Politics

Was this a story? Why? Mississippi governor talks about heaven and Southern anti-vax trends

Was this a story? Why? Mississippi governor talks about heaven and Southern anti-vax trends

Here’s a complex question that is worthy of serious research by journalists: Are people who believe in heaven less likely to feel the need to get vaccinated against COVID-19?

Now, lots of people believe in eternal life and the vast majority of them believe — no matter what their level of faith or practice — that they are headed straight to heaven when they die. Belief in hell? That’s another matter.

Ah. But who, according to most media stereotypes, are the folks who REALLY believe in heaven? In particular, what kind of person would let that belief affect their actions in the real world (which means issues of political policy and public health)?

Obviously, we’re talking about those dang White evangelical Protestants. Right?

That brings us to a recent headline at The Daily Memphian (“the primary daily online publication for intelligent, in-depth journalism in the Memphis community”) that caught the eye of some GetReligion readers. The emails I received made it clear that some people were mad about this story for different reasons. Hold that thought.

First, the headline: “Miss. Gov.: South’s response to COVID impacted by belief in ‘eternal life’.” Then, here is the overture:

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves believes religion has a lot to do with the region’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

During a … fundraiser at the Eads home of Shelby County Election Commission Chairman Brent Taylor, Reeves spoke to several dozen Republicans.

“I’m often asked by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle about COVID … and why does it seem like folks in Mississippi and maybe in the Mid-South are a little less scared, shall we say,” Reeves said.

“When you believe in eternal life — when you believe that living on this earth is but a blip on the screen, then you don’t have to be so scared of things,” he said, but added: “Now, God also tells us to take necessary precautions. And we all have opportunities and abilities to do that and we should all do that.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: Is Afghanistan a religion story? If so, it may be the year's biggest religion story

Plug-In: Is Afghanistan a religion story? If so, it may be the year's biggest religion story

A few weeks ago, realizing how quickly 2021 was racing toward 2022, I made a mental note of the year’s top religion stories so far.

On my quick list: Christian nationalism at the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Battles over pandemic-era worship restrictions. Faith’s role in vaccine hesitancy. The biggest Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in many years. The Communion drama between President Joe Biden and U.S. Catholic bishops. Jewish connections to the Florida condo collapse.

Nowhere in my mind: Afghanistan.

But now — especially after the suicide bombings in Kabul on Thursday — it’s looking as if news (much of it tied to religion) in that war-torn nation will dominate headlines for weeks and even months.

As I noted last week, it’s impossible to keep up with all the rapid-fire developments, but these stories delve into compelling religion angles:

Stranded at the airport (by Mindy Belz, World)

Taliban follow strict Islamic creed that doesn’t change with the times, scholars say (by Mark A. Kellner, Washington Times)

Taliban’s religious ideology has roots in colonial India (by Sohel Rana and Sumit Ganguly, ReligionUnplugged.com)

Who is ISIS-K, the group officials blame for the Kabul airport bombings? (by Jack Jenkins, Religion News Service)

Desperate Afghan Christians turned away at airport, aid groups say (by Alejandro Bermudez, Shannon Mullen and Matt Hadro, Catholic News Agency)

Kabul airport attacks strand Afghan contacts of Christian humanitarians (by Cheryl Mann Bacon, Christian Chronicle)


Please respect our Commenting Policy

When talking about vaccines, shame isn't going to change minds in many pews

When talking about vaccines, shame isn't going to change minds in many pews

Donald Trump had to know it was coming, even if -- to use a Bible Belt expression -- he was preaching to his choir.

"You know what? I believe totally in your freedoms," he said, at a rally in Cullman, Ala. "You got to do what you have to do, but I recommend: Take the vaccines. I did it -- it's good."

Videos of this August 21 event make it clear that quite a few people booed this request by the former president.

Truth is, the longer a health crisis lasts, the more pollsters will find that anti-vaccine citizens have "turned into true believers" who are rock-solid in their convictions, said political scientist Ryan Burge of Eastern Illinois University. He is co-founder of the Religion in Public website and a contributor to the GetReligion.org weblog I have led since 2004.

"At this point, the holdouts are the only people that (pollsters) have to talk to. … They've heard everything, and nothing is moving the needle for them," he said. "In fact, it seems like whatever you say to try to change their minds only makes it worse. These hardcore folks are digging in their heels all the more."

When exploring the most recent Data for Progress poll numbers, it's hard to nail down a religion factor in this drama. As summer began, 70% of non-evangelical Protestants had received at least one shot of COVID-19 vaccine -- but so had 62% of both evangelical Protestants and Catholics. As the author of a book entitled "The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going," Burge found it significant that only 47% of the religiously unaffiliated reported receiving at least one shot.

"Religion may be a factor, for some people, but it's not the main thing" causing Americans to be reluctant, he said. "Age is clearly the No. 1 factor, even when you factor in politics. Young Republicans and independents are the same. …


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Once again, journalists need to ponder this question: What is an 'evangelical'?

Once again, journalists need to ponder this question: What is an 'evangelical'?

THE QUESTION:

One more time: What is an "evangelical"?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

Last month the Public Religion Research Institute reported that its latest polling shows white U.S. Protestants who identify as "evangelical" are now outnumbered by whites who do not do so. That upended the usual thinking on numbers, and analysts raised doubts. The discussion led Terry Shoemaker of Arizona State University, writing for theconversaation.com, to again mull the perennial question of what "evangelical" means.

In the American context, this term essentially covers the conservative wing of Protestantism, a variegated constellation of denominations, independent congregations, "parachurch" ministries, media outlets, and individual personalities that is organizationally scattered but religiously coherent.

There are three ways of defining and counting U.S. evangelicals -- by belief, by church affiliation and by self-identification. Shoemaker's analysis (which is open to some nitpicking) started from the belief aspect and a four-point definition by historian David Bebbington in his 1989 work "Evangelicalism in Modern Britain." In summary, these points are:

(1) a high view of the Bible as Christians' ultimate authority,

(2) emphasis on Jesus Christ's work of salvation on the cross,

(3) the necessity of conscious personal faith commitments and changed lives (often called the "born again" experience) and

(4) activism in person-to-person evangelism, missions and moral reform.

Problem is, those four points overlap with the definition of "Protestant" or even "Christian."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Gray Lady prints some complex Ryan Burge insights on Democrats and religion

New podcast: Gray Lady prints some complex Ryan Burge insights on Democrats and religion

Something old, something new.

Something red, something blue.

We started with something new and something blue during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). But, as you will see, the “something old” turned out to be blue, as well.

“Blue,” of course, refers to the liberal/progressive half of the starkly divided American political scene, which also reflects, of course, divisions on moral, social, cultural and religious issues.

Oceans of mass-media ink have been poured out in recent decades by journalists covering the Religious Right and its scary impact on the Republican Party. What about the religious left — no capital letters, of course — and its impact on the Democrats?

That isn’t an important story, of course. At the start of the podcast I quoted some numbers retrieved at mid-week from some Google searches. A basic search for “Religious Right” yielded 6.5 million hits and a Google News search found 77,500 items. Do the same thing for “religious left” and you get 196,000 in the first search and 3,680 in the news search. Amazing, that.

This brings us to a New York Times op-ed essay by the increasingly omnipresent (and that’s a good thing) political scientist Ryan Burge, who contributes charts and info here at GetReligion. The headline: “A More Secular America Is Not Just a Problem for Republicans.” Here’s an early thesis statement:

Today, scholars are finding that by almost any metric they use to measure religiosity, younger generations are much more secular than their parents or grandparents. In responses to survey questions, over 40 percent of the youngest Americans claim no religious affiliation, and just a quarter say they attend religious services weekly or more.

Americans have not come to terms with how this cultural shift will affect so many facets of society — and that’s no more apparent than when it comes to the future of the Republican and Democratic Parties.

The impact on the GOP is rather obvious. While conservative religious groups remain strong in America (evangelicals are not vanishing, for example), the number of religiously unaffiliated (“nones”) continues to rise and the vague middle of the religious spectrum continues to shrink. Meanwhile, conservatives face an increasingly “woke” corporate culture and fading support on the left for old-fashioned First Amendment liberalism (think “religious liberty” framed in scare quotes).

Things get interesting — especially in the context of the Times op-ed world — when Burge discusses complications now facing Democratic Party leaders.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Afghanistan's Catholic 'hidden believers' and the underreported work of the church

Afghanistan's Catholic 'hidden believers' and the underreported work of the church

The news cycle in recent weeks has been dominated by the pullout in Afghanistan and the fallout that has taken place as a result of such a decision — especially the choice to remove most U.S. troops before evacuating American citizens and Afghans who worked with Western groups.

Much of the coverage has centered around the Taliban’s takeover and the tragic events unfolding at the Kabul airport. Meanwhile, others who are in danger — including Christians and members of other religious minorities — are in hiding.

I covered the 9/11 attacks in New York City that day. I can’t help but recall that morning with the 20th anniversary of those attacks approaching. The desperate actions of those stuck in the World Trade Center that day resulted in people jumping off those burning buildings. The very same thing happened just last week when Afghans looking to flee the Taliban grabbed onto military planes as they took off, only to fall out of the sky.

Those images served as a bookend to the U.S.’s involvement in Afghanistan. Rod Dreher, who covered the 9/11 attacks and was my colleague at the New York Post at the time, recently noted the following regarding the U.S.’s time in Afghanistan and the nation-building fiasco that took place:

We are such an unserious nation. I am a practicing Christian who hates the way Christians are treated in many Islamic countries. But I have enough common sense to know that it does not advance America’s national interest to give host countries the finger by displaying a symbol of Christianity to defy their local norms.

This isn’t a post about the culture wars or what the U.S. did right and wrong in Afghanistan since 2002. I will let others do that. Instead, I want to place a spotlight on the important work of Christian groups across Afghanistan over the years, the little mention they have received by the secular press and how one recent story illustrates both the plight of Afghan refugees and how those who converted to Catholicism who now live outside the country have been crucial in helping people get out.

What has largely been viewed as a military operation until now is quickly turning into a humanitarian mission, one that may yet require some military support. Nonetheless, the major newspapers and cable channels in this country still largely cover the Afghan crisis through a political lens — like they do most subjects — and have largely underreported the work of the church.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: When the Taliban cracks down, will all the victims be worthy of news coverage?

New podcast: When the Taliban cracks down, will all the victims be worthy of news coverage?

There’s no question that the botched U.S. efforts to evacuate at-risk people in Afghanistan is the big story of the hour, the day, the week and for the foreseeable future — especially if this turns into a grand-scale hostage nightmare.

But who is at risk? What kinds of people are trapped inside the new kingdom of the Taliban?

That was the subject that dominated this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). And as you would expect, host Todd Wilken and I were especially interested in the role that religion has been playing in this story — if journalists are willing to cover that angle.

So who is at risk? Here is a typical wording, care of an Associated Press update:

The Kabul airport has been the focus of intense international efforts to get out foreigners, Afghan allies and other Afghans most at risk of reprisal from the Taliban insurgents.

With the Taliban controlling the Afghan capital, including the airport’s outer perimeter, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said that U.S. citizens are able to reach the airport, but were often met by large crowds at the airport gates.

But, wait. What about the news reports that U.S. forces cannot help U.S. citizens avoid Taliban checkpoints in order to reach the airport, while British and French military personnel are doing precisely that for their own people? That’s a very hot story right now, with U.S. diplomats and the White House saying that the can work with the Taliban to ensure safety.

So let’s pause and flesh out some of the details in that AP phrase about who is at risk, as in “foreigners, Afghan allies and other Afghans most at risk.” Who is most at risk, right now?

* Obviously, American journalists have every right to focus on risks to American citizens.

* In particular, we can assume that Taliban activists are tracing Americans who have led or worked with NGOs, religious aid groups, churches. Then there are the Western-style think tanks, schools, medical groups, etc.

* Obviously, there are the thousands of Afghans who cooperated with and even worked for the U.S. government, U.S.-backed Afghan military units and the kinds of “foreign” organizations mentioned in the previous item.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

When pinning wild COVID-19 quotes on a cardinal, it helps to be precise about fine details

When pinning wild COVID-19 quotes on a cardinal, it helps to be precise about fine details

If you’re the kind of person who likes to explore the wretched underbelly of Twitter, then you need to pay close attention to the waves of snarky messages that follow announcements that famous vaccine skeptics have been hospitalized with COVID-19.

Some of these skeptics are politicians, of course. Others are religious leaders.

That brings us to the Associated Press coverage of a prominent conservative Catholic who, for journalists, is best known as a frequent critic of liberal Catholic politicians and also of some — not all — actions taken by Pope Francis. Here is the overture on one of these updates:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Cardinal Raymond Burke, one of the Catholic Church’s most outspoken conservatives and a vaccine skeptic, said he has COVID-19 and his staff said he is breathing through a ventilator.

Burke tweeted Aug. 10 that he had caught the virus, was resting comfortably and was receiving excellent medical care.

“Please pray for me as I begin my recovery,” the 73-year-old Burke said in the tweet. “Let us trust in Divine Providence. God bless you.”

As you would expect, the AP report — in addition to offering a litany of examples of Burke criticizing liberal Catholics — eventually provided some information about the cardinal’s views on the coronavirus pandemic. Here are the crucial paragraphs:

Burke … has criticized how governments have handled the pandemic, referring to the virus in a homily last December as the “Wuhan virus,” a derogatory term used by former President Donald Trump to describe the coronavirus and warning people that governments were manipulating them. In May 2020, he spoke out against mandatory vaccinations, saying some in society want to implant microchips in people.

He said in March 2020 that the best weapon for battling “the evil of the coronavirus” is a relationship with Jesus Christ.

The most inflammatory material, of course, is the reference to implanting “microchips.” It would really help to know more about what Burke is alleged to have said and where and when he said it.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

With the Taliban takeover, world Islam -- and the press -- have much at stake in the future

With the Taliban takeover, world Islam -- and the press -- have much at stake in the future

The return of Taliban rule after 20 years will likely produce the typical mayhem and murder when a regime suddenly collapses. Longer-term, immense challenges face the people of Afghanistan under the "Islamic Emirate" and, externally, the takeover will intensify a host of international military, security, political and humanitarian problems.

But much is also at stake for world Islam, a crucial aspect that the media have tended to slight thus far, as tmatt has already observed here at GetReligion. Journalists may be witnessing a new phase in what Georgetown University expert John Esposito has called a long-running "struggle for the soul of Islam."

The fallout could last for years, or even a generation, because it will be highly difficult to again dislodge Taliban control — from within or without. Though plans are unknown, Afghanistan’s rulers may well reimpose harsh practices that had provoked widespread condemnation (without, however, losing religiously freighted diplomatic recognition by Saudi Arabia). And they could again provide a strategic national sanctuary from which terrorists could target innocent civilians in the despised West.

The key, of course, is that all this would be proclaimed as God's will, enacted in the name of Islam and for its benefit. The Taliban announce religious zeal for a strict construction of Islam's dominant Sunni branch in their very name, which derives from "student" in the Pashto language.

Militant movements that include the Taliban have achieved special appeal for youthful Muslim devotees and some government backing. They have variously claimed religious sanction for destruction of historic artifacts, torture, mutilation, beheading and stoning to death, execution without trial, kidnaping for ransom, forced marriages and sexual slavery, drug trafficking and thievery, killing of envoys and charity workers, and persecution not only of Christians and Jews and Yazidis but even moreso of fellow Muslims who dissent (see scholar Paul Marshall’s book “Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide“). Not to mention banning music and movies, kites and dolls.

The most severe consequences have fallen upon Muslim girls and women, not merely put under strict clothing mandates, but denied human rights, education beyond age 10 or careers outside the home.


Please respect our Commenting Policy