, , , , , , , , , , ,

Weekend thinking about this complex reality: More and more Americans hate each other

, , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s impossible, at the moment, to follow political and religious threads on social media without running into lots and lots of hate. This is not something that started in the past two weeks or even during the 2016 race for the White House.

With that sobering thought in mind, I offer a Damon Linker essay at The Week as our weekend think piece. The headline: “Don't willfully ignore the complexity of what's happening in America right now.”

However, before we go there, let me share some sobering observations from an “On Religion” column I wrote in 2004 about the work of political scientists Gerald De Maio, a Catholic, and Louis Bolce, an Episcopalian, who teach at Baruch College in the City University of New York. The headline: “Stalking the anti-fundamentalist voter.”

This was one of the first times when I realized that “hate” was becoming a strong factor in public life — especially when driven by a loaded religious term like “fundamentalist.”

First we need some background. Bolce and De Maio:

… have focused much of their work on the "thermometer scale" used in the 2000 American National Election Study and those that preceded it. Low temperatures indicate distrust or hatred while high numbers show trust and respect. Thus, "anti-fundamentalist voters" are those who gave fundamentalists a rating of 25 degrees or colder. By contrast, the rating that "strong liberals" gave to "strong conservatives" was a moderate 47 degrees.

Yet 89 percent of white delegates to the 1992 Democratic National Convention qualified as "anti-fundamentalist voters," along with 57 percent of Jewish voters, 51 percent of "moral liberals," 48 percent of school-prayer opponents, 44 percent of secularists and 31 percent of "pro-choice" voters. In 1992, 53 percent of those white Democratic delegates gave Christian fundamentalists a thermometer rating of zero.

"Anti-fundamentalist voter" patterns are not seen among black voters, noted De Maio. Researchers are now paying closer attention to trends among Hispanics.

What about the prejudices of the fundamentalists? Their average thermometer rating toward Catholics was a friendly 62 degrees, toward blacks 66 degrees and Jews 68 degrees.

This brings us to a complex set of remarks by Linker. Here is the overture:


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

Getting ready for July 4th: What enduring values unite Americans of all religious outlooks?

, , , , , , , , ,
Getting ready for July 4th: What enduring values unite Americans of all religious outlooks?

THE QUESTION:

What enduring values unite Americans of all religious outlooks?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The Fourth of July 2020 will be a sober, as well as socially-distanced, observance amid the COVID-19 scourge, resulting economic devastation and racial unrest in cities nationwide.

Nonetheless, it provides an opportunity to reflect not only on the nation’s sins and sufferings but permanent values these United States have upheld through it all.

The American Revolution was first and foremost about ending dictatorial rule so that government is based upon “the consent of the governed.” Freedom of religion and conscience over against government compulsion reinforced this principle and was an equally extraordinary innovation in the 18th Century. Admittedly, courts and politicians continually joust over what this means in particular cases.

Today’s Americans should consider how many regimes have not caught up with either of these concepts 244 years later.

Those principles have united the citizenry across old religious lines. Religious liberty – including freedom to doubt — could only have arisen with broad support from conventional Christian believers in the colonial population and among the Founders. (A “Loyalist” faction among Anglicans still obeyed king and crown, and Quakers desired independence but opposed taking up arms to achieve it.)

Why did orthodox Christians unite on freedom of conscience with, for instance, the three skeptical Founders who are especially interesting figures: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine? Many Christians embraced this freedom in principle, while others saw that government control over religion was essential to the monarchy they spurned.


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

Podcast: Looking for progress after George Floyd killing? Look in pews, not political fights

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

In the wake of the killing of George Floyd, news consumers have been reading all kinds of reaction quotes from all kinds of important people, including religious leaders, on the left and right sides of American public life.

During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), host Todd Wilken and I tried to look past the recent headlines and focus on where coverage of this national tragedy could be going in the weeks ahead, especially in terms of religion-beat news.

With that in mind, let me start with the following question. Who said this, in reaction to the hellish video and subsequent revelations about Floyd’s death?

This makes me sick to my stomach. … To watch a police officer kill an unarmed black man — with no concern on his face, his hand in his pocket, indifferent to the bystanders begging for something to be done to help the man — is so disturbing. He and the other officers on the scene refused to listen and refused to respond. I hope they have deep regret and remorse for their actions. Police are not the judge and jury. These officers will have to stand before God and the authorities on this earth for what they have done.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson? The Rev. Martin Luther King III? That final line about divine judgment is strong enough for both of those preachers.

Actually, the answer is the Rev. Franklin Graham.

Yes, I also saw Graham’s statement bashing liberal clergy for their harsh reactions to President Donald Trump’s photo op with the Bible. But let’s try, try, try to stay focused on the racism discussions, for a moment. Graham’s Floyd statement could have been endorsed by others.

I asked Wilken some questions about America’s discussions of institutional racism and the potential for reform in police departments.

I asked if Wilken expected progress in talks between:

(1) Trump and Democrat Joe Biden? The answer is obviously “no,” said Wilken. I agreed.

(2) Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill? Wilken gave the same answer. Me too.

(3) African-American and white cops and the organizations in which they are involved?


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

Howard County, Maryland, officials tried to ban Mass: Why wasn't that a news story?

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

Does anyone remember the coronavirus pandemic?

Think back a week or even two. You may remember headlines about tensions between people who wanted to “open up” the economy at the local level and others who wanted to continue with lockdowns or other “shelter at home” policies for citizens as a whole (as opposed to those uniquely at risk). This was not strictly a left vs. right thing, but the further one went to the extremes — extended lockdowns vs. strong attempts to “return to normal” — the more political things became.

That seems so long ago. Still, I would like to flash back to something that happened recently in Maryland, the state I called home for more than a decade. Here at GetReligion, we have been spending quite a bit of time focusing on coverage of the overwhelming majority of religious flocks that are trying to return to some form of corporate worship — while stressing safety and social-distancing principles.

Here’s the Catholic News Agency headline: “Maryland county lifts ban on Communion.”

My question: Did you see any mainstream news coverage of this story? The overture:

Howard County, Maryland, has reversed a policy that banned consumption of any food or drink during religious services, effectively preventing the licit celebration of Mass.

A county spokesman told CNA May 28 the prohibition will be removed, and faith leaders will be consulted on future guidelines for church reopenings amid the coronavirus pandemic.

On Tuesday, Howard County Executive Calvin Ball issued an executive order delineating reopening regulations and conditions for houses of worship and other entities deemed “non-essential” by the state of Maryland.

“There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service,” that order said.

Ever since seeing that news item, I have been running online searches — of news sources and then the Internet as a whole — for mainstream news coverage of this amazing example of a clash between government officials and worship in mainstream religious institutions.

Please click here and scan the results of a new search for the terms “Howard County,” “Communion” and “Maryland.”

What do you see in these results?


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

Got news? Some members of Class Of COVID-19 heard faith talk at commencement

, , , , , , , ,

The late spring is typically marked by graduation ceremonies, with schools across North America handing out their undergraduate degrees to students after four years of college. Like everything else in society that involves large gatherings, the global pandemic has forced many schools to either hold their ceremonies online or postpone them to a future date.

For the colleges and universities that did decide to hold ceremonies this month, the topic of God wasn’t far from the minds of some commencement speakers. It’s not surprising given how the contagion has led to the death of thousands of people around the world, forcing stores to shutter and in the process destroying economies.

Many institutions of higher education — especially Protestant and Catholic ones — have decided to postpone in-person graduation ceremonies to later this year in the hopes that coronavirus infections have either subsided or that a vaccine makes social distancing measures obsolete. Like classes that went online this spring, so did many commencement exercises. While it wasn’t the graduation ceremony many had expected, these remote ceremonies to honor seniors were seen as a necessary sendoff.

God and graduation isn’t a new thing, a topic highlighted by several speakers last year.

The son of a Pentecostal minister, Hollywood superstar Denzel Washington — speaking at Dillard University’s commencement in New Orleans in 2015 — famously said: “Number one: Put. God. First. Put God first in everything you do. Everything that you think you see in me. Everything that I’ve accomplished, everything that you think I have — and I have a few things. Everything that I have is by the grace of God. Understand that. It’s a gift.”

Below is a roundup of notable virtual commencement addresses that featured faith:

TOM HANKS (WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY)

Hollywood star Tom Hanks delivered a virtual commencement speech on May 2 during a surprise message to graduates of Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio.

The actor, who famously played the iconic Mister Rogers in the movie A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood, was raised in Roman Catholic and Mormon household, and described himself as a “Bible-toting evangelical” during his teen-age years. Hanks, who became Greek Orthodox as an adult and attends church regularly, wasn’t afraid to use religious language in his message.


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

Home, home on the rage: And seldom was heard an unpredictable word in Trump Bible wars

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

Let me just shout a quick “Amen!” in response to the sentiments offered on Twitter by my colleague Bobby Ross Jr.

Here’s the quote: “Too. Much. News.”

For the past three decades or so, Tuesday has been the work day when I try to hide away and write my “On Religion” column, which I ship to the Universal syndicate on Wednesday morning (this week: black preachers, Old Testament prophets and centuries of pain).

Nevertheless, during the past day or so I have been following the Trumpian Bible battles on Twitter. I saw, of course, quite a few people — including conservative Christians — addressing President Donald Trump’s Bible-aloft photo op. I wondered, frankly, whether we would hear from many of those people in the mainstream press coverage that would follow. Uh. That would be “no.”

So raise your hands if you were surprised that the Episcopal Church leadership in Washington, D.C., was outraged? Their comments were essential, of course, because the story unfolded in front of the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church near the White House (site of a fire a day earlier). So you knew religious progressives would get lots of hot ink, as in the Washington Post piece that opened with the Right Rev. Mariann Budde, Episcopal bishop of Washington:

“I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call, that they would be clearing [the area] with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop,” Budde said.

She excoriated the president for standing in front of the church — its windows boarded up with plywood — holding up a Bible, which Budde said “declares that God is love.”

“Everything he has said and done is to inflame violence,” Budde of the president. “We need moral leadership, and he’s done everything to divide us.”

Let’s keep reading. Raise your hand if you are surprised that predictable evangelicals said predictable things — which is also a valid part of the story:

Johnnie Moore, a spokesman for several of Trump’s evangelical religious advisers, tweeted favorably about the incident as well.

“I will never forget seeing @POTUS @realDonaldTrump slowly & in-total-command walk from the @WhiteHouse across Lafayette Square to St. John’s Church defying those who aim to derail our national healing by spreading fear, hate & anarchy,” he wrote. “After just saying, ‘I will keep you safe.’ ”


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

MinistryWatch.com is go-to resource for keeping up with evangelical controversies

, , , , , , , , ,

Last month, colleague Bobby Ross Jr. noted the value of MinistryWatch.com for alerting journalists to less than salutary aspects of U.S. ministries, especially in wooly evangelical Protestant and “parachurch” sectors.

Ross cited its recent articles on Wycliffe Associates and David Jeremiah’s ministry. This outlet also provides ratings on organizations and, more positively, info on what groups do what things right.

One such media controversy has been revived with the death of the highly influential evangelical author and speaker Ravi Zacharias. Heartfelt personal tributes came from the likes of Vice President Mike Pence, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and here from prominent New York City Pastor Timothy Keller.

And yet. Coverage in religious media noted problems with his exaggeration of academic credentials and — notably avoided in The New York Times obit — a 2017 legal entanglement involving a married woman in Canada. That case was settled out of court under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), leaving as-yet-unexplained mysteries. (Note this World magazine analysis last October of problems with NDAs.)

MinistryWatch updated matters for the media on Monday. The woman, Lori Anne Thompson -- who has backing from celebrated evangelical victim advocate and attorney Rachael Denhollander -- is now asking the organization (without actually naming it) to release her from the NDA to answer what she calls “cruel and baseless allegations.”

In its original coverage, MinistryWatch concluded that “a cloud of uncertainty” hovers over the Zacharias ministry. The Guy cannot summarize this complex situation here, but MinistryWatch offers the media a typically careful assessment of what’s known, what’s unknown and why that is important for donors and the wider Christian community.

Here’s a sampling of other recent MinistryWatch articles.


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

'Fake news' and the lure of conspiracy theories: Are evangelicals the only folks fooled?

, , , , , , , , ,
'Fake news' and the lure of conspiracy theories: Are evangelicals the only folks fooled?

A majority of evangelicals are worried about "fake news" and they also think mainstream journalists are part of the problem.

The question, as pandemic-weary Americans stagger into the 2020 elections, is how many believers in this voting bloc have allowed their anger about "fake news" to push them toward fringe conspiracy theories about the future of their nation.

Some of these theories involve billionaire Bill Gates and global coronavirus vaccine projects, the Antichrist's plans for 5G towers, Democrats in pedophile rings or all those mysterious "QAnon" messages. "Q" is an anonymous scribe whose disciples think is a retired U.S. intelligence leader or maybe even President Donald Trump.

The bitter online arguments sound like this: Are these conspiracies mere "fake news" or is an increasingly politicized American press -- especially on politics and religion -- hiding dangerous truths behind its own brand of "fake news"?

"A reflexive disregard of what are legitimate news sources can feed a penchant for conspiracy theories," said Ed Stetzer, executive director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College.

Many mainstream journalists do a fine job of covering the complex world of evangelicalism, stressed Stetzer, reached by email.

Nevertheless, he added: "I think that the bias of much of mainstream news has to be considered in this conversation. Many evangelicals have seen, over and over, news sources report on them irresponsibly, with bias, and -- at times -- with malice. When you see that enough, about people you know, there is a consequence. Regrettably, I don't think many in the mainstream news world are thinking, 'We should have done better.' "

It doesn't help that Americans disagree about the meaning of "fake news."


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