Women

, , , , , , ,

Will Joe Biden's faith become a campaign issue as anti-Catholic attacks rise in America?

, , , , , , ,

The summer that has been highlighted by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, protests and statue-toppling has placed a spotlight on everything that’s wrong with politics.

But there are more dark clouds for people in pews and at altars. As the coronavirus crisis worsens, Christians and people of all faiths must face one stark reality — the possibility that their faith will be further eroded by secular society.

The spread of the coronavirus has been a boon for some politicians. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has essentially run a stealth campaign from his home (and benefitted from this safe strategy in the polls), while President Donald Trump has risked one television interview after another in an effort to get his message out.

Trump is acting like a candidate on the ropes, not an incumbent. He appears to have no clear second-term agenda.

The virus, meanwhile, has also given some lawmakers the chance to act more authoritarian in the name of science, meaning churches can close but anti-racism protests can continue. While populism has suffered during quarantine lockdowns (no rallies!), more extreme forces may actually benefit in this election cycle and over the coming decade.

Totalitarianism, in any form, isn’t good for religious people. Neither is the political and cultural balkanization we are witnessing across the country. With three months to go before Americans cast their votes, the divisive nature of our politics will likely get worse.

How worse? During this time of cultural reckonings, some activists have tried to lump Catholic saints into the same category as treasonous Confederate generals. That has forced some Republicans to increasingly trumpet traditional Christian values, while Democrats get dangerously closer to Marxism.

That means that old-school religious centrists — and lawmakers prone to making compromises like former Sen. Joe Lieberman — will disappear from our national politics. These people will be forced to choose a side or remain largely absent from the U.S. political system.

Who will voters support?


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

The unorthodox life of Kamala Harris: The future of interfaith American politics?

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

Hang on for a wild ride.

Try to avoid whiplash.

Yes, it was another crazy week in the world of religion news and we’re going to cover the highlights in a hurry.

Starting with the obvious: Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s selection of U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California as his running mate brings plenty of faith angles.

Elana Schor, the national religion and politics writer for The Associated Press, notes that the 55-year-old Harris “attended services at both a Black Baptist church and a Hindu temple growing up — an interfaith background that reflects her historic status as the first Black woman and woman of South Asian descent on a major-party presidential ticket.”

Bob Smietana, editor-in-chief of Religion News Service, dubs Harris “the interfaith candidate,” and RNS national correspondent Yonat Shimron offers “five faith facts about Biden’s VP choice.” In a separate story, Shimron suggests that Harris “is also the future of American religion.”

But the crucial angles related to Harris and religion aren’t all positive, even if some news coverage is. Can you say “Knights of Columbus”?

Her selection prompted the National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis to write about what DeSanctis’ article called “Kamala Harris’s Anti-Catholic Bigotry.” Even before the Harris pick, Kelsey Dallas, the Deseret News’ national religion writer, had reported last week on Biden’s “tough road ahead on religious freedom.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

No longer a clump of cells? Mainstream press stories on unborn use 'baby' language

, , , ,

Inspiring. “Uplifting,” “amazing” and “beautiful.”

Those were some of the praises lavished on an upbeat Washington Post story about a 28-weeks-pregnant woman with COVID-19. As she was overtaken with respiratory failure, obstetricians quickly delivered her very premature twins in March.

It was at the height of the coronavirus crisis. Moreover, the mother was black; a subgroup that has much higher maternal mortality rates than do white women. Suddenly, after the birth, the mother improved.

So why are we commenting on this? Why did GetReligion readers send us this URL? Look at the wording, folks.

On a bright October day last fall, Ebony Brown-Olaseinde and her husband, Segun Olaseinde, found out that their longtime dream had finally been realized: They were going to be parents. After three years spent trying to conceive, they had succeeded through in vitro fertilization — and they soon learned that their twins, a boy and a girl, were due in June 2020.

By the beginning of March, Ebony, 40, an accountant in Newark, was feeling grateful that her high-risk pregnancy had progressed so easily. Segun, 43, an operations manager for UPS, couldn’t wait to be a father. Ebony’s doctors told the couple that she’d reached an important milestone: At 24 weeks, their twins were viable, more likely to survive if they arrived early

Twenty-four weeks?

As recently as a year ago, the Post was referring to babies that far along as fetuses. Let’s read on:

That was one week before the World Health Organization formally declared the coronavirus pandemic. Ten days after that, Ebony suddenly began feeling short of breath.

What follows is a nail biter of a story where, for awhile, it was unclear as to whether the mother would survive the birth.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Question when covering Latter-day Saints: Do we have a Mother in heaven as well as a Father?

, , , , ,

THE QUESTION:

Do we have a Mother in Heaven as well as a Father?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The answer is yes, according to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (long and universally nicknamed “Mormon” though church authorities are now asking journalists not to use that label).

Feminists continually criticize this religion for limiting all of its governing posts to men except for women’s and educational auxiliaries, yet church defenders can argue that this doctrine ennobles the female gender.

Belief in the Heavenly Mother is a wholly unique aspect of the LDS faith.

So is the related assertion in LDS Scripture that God the Father literally “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man,” thus rejecting the spiritual-only God the Father in traditional Christianity (and similarly in Judaism and Islam). Though official LDS statements do not explore this, it seems logical that the Heavenly Mother would also be embodied.

The church believes each person lives in an unremembered heavenly existence before earthly birth, and was the procreated spirit child of the two heavenly parents. The divine Father and Mother couple fits with the LDS teaching that humans must be married in order to achieve full exaltation in the afterlife.

The Mother is not cited in the Bible nor in the added LDS Scriptures from founding Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. However, the church reports that this was part of Smith’s original teaching. One year after Smith was assassinated in 1844 his polygamous wife Eliza R. Snow affirmed the Mother tenet in a beloved hymn lyric.

“ … In the heav’ns are parents single? / No, the thought makes reason stare! / Truth is reason; truth eternal / tells me I’ve a mother there. / When I leave this frail existence, / When I lay this mortal by, / Father, Mother, may I meet you / in your royal courts on high?”


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

'But Gorsuch...' crashes at Supreme Court: Now watch for 'Utah' references in news reports

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

It’s no surprise that mainstream news reports about the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling on LGBTQ rights for secular workers included a strong note of celebration. To the victors go the spoils and this was a big win for the cultural left and, one can only assume, the new middle America — as defined by the Harvard and Yale law schools.

The unanswered question hanging over all of this was, of course, the same one that haunted the majority opinion written by Donald Trump’s first choice for the high court. That would be: What happens to the bigots — sexual orientation now equals race — in churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., who run schools and nonprofit organizations built on centuries of premodern doctrine? After all, it’s hard to tolerate religious believers who are intolerant.

It’s also important, of course, to ask whether grieving believers on the religious and cultural right will stay home during the 2020 elections since they can no longer say, “But the Supreme Court” when justifying votes for the Tweeter In Chief.

Expect waves of coverage of that in the days ahead, of course.

Political wars vs. religion news? No contest.

What matters the most, to readers in middle America, is how this story was covered by the Associated Press. In this case, AP stuck close to the political and legal angles of the decision, with little or no interpretation from activists on the left, the right or in the middle.

In other words, this was not a story in which First Amendment content was crucial. So there. The headline: “Supreme Court says gay, transgender workers protected by law.” Here’s the overture:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

In Phyllis Schlafly biopic on FX, evangelicals got all the acid -- but Schlafly was Catholic

, , , , , ,

“Mrs. America,” a nine-part biopic on Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly and her philosophical opposites in the 1970s feminist movement, ended last week on Walt Disney’s FX Channel. Depressingly, the show never got down to the religious convictions that drove this cultural pioneer.

I last wrote about the show here in the hopes that this infotainment extravaganza might get better. It did not. You could see this in the shows. You could see this in news coverage of the series.

Instead, this media event became a lesson on how blue-staters (and I live in one such locale) perceive the universe. Conservative — and usually religious — characters were one-dimensional jerks while the folks on the left were interesting, complex people with much inner turmoil. The latter group was always true to their nobler selves whereas Schlafly was never true to anything except her own scheming self.

As I watched episodes week by week, I was surprised that conservative and religious-market media — Catholic media, for example — weren’t tracking this rewrite of history, despite accusations being lobbed at Schlafly such as her being in bed with the Ku Klux Klan.

Never mind that even Slate said evidence was sketchy at best that Schlafly colluded with that group. The Klan was anti-Catholic and Schlafly was Catholic. But let’s not let the facts get in our way, in a series that many news outlets took seriously as a commentary on that era.

The real heroes of the show were the founding members of the National Women’s Political Caucus such as U.S. Reps. Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm, author Betty Friedan, Republican operative Jill Ruckelshaus and Gloria Steinem, co-founder of Ms. Magazine. Their beliefs and assumptions — including an unstinting advocacy on behalf of abortion — are never questioned, whereas Schlafly is continually portrayed as a racist who specializes in weird put-downs of her black housekeepers. Has anyone offered on-the-record, journalism-level proof that there incidents ever happened?

Schlafly does have a biographer, David Critchlow, but no one checked with him before airing the show. Here’s what he told The Federalist about all the factual errors in the series.

The show took such liberties with reality that even the Los Angeles Times ran fact-checker pieces after each episode explaining what was made up and what was true.


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

The Quran, round 2: Publishing commentary based on Christian perspectives makes news

, , , , , , ,
The Quran, round 2: Publishing commentary based on Christian perspectives makes news

Only a month ago, The Religion Guy proposed that people with COVID-imposed time on their hands take this opportunity to study Islam’s holy book, the Quran, which is so vital for 21st Century faith and also for national security and politics in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries.

The Guy Memo especially recommended “The Study Quran” (HarperOne), with its fresh new translation and elaborate commentary. This work was produced by a team of North American Muslim scholars led by Seyyed Hossein Nasr of George Washington University.

Now, by coincidence, The Guy alerts fellow writers to the release of an equally path-breaking publication: “The Quran with Christian Commentary” (from the Zondervan line at HarperCollins). The Guy believes this is a first for a Christian publisher, and quite a bold innovation.

The extensive verse-by-verse commentary is by Mennonite Brethren scholar Gordon D. Nickel (Ph.D., Calgary), who directs the Islam program at the South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies in India and he formerly taught in Pakistan. His chief consultant was J. Dudley Woodberry (Ph.D., Harvard), an Islamic studies professor and former dean at Fuller Theological Seminary with research experience in 35 Muslim countries.

This work arrives with fond blurbs from experts at universities in Birmingham (U.K.), Bonn, Brussels and Oxford. Nickel’s commentary, and topical articles from a dozen other specialists on Islam, accompany the well-regarded English translation of the Quran by A. J. Droge of the University of Toronto at Scarborough (Equinox Publishing, 2012).

Obvious news angles abound.

The commentary explains and responds to Islam’s viewpoints on Jesus (yes a prophet and messiah, but neither crucified nor divine) and on Jews and Christians, and attacks upon the Bible’s veracity. There’s important discussion of interpretations in Islam’s minority Shi’a branch and of the complex history of Quran texts, which were standardized at a crucial 1924 conference in Cairo.

From the standpoint of religious knowledge, those are central questions. Nickel’s tone seeks to be friendly and respectful but — important for journalism and for cultural awareness otherwise — he clearly defines the substantial differences in belief between the world’s two dominant religions.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

FX documentary on Norma McCorvey omits key Catholic sources who knew her best

, , , , , ,

Years ago, a pro-life activist told me that her movement had several dirty little secrets — as in people who had been on the abortion-rights side of the equation, then flipped to the other side but were impossible to deal with or had weird lifestyles.

One such personality was Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” of the famous 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Shortly before McCorvey died in 2017, she consented to being part of a documentary that just aired on FX Networks (I saw it on Hulu) last week. McCorvey’s “deathbed” assertions first hit the Los Angeles Times:

When Norma McCorvey, the anonymous plaintiff in the landmark Roe vs. Wade case, came out against abortion in 1995, it stunned the world and represented a huge symbolic victory for abortion opponents: “Jane Roe” had gone to the other side. For the remainder of her life, McCorvey worked to overturn the law that bore her name.

But it was all a lie, McCorvey says in a documentary filmed in the months before her death in 2017, claiming she only did it because she was paid by antiabortion groups including Operation Rescue.

“I was the big fish. I think it was a mutual thing. I took their money and they’d put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say. That’s what I’d say,” she says in “AKA Jane Roe,” which premieres Friday on FX. “It was all an act. I did it well too. I am a good actress.”

Many of us religion reporters who were working in the 1990s also interviewed McCorvey. There is no way she was putting on an act when I talked with her and I know other journalists who’d say the same thing. The most gaping hole in this story is linked to McCorvey’s conversion to Catholicism and the wealth of evidence that she sincerely practiced that faith.

After watching the movie on Hulu, it’s hard to tell what’s true and what’s false about this woman. She’s switched personas more than once in this battle.


Please respect our Commenting Policy