Religious Liberty

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

The Atlantic probes QAnon sect and finds (#shocking) another evangelical-ish conspiracy

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

There are times, when reading the sprawling “Shadowland” package at The Atlantic, when one is tempted to think that the goal was to weave a massive liberal conspiracy theory about the role that conservative conspiracy theories play in Donald Trump’s America.

At the center of this drama — of course — is evangelical Christianity. After all, evangelical Christians are to blame for Trump’s victory, even if they didn’t swing all those crucial states in the Catholic-labor Rust Belt.

It’s almost as if evangelicals are playing, for some strategic minds on the left, the same sick, oversized role in American life that some evangelicals assign to Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Bill Gates and all those liberal Southern Baptist intellectuals who love Johnny Cash and Jane Austen.

Let’s focus on this piece: “The Prophecies of Q.” Toward the end, a fervent supporter of Trump and the mysterious QAnon offers her credo. It’s clear that she speaks for, you know, millions of people hiding like terrorist sleeper cells in ordinary pews from coast to coast.

This had been something she was reluctant to speak about at first. Now, she said, “I feel God led me to Q. I really feel like God pushed me in this direction. I feel like if it was deceitful, in my spirit, God would be telling me, ‘Enough’s enough.’ But I don’t feel that. I pray about it. I’ve said, ‘Father, should I be wasting my time on this?’ … And I don’t feel that feeling of I should stop.”

Well, “GOD WINS” and all that.

This leads us to an update on “The Late Great Planet Earth” and legions of similar end-of-the-world classics, only this time the man on great white horse (or whatever) is Trump:

Arthur Jones, the director of the documentary film Feels Good Man … told me that QAnon reminds him of his childhood growing up in an evangelical-Christian family in the Ozarks. He said that many people he knew then, and many people he meets now in the most devout parts of the country, are deeply interested in the Book of Revelation, and in trying to unpack “all of its pretty-hard-to-decipher prophecies.” Jones went on: “I think the same kind of person would all of a sudden start pulling at the threads of Q and start feeling like everything is starting to fall into place and make sense. If you are an evangelical and you look at Donald Trump on face value, he lies, he steals, he cheats, he’s been married multiple times, he’s clearly a sinner. But you are trying to find a way that he is somehow part of God’s plan.”

Author Adrienne LaFrance does note that conspiracy theories exist on the cultural and political left (maybe, kind of), as well as the theological and political right. But it’s clear evangelical Protestantism is the X factor in this growing threat to America and the world.


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

New podcast: Franklin Graham comes to Central Park, earning solid quotes in Gray Lady

, , , , , , , , ,

It’s easy to argue about Franklin Graham.

For starters, he is the heir of much of the ministry of the Rev. Billy Graham, and it’s hard to name a figure in mainstream Christianity who was more beloved than Billy Graham.

At the same time, Franklin Graham has openly aligned himself with Donald Trump, turning away from even the modest criticisms he offered during the primary season before the 2016 shocker. His theological critique of all of this has been blunt, to say the least.

That’s his style, and people love to argue about that. As I said in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), Franklin Graham has rarely used a flyswatter when a baseball bat will do.

But the fact that so many people ARGUE about Franklin Graham implies that there are good things to say about him (from multiple points of view) as well as bad things to say (from multiple points of view). It should be easy to write provocative, balanced news stories about him because there are so many people, with so many different perspectives, who have strong opinions about him.

However, mainstream press coverage of Franklin Graham tends to portray him as — let me state this mildly — the tacky son of a great man who is now one of the bigoted evangelical vandals who want to sack the American Rome (that would be New York City).

This brings me to an interesting, and in many ways admirable, New York Time story that ran the other day with this sprawling two-deck headline:

Franklin Graham Is Taking Down His N.Y. Hospital, but Not Going Quietly

His critics accuse him of discriminating against L.G.B.T. people. “Just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean I’m against them,” he said.

This lengthy story contains quite a bit of material in which Graham defends his organization and his own beliefs. It helps that he came to New York City — there is a lesson here for other religious leaders, especially evangelicals — and was willing to stand in front of microphones and answer questions.

The story, however, doesn’t include much in the way of information about what Samaritan’s Purse does and how long Graham and his team has been doing what they do.

Does that matter?


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

What was that all about? New York hipsters, Hasidic Jews and slanted social-distancing rules

, , , , , , , ,

For a week or more, I gathered information about one of the most painful puzzles in the coronavirus crisis in New York City — the clashes between the city government and Hasidic Jewish leaders and their followers.

Did these ultra-Orthodox Jews break the “shelter in place” rules? Of course they did.

Had they made attempts to work with city officials in advance, but then emotions linked to the funeral of a rabbi got out of control? Yes, that appeared to be the case.

Was that infamous tweet from Mayor Bill de Blasio — aimed at the whole “Jewish community” — utterly bizarre? Yes it was.

So what was the real issue here? Hold that thought. First, here is a large chunk of an essential New York Times story — “2,500 Mourners Jam a Hasidic Funeral, Creating a Flash Point for de Blasio“ — as background information for those who didn’t follow this drama.

Soon after a revered Hasidic rabbi died of the coronavirus in Brooklyn … his fellow congregants informed the Police Department of an unexpected decision: Despite the coronavirus restrictions now in place, they would hold a public funeral.

The local police precinct did not stand in their way, a testament to the Hasidic community’s influence in the Williamsburg neighborhood. By 3:30 p.m., police officers began erecting barricades, expecting a small number of mourners to show up. Loudspeakers were put up to help mourners hear while keeping their distance.

But by 7:30 p.m., an estimated 2,500 ultra-Orthodox Jewish men had arrived to mourn Rabbi Chaim Mertz, packing together shoulder-to-shoulder on the street and on the steps of brownstones, clearly violating social distancing guidelines and turning the funeral into one of the most fraught events of the virus crisis for Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Police began to disperse the mourners, some of whom were not wearing masks. Word of the gathering soon reached City Hall, where the mayor decided to go to Brooklyn to oversee the dispersal himself.


The backlash against de Blasio was incredible. Yes, the word “Anti-Semitism” was used.

I kept reading the coverage, wondering: Was this just a New York City story or was there content here that is related to how journalists are covering COVID-19 stories elsewhere in America?


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

Journalists should be gearing up for big 'culture war' cases at U.S. Supreme Court

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The COVID-19 emergency shouldn’t divert the media from getting prepared for an unusual pileup of big “culture war” news that will break at the U.S. Supreme Court during the weeks through early July.

Pending decisions the media will need to interpret involve abortion, religious conscience claims, gay and transgender rights, taxpayer aid for students at religious school and (yet again) religious objections to mandatory birth-control coverage under Obamacare. Next term, the court will take up the direct conflict between LGBTQ advocacy and religious conscience, an uber-important problem.

These cases will show us how the newest justices, Neil Gorsuch (age 52, seated 2017) and Brett Kavanaugh (age 55, seated 2018), will be reshaping court edicts on religio-cultural disputes.

Here are the imminent decisions to be ready for.

Espinoza v. Montana (docket #18-1195) — This regards the venerable “Blaine amendments” in many state constitutions that forbid religion-related aid by taxpayers. Does a state violate the U.S. Constitution’s “equal protection” clause if it denies generally available public scholarships to students who attend religious schools?

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, incorporating Trump v. Pennsylvania (19-431) — Last week, the court heard arguments in this case involving claims of religious rights vs. women’s rights. Did a Trump administration setup properly exempt religious objectors from the Obamacare mandate that requires employers to arrange birth-control coverage?

June Medical Services v. Russo (18-1323) — Louisiana requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, which pro-choice advocates say hobbles women’s access to abortion. In 2016, a Supreme Court with different membership threw out such a regulation in Texas

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, incorporating St. James School v. Biel (docket # 19-267) — The court heard the argument on this Monday via a COVID-era telephone conference. This Catholic school case from California poses whether under the Constitution’s religious freedom clause schools and agencies can discriminate in hiring workers who are not officially ordained “ministers” but may carry out some religious functions. In a similar Lutheran case in 2012, the high court said yes.


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

Talk about burying the lede! Knox officials wanted to 'open up,' while banning Holy Communion?

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

If you have been following the ecclesiastical shelter-in-place wars, then you know that the most interesting stories — in terms of journalism and debates in the public square — as moved on to debates about safe worship that includes social-distancing principles.

Evangelicals and other low-church Protestants have a distinct advantage here, with their emphasis on preaching and small-ensemble praise music. It’s harder to distribute Holy Communion from a distance, even if worshipers in liturgical churches are six feet or more apart while sitting in their pews.

Some state and local officials seem to be struggling with these coronavirus issues. This is also true of for journalists, who really need to be listening to shepherds in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran churches. It may even be possible to interview them.

In a recent “On Religion” column, I noted these interesting remarks by a high-profile archbishop:

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, in an online essay, stressed that whenever Catholic priests approach their altars the saints and "all God's people" are spiritually present. He also praised clergy who have found ways to carry on with their work – while following social-distancing guidelines.

"Our parish priests have risen to the occasion, with innovative ways to distribute Holy Communion, expose the Blessed Sacrament for adoration, hear confessions and anoint and visit the sick," noted Dolan. "They assemble at graveside to bury our dead. Our courageous chaplains in hospitals and nursing homes are on the front lines."

I bring this up because of a recent story in my local paper, The Knoxville News Sentinel, that ran with this headline: “Are church services allowed Sunday in Knoxville? Yes, but it's not encouraged.” It described a rather typical conflict between a rather lenient state governor and strict local officials — strict to the point of potential First Amendment clashes.

The problem? Some of the most shocking details were buried — quite literally — at the end of this story. Hold that thought. First, here is the overture:

There is nothing stopping worshipers from congregating for services, but no official is recommending churches, synagogues and mosques throw open their doors right away.


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

YouTube thinker: Methodist conservative chats with RNS' Jack Jenkins about religious left

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

Every few years, like clockwork, American newspapers roll out pre-election features about a revival of activity on what can accurately be called the “Religious Left” — even if few journalists have granted it the upper-case-letter status of the ominous Religious Right.

From Day 1 here at GetReligion, I have argued that activity on the theological and political left is one of the most overlooked stories of recent decades. I have at least three reasons for saying that:

(1) The demographic implosion of the denominations known as the Seven Sisters of liberal Protestantism — the decline escalated in the late ‘70s and the ‘80s — left room in the American public square for the emergence of modern evangelicalism. Religious progressives, however, maintained crucial high ground in elite institutions of the left and right coasts.

(2) Progressive Catholics have always played a crucial role in the Democratic Party, even as — at the ballot box — it was easy to see a growing divide between liberal “cultural Catholics” and more conservative Catholics who worship once a week or even more.

(3) Journalists tend to focus on religious liberals as a political force, while paying little or no attention to THEOLOGICAL trends on that side of the church aisle (other than changes that affect LGBTQ issues).

Theological questions will be even more important for the Religious Left in the future, as the political left grows more and more secular (think atheists, agnostics and “nones”). How will this affect, for example, crucial ties to African-American churches, which tend to be more conservative on moral issues? And while we are at it, check out this new chart from political scientist (and progressive Baptist pastor) Ryan Burge, a GetReligion contributor (whose Twitter feed has been on fire the past couple of days).

I bring all of this up because of a fascinating video chat that took place the other day between United Methodist conservative Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and veteran progressive scribe Jack Jenkins — formerly of ThinkProgress and the Center for American Progress — who now covers national news for Religion News Service. The subject is a new book by Jenkins with the logical title, “American Prophets: The Religious Roots of Progressive Politics and the Ongoing Fight for the Soul of the Country.”


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

Awkwardly timed issue: Should hard-pressed churches still want to be tax exempt?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Awkwardly timed issue: Should hard-pressed churches still want to be tax exempt?

THE QUESTION:
Should hard-pressed churches want to be tax-exempt?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

“Religion Q & A” has pondered tax exemption three times already, in items posted on November 9, 2013; January 22, 2017; and then on October 25, 2019, when stripping of tax exemption from houses of worship erupted as a surprise issue in the Democratic campaign for president.

The 2019 round involved CNN’s “Equality Town Hall” when anchorman Don Lemon asked candidate “Beto” O’Rourke if “colleges, churches, charities” that “oppose same-sex marriage” should lose their tax exemptions. O’Rourke said yes, that no tax break should be granted to “any institution, any organization” holding that belief. No-one else on stage (Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Harris, Klobuchar, Steyer, Warren) expressed disagreement.

But later, Pete Buttigieg (himself in a gay marriage) clarified that such religious colleges and social-service agencies should lose exemptions — but it would be too divisive to penalize religious congregations.

He didn’t mention it but there’d be a major legal tangle if churches and other non-profit groups that favor gay marriage retain tax exemption, but it is denied to those who dissent. The courts say it’s illicit for government to discriminate this way on the basis of viewpoint or to get entangled in one side of doctrinal disagreements.

Now there’s a new twist. Instead of complaints from liberal politicians, secularist lobbies or cities hungry for revenue (which in the Covid era means all of them), a cover story in the January-February issue of the evangelical magazine Christianity Today said churches should not even want to be tax exempt.

Talk about awkward timing. Only weeks later, COVID-19 slammed everything, churches included.


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

Podcast: Do journalists doubt that the Little Sisters of the Poor are doing ministry work?

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

It should be an obvious question for journalists who have been covering the Little Sisters of the Poor drama at the U.S. Supreme Court.

What do the sisters do in their ministry work that downgrades their First Amendment rights? What are they doing that undercuts their vows to follow the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church?

There has to be something that creates a legal gap between Catholic parishes and a religious order like the Little Sisters of the Poor, who specialize in taking care of the elderly and the poor.

Maybe the problem is that they do something other than “worship” inside the doors of a chapel or convent? Maybe the problem is that they hire other people to assist them in their ministries? Is that what turns them into a vaguely religious non-profit organization?

These are some of the questions discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which dug into some of the news coverage of this order’s latest visit to SCOTUS. This is, of course, linked to the order’s rejection of the Obamacare mandate requiring most “religious institutions” to offer their employees, and often students, health-insurance plans covering sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including "morning-after pills."

What’s the problem? Consider this passage from the NPR coverage of the sisters and the high court:

At issue in the case is a Trump administration rule that significantly cuts back on access to birth control under the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare, the massive overhaul of the health care system, sought to equalize preventive health care coverage for women and men by requiring employers to include free birth control in their health care plans.

Houses of worship like churches and synagogues were automatically exempted from the provision, but religiously affiliated nonprofits like universities, charities and hospitals were not. Such organizations employ millions of people, many of whom want access to birth control for themselves and their family members. But many of these institutions say they have a religious objection to providing birth control for employees.

Maybe the problem is that all churches and synagogues do is “worship,” inside the doors of their sanctuaries, while schools, charities and hospitals (often called “ministries”) do “real” things, like education, medicine and social activism. Thus, even if religious doctrines are at the foundation of their work, these groups are not as “religious” as houses of worship?


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

Jess Fields got tired of short, shallow news interviews: So he started doing loooong podcasts

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

Jess Fields is a small businessman (ask him about cigars), an Eastern Orthodox family man and a news consumer who is especially interested in stories about religion. He has also worked in nonpartisan think tanks linked to issues in state and local governments. He is enthusiastic about life in Houston (due to personal Texas Gulf Coast history I will have no further comment on that).

All in all, Fields is not a logical guy to start a podcast about religion, politics and other subjects that interest him. So why did he do exactly that?

Well, he told me that he “grew tired of the edited mudslinging that passes for ‘interviews’“ and decided that he “could do better.” His goal is to produce “long-form interviews with guests from multiple perspectives, providing a neutral platform for different views to be heard and considered in a respectful manner.” In other words, his interviews are really long.

Fields got off to a hot start with a newsworthy chat with the Rev. Tony Spell of Life Tabernacle Church just outside of Baton Rouge, La., the man behind a blitz of coronavirus headlines because of his rejection of “shelter in place” orders. Spell has been arrested and faced all kinds of questions when it appeared, on video, that he backed a church bus dangerously close to a protestor.

That led to this:

#1 — Pastor Tony Spell — On Refusing to Comply with Coronavirus Orders

We interview Pastor Tony Spell of Life Tabernacle Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Pastor Spell and his congregation are refusing to comply with Louisiana's stay-at-home orders due to the coronavirus pandemic. He has been arrested for violating the orders, but continues to hold packed church services. This is the most comprehensive interview Pastor Spell has granted.

Pastor Spell has his critics, as you would imagine, so Fields decided to do a lengthy interview with one of them — Rod Dreher (who lives in Baton Rouge).


Please respect our Commenting Policy