Abortion

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

Why are Latinos veering into GOP? It's all about money, money, money (and zero faith)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Why are Latinos veering into GOP? It's all about money, money, money (and zero faith)

I know, I know. If you have read GetReligion for the past four-plus years, you know that we’re convinced that the rise of the Latino evangelical voter (often paired with traditional Catholic Latino voters) is an emerging story in American public life.

Part of this story is the rise of Pentecostalism in the Spanish-speaking world (classic Pew Research Center study here) and another part is linked to the defense of Latino family values (to use a loaded phrase).

There’s much more to this story than the role these voters played in Donald Trump’s surprising (to some) showings in some Florida and Texas zip codes. Click here (“New York Times listens to Latino evangelicals: 'Politically homeless' voters pushed toward Trump”) and then here (“Concerning Hispanic evangelicals, secret Trump voters and white evangelical women in Georgia”).

To be blunt about it, it appears that political-desk reporters are struggling with this issue, in part because it undercuts some themes in long-predicted demographic trends backing Democrats. You can see that in the recent, oh-so-predictable New York Times story that ran with this massive double-decker headline:

A Vexing Question for Democrats: What Drives Latino Men to Republicans?

Several voters said values like individual responsibility and providing for one’s family, and a desire for lower taxes and financial stability, led them to reject a party embraced by their parents.

The story is getting some Twitter attention because of this magisterial statement of woke Times doctrine:

Some of the frustrations voiced by Hispanic Republican men are stoked by misinformation, including conspiracy theories claiming that the “deep state” took over during the Trump administration and a belief that Black Lives Matter protests caused widespread violence.

But it’s more important to focus on the bigger picture, which is that this trend is all about Latino men wanting to get rich by being part of the American dream. The overture is long, but essential:


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

Puzzle: Many reporters ignoring Equality Act's impact on this crucial Schumer-Kennedy legislation

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Puzzle: Many reporters ignoring Equality Act's impact on this crucial Schumer-Kennedy legislation

I have been following the Equality Act coverage and, so far, a crucial piece in this puzzle has been missing.

Thus, here is a one-question pop test. That question: Name the piece of stunningly bipartisan legislation — vote was 97-3 in U.S. Senate — from the Bill Clinton era that will be gutted by passage of the Equality Act? Hint: It was introduced in the House by Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993, and in the Senate on the same day by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

We are, of course, talking about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In today’s advocacy-media age that would, of course, be the “Religious Freedom” Restoration Act, complete with “scare quotes.”

The key is the impact the Equality Act would have on religious parachurch groups, social ministries, hospitals and educational institutions, from preschools to universities.

Now, does everyone agree on how the Equality Act would impact the First Amendment rights of religious believers and their doctrine-defined ministries?

Of course not. There are strong, credible voices on both sides of that debate that deserve serious, accurate, informed coverage by the mainstream press. However, this process — let’s call it “journalism” — would require newsroom managers to admit that this issue exists.

That’s why Andrew Sullivan — one of the world’s best-known gay public intellectuals — called the introductory Washington Post Equality Act story a “press release” (think PR) for the Human Rights Campaign. Here is that story’s description of the legislation’s impact:

The Equality Act would amend existing civil rights laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, to explicitly ban LGBTQ discrimination in the workforce, housing, education, credit, jury service and other areas of American life.

If passed, the legislation would provide the most comprehensive LGBTQ civil rights protections in U.S. history, advocates say, significantly altering the legal landscape in a country where more than half of states lack explicit legal protections on the basis of sexuality or gender identity. …


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

'Follow the science': Is there room for Catholic voices in COVID-19 news coverage?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
'Follow the science': Is there room for Catholic voices in COVID-19 news coverage?

The phrase “follow the science” may very well be one of the most annoying to emerge from this pandemic. It’s proudly used by politicians, often to talk down to the rest of us when they are trying to chide political conservatives or religious people (not always the same thing) on an array of issues.

Was New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo “following the science” when his executive order last year forced elderly patients with COVID-19 be returned to nursing homes rather than kept in hospitals? He eventually reversed the order — but his administration remains in hot water after admitting they covered up the number of nursing home deaths. At least he didn’t fly to Cancun in the middle of all of it.

While he received wave after wave of positive press coverage, Cuomo’s actions last year were anti-science, since understanding how the virus was spreading at the time was critical to stopping it nationwide. The U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn and the FBI are now investigating the matter.

“Follow the science” is a phrase that has been used by politicians and mimicked by the mainstream press. A Google News search of the phrase yields 203,000 mentions. In mainstream news outlets, particularly last year when Donald Trump was president, the phrase became an attack on the administration’s handling of the virus. Post-Trump, the phrase continues to be one that journalists, especially in newsrooms like The New York Times are eager to quote.

This piece — “Studies Examine Variant Surging in California, and the News Isn’t Good” — began like this:

A variant first discovered in California in December is more contagious than earlier forms of the coronavirus, two new studies have shown, fueling concerns that emerging mutants like this one could hamper the sharp decline in cases over all in the state and perhaps elsewhere. …

“I wish I had better news to give you — that this variant is not significant at all,” said Dr. Charles Chiu, a virologist at the University of California, San Francisco. “But unfortunately, we just follow the science.”

This pandemic may have led to the wide use of this feel-good phrase, allowing government officials (copying what they hear from scientists) to exert enormous powers. However, other politically polarizing issues — such as abortion, transgender rights and climate change — have also led to its overuse. For many journalists, it means something like this: We have the truth on our side, while the rest of you believe in conspiracy theories. It’s a way to stifle debate, while offering lopsided news coverage.

What does it mean for journalism and particularly the impact of Catholic voices in news stories?


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

Ryan Burge day: Black church believers and Black ‘nones’ show little Ideological divide

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ryan Burge day: Black church believers and Black ‘nones’ show little Ideological divide

There are a number of narratives that have emerged from the 2020 election season, many of which will take years to fully unpack.

One of the most important actually began to take root in December 2017 when Alabama held a special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions who became Attorney General in the Donald Trump administration. Alabama, one of the most conservative states in the nation, elected a Democrat — Doug Jones — to a statewide office for the first time in 25 years.

The reason for the victory was quickly attributed to the African-American community who turned out in large numbers for the Democrats. This same thread has run through coverage of the 2020 presidential election, when Joe Biden bested Trump in Georgia. Observers noted that the deep history of civil rights activism in the state energized the African-American base to repudiate the Trump presidency.

That bore out again on Jan. 5, 2021 when the Democrats won both Senate run-off elections in the state, defeating two Republican incumbents.

The Rev. Raphael Warnock’s win has garnered the most headlines. The pastor of one of America’s most historic churches — Ebeneezer Baptist — Warnock’s sermons featured prominently in the campaign. One of the results of this coverage is that it pulled back the curtain a bit on the Black church experience for many White Americans who have never had a lot of exposure to other religious traditions.

Yet, despite the fact that a lot of the chatter about the Black vote has centered on people of faith — it’s important to recognize that the Black community is not a religious monolith. While the largest share of African-Americans identify as Christian (63.5%), nearly a quarter indicate that they have no religious affiliation (22.1%) and another 15% identify as part of another faith group (Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.)

While these religious differences generate huge political divides among the White community, is the same true for Black Americans? The data indicates that race generates a unifying identity for Black Americans much more so than it does for White America, and religious differences at the ballot box are often small or non-existent when comparing Black Americans of different faith traditions.

In terms of political partisan and ideology — the differences between Black Christians, Black Nones and those of other faith traditions is relatively small. However, it’s worth pointing out that Black Christians are clearly the most likely to identify with the Democratic Party.


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

Welcome to New York Times 'religion' feed? A kissy-kissy chat with exiting NARAL boss

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Welcome to New York Times 'religion' feed? A kissy-kissy chat with exiting NARAL boss

Does anyone else remember RSS feeds?

The whole idea of RSS — Really Simple Syndication — is that websites can allow you can set up an automated feed that feeds you updates on specific topics in a standardized, computer-readable format.

The key is that computer algorithms are supposed to detect when stories address issues that interest a specific reader.

Anyway, I received this item the other day in my RSS feed devoted to New York Times stories about religion. In this case, the Times defines the RSS criteria, not me.

In terms of religion news, this one is pretty weird — even for today’s Times. The headline: “Ilyse Hogue, Influential Abortion Rights Advocate, Will Step Down as NARAL Chief — In an interview, Ms. Hogue discussed a tumultuous era for abortion rights and the future of Roe v. Wade.”

In other words, this is a kissy-kissy Q&A marking Hogue’s exit after eight years as leader of NARAL Pro-Choice America. The Times informs readers that “abortion rights are at something of a crossroads, with Democrats facing the choice of whether to try to deliver on their promise of codifying Roe v. Wade.”

All right, says I, let’s see the many points in this report that touch on religion. After all, the RSS algorithms put this in the “religion” feed.

I found three, and even that it is stretching it. Can you spot the religious content in the following three bites from this news feature? The questions, obviously, are in bold type:

Let’s start with perhaps the biggest question: Is Roe v. Wade safe?


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

Con Don: Why some conservative Catholic news sites were duped by Donald Trump

, , , , , , , ,
Con Don: Why some conservative Catholic news sites were duped by Donald Trump

Now that Donald Trump is no longer president, the discussion about his time in office and legacy is something that has become a media preoccupation despite Joe Biden being inaugurated last month.

That’s because Trump upended much of the way government worked. Add to that a media that can’t quit him (some outlets saw a huge increase in readers and viewers since 2016) and the U.S. Senate impeachment trial, and you can see why Trump remains a focal point.

The U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6 is the coda to the Trump presidency and the reason why he remains a news cycle fixture. You may no longer see the former president on Twitter, but The New York Times and CNN — to name just two mainstream news organizations — continue to give him plenty of coverage.

This brings us to another development in today’s evolving news-media marketplace: Catholic media also blossomed during the Trump years.

What has been the result of some Catholic news websites giving Trump any form of editorial support?

Catholic news sites across the doctrinal spectrum should have done a better job calling out both sides — something the mainstream press no longer does, especially on moral, cultural and religious issues. Most often, they don’t run opposing opinion pieces and it appears that the selection of news stories and their arguments are often guided by politics.

However, if we have learned anything over the past four years it is that marrying one’s faith to a political ideology can be a form of idolatry. How else would you explain the zeal of some Catholics who argued that Trump should remain in office?

Catholics have been seduced by the concept that the government can remedy the nation’s problems. They weren’t duped by Trump in as much as they tried to find a solution for what ails society, from their point of view, by supporting an imperfect man. Catholics, like many people of other Christian denominations, wanted to believe Trump. They had too much invested in him and his policy decisions.

Where right-wing Catholics news sites, in particular, go from here remains to be seen.


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

New podcast: Are tensions between Speaker Pelosi and her archbishop a valid news story?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Are tensions between Speaker Pelosi and her archbishop a valid news story?

The following is not a hypothetical case or a parable. This is the heart of the news story that was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

Step one: Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a guest on Hillary Clinton’s “You and Me Both” podcast. As you would expect, since this was recorded a week after the stunning January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, they spent some time discussing their views on the Donald Trump years.

This led to a discussion about the choices made by pro-life voters in the 2016 election. Here is some crucial material from a Catholic News Agency story about the exchange.

… House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that support of pro-life voters for former President Donald Trump was an issue that “gives me great grief as a Catholic.”

“I think that Donald Trump is president because of the issue of a woman’s right to choose,” she said of abortion, implying that pro-life voters boosted Trump to victory in 2016. She added that these voters “were willing to sell the whole democracy down the river for that one issue.”

Other than the “sellout” implication, the key phrase there is “as a Catholic.”

Step two: The archbishop who — canonically speaking — is charged with overseeing Pelosi’s life as a Catholic believer was not amused by this assertion. Here is another chunk of that CNA report.

“No Catholic in good conscience can favor abortion,” said Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, Pelosi’s home diocese. … “Our land is soaked with the blood of the innocent, and it must stop.”

Pelosi has long supported abortion despite her Catholic faith. In 2008, she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” regarding when life begins, “over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.” She said that her Catholic faith “shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to choose.” …

Archbishop Cordileone clarified that "Nancy Pelosi does not speak for the Catholic Church. … And on the question of the equal dignity of human life in the womb, she [Pelosi] also speaks in direct contradiction to a fundamental human right that Catholic teaching has consistently championed for 2,000 years.” …

Step three: Write a mainstream news story?


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

Happy birthday (I guess): GetReligion will keep highlighting 'religion ghosts' in the news

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Happy birthday (I guess): GetReligion will keep highlighting 'religion ghosts' in the news

Growing old is complicated.

This is especially true during these bizarre COVID-19 days in which one day runs into another and sometimes it’s hard to remember what is what and when is when.

Oh well, whatever, nevermind. I being this up because GetReligion.org launched on Feb. 2, 2004 (even though the first post was written a day earlier). I think that means we just turned 17 and are headed into year No. 18, but my aging mind goes rather numb just thinking about it.

This blog has always had two essential goals.

The first is to highlight what we call “ghosts” in mainstream news coverage, as in essential facts and themes about religion that journalists — on lots of beats — frequently miss when covering news stories, big and small. A side effect of that task has been urging newsroom managers to hire experienced religion-beat reporters to strengthen their newsrooms.

Goal No. 2 is related to that. We have tried, year after year, to defend what is frequently called the American Model of the Press (see this .pdf) — with its emphasis on accurate, fair-minded, even balanced coverage of stories in which there are competing, or even clashing, viewpoints. For a taste of what that sounds like, check out this famous 2003 memo by the late, great, Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll. Here’s a crucial chunk of that, after his critique of a one-sided story:

The reason I'm sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times.

I'm no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same.

In recent years, economic, cultural and political forces have greatly weakened the American Model of the Press (see this recent Celemente Lisi post on that topic). Some people say this model is outdated, in a digital age in which opinion is cheap and information is expensive and the safest business model — producing mouse-clicks and loyal subscribers — is to tell your niche audience what it wants to hear.


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

Inauguration Day showdown: U.S. Catholic bishops remain divided on 'McCarrick doctrine'

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Inauguration Day showdown: U.S. Catholic bishops remain divided on 'McCarrick doctrine'

Speaking to an Italian family association in 2018, Pope Francis compared the abortion of children with genetic problems to "what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today, we do the same thing but with white gloves."

A year later, Francis bluntly asked a journalist from Mexico if it's "fair to eliminate a human life in order to solve a problem? The answer to which is, 'No.' Second question: Is it fair to pay a sniper to solve a problem? No. Abortion is not a religious problem. … It is a problem of eliminating a human life. Period."

But the pope was careful in his Inauguration Day message to America's second Catholic president, assuring Joe Biden that he would "pray that your decisions will be guided by a concern for building a society marked by authentic justice and freedom, together with unfailing respect for the rights and dignity of every person, especially the poor, the vulnerable and those who have no voice."

The pope's text was examined closely after reports that the Vatican -- on behalf of progressive American bishops -- tried to stop the circulation of a sobering statement from the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The letter from Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles addressed the challenge, and blessing, of working with "our first president in 60 years to profess the Catholic faith."

Clearly, Biden's piety had offered "solace in times of darkness and tragedy," said Gomez, leader of America's largest diocese and a crucial voice among Hispanic Catholics. He also praised Biden's "longstanding commitment to the Gospel's priority for the poor."

Nevertheless, Gomez noted that "our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the … the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences."

Cardinal Blasé Cupich of Chicago fired back on Twitter, attacking this "ill-considered statement on the day of President Biden's inauguration" while claiming "there is seemingly no precedent" for this action by Gomez.

The Pillar, a Catholic news website, reported that the Vatican Secretariat of State intervened to "spike" the statement from the U.S. bishops after objections from Cupich, Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark and some other bishops.


Please respect our Commenting Policy