, , , , , , , , , ,

That same old question for 2016: What is an 'evangelical,' anyway?

, , , , , , , , , ,
That same old question for 2016: What is an 'evangelical,' anyway?

The Carson- Cruz- Rubio-Trump piety sweepstakes aimed at the vital “evangelical vote” in Iowa has produced recent news that would have been unthinkable a generation ago:

* Businessman Donald Trump brags that “Franklin Graham said incredible things about me” (the evangelist isn’t endorsing anyone), then targets Senator Ted Cruz: “In all fairness, to the best of my knowledge not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba, OK?” Unclear what that means, but it followed Trump’s previous slap at surgeon Carson’s Adventist church after Carson questioned Trump’s faith.

* Preacher’s kid Cruz tells a church rally, “Keep this revival growing. Awaken the body of Christ that we might rise up to pull this country from the abyss,” and quotes the favored Bible verse of evangelical activists, 2 Chronicles 7:14 (“If my people ...”).

* Not to be outdone, Senator Marco Rubio states in an online ad, “Our goal is eternity, the ability to live alongside our Creator and for all time, to accept the free gift of salvation offered to us by Jesus Christ. ... The purpose of our life is to cooperate with God’s plan...“ The Catholic candidate also appoints 15 evangelical, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Orthodox Jewish notables (e.g. law Professor Michael McConnell, Pastor Rick Warren) as advisors on future religious liberty issues.

* An e-mail blast from Eric Teetsel, late of the Manhattan Declaration now running Rubio’s “faith outreach,” quotes Southern Baptist social-issues spokesman Russell Moore on evangelical constituencies: “Ted Cruz is leading the Jerry Falwell wing, Marco Rubio is leading the Billy Graham wing and Trump is leading the Jimmy Swaggart wing” (the latter a scandal-scarred  televangelist).

Political nose-counters note that in 2012, 57 percent of Iowa voters identified as evangelicals (vs. 22 percent in New Hampshire, the second lowest percentage among states behind only Senator Sanders’ Vermont). Iowa polls show Cruz moving well ahead of Carson and Trump in evangelical support, while CNN says nationwide Trump leads Cruz by 45 to 28 percent among white evangelicals. And the Wall Street Journal reports the Cruz camp thinks there are  90 million U.S. evangelicals (!) of whom 54 million didn’t vote in 2012(!!).

Obviously, both politics and religion reporters need to pursue that ever-challenging question, What is an “evangelical”?


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

Think piece meets podcast: Spot the dividing lines between evangelical voters in 2016

, , , , , , , , , , ,

As a rule, here is what happens every week when "Crossroads" host Todd Wilken and I do a radio broadcast or taping session that turns into a podcast. First we pick a GetReligion post, or perhaps my Universal syndicate column for that week, in which we think there are angles to update or explore. Then he asks me a bunch of questions and then we chat.

However, I tried to turn the tables on Wilken in this week's podcast (click here to tune that in), in which we dug deeper into the material I explored in the post that ran with this headline: "Seriously? New York Times story on GOP schism is silent on 'pew gap' issues." He asked me a question and then I turned around and asked the audience -- that would be you guys -- a series of questions.

What were they? Well, many political journalists are starting to realize that Donald Trump is not the official candidate of American evangelicalism. Thus, I asked these three questions:

 * Who are Donald Trump's evangelicals?

* Who are Sen. Ted Cruz's evangelicals?

* Who are Sen. Marco Rubio's evangelicals?

Thinking back over our conversation, I now realize that I could have asked some pushy follow-up questions.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Los Angeles Times crowns Justice Roy Moore as American ayatollah

, , , ,

I wasn’t planning on writing about Alabama Supreme Court’s chief justice so soon after my Jan. 7 post, but the Los Angeles Times posted a news piece that was so awful, it deserves an Oscar nomination for "Most Biased Piece of U.S. Journalism in 2016 Thus Far." I am referring to Thursday’s article that came with the headline: “Gay marriage order puts spotlight again on the ‘Ayatollah of Alabama.' ” And yes, the article that followed was as bad as the headline.

Please keep in mind as you read this that Get Religion has a name -- “Kellerism” -- for this type of piece. That’s the practice, described here by tmatt and pioneered by the New York Times, of assuming that one side of the debate is dead wrong and, thus, doesn’t deserve fair representation.

Here we go:

When Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore issued his latest controversial order on gay marriage, urging probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, many considered it a brazen, last-ditch act of defiance against the U.S. Supreme Court.
The long-contentious chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court didn’t see it that way at all. Merely a humdrum matter of procedure, he explained. “At this point, I am not defying the United States Supreme Court,” the staunch 68-year-old Baptist and Republican said.
When it comes to Moore -- dubbed the “Ayatollah of Alabama” by a civil rights group and chided by the daughter of the late George Wallace as being more dangerous than the combative former governor -- little is ever just humdrum procedure.

An anonymous “ayatollah” label, huh?


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

Religion in schools: Tampa Bay Times talks to everyone except church people

, , , , , , , , ,

One of the good and bad parts of a job like GetReligion is writing about recurring issues.  It's good because you develop some experience in your work. It's bad because you keep writing about similar problems.

Here we go this week with the Tampa Bay Times, which wrote about religious groups, and talked to others about the groups, yet didn’t talk to the groups themselves. As I've said before, this is like talking about someone while they're standing right there.

The Times has been monitoring the school superintendent's friendly treatment of a couple of Christian organizations. Here's how the paper dealt with it on Tuesday:

TAMPA --Hillsborough County school superintendent Jeff Eakins reaffirmed his support Tuesday for a Christian organization that aims to expand its presence in the public schools.
Addressing First Priority Tampa Bay --which has grown to serve dozens of local schools in the past six years, with the goal of helping students share the message of Christ --Eakins said the group's school-based clubs are integral to the culture he is trying to shape in the district.
"We're trying to build great character and great integrity, and ultimately capture the hearts of our kids," he told an audience of about 100 people at the South Tampa Fellowship at Ballast Point.
His message comes as the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are questioning the district's involvement with another Christian ministry.

No kiddin' on that last sentence. By the end of its 900 words, the story has cited not only the ACLU but the Atheists of Florida, the Jewish Community Relations Council and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They complain not only about First Priority but the local Idlewild Baptist Church, for its "training and motivational sessions for school administrators." They also criticize the church for giving away T-shirts with its name and logo. (The next day's story adds that Idlewild also passes out coupons, redeemable for a coffee at the church.)

The critics say Eakins' endorsement creates "social pressure" for teachers to support the efforts. The Times also brings up the First Amendment, "which is widely interpreted as a prohibition against government --including public schools --favoring one religion.


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

Journalists must look to the left, as Anglican Communion goes into 'stoppage time'

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

Over time, mainstream journalists around the world have gradually come to realize that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the "Anglican pope." In most news coverage these days, he is referred to as the "symbolic" leader of the global Anglican Communion or as the "first among equals" when the Anglican archbishops are doing business.

Let's focus on that second image for a moment, as I point out one or two elements of the flood of news coverage of the "special," as opposed to normal, gathering of the Anglican primates in Canterbury the last few days.

If Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby is the first among equals, then it is important for journalists to realize that the other archbishops really do see themselves as, well, equal among the equals. Thus, when you are working through the tsunami of global coverage of the vote by the Anglican primates to "suspend" the U.S. Episcopal Church from many official roles in the Anglican Communion (don't forget Father George "GetReligionista emeritus" Conger at Anglican Ink), it helps to focus on the previous actions taken by the primates on issues linked to the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions.

Yes, we are back to that complicated Anglican timeline thing. There is no way to avoid it.

When you look at the current events in the context of an accurate timeline, it's clear that (a) the Episcopal Church has merely been placed in "time out," (b) that the global primates really do think this dispute is about the Bible and marriage, (c) that the state of sacramental Communion among Anglican leaders remains as broken as ever and (d) that all Canterbury has really achieved, with this meeting, is send the contest into extra innings (or perhaps "stoppage time" is a better term among global Anglicans).

So where to start?


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

Blessed are the Himalayas; more on China's religious and cultural repression

, , , , , , ,
Blessed are the Himalayas; more on China's religious and cultural repression

Three years ago I visited the Himalayan Buddhist kingdom of Bhutan. It's a spectacularly beautiful place, with thick oak, pine and bamboo forests blanketing a soaring topography, the green mountainsides capped by scores of jagged, snowy peaks.

These mountains, along with strict tradition-bound government policies, have allowed Bhutan's religiously rooted culture to remain, to this day, relatively free of outside cultural influences.

Bhutan is wedged between China to the north and India to the south. Land access from India is easy, via subtropical lowland roads, and diplomatic and trade relations between the two nations are strong.

China's a very different story. Himalayan peaks more than 20,000-feet-high make land travel between the two nations virtually impossible. For the Bhutanese, that's been a blessing.

That's because, historically and to this day, the Himalayas have impeded expansionist China's desire to push southward. Energy and resource-hungry modern China would love to harvest Bhutan's forests and abundant hydroelectricity power, the latter now largely exported to India. (Bhutan has no formal diplomatic relations with China, or, for that matter, the United States.)

Were China to succeed it would undoubtedly mean the collapse of Bhutan's carefully preserved Vajrayana (Tibetan-style) Buddhist culture. Bhutan, in effect, would go the way of the nation of Tibet and the region known as Xinjiang.

Xinjiang? More in a minute.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Willamette Week muffs simple story on Anglicans vs. actors

, , ,

Willamette Week is a feisty independent paper in Portland, Ore., that has long broken good stories and won awards. But their latest entry into religion coverage makes me wonder if they need to employ a few fact checkers.

Last time I reported on a piece the Week had done on religion, I noticed the piece seemed rushed and lacking in much detail. This latest piece is far worse. Why is it that this newspaper seems to give anything about faith the back of its hand? There's no lack of decent journalists in town, especially since the Oregonian just laid off a bunch, including my brother. Surely there are plenty of scribes on hand who can lend expertise in certain needed areas.

So here's how it starts:

St. Mark's Cathedral won't host a play featuring genetic engineering and abortion after an apparent misunderstanding between the Anglican church and Masque Alfresco theater.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Guns blazing at Texas Catholic churches: The intriguing question facing Lone Star dioceses

, , , , ,

The Roman Catholic bishop of Dallas is no fan of Texas' new open-carry law.

In a column that drew the attention of Religion News Service, Bishop Kevin Farrell last week ripped the "cowboy mentality" that he said "permits the open carrying of guns."

In turn, The Dallas Morning News reported this week that Farrell's remarks angered some conservative Catholics — with one blogger asking, "Why doesn’t he just call us a bunch of mouth-breathing inbred hicks and be done with it?"

Alrighty.

This was the Morning News' lede:

Plenty of Texas gun rights advocates celebrated 2016 as the year open carry finally arrived. But for some conservative Catholics, it’s another reason to clash with Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell.
The Dallas Diocese forbids parishioners from bringing guns – openly carried or concealed – to their churches. A recent online column by Farrell – described by some as “strident” – has made the Bishop’s critics even more vocal.
“Sadly, Texas has become the 45th state to embrace the cowboy mentality that permits the open carrying of guns,” Farrell wrote in his column. “It is difficult to see how this new law allowing persons with concealed handgun licenses (CHL) to openly carry firearms can accomplish anything other than cause people to feel threatened and intimidated.”
New state laws permit license holders to openly carry handguns in many places, including public college campuses. But private property owners also have the right to prohibit legal gun owners from packing.
That’s created tension from the grocery store to the pulpit.
Charles Cleaver, a North Oak Cliff Catholic and gun owner, described Farrell as a leftist with an Irish-European view of guns that doesn’t have a place in Texas. The Dublin-born bishop came to Dallas from Washington, D.C.
“He just likes to ram these things down people’s throats,” Cleaver said. “I don’t know who he’s [Farrell] trying to appeal to.”

The Dallas newspaper's report gives a voice to both extremes, although I found myself wishing for more nuance. Specifically, are there any Catholics who see pros and cons on people of faith packing heat? Is there room for any gray in this debate?

Another important piece of context missing from this story: What's happening in the rest of the Lone Star State?

Texas image via Shutterstock.com


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

Those 1989 Act-Up protests: The key events were OUTSIDE St. Patrick's Cathedral?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

This is not a post about what the Catholic Catechism teaches about sexuality.

It is also, in a way, not a post about the ongoing issues of LGBT groups being allowed to march in the famous St. Patrick's Day parade in New York City.

This is a post about a basic issue of balance and accuracy in some crucial background material in a recent New York Times update about events linked to that parade, which has been a flashpoint in conflicts between LGBT activists and Catholic leaders for decades.

So, first things first, what is the news hook for this news report?

George J. Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader who presided over negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement and power sharing in Northern Ireland, has been chosen as the grand marshal for this year’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade.
The parade’s organizers plan to announce the selection of Mr. Mitchell on Monday. But it is not clear whether Mayor Bill de Blasio, a fellow Democrat who skipped the parades in his first two years in office because organizers had barred openly gay groups since the 1990s, would take part. A spokesman for Mr. de Blasio said on Friday that the mayor was reviewing whether to march this year.

As you would expect, the Times team included several paragraphs of background material to let readers know a little bit about the history of these tensions. This is where I want GetReligion readers to focus their attention.

Let us attend (especially to the fine details):

The controversy began in December 1989, when thousands demonstrated outside St. Patrick’s Cathedral over statements made by Cardinal John J. O’Connor on abortion, homosexuality and AIDS.


Please respect our Commenting Policy