said the group's school-based clubs are integral to the culture he is trying to shape in the district.
"We're trying to build great character and great integrity, and ultimately capture the hearts of our kids," he told an audience of about 100 people at the South Tampa Fellowship at Ballast Point.
His message comes as the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are questioning the district's involvement with another Christian ministry.

No kiddin' on that last sentence. By the end of its 900 words, the story has cited not only the ACLU but the Atheists of Florida, the Jewish Community Relations Council and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They complain not only about First Priority but the local Idlewild Baptist Church, for its "training and motivational sessions for school administrators." They also criticize the church for giving away T-shirts with its name and logo. (The next day's story adds that Idlewild also passes out coupons, redeemable for a coffee at the church.)

The critics say Eakins' endorsement creates "social pressure" for teachers to support the efforts. The Times also brings up the First Amendment, "which is widely interpreted as a prohibition against government --including public schools --favoring one religion.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Guns blazing at Texas Catholic churches: The intriguing question facing Lone Star dioceses

, , , , ,

The Roman Catholic bishop of Dallas is no fan of Texas' new open-carry law.

In a column that drew the attention of Religion News Service, Bishop Kevin Farrell last week ripped the "cowboy mentality" that he said "permits the open carrying of guns."

In turn, The Dallas Morning News reported this week that Farrell's remarks angered some conservative Catholics — with one blogger asking, "Why doesn’t he just call us a bunch of mouth-breathing inbred hicks and be done with it?"

Alrighty.

This was the Morning News' lede:

Plenty of Texas gun rights advocates celebrated 2016 as the year open carry finally arrived. But for some conservative Catholics, it’s another reason to clash with Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell.
The Dallas Diocese forbids parishioners from bringing guns – openly carried or concealed – to their churches. A recent online column by Farrell – described by some as “strident” – has made the Bishop’s critics even more vocal.
“Sadly, Texas has become the 45th state to embrace the cowboy mentality that permits the open carrying of guns,” Farrell wrote in his column. “It is difficult to see how this new law allowing persons with concealed handgun licenses (CHL) to openly carry firearms can accomplish anything other than cause people to feel threatened and intimidated.”
New state laws permit license holders to openly carry handguns in many places, including public college campuses. But private property owners also have the right to prohibit legal gun owners from packing.
That’s created tension from the grocery store to the pulpit.
Charles Cleaver, a North Oak Cliff Catholic and gun owner, described Farrell as a leftist with an Irish-European view of guns that doesn’t have a place in Texas. The Dublin-born bishop came to Dallas from Washington, D.C.
“He just likes to ram these things down people’s throats,” Cleaver said. “I don’t know who he’s [Farrell] trying to appeal to.”

The Dallas newspaper's report gives a voice to both extremes, although I found myself wishing for more nuance. Specifically, are there any Catholics who see pros and cons on people of faith packing heat? Is there room for any gray in this debate?

Another important piece of context missing from this story: What's happening in the rest of the Lone Star State?

Texas image via Shutterstock.com


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

Those 1989 Act-Up protests: The key events were OUTSIDE St. Patrick's Cathedral?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

This is not a post about what the Catholic Catechism teaches about sexuality.

It is also, in a way, not a post about the ongoing issues of LGBT groups being allowed to march in the famous St. Patrick's Day parade in New York City.

This is a post about a basic issue of balance and accuracy in some crucial background material in a recent New York Times update about events linked to that parade, which has been a flashpoint in conflicts between LGBT activists and Catholic leaders for decades.

So, first things first, what is the news hook for this news report?

George J. Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader who presided over negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement and power sharing in Northern Ireland, has been chosen as the grand marshal for this year’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade.
The parade’s organizers plan to announce the selection of Mr. Mitchell on Monday. But it is not clear whether Mayor Bill de Blasio, a fellow Democrat who skipped the parades in his first two years in office because organizers had barred openly gay groups since the 1990s, would take part. A spokesman for Mr. de Blasio said on Friday that the mayor was reviewing whether to march this year.

As you would expect, the Times team included several paragraphs of background material to let readers know a little bit about the history of these tensions. This is where I want GetReligion readers to focus their attention.

Let us attend (especially to the fine details):

The controversy began in December 1989, when thousands demonstrated outside St. Patrick’s Cathedral over statements made by Cardinal John J. O’Connor on abortion, homosexuality and AIDS.


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

How to write a perfect 'Kellerism' story about a complex debate in Catholic news

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The other day a Catholic who is a longtime GetReligion reader, and a media professional, sent me a note to say that he had spotted a perfect example of the "Kellerism" worldview that is blurring the line in some elite newsrooms between hard-news coverage and unbalanced, advocacy, editorial analysis.

This particular story wasn't in The New York Times. Instead, it ran on the Crux website that The Boston Globe operates to cover Catholic news. That caught me off guard, since anyone who reads this weblog knows that the Crux team runs lots of fabulous stuff and is usually quite careful when it comes to marking news as "news" and analysis as "analysis."

Before we dissect this news report a bit, let's take a short refresher course on "Kellerism.."

The term is a nod to the statement by Bill Keller of The New York Times, days after he left the editor's chair, that his newspaper had been committed to balanced coverage on matters of politics -- but not on moral, cultural and religious issues. Click here for more on that and here's a link to the video of the event in Austin, Texas.

The bottom line: Why should journalists do fair, accurate coverage that shows respect for traditional religious believers whose ancient views are clearly wrong, according to the modern doctrines affirmed by the priests of Kellerism? Why cover two points of view when one is right and the other is wrong?

This particular Crux story focused on a hot news topic -- whether Catholic institutions have a right to employ only people who affirm (or do not publicly attack) the doctrines of the faith. The headline: "Rally planned to support fired gay church worker in Maryland."


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Wait, what!? You've heard about Iowa's evangelical voters, but what about the ones in New Hampshire?

, , , ,

As the 2016 presidential race — which began sometime during the Paleolithic era — trudges toward actual voting, it's impossible to miss the headlines about candidates courting evangelicals in Iowa.

For a twist, how about a story focusing on religious voters in New Hampshire?

Wait, what!?

I'm always fascinated by coverage of religion in New England. That region boasts the four least religious states in the nation (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts), according to Gallup. Connecticut (at No. 8) and Rhode Island (No. 13) don't trail too far behind.

I wrote this sticky lede for The Christian Chronicle in 2013:

SPRINGFIELD, Vt. — Folks in the Green Mountain State like their economy syrupy sweet.
The rural, thickly forested New England state produces 39 percent of the United States’ maple syrup.
The state’s 626,000 residents are less sweet on religion: Vermont ranks as the nation’s most secular state,  according to a 2012 Gallup poll.

So how did evangelicals in New Hampshire — where roughly three out of four residents characterize themselves as nonreligious or only "moderately" religious — gain the attention of Republican operatives?


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

On CNN: Did Ted Cruz really call for Jesus to rise from the grave to help his campaign?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

If journalists were going to create a list of topics dear to the heart of the media superstar Pope Francis, one of the items near the top would be his emphasis on the whole church -- from the laity in the pews to the bishops in the hierarchy -- being seen as the Body of Christ.

The video at the top of this post is a perfect example and the headline on a Catholic.org report summed up the talk this way: "Pope Francis Proclaims the Church is the Living Body of Christ and Calls for Christian Unity."

This metaphor is thoroughly biblical and so simple that even Wikipedia gets the basics right:

In Christian theology, the term Body of Christ has two separate connotations: it may refer to Jesus' statement about the Eucharist at the Last Supper that "This is my body" in Luke 22:19-20, or the explicit usage of the term by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians to refer to the Christian Church.

This is language can, to those outside mainstream Christianity, sound slightly strange -- especially when used by politicos in the public square. Take Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, an outspoken -- to say the least -- son of an evangelical preacher whose current White House campaign is heavily dependent on the work of activists in pulpits and pews.

Cruz may be a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, but whenever he opens his mouth there is a good chance that some kind of pew-friendly Christian language is going to pop into the public square (kind of like President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s). Often, elite scribes and commentators just don't get it.

Consider the following reference in that New York Times piece that ran under the headline, "Ted Cruz’s Diligent Courting of Evangelicals Pays Off in Iowa."


Please respect our Commenting Policy