, , , ,

Pelosi points to her Catholic faith in denying she hates Trump. Will news reports offer any context?

, , , ,

“Don’t mess with me.”

It’s the soundbite of a busy news day — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s confrontation with a reporter who asked if she hates President Donald Trump.

But as you probably already know, Pelosi pointed to her Catholic faith in the exchange, immediately pushing this political story into the realm of religion news.

Some of the crucial details, via the New York Times:

The flash of anger from Ms. Pelosi — “Don’t mess with me,” she told the reporter — came as she was leaving a news conference in which she had just finished discussing her decision to move forward with articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump.

“Do you hate the president?” James Rosen, a reporter for a conservative television network, asked loudly as Ms. Pelosi made her way offstage in a television studio near the Capitol.

Ms. Pelosi whipped around to face Mr. Rosen, wagging her finger at him and saying, “Don’t accuse me,” as he explained that he was asking her to respond to Republicans’ claims that Democrats were pursuing Mr. Trump’s impeachment out of personal animus against him.

“This is about the Constitution of the United States and the facts that lead to the president’s violation of his oath of office,” the speaker said sharply after returning to the lectern to speak into a microphone and face the still-rolling cameras. “As a Catholic, I resent your using the word ‘hate’ in a sentence that addresses me. I don’t hate anyone.”

“I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love, and always pray for the president,” she continued. “And I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time. So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.”

In scanning the spot-news coverage today, I was curious to see if journalists would offer any background and context on Pelosi’s faith.

That information certainly seems relevant to the story, right?


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

NBC News toasts Pete Buttigieg in a hit piece aimed (#Surprise) at the Salvation Army

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

Here we go again. No doubt about it, one of the key stories of the day offers a fiery mix of politics, money, sexuality, social justice and, yes, religion.

I’m talking about this NBCNews.com headline: “Pete Buttigieg criticized for volunteering with Salvation Army.”

Stay tuned for upcoming debates featuring Democrats seeking the White House. Will this issue have legs in the news? Maybe. Maybe not. I think it depends on whether candidates on the woke side of the party decide that it is good or bad for their prospects for an openly gay candidate to even hint at a willingness for dialogue and tolerance on religious-liberty issues.

Meanwhile, there is this journalism question: Does anyone at NBC News realize that the Salvation Army is a CHURCH as well as a major provider of help to the poor? Hold that thought. First, here is the overture:

Pete Buttigieg is drawing criticism after pictures of him volunteering for the Salvation Army, which has historically opposed gay rights, recently resurfaced on social media.

In the photos, Buttigieg is seen standing outside Peggs restaurant in South Bend, Indiana, where he is the mayor, for the Red Kettle Ring Off, an annual charity initiative during which public officials compete to raise money for the Salvation Army. While the photos were from 2017, Buttigieg, who has surged to the top of many polls of Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa, has been participating in the event since at least 2015, according to local news reports. He also held an event at the Salvation Army in South Bend last year. 

“I know the photos are two years old, but still, I can't help but wonder if Mayor Pete just looks at what LGBTQ activists have been working on for years and then chooses to spite it,” tweeted Zach Ford, press secretary of the Alliance for Justice, a progressive judicial advocacy organization.


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

If there's a U.S. evangelical 'crisis', who are the 'evangelicals' that journalists are talking about?

, , , , , , , , ,
If there's a U.S. evangelical 'crisis', who are the 'evangelicals' that journalists are talking about?

Commentators who were respected, card-carrying evangelical Protestants as of June 16, 2015 (when Donald Trump announced) are saying their movement faces a “crisis” and its very name should be shelved as too politicized, at least in the U.S. A few celebrities unite with multitudes of grass-roots voters in linking evangelicalism with the Donald Trump-ified Republican Party.

Yet there are many non-partisan leaders like the Rev. Leith Anderson, who’s retiring after 13 years as president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). He tells the savvy Adelle Banks of RNS that “I want the standard to be what the Bible teaches, not what the polls report.”

The media won’t be dumping the E-word any time soon. But amid the confusion and rancor, we do need to know what we’re talking about. Thus the value of the new Eerdmans paperback ”Evangelicals: Who They Have Been, Are Now, and Could Be.” This anthology of old and new articles was compiled by expert historians David Bebbington of Britain and Americans George Marsden and Mark Noll.

Self-identified evangelicals form the largest U.S. religious bloc, and the book has three potential uses for journalists. First, it could focus an analytical article. Second, it offers fine introductory background for writers who are new to this terrain. Third, those who already know a lot will learn some things.

Making definitions difficult, this fluid movement crosses denominational lines and combines formal church bodies, myriad independent congregations, “parachurch” agencies, traveling personalities, media, music and more. Some folks accurately labeled “evangelical” have other primary identities. And don’t forget the minority evangelical factions within pluralistic “mainline” Protestant denominations.

Look at things this way: Groups in councils of churches and the like have shared organizations without shared belief. Evangelicalism has shared belief without a shared organization. In defining such a loose phenomenon, journalists will be reminded of Justice Potter Stewart’s remark on pornography. “I know it when I see it.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Washington Post offers look at five country music myths and misses a familiar ghost

, , , , , ,

I have been feeling my inner music-beat writer stirring a bit, as of late. Maybe, like Pete Townshend, I’m getting old. Then again, my East Tennessee home is a short drive from the birthplace of country music, and only slightly further from Nashville.

Thus, my eyes tend to focus a bit when I see this kind of headline in a blue-zip code elite newspaper, in this case the Washington Post: “Five myths about country music.”

Yes, this did run as a “perspective” piece in the Outlook section, so I am not looking at this as a news piece. Instead, I am simply noting an interesting chunk of this country-music flyover, since I would argue that it points toward a familiar news “ghost” in popular culture. I am referring to the prominent role that religion and religious imagery plays in country music and how that helps shape its audience.

Here is the overture of this piece by Jocelyn Neal, a music professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is the author of “Country Music: A Cultural and Stylistic History,” from Oxford Press.

Love it or leave it, country music — with its whiskey-soaked nostalgia and crying steel guitars, its trains, trucks and lost love — is a defining feature of the American soundscape. This fall, Ken Burns’s documentary series, along with an outpouring of Dolly Parton tributes on NPR, Netflix and the stage at the Grand Ole Opry, has trained a spotlight on the genre. Still, myths infuse many people’s understanding of country music — and some of them are integral to its appeal.

Something seems to be missing there.

Let’s turn to an alternative summary statement, provided by someone who knew quite a bit about this topic — Johnny “The Man in Black” Cash. Asked to state his musical values, he said:


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

'The Two Popes' movie gets rave reviews and a good amount of fact checking, too

, , , , , , ,

The Christmas season is a time for both religious introspection and, of course, consumerism.

It’s also the time families go to the movies, which is why lots of them are released at this time of year.

Among the smorgasbord of films to open in the days before Thanksgiving was “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” the Fred Rogers bio-pic featuring Tom Hanks. That film is of particular interest because of its religion connections. See this recent tmatt post: “Podcast thinking: Fred Rogers, Tom Hanks, the Good Samaritan and the ties that bind.”

The only movie to open last week on the day before Thanksgiving was “The Two Popes.” I gave the flick a bad review over at Religion Unplugged, arguing that it needed a reality check. However, there are issues here that journalists will want to think about, as well. Here’s the key paragraph:

Where does the movie go wrong? Benedict did summon Bergoglio to Rome after the Argentine cardinal had resigned, as is custom when someone in that position turns 75. No one knew at the time how the cardinals would vote, except maybe former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Therefore, the movie imagines what a dialogue between Benedict and Francis would be like. In taking us behind the secrecy of the Vatican, Meirelles creates a work of fiction.

“Change is compromise,” Benedict tells Bergoglio. 

“Nothing is static in nature,” Bergoglio replies.

Benedict, in response, argues: “God is unchanging!” 

The invented dialogue, like in the example above, aims at trying to convey the doctrinal divide that exists between these two men.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Mormons, in the end, fare well in Washington Post story about refugee welcome in Utah

, , , ,

Often, stories about people of faith and refugees end up casting the former in a negative light for refusing to be of help to the poor and tired, huddled masses.

But a roving reporter for the Washington Post got wind of something unusual; how a deep red state was refusing to go along with President Donald Trump’s anti-refugee policy. This happened to be Utah.

The ensuing piece makes for a very good read. My one caveat is that a major factor in refugee welcomes doesn’t get mentioned until the 30th paragraph.

Other media, such as this Vox video, got the point right away that Mormons have everything to do with Utah’s unusual refugee policy. This Wall Street Journal story made the Mormon connection in the fourth paragraph.

This fall, President Trump signed an executive order that, for the first time, gives states and cities the authority to veto refugee resettlements. The move alarms refugee advocates, who fear a wave of xenophobic demagoguery as governors and mayors seek to prove their anti-immigrant credentials by banning new arrivals.

That still may happen, adding to the strain on a once world-class resettlement program that has been crippled by cuts since Trump took office.

But in Utah — deeply conservative, deeply devout, predominantly white Utah — the response has been altogether different. The governor, a Republican who aligns with Trump on most issues, wrote the president a letter in late October.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

What's a bus got to do with religion? A whole lot when it comes to violating the Sabbath in Israel

, , , ,

As I noted here at GetReligion, I traveled to Israel earlier this year with a group of about a dozen U.S. religion journalists.

I wrote about a missile attack that occurred while I was there. I discovered that it was really no big deal.

I also gained a fuller understanding of the cozy relationship between Trump-supporting American evangelicals and the Jewish state. (Hint: Theology is involved.)

And I filled up my notebook with a lot of insights and questions that haven’t made their way into a published form. At least not yet.

During my weeklong experience through the American Jewish Committee’s Project Interchange, we stayed a few nights in Tel Aviv and the rest in Jerusalem. I was fascinated to learn of the stark differences between those major cities — one (Tel Aviv) a gay-friendly cosmopolitan metropolis and the other (Jerusalem) an old-time religious mecca still influenced by ancient Scriptures.

Suffice it say that since my trip, I’ve paid more attention to headlines from Israel, particularly those delving into the secular-religious divide that stresses modern-day Israel.

Speaking of which, maybe you saw The Associated Press story the other day on public buses running on the Sabbath in Tel Aviv. Or maybe you missed it during the Thanksgiving holidays. In either case, the AP story is worthy of note.

Read it carefully for a better understanding of the politics and religious divide in Israel:


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

Separation of church, state and pot: NYTimes says religious liberty issues here are not a joke

, , , , , , , , ,

Think of it as one of the defining mantras of America’s church-state orthodoxy: state officials are supposed to avoid getting entangled in deciding what is good doctrine and what is bad doctrine. They are, of course, allowed to worry about matters of profit, fraud and clear threat to life and health.

However, the legal powers that be have also had wrestle with other questions tied to the stunningly liberal (in the old sense of that word) framework created by the First Amendment: Who gets to decide what is a “religion” and what is not? How does the state decide who is sincere and who is, well, sleazy?

You can see all of these issues rumbling about in an important New York Times piece that I have been trying to sort out for some time now. This topic has been covered before (click here for earlier GetReligion posts), but this story — in my opinion — probes deeper. Here is the sweeping double-decker headline:

Inside the War for California’s Cannabis Churches

Illegal marijuana dispensaries outnumber legal ones more than three to one in California. What’s the role of the cannabis church?

Now, church-state experts have — at the U.S. Supreme Court and in Congress — wrestled with issues related to religious rights that involve drugs that are or have been illegal. It’s natural to ask if these religious organizations are offering rites incarnating centuries of religious traditions and doctrines (think Native Americans and peyote) or are they modern innovations to help people avoid laws they do not accept?

At first, I thought that money questions were going to completely dominate this Times piece — which is understandable. Is the Jah Healing flock a church or a cannabis storefront? I was glad when broader church-state issues entered the discussion.


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

The Times reports on Ralph Drollinger's informal diplomacy: 'I'm really in this for the coffee beans'

, , , , , , ,

In The New York Times Magazine, Mattathias Schwartz has written an amazing 7,600-word feature story on Ralph Drollinger, who leads weekly Bible studies among members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet. “How the Trump Cabinet’s Bible Teacher Became a Shadow Diplomat” shows what excellent work can emerge when a writer emphasizes reporting over opinion and when the subject of a story responds to a trustworthy reporter with transparency.

Schwartz refers to this dynamic about a third of the way in: “Part of Drollinger’s charm is rooted in his straightforwardness. For years, he has been publishing his weekly Bible studies online to help the public understand his agenda. ‘It gives guys like you the confidence of what it is I’m talking about,” he told me. “That’s good transparency.’”

Drollinger’s work is volatile. People for the American Way filed a lawsuit [PDF] in August 2018 demanding documents related to the Bible studies and charging the Department of Agriculture with disregarding Freedom of Information Act requirements. “The facts of this case are simple: Cabinet officials have every right to participate in Bible study, and the American people have every right to know who is influencing public officials and how,” said Elliot Mincberg, senior counsel and fellow at People for the American Way.

The website for Americans United lists only four items about Drollinger, and two of them date to his time of working in California, before he moved to Washington, D.C.

Schwartz’s feature is neither puffery nor a screed. A skepticism is implicit at various points, and for a feature published by the Times, the implicit tone is remarkably restrained.


Please respect our Commenting Policy