Race

, , , , , , ,

Kanye: Is God really telling him to run for president? Expect headlines, no matter what

, , , , , , ,

If there wasn’t enough religio-political news already happening these days, famed rapper Kanye West, on the 4th of July, announced he was running for president.

In that Kanye’s somewhat recent dive-in to evangelical Christianity now seems to make him a talking head for God — judging by mainstream press coverage of his proclamations and activities — anything he decides to do has religious importance. Mix that with politics and you have headlines.

When he explained it all to Forbes magazine during a 4-hour interview, God was very much part of the equation. The interview sounds like an odd stream-of-consciousness monologue, which the reporter tried to organize into a coherent piece.

Here’s what Forbes said:

Kanye West’s Fourth of July declaration, via Tweet, that he was running for president lit the internet on fire, even as pundits were trying to discern how serious he was. Over the course of four rambling hours of interviews on Tuesday, the billionaire rapper turned sneaker mogul revealed:

Eight of the rapper’s main quotes were then listed for readers as news-you-can-use bullet points. Then there was this:

He has no campaign apparatus of any kind. His advisors right now, he says, are the two people who notably endorsed him on the Fourth: his wife, Kim Kardashian-West, and Elon Musk, of whom he says, “We’ve been talking about this for years.” (Adds West: “I proposed to him to be the head of our space program.”)

An hour into the interview, the hedging was done: He says he definitely plans to run in 2020, versus his original plan in 2024. The campaign slogan: “YES!” His running mate? Michelle Tidball, an obscure preacher from Wyoming. And why the Birthday Party? “Because when we win, it’s everybody’s birthday.”

This was not the only coverage, of course.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Baseball offers lots of parables about the American spirit, for those with the eyes to see

, , , , , ,
Baseball offers lots of parables about the American spirit, for those with the eyes to see

Fans who crack open baseball history books are sure to find photographs of Jackie Robinson stealing home and wreaking havoc on the base paths.

It's less likely they will learn about him teaching Sunday school classes.

Nevertheless, Brooklyn Dodgers President Branch Rickey saw a connection between those skills.

When they met in 1945 to discuss breaking major-league baseball's color barrier, Rickey quoted Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount while describing the challenges ahead: "You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Rickey said: "God is with us in this, Jackie." In the movie "42," that thought turned into this memorable quip: "Robinson's a Methodist. I'm a Methodist. God's a Methodist. You can't go wrong."

This bond changed history. When broadcaster Larry King praised the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., as the "founder of the Civil Rights Movement," King responded: "The founder of the Civil Rights Movement was Jackie Robinson."

On one level, that's a baseball story. But it's also an example of how baseball has played a mythic, strangely spiritual role in American life, said Bryan Steverson, author of "Baseball: A Special Gift from God."

"Look at it this way. The object of baseball is to get home. And you are trying to make it home, safe. Sometimes, someone on my side may even need to make a sacrifice for me to get home, safe. Think about it," he said.

There's nothing new about scribes finding spiritual lessons in athletics, including numerous New Testament examples from St. Paul. But something about baseball's language and imagery encourages a special kind of reverence for many fans, said Steverson, a member of the Society for American Baseball Research. This unique role in the American story is especially obvious whenever baseball is missing -- due to a global pandemic or mere labor disputes.

Part of the appeal is the intricate nature of the sport's picky rules and even its structure, starting with what many scribes hail as the perfection of the diamond's 90-foot base paths. Steverson dedicated an entire book chapter to the practical and symbolic roles that the number three -- think Christian trinity -- plays in baseball.


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

#BlackLivesMatter: Are church leaders fighting about a slogan, a movement or an organization?

, , , , , , , ,

Journalists covering the demonstrations and riots after the killing of George Floyd have struggled with a number of issues and several are directly linked to religion.

For starters, I’ve been stunned at the lack of coverage of the African American church. It would appear that the traditional leaders of Civil Rights Movement-style marches and protests have been replaced by anonymous leaders, many of them young, white and linked to colleges and universities.

My question: Is this true? Have black church leaders been silent or has the press been looking the other way, in part because violent protests and riots are “more newsworthy” than peaceful demonstrations that play by the rules of a civil society? I’m genuinely curious about this.

There is another issue that really needs to be addressed head-on in mainstream coverage. When we talk about #BlackLivesMatter — and cover disputes inside religious groups about supporting #BlackLivesMatters — are we talking about:

(a) The ideas and concerns expressed in a slogan?

(b) A movement that is planning specific demonstrations inspired by that slogan (it would appear there is no one unified movement, as noted earlier)?

(c) The actions, goals and doctrines of a specific organization that calls itself Black Lives Matter?

Journalists cannot accurately cover controversies inside religious groups linked to these issues without settling, or discussing, that issue.

With that in mind, I want to point readers to a long and very detailed feature at The Christian Chronicle written by Bobby Ross, Jr., a long, long-time contributor here at GetReligion. Here is his double-decker headline, which is quite revealing:

Why the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement is so controversial to many Christians

Some believers point to a radical, anti-Christian agenda. Others see racism at play in the slogan’s opposition

You can see the main theme right up top:


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

Religion and race: NPR targets sins and struggles of Southern evangelicals -- alone

, , , , , , , ,

National Public Radio has been running a lot of content about racial injustice in the past seven weeks since the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. Some of their pieces have been about religion and race and what’s slowing up response from many evangelicals.

To focus on Southern evangelicals is an interesting choice, in that other groups: Jews, mainline Protestants, Muslims (who have their own race issues) aren’t covered in this NPR project. The three presentations I listened to all focused on evangelicals in the South, as if that’s the only region where you will find real racists.

There are plenty of evangelicals elsewhere: New York, Denver, Los Angeles, who would have a different read on this, so why NPR front-loaded their stories by only visiting southern locales is a mystery. A June 6 presentation by Tom Gjelten illustrates the disconnect.

For evangelical Christian leaders, however, crafting a response to Floyd's killing is complicated by their view of sin in individual, not societal, terms and their belief in the need for personal salvation above all. Evangelical theologians have long rejected the idea of a "social gospel," which holds that the kingdom of God should be pursued by making life better here on earth.

Most evangelicals are old enough to remember what happened last time American denominations focused on social change. Mainline Protestants embraced the civil rights movement, abortion rights, demonstrations against the Vietnam War and when the dust cleared, they were losing members by the millions. Followers wanted to hear about God’s power from the pulpit, not politics.

When I was a teenager at an Episcopal parish in the Baltimore-Washington suburbs in the late 1960s, I saw this first-hand. After one of the priests preached on the evils of American involvement in Vietnam, people left the church.

A June 12 broadcast by Rachel Martin shows the stunning cluelessness of evangelicals on this issue, specifically Todd Wagner of Watermark Church in Dallas.

Considering how controversial this church is, Wagner is an odd choice, if the goal is understanding what mainstream evangelicals are doing or saying.


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

As many Americans celebrate 4th of July, there are fireworks in world of religion news

, , , , , , , ,

Who’s ready for fireworks?

Or maybe not — as the coronavirus pandemic has sparked the cancellation of many holiday celebrations.

In any case: Happy Fourth of July!

As America marks 244 years of independence, “Weekend Plug-in” has reached a milestone of its own: the six-month anniversary of this column.

Although I’m still experimenting to see what works best, I’m loving the opportunity to collaborate with Religion Unplugged’s ambitious team of journalists — a talented mix of youth and experience. And I’m excited by the various media partners that have signed on to republish “Plug-in” some or all of the time, including The Christian Chronicle, Religion News Service, GetReligion and MinistryWatch.com.

Please keep the ideas and feedback coming, and let me know what you like and what you don’t: Email me or tweet me.

Now, for the real fireworks: our weekly analysis, insight and top headlines from the world of faith.

Power Up: The Week’s Best Reads

1. Street corner where George Floyd was killed becomes a revivalist site: “Slate’s Ruth Graham sure knows how to tell a story,” I said back in February.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but Graham’s latest piece — on the scene of Floyd’s Minneapolis death “becoming literal sacred ground” — is another fine example. It’s both interesting and thoroughly reported.

2. Myrlie Evers weeps as Confederate battle flag comes down in Mississippi: The new state flag in Mississippi must include the phrase “In God We Trust,” but it can’t include the Confederate battle flag, noted Jerry Mitchell of the Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting.

As Religion Unplugged highlighted earlier this year, Mitchell’s 2020 memoir “Race Against Time” details how the veteran journalist helped win justice in a series of civil rights era murder cases. Myrlie Evers, the widow of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, plays a prominent role in Mitchell’s book. And his reporting on her emotional reaction to the Confederate emblem’s removal from the state flag is a must read.


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

Podcast: Why didn't @NYTimes mention complex political history of 'equal access' laws?

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

The church-state roller-coaster at the U.S. Supreme Court just keeps going and we’re not done yet.

The main purpose of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) was to talk about my recent post about Chief Justice Roberts and his decision to switch sides and defend the high court’s abortion legacy. SCOTUS, on a 5-4 vote, took down a Louisiana state law that would have required doctors working in abortion facilities to have the same kind of admitting privileges at local hospitals and those who work in other specialty surgery centers.

Mainstream journalists didn’t seem interested in the personalities behind that law. To get those ordinary facts, readers had to go to religious and/or “conservative” websites. Thus, I offered this headline: “Conservative news? White GOP justice strikes down bill by black, female pro-life Democrat.” Gov. John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, who signed the bill, is a Democrat, too.

Why did so many journalists ignore that angle? It would appear that those facts didn’t fit into the white evangelicals just love Donald Trump template. Why muddy the political waters with coverage of two Democrats — a black Baptist and a white Catholic?

Lo and behold, by the time we did the live Lutheran Public Radio show, the court had released another 5-4 decision that, at first glance, had little or nothing to do with the Louisiana abortion bill. Here’s the New York Times double-decker headline on that story:

Supreme Court Gives Religious Schools More Access to State Aid

Religious schools should have the same access to scholarships and funds as other private schools, the justices ruled, in a victory for conservatives.

Readers who have followed church-state issues will recognize a key fact that the Times team — to its credit — got into that headline: Secular and religious private schools should be treated the same.

That immediately made me wonder if the Times, and other major mainstream outlets, were going to realize that this “equal access” principle was crucial to the church-state coalition of liberals and conservatives that accomplished so much working with (wait for it) the Clinton White House.

That’s interesting, right?


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

U.S. Catholics divided by #BlackLivesMatter strategies as 2020 elections loom ahead

, , , , , , , ,

The video of 75-year-old activist Martin Gugino being pushed to the ground earlier this month by police in riot gear highlighted the divide between protesters seeking criminal justice reforms and the very officers tasked with ensuring the safety of all citizens.

Gugino suffered a fractured skull in the June 4 incident in Buffalo, a city in upstate New York. He quickly became an example of officers using excessive force, one of many captured on video during protests that arose following the Memorial Day murder of George Floyd while in police custody in Minneapolis. Gugino is described by friends as a devout Roman Catholic and a lifelong advocate for the poor.

“I think it's very unnecessary to focus on me. There are plenty of other things to think about besides me,” Gugino said in a statement.

Gugino’s activism and the Black Lives Matter protests have not only drawn attention to deep fissures in American society on the issue of race, but have further polarized American Catholics. This intra-Catholic doctrinal debate, which began in the 1960s with the Second Vatican Council, remains relevant regarding the relationship between faith and politics.

Progressive Catholics, dating back to Dorothy Day and her social activism of the 1930s, see it as their role to help the United States achieve racial equality.

Traditional Catholics, however, see Black Lives Matter — the actual organization with a detailed policy platform, as opposed to the #BlackLivesMatter cause — as part of a sinister force that wants to spread Marxist ideology. Journalists need to investigate the differences between Black Lives Matter the cause, with many peaceful protests across the nation, often with strong support from churches, and the actual political organization.

While Catholics agree that racism is an issue in American society, the proposed remedies for those ills differ wildly. Again, there are fierce debates here worthy of news coverage.

For example, many Catholics, particularly Latinos, were angered when protesters toppled a statue of Catholic missionary St. Junipero Serra in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco this past weekend. The same was done to Serra’s statue in Los Angeles. Some have accused the Spanish-born Serra, an 18th century Franciscan friar who is credited with bringing Roman Catholicism to California, of brutalizing Native Americans and forcing them to convert.

The events of recent weeks and the looming presidential election continues to fuel the divide among Catholics across the political spectrum.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Kneeling or rising: Should readers be told both sides of Emancipation Memorial debates?

, , , , ,

As the old saying goes, a picture is worth 1,000 words. This does not, however, mean that everyone who views an image will agree on what it is saying. The same thing is true for statues.

Americans have been arguing about the meaning of the Emancipation Memorial in Washington, D.C., ever since the image was created, erected and then dedicated. At the heart of the debates is a basic question: What is this statue saying? What is happening in this image?

Apparently, there are two ways of “reading” this statue. People who know the story that the artist was telling may — repeat “may” — see the statue differently than those who do not. The question for journalists is whether readers need to hear from people on both sides of this debate as it has unfolded over the decades and now, in the #BlackLivesMatter age, has reached a boiling point.

Here is the top of a recent Washington Post story that offered a summary of the speech that the great Frederick Douglass delivered when the statue was dedicated. Here is the overture:

On April 14, 1876, Frederick Douglass arrived at the unveiling ceremony for the Emancipation Memorial, the statue now under attack by some protesters in Washington’s Lincoln Park.

A crowd of 25,000, many of them African American, had gathered to hear Douglass speak on the 11th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination.

By all accounts, Douglass, the great orator and abolitionist, was not pleased with the monument, which depicted Lincoln holding a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation while towering over a kneeling black man who had broken his chains.

Yes, note that the freed slave had the strength to break his own chains. Other crucial questions: Is the slave kneeling or, with one knee raised, is he rising to his feet? Also, is he rising because Lincoln has told him he should not kneel to a man? That would be the opposite of what critics see in this image.


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

Conservative news? White GOP justice strikes down bill by black, female pro-life Democrat

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No doubt about it, there were some interesting political angles linked to the latest U.S. Supreme Court setback for Americans who want to see more safety regulations applied to the abortion facilities.

Much of the news coverage of this 5-4 decision focused — with good reason — on Chief Justice John Roberts voting with the court’s liberal wing. Once again, press reports stressed that Roberts showed maturity, independence and nuance as he voted against his own alleged convictions, as stated in a dissent in an earlier case on a similar bill.

The coverage also stressed — with good cause — the potential impact of this decision on the Election Day enthusiasm of (wait for it) evangelicals who back the Donald Trump machine.

But there was another crucial element of this story that I expected to receive some coverage. I am talking about the origins of the actual Louisiana legislation that was struck down by the court.

Who created this bill and why did they create it? Was this some kind of Trump-country project backed by the usual suspects? Actually — no. The key person behind this bill was State Sen. Katrina Jackson, an African-American lawyer from Monroe, La. The bill was then signed by Governor John Bel Edwards, also a Democrat.

But wait, you say: Democrats in Louisiana are different. The Catholic church and the black church are major players, when it comes to the state’s mix of populist economics and a more conservative approach to culture.

In other words, there is a religion angle to this story, as well as the obvious political hooks that dominated the coverage. Hold that thought, because we will come back to it. First, here is the top of the Associated Press story that ran across the nation:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics, reasserting a commitment to abortion rights over fierce opposition from dissenting conservative justices in the first big abortion case of the Trump era.

Chief Justice John Roberts and his four more liberal colleagues ruled that a law that requires doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals violates abortion rights the court first announced in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.


Please respect our Commenting Policy