, , , , , , ,

With 400th anniversary, those Plymouth Pilgrims will make the ideal Thanksgiving feature

, , , , , , ,

A brave band of sectarian Protestants facing a harsh winter ahead stepped ashore 400 years ago to establish Plymouth Colony, England's second foothold in America following Jamestown.

The date was December 18, but most readers probably think about these "Pilgrims" on Thanksgiving Day, which is patterned after their legendary 1621 harvest feast with Native American guests.

Print and broadcast media professionals who are already planning Thanksgiving features could not do better with sourcing than to debrief award-winning historian John G. Turner of George Mason University (jturne17@gmu.edu, 703-993-5604) about his timely book "They Knew They Were Pilgrims: Plymouth Colony and the Contest for American Liberty" (Yale University Press).

The Pilgrims were supposed to arrive at New York harbor, but were lucky to land safely anywhere due to leaks and damage on the Mayflower.

Their "first Thanksgiving" was apparently no formal observance of gratitude to God, and the menu was probably fish and venison, not wild turkey. Whatever Plymouth Rock signified, the colonists subjected it to later neglect. The acclaimed "Mayflower Compact" was not the New World's first constitution but a hasty bare-bones agreement.

Since Plymouth was absorbed in 1691 into the wealthier Massachusetts Bay Colony, run by rival "Puritan" Christians, many historians have dismissed it as an unimportant backwater. But Turner uplifts the Pilgrims' significance, then balances their contributions against their sins, well summarized in this National Review piece. The most important story theme for journalists is the role of these pioneers at the beginnings of American democracy, human rights and religious liberty.

The Pilgrims received hosannas as democratic pioneers from 19th Century boosters like John Quincy Adams and Daniel Webster, but Turner says they "were neither democrats nor theocrats."

The colony was run by the believers, but did not require everyone to join the church or attend worship. They did, however, make everyone pay taxes to support their churches. They fled England to escape religious persecution, yet sent Baptists and Quakers into exile. (To be fair, in most countries religious dissenters faced prison or worse.)

State and church leaders were both elected, and lay elders shared power with the clergy -- all rather foresighted and with far-reaching implications.


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

Pope Francis' same-sex union media storm opens another front in a Catholic civil war

, , , , , , , , , ,

If you think about it, journalism is about conflict. A news story is generally about an issue and how two sides (or more) view said issue. The top of the story, known as the lede, is about something someone said or did. The rest is information to support that new information.

In 2020, of course, all that is easier said than done. The fast-paced nature of news in the Internet age, the concept of objectivity being questioned by some mainstream journalists and this desperate need by some to highlight one side over another has made for some murky waters in the news.

Case in point: Pope Francis’ bold proclamation released on October 21 that he endorsed civil same-sex unions. Clearly, this announcement represented some kind of turning point for the Roman Catholic church, a change in tradition on LGBTQ rights and the dawn of a new, more loving era.

Well, that’s what the mainstream press said. Here’s how The New York Times opened its report:

Pope Francis expressed support for same-sex civil unions in remarks revealed in a documentary film that premiered on Wednesday, a significant break from his predecessors that staked out new ground for the church in its recognition of gay people.

The remarks, coming from the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, had the potential to shift debates about the legal status of same-sex couples in nations around the globe and unsettle bishops worried that the unions threaten what the church considers traditional marriage — between one man and one woman.

“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” Francis said in the documentary, “Francesco,” which debuted at the Rome Film Festival, reiterating his view that gay people are children of God. “I stood up for that.”

Clearly, the pope — as head of the church — had in three sentences changed Catholicism forever.

Not so fast, said numerous on-the-record voices in the world of Catholicism.

This was typical Francis, who is known for his off-the-cuff comments (as the Times story noted) that often come into direct conflict with doctrine or they appear to do so. The key is that they produce a tsunami of headlines and news reports.

I have found that the news media isn’t so great at parsing Francis’ statements on deadline. Whenever they do, it is often to highlight Francis as a progressive who heads an evolving church.

It is also crucial that some major Catholic voices tend to be overlooked in the coverage. For example, did you hear what the Archdiocese of New York said, in response to these Pope Francis comments?


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

Today's Associated Press: Why cover both sides of an important Amy Coney Barrett story?

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

Dear editors at the Associated Press:

Let’s discuss a few issues behind your recent feature that was sent to newspapers everywhere with this headline: “Barrett was trustee at private school with anti-gay policies.”

The key, of course, is “policies” — a vague term that way too many mainstream journalists consistently use in place of the simple word “doctrines.”

Yes, of course, traditional Catholic schools have “policies” that affect students, faculty and staff. However, these policies are almost always attempts to teach and defend the doctrines of the church. It’s significant that the word “doctrine” does not appear anywhere in this long AP piece and the same goes for the word “catechism.” Also, “scripture” is used once — by a progressive Catholic stressing that conservative Catholics are “literalists” when reading the Bible.

Anyone who has covered Catholic education for a decade or two knows what is going on here. Yes, Democrats are furious about Amy Coney Barrett’s arrival on the high court. But this Associated Press story is built on divisions inside the American Catholic church, both on moral theology linked to LGBTQ issues and fights over the goals of Catholic education in colleges, universities, seminaries and private schools such as the ones linked to Barrett and People of Praise.

With that in mind, let’s add two other factors to this case that are ignored (or all but ignored) by AP.

First of all, once upon a time there was a man named St. Pope John Paul II. In 1990, this pope issued a document entitled “Ex Corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church)” focusing on issues in Catholic education. You could tell that it was a controversial document (a) because it said Catholic doctrines should be taught and defended in Catholic schools, (b) progressive Catholics, speaking through the press, went ballistic and (c) it took almost a decade of fighting for American Catholic church leaders to act (sort of) on the pope’s guidelines.

This fight was primarily about colleges and universities, but the principals in Ex Corde are relevant to fights, these days, about classroom and student-life issues in Catholic schools at all levels. So what was John Paul II saying?


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

Thoughts from a reader: What I wish my Christian friends knew about journalists (like me)

, , , , , , ,

Several weeks ago, I heard from a GetReligion reader named Rob Vaughn who wanted to get something off his chest.

I was immediately interested in what he had to say because he was a mainstream television journalist — 30-plus years as an anchor at WFMZ in Allentown, Pa. — who also happens to have two graduate degrees from a seminary.

The proposed title of his piece: “What I Wish My Christian Friends Knew About The News Media.” I told him that GetReligion has never run guest pieces — maybe one or two in 17 years — but that I would welcome a chance to look at his text and get back to him.

A day or two later I made a few suggestions and noted that I am constantly getting requests to write and speak on a related topic — how modern news consumers can seek out and find news sources that are still trying to do old-school news that attempts to be balanced, fair and accurate. I suggested that he lean that direction, perhaps with a bullet-list of some strategies about news consumption.

Vaughn ended up with a commentary fit that was a natural fit for Religion Unplugged, operated by my former colleagues at The Media Project. Here’s a crucial chunk of what he wrote:

My church friends are right: many journalists don’t “get” religious conservatives; many don’t even know any personally. Reporters, like all humans, flock together socially with like-minded people. But the reporters I know want to learn, to overcome their ignorance. …

One day an editor with whom I worked at Associated Press Radio phoned a well-known liberal group for comment on a “women’s issue” she was covering. When I told her about a conservative women’s group she didn’t know of, she was glad to call them, too — even though she was personally very liberal. She was a professional and wanted to make her story better.

The problem is what conservative (but fiercely #NeverTrump) writer David French calls the “ideological monocultures” found in many, especially elite, newsrooms. The bottom line: most journalists in those environments hold “progressive” views — especially on social issues.

That’s old news.


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

Covering Pope Francis and civil unions: The devil is in legal and doctrinal details

, , , , , , , , ,

Last week’s biggest religion news item budged from Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s religious beliefs to another part of the Roman Catholic world: A film that had actual quotes from the pontiff about same-sex civil unions.

Being that Pope Francis hasn’t made a lot of pronouncements on the topic during his seven years in the pontificate, his suddenly firm stance lent some clarity — if not agreement — on one of the most culturally divisive issues of our time.

Oh, but wait a minute. There’s some confusion out there. Folks are posting signs in St. Peter’s Square asking the pope to clarify church doctrine on marriage and sexuality.

For instance, on Saturday, America magazine reported that the papal quotes were actually remarks from a 2019 television interview that hasn’t been made public until now. And that they were spliced in weird ways to say something the pope might not have meant to say.

And on Sunday, the New Yorker came out with a very decent analysis that told the pope to get serious about sending out a clear message. It’s a confusing tangle out there.

The result is total confusion over at the Vatican, surrounded by a blitz of celebratory tweets and headlines from the Catholic left. Again.

Did Francis really say anything different than what he’s said all along? First, the basics from the Catholic News Agency:

In a documentary that premiered Wednesday in Rome, Pope Francis called for the passage of civil union laws for same-sex couples, departing from the position of the Vatican’s doctrinal office and the pope’s predecessors on the issue.

The remarks came amid a portion of the documentary that reflected on pastoral care for those who identify as LGBT.

“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” Pope Francis said in the film, of his approach to pastoral care.

The above was partial quotes from two different questions, but the movie doesn’t tell us that.

“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” the pope said. “I stood up for that.”


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

More Protestant preachers have their minds made up about 2020 presidential race

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
More Protestant preachers have their minds made up about 2020 presidential race

For pastors in America's Protestant pulpits, Election Day 2020 is starting to look a lot like 2016.

Most evangelicals whose priorities mesh -- for the most part -- with the Republican Party are ready to vote for Donald Trump, according to a LifeWay Research survey. Protestant clergy who do not self-identify as evangelicals plan to vote for Democrat Joe Biden.

The difference in 2020 is that fewer pastors are struggling to make a decision. A survey at the same point in the 2016 race found that 40% of Protestant pastors remained undecided, while 32% packed Trump and 19% supported Hillary Clinton.

This time, only 22% remain undecided, with 53% saying that they plan to vote for Trump, while 21% support Biden.

"There's still a lot of 'undecided' pastors," said Scott McConnell, executive director of LifeWay. "Quite a few pastors -- for a variety of reasons -- want to put themselves in the 'undecided' bucket. …

"Last time around, Donald Trump was such an unknown factor and many pastors really didn't know what to do with him. This time, it appears that more people know what Trump is about and they have made their peace with that, one way or another. The president is who he is, and people have made up their minds."

Looming in the background is a basic fact about modern American politics. In the end, the overwhelming majority of pastors who say they are Democrats plan to vote for Biden (85%) and the Republicans plan to back Trump (81%).

Some pastors have a logical reason to linger in the "undecided" category -- their doctrinal convictions don't mesh well with the doctrines of the major political parties.

The Rev. Tim Keller, an influential evangelical writer who founded Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, recently stirred up online debates with a New York Times essay called, "How Do Christians Fit Into the Two-Party System? They Don't."

In recent decades, he noted, Democrats and Republicans have embraced an approach to politics in which party leaders assume that working with them on one crucial issue requires agreement with the rest of their party platforms.

"This emphasis on package deals puts pressure on Christians in politics," he noted.


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

Lots to think about: Weiss and Sullivan on rise of illiberalism in news media and America

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

If you were going to nominate the public-square “think piece” of the month, it would have to be the latest salvo from former New York Times scribe Bari Weiss. You remember, of course, her earlier letter to the Gray Lady’s Powers That Be when she hit the exit door, after lots of Slack channel pressure from colleagues?

The headline on her new Tablet piece proclaims, “Stop Being Shocked: American liberalism is in danger from a new ideology — one with dangerous implications for Jews.” Trends in American journalism get quite a bit of attention in this essay.

Reading it made me think of a problem that I’ve been having here at GetReligion for a decade or more. Here is the opening of a piece five years ago entitled, “Short test for journalists: Label the cultural point of view in this commentary.”

One of the big ideas here at GetReligion is that we live in an age in which many of our comfortable journalistic labels are becoming more and more irrelevant. They simply don't tell readers anything.

For example, there is this puzzle that I have mentioned before. What do you call people who are weak in their defense of free speech, weak in their defense of freedom of association and weak in their defense of religious liberty (in other words, basic First Amendment rights)? The answer: I don't know, but it would be totally inaccurate – considering the history of American political thought – to call these people "liberals."

You can call use the term “illiberal,” of course. A Muslim human-rights activist I interviewed a few years ago said that he is considering reaching back to the French Revolution and calling them “Jacobins.”

The key is that Weiss is suddenly being called a conservative for defending the beliefs and traditions that surrounded her as she grew up in old-school liberal Jewish circles. Now, she’s a conservative of some kind because she is saying things like this:

Did you see that the Ethical Culture Fieldston School hosted a speaker that equated Israelis with Nazis? Did you know that Brearley is now asking families to write a statement demonstrating their commitment to “anti-racism”? Did you see that Chelsea Handler tweeted a clip of Louis Farrakhan? Did you see that protesters tagged a synagogue in Kenosha with “Free Palestine” graffiti? Did you hear about the march in D.C. where they chanted “Israel, we know you, you murder children too”? Did you hear that the Biden campaign apologized to Linda Sarsour after initially disavowing her? Did you see that Twitter suspended Bret Weinstein’s civic organization but still allows the Iranian ayatollah to openly promote genocide of the Jewish people?


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

Podcast: Latino evangelicals feel 'politically homeless'? They are not alone

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

The big idea for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) was pretty simple: A reporter from an elite newsroom talked to some Latino evangelicals and discovered that they think their lives are defined just as much, or more, by the fact that they are evangelicals as by being Latinos.

The hook for this discussion was my recent post with this headline: “New York Times listens to Latino evangelicals: 'Politically homeless' voters pushed toward Trump.” This Times piece was quite remarkable, in that it took the religious content seriously. Hold that thought, because we will come back to it.

Political-desk reporters have long realized that Latino Americans are a crucial bloc of swing voters and have tended to see them as a growing piece of the “Catholic vote” puzzle. Of course, Latino Catholics who frequently go to Mass have consistently different political priorities than those who have, for all practical purposes, left the sacramental life of the church.

A few political reporters have noticed that evangelical Latinos exist and that lots of them live in strategic swing states — like Arizona and Florida. If you frame that completely in political terms, it looks something like this — one of those quick-read 2020 race summaries produced by the pros at Axios.

The big picture: Trump's push for a U.S.-Mexico border wall and hardline immigration policies make him unpopular with many Hispanic voters. But he has successfully courted other Hispanic-Americans, including evangelicals, those who are a generation removed from immigration, and those of Cuban and Venezuelan descent who respond to his anti-socialism message.

— Trump is benefiting from "stronger support among evangelical protestant Hispanics who see a clearcut difference between Trump and Biden on faith-based issues," said Rice University Professor Mark Jones.

What, precisely, does this reference to “faith-based issues” mean? What are the specific doctrinal issues hiding behind that vague term?

Meanwhile, Florida is crucial (#DUH).

— National polling still shows Biden leading Trump with Hispanics by around 20 percentage points, but in some key states that lead evaporates.


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

'Catholic voters' will split their votes in this election, but how will that affect swing states?

, , , , , , ,

The U.S. election season has come down to its final days. Both national polling and those in battleground states see former Vice President Joe Biden with a lead. President Donald Trump has been traveling across the Rust Belt in hopes of winning key states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as voters are told — once again — that the upcoming election is “the most important of our lifetimes.”

The Nov. 3 election is important, and signs continue to point to a Biden victory. Democrats, fearing a repeat of 2016 when Trump surged to a shocking victory, are countering this narrative by paying attention to many states — especially in the Midwest — that Hillary Clinton downplayed in 2016. For journalists, this leads straight to fights to attract Catholic voters of various kinds (see this previous tmatt post on that topic).

News consumers can sense some panic on the left that this election could go horribly wrong for them once again. Republicans, on the other hand, appear confident, yet cautious at the same time regarding the potential outcome.

Trying to gauge voter enthusiasm is difficult. While Trump voters do seem generally more energized — especially among evangelicals and church-going Catholics — compared to Biden supporters, the events of the past few weeks in Washington may have shifted priorities.

A majority of Catholics say they support Biden (52%), while only 40% back Trump. Nevertheless, that gap, according to the latest EWTN News/RealClear Opinion Research poll released this past Monday, shows that the race narrows significantly in swing states such as Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In those states, Biden leads by an average of just four percentage points (48% to 44%), which is within the survey’s margin of error. Also, note this passage in that EWTN report:

Catholic voters are divided on some issues but said they are more likely to support candidates who seek to protect religious freedom (78% to 14%) and are less likely to support candidates who support taxpayer funding of abortion (52% to 34%) or who support abortion at any time during a pregnancy (60% to 28%).

Back in July, I argued that this coming election was primarily about the Supreme Court.


Please respect our Commenting Policy