What U.S. presidential candidates will be doing to court religious voters in 2020

President Donald Trump and his Democratic opponents are courting voters with less than a year before the 2020 election, and many of them are chasing support from a variety of religious voters — in pews on the right and the left.

For example, all eyes are on Mayor Pete Buttigieg and his attempts to build trust with African-American churchgoers — a crucial part of the Democratic Party base in the Sunbelt and elsewhere. We will return to that subject.

But first, the Trump campaign announced recently that the president's re-election efforts would include launching three coalitions: “Evangelicals for Trump,” “Catholics for Trump” and “Jewish Voices for Trump.”

Despite being impeached by the House, the Trump campaign’s focus on these three religious groups aims to expand the president’s support, especially in battleground states where the former real-estate mogul won in 2016.

An analysis of the 2018 midterm elections conducted by Pew Research Center found continuity in the voting patterns of key religious groups. For example, white evangelicals voted for Republican candidates at about the same rate they did in 2014, while religiously unaffiliated voters and Jews again largely backed Democrats.

There’s plenty that Trump and the crowded field of Democrats challenging him have done over the past few months, and are continuing to do as we head into 2020, to court religious voters. Expect that to intensify with the start of the primaries next years and in the months before November’s general election.

Below is a look at Trump’ efforts, along with those of the seven Democrats who qualified for the next debate on Thursday night in Los Angeles.  


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Another Salvation Army story: This time, Nordstrom's dumps its famous bellringer

The Salvation Army is the world’s largest social services provider, serving 23 million individuals a year. It is a venerable organization here in Seattle, active for at least 50 years, with bell ringers all over the city and surrounding suburbs.

Lately, it’s been clashing with the department store empire Nordstroms; it too a Seattle institution that was founded in 1901.

The Army’s been having a bad month PR-wise after the fast food giant Chick-fil-A announced it would no longer donate to them, ostensibly because both organizations have gotten a bad rap from homosexual groups. The Army’s been denying left and right that it discriminates, but the knives are out and what better place than liberal Seattle to wield them?

So The Seattle Times ran this on Christmas Eve:

For 19 years, 85-year-old Dick Clarke has raised money for The Salvation Army during the holiday season — 18 of them ringing a bell beside a red kettle for donations outside Nordstrom’s downtown Seattle store. He loved the conversations and the feeling of giving back through the more than $100,000 he collected. He volunteered five days a week, six hours a day.

“The best thing I like about Thanksgiving is the next day I go to work,” said the retired teacher and principal.

Or that’s how he used to feel. This year, Nordstrom told The Salvation Army it would no longer allow solicitation in front of its doors.

Beyond stating that policy, Nordstrom spokeswoman Jennifer Tice Walker did not answer questions about the change. But Clarke said he was told in a meeting last week with head of stores Jamie Nordstrom that LGBTQ employees said The Salvation Army’s presence made them uncomfortable.

Apparently this decision was made several weeks ago.

Why the Times didn’t get around to printing this until now is a mystery. Maybe it just had “Christmas Story” written all over it. And how many uncomfortable Nordstrom’s employees are we talking about here? One? Five? Ten?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

(Final) Friday Five: 2019 top posts, Galli vs. Trump, 'Olive, come out,' casino priest, holy crop duster

Every week in Friday Five (and if you missed the news, this is the last one), we’ve highlighted GetReligion’s most-clicked post of the previous seven days. We’ll do that again this time.

But since it’s the end of the year, I thought readers also might be interested in knowing about some of our most popular posts of the entire year.

Our No. 1 most popular post of the year — and it wasn’t close — was Clemente Lisi’s viral April 15 commentary titled “If churches keep getting vandalized in France, should American news outlets cover the story?”

At No. 2: Julia Duin’s May 10 analysis headlined “Catholic student gunned down in Colorado; few reporters ask crucial questions about shooters.”

Among other contributors, Editor Terry Mattingly’s top post was his May 21 reflection that “Tim Conway was a kind soul, with a gentle sense of humor. Maybe his faith played a role in that?” Richard Ostling got his most clicks with his April 20 explainer “Regarding Israel and the End Times, what is Dispensationalism? What is the rapture?” My top post was my May 29 piece “When it comes to Alex Trebek's 'mind-boggling' cancer recovery, have prayers really helped?”

Now, let’s dive into the (final) Friday Five:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

If Rolling Stone's Alex Morris offers such prayers for Trump, who needs curses?

Alex Morris, writing for Rolling Stone, has created a new literary and journalistic form: an imprecatory prayer, shameless self-promotion and all-purpose rant packaged as an open letter to the president of the United States.

It is a breathtaking achievement in the realm of chutzpah, but is neither informative nor insightful. What form of journalism is this?

“Imprecatory” prayer refers to asking God to bring harsh justice against one’s enemies. See, for instance, Psalm 55:15: “Let death steal over them; let them go down to Sheol alive; for evil is in their dwelling place and in their heart” (English Standard Version).

This is the closest thing to a prayer that could suit the purposes of Morris, who uses her brief essay to respond to President Donald Trump’s impeachment and to the editorial by my former boss and longtime friend, Mark Galli of Christianity Today, that Trump should be removed from office.

Despite the headline on her essay (“Mr. President, You Asked for a Prayer…”), Morris lurches from the voice of narrator (“On Wednesday, as it became clear that by day’s end he would become the third president in U.S. history to be impeached, Trump took to Twitter to call upon Americans to ‘Say a PRAYER!’”) to addressing Trump directly:

We have been saying a PRAYER that the divisions you have sown and the hatred you have propagated will not live on after you. We have been saying a PRAYER that your arrogance and narcissism will not plunge us into war, that your willful aggression against science and facts will not lead to the destruction of God’s creation within our children’s lifetimes.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

This post really isn't about Mark Galli: Why reporters should know basics about Christian flocks

Back in the early 1980s, I worked at The Charlotte Observer during an interesting time in Presbyterian history. I am referring to the final crossing of the “t”s and the dotting of the “i”s that completed the union of the northern United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the southern Presbyterian Church in the United States to create the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), one of the “Seven Sisters” of liberal Protestantism.

At that time, Charlotte was a rare Southern city — in that there were as many, or more, Presbyterians than there were Southern Baptists. Thus, a “Presbyterian” merger was big news.

Ah, but trying to write about this story in a mainstream newspaper was a nightmare, due to the complexity of Presbyterianism in that region. You start with the churches that merged, the UPC and the PCUS. Then you add the PCUSA. For starters, do you also know the differences between the PCUSA, the ARPC (Associate Reformed Presbyterian), the CPC (Cumberland Presbyterian), the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America), the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian) and the EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church)?

You couldn’t cover Charlotte back then without being able to handle this doctrinal alphabet soup.

This brings me to Mark Galli and the firestorm about his Christianity Today editorial (GetReligion “big idea” post here) asking for Donald Trump to be removed from the White House. At the moment, some journalists are acting like CT is part of the Religious Right, while Trump-ites are saying it’s now on the religious left. All of this, of course, is linked to confusion about how to define That Word — “evangelicalism.”

As you would expect, Galli — who is retiring as CT editor — has been in a hot spotlight.

So who is this guy? The Los Angeles Times offered a short profile (yes, the original headline called Galli an “evangelist” editor) that included this:

Galli was born in San Francisco and grew up in Santa Cruz — liberal hotspots and somewhat unlikely cities in which to develop strong evangelical influences. And yet Galli has spent much of his career at Christianity Today, which Billy Graham founded in the 1950s.

“When I was a teenager ... my mother had a conversion experience actually watching Billy Graham on TV,” Galli said.

During a difficult emotional time, Galli’s mother got on her knees in their home, in front of the the television, and accepted Jesus Christ, he said. A few months later, on Dec. 19, 1965 — 54 years, to the day, before Galli published this editorial — he too accepted Christ during an altar call. …

Like those evangelicals who support Trump, Galli shares their anti-abortion stance and support for religious freedom. But he said he doesn’t understand why Trump’s supporters seem to dig in their heels when defending what he considers the president’s immoral behavior. 

This sounds like a rather ordinary, West Coast version of an “evangelical” biography — but one that contains zero specific information about the editor’s denominational or theological background.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Year in review: Ten religion stories that stuck with me in 2019, including one of my own

Did Santa bring everything you wanted for Christmas?

I hope so.

As we head toward a new year, I wanted to pull a few items out of my gift bag.

Here, in no particular order, are 10 of the most memorable religion stories that I read (and one I even wrote) in 2019:

1. As his daughter lay in a pool of blood in an El Paso Walmart, a pastor held fast to his faith, Los Angeles Times

In an Aug. 8 post, I praised Times national correspondent David Montero’s front-page feature on the parents of an El Paso, Texas, shooting victim. I described it as “emotional, heart-wrenching and maybe the best religion story you'll read all year.” I stand by that statement.

Here (in no particular order) are 10 of the most memorable religion stories that I read (and one I even wrote) in 2019:

2. “Slavery and Religion: 400 years,” Religion News Service.
RNS national correspondent Adelle M. Banks’ compelling series focused on slavery and religion as Americans commemorated the 400th anniversary of the forced arrival of enslaved Africans in Virginia. Datelines included New York City, Montgomery, Ala., and Jamestown, Va.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Merry, well, happy, uh, Trump-era SOMETHING from Twitter, care of Ryan Burge

So, the day is finally here. It’s Christmas (unless you are part of an old-calendar Orthodox parish).

In shopping-mall liturgy, today marked the end of Christmas — which began just before Halloween with the running of the first cable-TV holiday movies. If you are part of a congregation that is into things like Christian tradition (or Charles DIckens), then the season has just started. In a way, old-school Christmas is rather nice — since the advertising tsunami has passed by.

I realize that some people have been greeting friends and family with “Merry Christmas” — or “Happy Christmas,” for Brits — for weeks now. Others have been more careful and stuck with “Happy Holidays.” Some of us old-school folks waited, you know, until Christmas to start saying, “Merry Christmas.”

But is this choice actually POLITICAL, in this age in which everything can be interpreted as a statement against or in favor of you know what and you know who?

What about on Twitter? What language did you use?

Yes, it’s time for another Ryan Burge chart.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What were the sources for biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus?

THE QUESTION:

What were the sources for the Bible’s accounts of Jesus’ birth?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

If it’s Christmastime, we expect the media will look around for material to deconstruct cherished church traditions. One 2019 example is a series of December articles about Jesus’ Nativity on this very interfaith site — www.patheos.com/blogs/messyinspirations — from a Catholic “channel” contributor who for some reason wants anonymity and calls himself “fellow dying inmate.”

The “inmate” is correct to debunk some sentimental Christmas folkways. Typical cradle scenes to the contrary, the shepherds and wise men did not worship the baby Jesus together but appear in separate incidents told in Luke and Matthew respectively. With the wise men, we’re not told there were three, only that whatever their number they presented three gifts. Nor were they “kings” as that carol claims.

The series highlights the intriguing reality that among the four gospels only Matthew and Luke say anything about Jesus’ birth. How come?

Mark begins with John the Baptist in the wilderness, preparing the way as cousin Jesus appears. John starts by echoing the Book of Genesis with the cosmic concept of Jesus as the “Word” who was with God “in the beginning,” then turns to John the Baptist.

The articles dive into the many differences between Matthew and Luke.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What's the one thing journalists need to learn from the Christianity Today firestorm?

Let’s consider this an educational moment. Since journalists are paying lots of attention, right now, to Christianity Today and other things linked to the late Billy Graham, let’s do a flashback to some poll numbers published in the fall of 2018.

This polling was done by the Billy Graham Center Institute at Wheaton College, working with LifeWay Research. One of the goals was to understand why evangelicals voted the way that they did in 2016.

Lots of things grabbed my attention, but here are some numbers that I think journalists need to ponder at the moment in light of the recent CT editorial by departing editor Mark Galli. You may have heard about it. The headline proclaimed: “Trump Should Be Removed from Office.”

But back to CT in 2018. The bytes that jumped out at me:

* Only half of the evangelicals polled voted for the candidate that they truly wanted to support in the White House race.

* One out of three said that they voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton or AGAINST Donald Trump.

* One in four white evangelicals said that they voted AGAINST Trump. One in three black evangelicals said the same thing.

* At least 20% of evangelicals didn’t vote (and I’ve seen figures as high as 40% elsewhere).

Put it all together and a high percentage — 77% in this poll — of white evangelicals did said that they voted for Trump. However, echoing earlier CT reporting, only about half of them said that they wanted to do so.

I wrote a national column about that with this headline: “Complex realities behind that ‘81 percent of evangelicals love Trump’ media myth.” Here’s how it ended:

Waves of news about this 81 percent vote have “created a simplistic, negative caricature of who evangelicals are, right now,” said Ed Stetzer, director of the Billy Graham Center. “It allows lazy people to keep saying that all of those evangelicals are ‘all in’ for Donald Trump. ... They’re trying to turn Trump voters into Trump.

”Trump voters are not Trump, and that’s certainly true for most evangelicals.”

So what’s the Big Idea that journalists need to learn from all of this, including the Galli editorial?


Please respect our Commenting Policy