, , , ,

About UFOs, Trump and that poll showing lots of Americans still believe Obama is a Muslim

, , , ,

So, President Barack Obama's faith is back in the news.

Precisely, the headlines concern a new poll showing a surprising (or not?) number of Americans still believe Obama is a Muslim.

USA Today boils down the latest news this way:

Despite a Hawaii birth certificate and repeated professions of his Christian faith, fairly large numbers of Americans still believe President Obama is a Muslim born outside of the United States.

Over at the Washington Post, Godbeat pro Sarah Pulliam Bailey offers this rundown of the poll numbers:

Even though President Obama nods to his Christian faith regularly in both serious and light-hearted settings, a large number of Americans still believe he is a Muslim. According to a new CNN/ORC poll, 29 percent of Americans say they think that Obama is a Muslim, including 43 percent of Republicans.
Sixty-one percent of Democrats say Obama is a Protestant, compared with 28 percent of Republicans and 32 percent of independents. Also, according to CNN, 54 percent of those who support Donald Trump say they believe Obama is a Muslim.
Education comes into play: 63 percent of college graduates believe Obama is a Protestant compared with just 28 percent of those who do not have college degrees.
Among all adults, 39 percent say they believe Obama is a Protestant or another kind of Christian, another 11 percent say he’s not religious, and 14 percent that they just don’t know. Of those who took the survey, 4 percent believe he is Catholic, 2 percent think he is Mormon, 1 percent believe he is Jewish, and 1 percent think he is something else.
The number of Americans who believe Obama is a Muslim appears to have jumped since polls from earlier years of his presidency.

Keep reading, and former GetReligionista Bailey does a really nice job of providing insight and background related to Obama's faith and what he has said about it.

But here's my question: Are these poll numbers related to the number of Americans who believe Obama is a Muslim really "surprising" or "startling," as news reports described them?

 


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

Shocking! NPR talks to actual evangelical leaders about Donald Trump and ...

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

Talk about a bad headline! What do you think when you read a headline like this one on the National Public Radio website? A recent "It's All Politics" feature proclaimed: "True Believer? Why Donald Trump Is The Choice Of The Religious Right."

For starters, the "Religious Right" label says more than "evangelical voters." It implies that top leaders on the moral right are jumping onto the Trump mini-bandwagon (with 30-plus percent in polls) in the swarm of GOP White House candidates. It implies, at the very least, that some leaders of big evangelical organizations -- think Concerned Women for America or groups linked to the Southern Baptist Convention -- must be offering muted praise for Trump.

Thus, I assume that this NPR feature was simply the latest in a mainstream media wave linking the vague term "evangelical" with Trump's early surge, a trend I wrote about in a recent "On Religion" column for the Universal syndicate (and the "Crossroads" podcast is here).

That's kind of how this NPR report began, with more of the same old same old.

... Trump is winning over Christian conservatives in the current Republican presidential primary. That's right -- the candidate currently leading among the most faith-filled voters is a twice-divorced casino mogul, who isn't an active member of any church, once supported abortion rights, has a history of crass language -- and who says he's never asked God's forgiveness for any of it.
If that sounds like an Onion story, it's not. His blunt talk against a broken political system in a country rank-and-file evangelicals believe is veering away from its traditional cultural roots is connecting. He pledges to "Make America Great Again," a positive spin on the similar Tea Party refrain of "Take Our Country Back."
That redeeming message -- and his tough talk on immigration, foreign policy and the Republican establishment -- is quite literally trumping traditional evangelical concerns about a candidate's morality or religious beliefs.

Note that the report claims that Trump is "winning over Christian conservatives," as opposed to winning with some Christian conservatives at the local level.

So what does the rest of this NPR report actually show?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Does the Godbeat sometimes fill you with despair? Well, you're far from alone

, , ,
Does the Godbeat sometimes fill you with despair? Well, you're far from alone

My colleague Bobby Ross Jr. posted a piece last week keyed to a comment made by Laurie Goodstein, the veteran, award-winning New York Times religion reporter, who recently pulled down another big Religion Newswriters Association prize.

Here's what she said, as reported by Religion News Service, which was the source of Bobby's lede:

"There are days when I feel despair about the news and the place of religion in it,” said Laurie Goodstein of The New York Times, named first-place winner for excellence in religion reporting at the Religion Newswriters Association’s 66th annual awards ceremony over the [Aug. 27-30] weekend in Philadelphia.
“This work is getting harder,” added Goodstein, in what she said were unprepared remarks. She won in the large newspapers and wire services category for stories published in 2014.

Neither the RNS story or Bobby' post explained further what Goodstein meant. But Bobby did ask others to react to the question of on-the-beat despair. So here's my response.

On-the-job despair? Sure. Perhaps not of the order experienced by William Lobdell (younger readers should click here to understand this older-demographic God-beat reference), but despair nonetheless.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone -- religion journalist or not, person of faith or no faith -- cannot feel despair from time to time if they are at all aware of the vast world that exists outside themselves and they do not seriously numb their sensitivities via escapist self-indulgence (which, I hope it is clear, I am not endorsing).

It's a bloody mess out there, with much of the absurdity, depravity and pain brought to us in the name of religion.


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

Shades of Zarathustra: The New York Times maps dying woman whose brain may live on

, , , , , , ,

Last weekend, a giant New York Times story came out that combined elements of "The Matrix" and “That Hideous Strength” (the C.S. Lewis classic) with a dollop of Brittany Maynard, the 29-year-old Oregon woman who ended her life last year rather than suffer the final months of a brain cancer known as a glioblastoma. GetReligion covered the media circus about this last November, which involved Brittany's media campaign to serve as a poster child for euthanasia.

This time, we have a story again about a 20-something woman with the same kind of brain cancer who chose to preserve her brain. She died in early 2013.

Only now is the Times revealing how it followed this woman about in her final months as she explored the use of her brain for a futurist fantasy where even science fiction writers rarely tread. Although the science involved spans the next few centuries, what the woman wanted is as old as Adam and Eve: To live forever.

In the moments just before Kim Suozzi died of cancer at age 23, it fell to her boyfriend, Josh Schisler, to follow through with the plan to freeze her brain.
As her pulse monitor sounded its alarm and her breath grew ragged, he fumbled for his phone. Fighting the emotion that threatened to paralyze him, he alerted the cryonics team waiting nearby and called the hospice nurses to come pronounce her dead. Any delay would jeopardize the chance to maybe, someday, resurrect her mind.
It was impossible to know on that cloudless Arizona morning in January 2013 which fragments of Kim’s identity might survive, if any.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Las Vegas churches love coffee, except for maybe -- hmmmm -- can you think of anybody?

, , ,

It's one of those cutesy little newspaper features that is what it is.

The Las Vegas Review Journal reports that Las Vegas Valley churches take their faith — and their coffee — seriously.

If you like your ledes with plenty of cream and sugar, this will one will give you just the right jolt of "java and Jesus":

Coffee, tea and Christianity. Las Vegas Valley churches take their caffeine consumption seriously.
We're not talking about a simple pot of joe and a few cookies in a cultural hall after church. Many valley churches operate full-service coffee bars and shops with equipment and service to rival Starbucks.
From The Crossing and Central Christian to Calvary Chapel Spring Valley, coffee is a way of life before, after and even in the sanctuary during services.
At Holy Grounds, the shop inside First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Jill Smith, one of the managers, said they serve more than coffee. There are juices, fresh fruits, doughnuts, bagels and "delicious quiche."
"Our coffee shop is relaxed and gives members and visitors a comfortable place to mingle and get to know each other in a casual setting," she said. "Music is playing, and laughter is always heard. It's our fastest-growing ministry."
"It goes together — java and Jesus," said Vikki Sergio, manager of the Coffee Tree at the International Church of Las Vegas' Westcliff campus.

It's a mildly interesting trend piece, even if churches with espresso bars aren't exactly breaking news.

But as I kept reading, I kept wondering: Um, what about you know who?


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

One polite, calm political story: Bernie Sanders welcomed at Liberty University

, , , , , , , ,

Talk about a cross-cultural event.

No, I am not talking about the fact that Sen. Bernard Sanders spoke at a convocation at Liberty University, which must have been educational both for the speaker and for those in the congregation. I'm talking about the efforts of mainstream reporters to cover this unlikely scene early in the race for the White House.

If you watch the video of the Sanders speech, it is pretty apparent that the socialist from Vermont did his homework and was prepared to seek -- as best he could -- common ground with faculty, students and staff on the campus founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. And reporters, as a rule, did a solid job of handling what Sanders had to say.

What I found interesting were the journalistic attempts, or the lack thereof, to interact with the locals. Take this early passage from the coverage in Roll Call:

Before Sanders entered the campus’ Vine Center to an introduction by Liberty President Jerry Falwell Jr., a campus band played Christian rock songs about the resurrection, including one with the refrain: “I have decided to follow Jesus. No turning back. No turning back.” Not the typical introduction for a Jewish socialist from Vermont during Rosh Hashanah.
Unlike when conservative Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas appeared at the same venue earlier this year to launch his Republican White House bid, there were no real disruptions for outbursts of applause or standing ovations. But neither were there abundant boos or signs of ridicule.
“For me personally, it wasn’t very awkward,” said sophomore engineering student Joe Sobchinsky. “I actually was very happy that Bernie Sanders was coming because college is supposed to be about learning different viewpoints, and even if you don’t agree with someone, I would absolutely listen to them and hear what he has to say, hear his viewpoints.”

There's quite a bit of background in that passage. However, I think it was interesting that the reporter thought "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus" was some kind of trendy "Christian rock song," since that folk hymn from India originated in the 19th Century and became popular at crusades led by the Rev. Billy Graham in the 1950s.


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

Pope Francis and the Republicans: AP story has little interest in the pope and Democrats

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Republicans are jockeying to share the spotlight with Pope Francis when he comes to America this month. Democrats? (shrug)

That's a logical takeaway from an Associated Press story on views of Pope Francis by seven of the GOP's presidential candidates.

And before you can say, "Hey, wait a minute," the story fires a shotgun blast of paragraphs:

To some Republican presidential candidates, it's better to be with the popular pope than against him.
Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have deep policy differences with Pope Francis, but the senators will break off campaign travel to attend his address to Congress later this month, a centerpiece of his eagerly anticipated visit to the United States.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a devout Catholic, will attend Mass with Francis in Washington. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another Catholic candidate, plans to attend one of the pope's East Coast events.

AP does nuance that a bit. It explains that Francis has drawn popular admiration, not only for his kindly manner, but also for his "humility and efforts to refocus the church on the poor and needy." It also says he has waded into "numerous hot-button political issues" like immigration, climate change, the Iran nuclear deal and diplomatic relations with Cuba.

So the article has Bush applauding Francis as an "amazing man" with a "gentle soul." And Rubio honors Francis as a "moral authority" but adds, "I'm a political leader and my job as a policymaker is to act in the common good."

The story also reports sidesteps by Scott Walker and Rick Santorum, who say they’ll be out of town when the pope visits Washington. That strikes me as odd to single out those two but not, say, Ben Carson, named last week in a CNN poll as GOP's current front runner.

More glaring is the omission of Donald Trump, whose religious talk has often raised eyebrows. Last month, Trump said this to CNN's Chris Cuomo:


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

Washington Post gets crucial Kim Davis compromises into new front-lines report

, , , , , , , ,

The latest from Rowan County, Kentucky? Sure, why not.

But before we look at some of the coverage of clerk Kim Davis and her first day back on the job, let's review the primary journalistic point that your GetReligionistas have been making, over and over, about this media circus.

Most of the national coverage, has portrayed this dispute as a clash between two national armies -- with the Religious Right on one side and gay-rights supporters on the other.

We have argued that this is too simplistic and that, to anticipate where the story is going, reporters need to focus on the actual laws in Kentucky and the ground-level efforts to realign them with the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 Obergefell decision to back gay marriage. At the very least, there appear to be four camps involved in this sad circus. 

(1) Cultural conservatives whose primary goal is to reject same-sex marriage.

(2) A coalition of state political leaders -- Democrats and Republicans -- seeking to comply with the Supreme Court ruling and recognize the rights of gay couples who seek marriage licenses. However, these officials and activists also want, in a way consistent with past legal efforts to offer "work around" accomodations for officials caught in conflict-of-interest binds, to recognize the religious-liberty rights of traditional Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who cannot endorse same-sex marriage.

(3) Activists of various kinds who want to defend religious liberty, but who believe Davis has hurt their cause, in the long run, by going to jail rather than either (a) resigning or (b) allowing others to distribute marriage licenses in her name until the state legislature acts to amend state laws in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. (See this earlier Bobby Ross Jr., post.)

(4) Activists on the secular and religious left whose primary goal is to force public officials whose duties touch same-same marriage to either resign or endorse, with their actions, the Obergefell decision.

Every now and then, The Washington Post team has included in its coverage details that point toward this complex four-level drama at the state level -- such as the fact that Davis herself supports compromises that would allow gay marriages to proceed (such as the legislature approving the removal of the clerk's name from the license or allowing couples to seek licenses through other government sources).


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Religious liberty advocates split on Kentucky clerk's stance? Yes, Associated Press reports

, , , , , ,

Tmatt has been all over the lack of media reporting on efforts to forge a Kentucky compromise that would protect the rights of same-sex couples and traditional religious believers.

Along those same lines, much news coverage has failed to reflect the disagreement among many same-sex marriage opponents themselves over the stance taken by Rowan County clerk Kim Davis.

That's why I was pleased to see a weekend story by Associated Press writer Travis Loller highlighting that split among religious liberty advocates.

Loller even quotes Rod "Friend of this Blog" Dreher:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has become a hero to many conservative Christians who see her refusal to issue marriage licenses after the Supreme Court effectively legalized same-sex marriage as a litmus test for religious liberty in an increasingly secular culture.
But lost in the uproar are the voices of Christians, some equally conservative, who disagree with Davis' stance and worry that holding her out as a martyr will ultimately hurt the cause of religious liberty.
"I think she's wrong on the merits, wrong theologically and her stance is harmful to Christians both in the religious liberty debate and in trying to present Christianity to the watching world," said Peter Wehner, a Christian commentator who served in the last three Republican presidential administrations.
Many religious conservatives have shifted their focus in recent years from trying to stop the legalization of same-sex marriage to carving out protections for those who object to it on religious grounds. A Washington florist who was fined over her refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding is celebrated by conservative Christian leaders across the U.S. who point to her story as an example of government overreach they fear will only grow.
But Davis' position as a government official has some of those same conservative leaders warning that she may not be the ideal figure to rally around. As Rod Dreher, a senior editor at "The American Conservative," put it in a recent essay, Davis' case is "not the hill to die on." Rather, a line in the sand should be drawn "when they start trying to tell us how to run our own religious institutions - churches, schools, hospitals, and the like - and trying to close them or otherwise destroy them for refusing to accept LGBT ideology."


Please respect our Commenting Policy