In addition to spending some social-distanced time around a grill, this is a good day for a bit of extra reading. Please consider this a kind of “think piece” package to mentally munch during a relaxing day.

Yes, I realize that some of the topics are a bit heavy. It’s #2020.

For starters, here is a heavyweight Commonweal essay from retired Newsweek religion-beat pro Kenneth Woodward: “Religion & Presidential Politics — From George Washington to Donald Trump.”

As is usually the case with Woodward, there is plenty to think about in this lengthy piece and a few things to argue about, as well. In other words, it’s must reading. Here is the lengthy overture.

Sen. Eugene McCarthy, one of the few theologically sophisticated men ever to seek either party’s presidential nomination, liked to say that only two kinds of religion are tolerated along the Potomac: “strong beliefs vaguely expressed and vague beliefs strongly affirmed.” McCarthy had two particular presidents in mind: Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. But he could have been describing most of the men who have occupied the White House. Franklin D. Roosevelt would have understood what McCarthy meant. When he decided to run for president in 1932, his press secretary asked him what he should tell the press about his religious convictions. Roosevelt could have justly claimed that he was a warden of his Episcopal parish, prayed often, and regularly attended Sunday services. But all he said was: “Tell them I am a Christian and a Democrat, and that is all they need to know.” And it was. And so, with rare exceptions, it has always been in presidential elections.
Having written about religion and its relationship to American culture and politics for more than half a century, I am not inclined to minimize the effects of religious belief, behavior, and belonging on American public life. But I think it’s abundantly clear that religion has rarely been a significant factor in our presidential politics, and isn’t likely to be in the upcoming election. On the contrary, to treat religious identity as an independent variable, as many journalists, academics, and pollsters do, inflates the influence of religion on our politics and masks the ways in which politics has come to shape American religion, rather than the reverse. Still, after the returns are in next November, the media will carry stories about how Catholics, liberal Protestants, and Evangelicals — especially “non-Hispanic white” Evangelicals — voted. Why do we insist on connecting presidential choices with religious identity?

Let me give my answer to that question: We connect the two because candidates and their political parties take stands on moral and cultural issues that directly connect — for SOME (I cannot emphasize “some” enough), certainly not a majority, of voters.

Is it news if a sitting United States senator pens a letter to the U.S. Justice Department?

It depends on a number of factors. Let’s also say that the letter in question is made public by the senator’s communications department via the Internet and on social media. Is it a news story then?

This depends, of course, on what the letter says and whether it is connected to facts that journalists can seek out and report — if they are willing to do so.

Is the story linked to nasty political partisanship? Does it involve President Donald Trump? Does it involve religion, sex and maybe even money?

This post isn’t some esoteric exercise in press freedom or news judgement. It’s about something real that is plaguing the national press in this country at this very critical moment in time.

A letter of this very kind was written and made public on August 11 by Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy (no relation to the Kennedy’s of JFK and Massachusetts fame). The letter in question had nothing to do with Russian election interference or the disappearance of mail boxes. Those topics would have been covered immediately and extensively.

Instead, the letter was about the surge in vandalism targeting Catholic churches and statues, a story that the vast majority of pros in the national press (as I have noted in this space before) have ignored. The reasons for that vary greatly, but my best hypothesis is that it just doesn’t resonate among secular newsroom editors and reporters who don’t have a high regard for Catholics or religion in general in the importance in the lives of everyday Americans.