Politics

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

Podcast: Latino evangelicals feel 'politically homeless'? They are not alone

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

The big idea for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) was pretty simple: A reporter from an elite newsroom talked to some Latino evangelicals and discovered that they think their lives are defined just as much, or more, by the fact that they are evangelicals as by being Latinos.

The hook for this discussion was my recent post with this headline: “New York Times listens to Latino evangelicals: 'Politically homeless' voters pushed toward Trump.” This Times piece was quite remarkable, in that it took the religious content seriously. Hold that thought, because we will come back to it.

Political-desk reporters have long realized that Latino Americans are a crucial bloc of swing voters and have tended to see them as a growing piece of the “Catholic vote” puzzle. Of course, Latino Catholics who frequently go to Mass have consistently different political priorities than those who have, for all practical purposes, left the sacramental life of the church.

A few political reporters have noticed that evangelical Latinos exist and that lots of them live in strategic swing states — like Arizona and Florida. If you frame that completely in political terms, it looks something like this — one of those quick-read 2020 race summaries produced by the pros at Axios.

The big picture: Trump's push for a U.S.-Mexico border wall and hardline immigration policies make him unpopular with many Hispanic voters. But he has successfully courted other Hispanic-Americans, including evangelicals, those who are a generation removed from immigration, and those of Cuban and Venezuelan descent who respond to his anti-socialism message.

— Trump is benefiting from "stronger support among evangelical protestant Hispanics who see a clearcut difference between Trump and Biden on faith-based issues," said Rice University Professor Mark Jones.

What, precisely, does this reference to “faith-based issues” mean? What are the specific doctrinal issues hiding behind that vague term?

Meanwhile, Florida is crucial (#DUH).

— National polling still shows Biden leading Trump with Hispanics by around 20 percentage points, but in some key states that lead evaporates.


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

'Catholic voters' will split their votes in this election, but how will that affect swing states?

, , , , , , ,

The U.S. election season has come down to its final days. Both national polling and those in battleground states see former Vice President Joe Biden with a lead. President Donald Trump has been traveling across the Rust Belt in hopes of winning key states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as voters are told — once again — that the upcoming election is “the most important of our lifetimes.”

The Nov. 3 election is important, and signs continue to point to a Biden victory. Democrats, fearing a repeat of 2016 when Trump surged to a shocking victory, are countering this narrative by paying attention to many states — especially in the Midwest — that Hillary Clinton downplayed in 2016. For journalists, this leads straight to fights to attract Catholic voters of various kinds (see this previous tmatt post on that topic).

News consumers can sense some panic on the left that this election could go horribly wrong for them once again. Republicans, on the other hand, appear confident, yet cautious at the same time regarding the potential outcome.

Trying to gauge voter enthusiasm is difficult. While Trump voters do seem generally more energized — especially among evangelicals and church-going Catholics — compared to Biden supporters, the events of the past few weeks in Washington may have shifted priorities.

A majority of Catholics say they support Biden (52%), while only 40% back Trump. Nevertheless, that gap, according to the latest EWTN News/RealClear Opinion Research poll released this past Monday, shows that the race narrows significantly in swing states such as Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In those states, Biden leads by an average of just four percentage points (48% to 44%), which is within the survey’s margin of error. Also, note this passage in that EWTN report:

Catholic voters are divided on some issues but said they are more likely to support candidates who seek to protect religious freedom (78% to 14%) and are less likely to support candidates who support taxpayer funding of abortion (52% to 34%) or who support abortion at any time during a pregnancy (60% to 28%).

Back in July, I argued that this coming election was primarily about the Supreme Court.


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

New York Times listens to Latino evangelicals: 'Politically homeless' voters pushed toward Trump

, , , , , , , , , , ,

It was one of those statistics that, on the night of the 2016 election, jumped out of the haze of shock and fear on the major networks.

No one who has lived in South Florida was all that surprised that National Election Pool numbers showed Donald Trump winning slightly more than half of Florida’s Cuban voters. However, I was stunned that — after all of his rhetoric on immigration issues — he was backed by 35% of the Latino voters in that life-or-death swing state. Yes, that’s lower, as the Pew Research Center team noted, than Mitt Romney’s 39% of the 2012 vote. But it was still stunning.

Then I watched as some commentators noted that Trump was running stronger than expected in the Interstate highway corridors in and around Orlando. If you follow religion in Florida, that’s prime megachurch territory — including churches packed with Latino evangelicals and Pentecostal believers.

I thought to myself: Did Latino evangelicals and Pentecostal Christians put Trump in the White House? In a race that close, that had to be a factor in Trump getting 35% of Florida’s Latino votes. And Trump had to have Florida.

Every since then, I have been watching to see if mainstream newsrooms would connect the dots between the growth of Latino evangelical churches and this trend’s potential impact in state and national elections. Now we have a few headlines to consider.

If you want a political-desk story that is mostly tone deaf on matters of religion, then check out the recent Washington Post piece with this paint-by-numbers headline: “Despite Trump’s actions against immigrants, these Latino voters want four more years.”

Instead of lingering there, I would point GetReligion readers to the New York Times piece that ran under this expansive double-decker headline:

Latino, Evangelical and Politically Homeless

Hispanic evangelicals identify as religious first and foremost. That’s why, despite his harsh rhetoric on immigration, many back President Trump.

This is one of those stories in which people of one congregation are allowed to speak for various groups inside a larger flock. The most important thing is that readers get to hear from believers who do not fit into the cookie-cutter world of America’s major political parties. It’s a must-read piece.


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

Churches and COVID-19, again: Do Capitol Hill Baptist folks have same rights as protesters?

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

In the beginning, there were two essential mainstream-press narratives about the coronavirus and religious worship.

The first was that most sane, science-affirming religious groups had moved their worship online and were cooperating with government authorities. The second was that there were lots of conservative white evangelicals who claimed (a) that God would shield them from the virus, (b) that COVID-19 was a myth, (c) they had some kind of First Amendment “religious liberty” right to gather for worship or (d) all of the above.

That approach was simplistic, from Day 1, for several reasons. Here at GetReligion we argued that the number of dissenters was actually surprisingly small — even in conservative religious traditions — and that the bigger story was the overwhelming majority of congregations that were doing everything they could to safely hold some kind of worship services, while honoring local laws and restrictions. Entire religious bodies — Catholic, Orthodox, Southern Baptists — developed plans for how to do that.

Early on, congregations trying to gather for worship outdoors — drive-in service of various kinds, especially — emerged as a crucial story angle. See this podcast and post, for example: “Who-da thunk it? Drive-in churches are First Amendment battlegrounds.”

Now we have a must-read Washington Post update on the legal efforts by Capitol Hill Baptist Church to force officials in the District of Columbia to, well, allow worshippers the same local right of outdoor assembly as protesters and marchers. Here’s the headline: “Federal court allows D.C. church to hold services outdoors despite coronavirus restrictions.” And here is a crucial block of material right up top:

Capitol Hill Baptist Church, which has 850 members and no online worship services, has been meeting in a Virginia field. The U.S. District Court’s granting of a preliminary injunction allows the church to meet outdoors en masse in the city, where most of its members live, while its lawsuit moves forward.

The church was not seeking a class action, and the decision, which can be appealed, applies only to Capitol Hill Baptist.

Capitol Hill Baptist, which had twice sought a waiver before suing, centered its argument on comparing D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s ban on religious gatherings over 100 with her toleration and encouragement of massive anti-racism protests over the summer.


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

Plug-in: No anti-Catholic sequel, as Democrats avoided loud dogma at Barrett hearings

, , , , , , , , , ,

This time, the Democrats avoided the dogma. So far.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s faith was a big focus going into this week’s Senate Judicial Committee hearings.

In advance of the confirmation proceedings, The Associated Press’ Mary Clare Jalonick and Elana Schor noted:

WASHINGTON (AP) — “The dogma lives loudly within you.”

It’s that utterance from California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, that’s on the minds of Democrats and Republicans preparing for this coming week’s hearings with Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Feinstein’s 2017 remarks as she questioned Barrett — then a nominee for an appeals court — about the influence of Barrett’s Catholic faith on her judicial views sparked bipartisan backlash, contributing to the former law professor’s quick rise as a conservative judicial star.

Similarly, the Wall Street Journal’s Francis X. Rocca and Lindsay Wise pointed out:

In her 2017 confirmation hearings, senators from both parties brought up the connection between Judge Barrett’s faith and her rulings. But Democrats, especially California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, got backlash for their questions.

Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley asked, “When is it proper for a judge to put their religious views above applying the law?”

Sen. Feinstein said, “Whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma…I think in your case, Professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.”

In response to the line of questioning, Judge Barrett said, “My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.”

With the 2017 backlash in mind, Democrats steered clear of Barrett’s religion at this week’s hearings, even as Republicans focused on it.


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

Where does the Catholic Church stand on the death penalty and war?

, , , , , , , , , ,

THE QUESTION:

Where does the Catholic Church stand on the death penalty and war?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Pope Francis’s encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti (“Brothers All”), issued October 3, reinforces his profile as a socio-political liberal and idealist. Employing this the highest vehicle for authoritative papal teaching, he addresses racism and rampant nationalism (which some say especially targets the current U.S. situation), and yokes concern for the poor with a semi-socialistic view of private property. His views perhaps reflect the culture of economically troubled Argentina as much as teaching by previous popes.

In terms of church history, Francis’s most important innovations here are total opposition to the death penalty and, regarding warfare, nudging of the church toward full-blown pacifism. We can predict many lay parishioners will dissent, as with papal decrees on such matters as birth control. Francis wants the church to upend centuries of teaching by pontiffs and theologians. It seems probable that pressure for abortion and mercy-killing in secular culture has strengthened “pro-life” zeal on these other matters of life and death.

With the death penalty, biblical tradition reaches back to primeval times. God protects the life of the first murderer, Cain, but later gives this commandment: “Anyone who sheds the blood of a human being, by a human being shall that one’s blood be shed, for in the image of God have human beings been made”(Genesis 9:6).

This is interpreted to say that, paradoxically, death by execution upholds respect for life by making murder so abhorrent. At face value, the statement seems not only to allow but to require the death penalty. However, the Jewish Publication Society’s Genesis commentary says ancient rabbis shied away from execution and sought “every mitigating factor in the laws of evidence” to avoid imposing it for killing or other misdeeds.

Most Christians endorsed the practice across the centuries. As recently as 2018, the Catholic Catechism was still saying that though government should avoid the death penalty if “bloodless means are sufficient,” a society can claim legitimacy when execution is necessary to “defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons.”

However, Pope John Paul II had stated in a 1995 encyclical that though the death penalty seems a “legitimate defense” of society, we can effectively suppress crime without killing criminals.


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

Podcast: Would third SCOTUS win allow some reluctant evangelical Trump voters to abandon ship?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), host Todd Wilken and I focused on this question: Will the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court help President Donald Trump on Election Day 2020?

The answer, you would think, is pretty obvious: Yes, since it would be another example of Trump keeping a campaign promise from 2016. Remember that famous list of potential justices he released during that tense campaign?

It’s also true that Barrett would be filling a third open chair on the high court during a single four-year term, a stunning development that few would have anticipated. Thus, Barrett’s confirmation would enthuse the Trump base and help get out the evangelical vote. Correct?

Maybe not. Consider the overture of this think piece — “The Supreme Court deal is done: Would this SCOTUS win mean that all those reluctant Trump voters could abandon ship?“ — that ran the other day at The Week. Bonnie Kristian’s logic may upset some Trump supporters, but she has a point:

The necessary and compelling reason to vote for President Trump in 2016, for many white evangelicals and other conservative Republicans, was the Supreme Court. That reason is now gone.

Or it will be soon, if Republican senators can manage to avoid COVID-19 infections long enough to confirm Amy Coney Barrett's nomination. … Her confirmation can and probably will be done before Election Day, at which point Trump's SCOTUS voters can — and, on this very basis, should — dump him as swiftly and mercilessly as he'd dump them were they no longer politically useful.

The Supreme Court vote for Trump was never a good rationale for backing him in the 2016 GOP primary, because every other candidate would have produced a very similar SCOTUS nomination shortlist. But once Trump was the party's chosen champion against Democrat Hillary Clinton, the certainty that the next president would fill at least one seat (replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia) made the Supreme Court, in the words of pundit Hugh Hewitt, "Trump's trump card on the #NeverTrumpers."

Ah! Someone paid attention to the fault line in the white evangelical vote that Christianity Today spotted early on, and that your GetReligionistas have been discussing ever since.

So, once again, let’s consider that 2016 headline at CT: “Pew: Most Evangelicals Will Vote Trump, But Not For Trump.”


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

Justice Amy Coney Barrett could soon prove crucial on legal fights over religious vs. LGBTQ rights 

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

Senators, other pols and the news media are agog this week over the impact a Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, age 48, might have on abortion law long-term and -- immediately -- disputes over the election results and a challenge to Obamacare that comes up for oral arguments November 10.

But reporters on the politics, law or religion beats shouldn't ignore Barrett's potential impact on the continual struggles between religious freedom claims under the Bill of Rights versus LGBTQ rights the Court established in its 2015 Obergefell ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. Oral arguments in a crucial test case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia [19-123], will occur the day after Election Day — when journalists will be preoccupied with furious tabulation of absentee ballots.

At issue is whether Philadelphia violated Constitutional religious freedom in 2018 by halting the longstanding work of Catholic Social Services in the city's foster care system because church teaching doesn't allow placement of children with same-sex couples.

Such disputes first won media attention when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage and in 2006 shut down the adoption service of Boston Catholic Charities. which did not place children with same-sex couples. A prescient 2006 Weekly Standard piece by marriage traditionalist Maggie Gallagher explored the broader implications for religious agencies and colleges in free speech, freedom of association, employment law and tax exemption.

The Becket Fund, which represents the Fulton plaintiffs, produced this useful 2008 anthology covering all sides on these issues.

On October 5, the legal jousting heated up when Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, issued a protest found within this memo (.pdf here).They dissented on Obergefell, but their chief concern now is that the court's ambiguity "continues to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty" that only SCOTUS itself can and must now remedy. A two-line Slate.com. headline typified reactions of the cultural Left:

Two Supreme Court Justices Just Put Marriage Equality on the Chopping Block

LGBT rights were already in jeopardy. If Amy Coney Barrett gets confirmed, they're likely doomed


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

Newspaper that once sang praises of Stalin shocked Babylon Bee likes to sting liberals!

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

If you have been reading The Babylon Bee since Day 1, you know that its bread and butter has always been satire of evangelical Protestants of all kinds — from bearded Reformed seminarians who study theology in hipster craft-brewing establishments to megachurch musicians who yearn to play Eddie Van Halen solos during the 100th repetition of whatever praise chorus is currently all the rage.

You can see the Summa Theologica of that viewpoint in the book “How to Be a Perfect Christian: Your Comprehensive Guide to Flawless Spiritual Living,” by Bee founder Adam Ford and Kyle Mann, the website’s current editor. Hold that thought, because we will come back to it.

Lots of core early readers clicked on classic headline like “New Prayer App Delivers Electric Shock Every Time User Says 'Just' ") or "Joel Osteen Sails Luxury Yacht Through Flooded Houston To Pass Out Copies Of 'Your Best Life Now.' "

Then along came Donald Trump: Superstar. Legions of people wanted to click a headline like this one: “Trump Announces He Was Born Of A Virgin And Will Bring Balance To The Force.” Eventually, it was obvious that the Bee also needed to harvest the gazillions of clicks that would result from posts mocking blue-zip-code liberals who have been suffering from so-called “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

The fact that I needed to add “so-called” in that sentence points to the complexity of the current age for satirists. As another Bee headline noted: “Reality Criticized For Not More Clearly Distinguishing Itself From Satire.”

Now, if Bee readers were going to write a New York Times headline about all of this — the evangelical subculture humor, the jabs at Trump and then the wisecracks about liberals — wouldn’t it look something like this epic double-decker?

What ‘The Babylon Bee’ Thinks Is So Funny About Liberals

The comedy site, a conservative answer to ‘The Onion,’ used to have Trump squarely in its cross hairs. But now it’s less about him and more about the people who can’t stand him.

This is actually a pretty interesting article, if one is willing to ignore the history of the Babylon Bee. Also, it helps to assume that, in order to be legitimate (whatever that means for a satire site) and funny, it needs to focus most of its attention on the sins of Citizen Trump, while ignoring all those freakouts about his existence seen in the highest ranks of the cultural establishment — especially the world of high tech billionaires and America’s entertainment, academic and journalism elites.

All of that brings us to this Times overture that simply writes itself:


Please respect our Commenting Policy