Abortion

, , , , , , , , ,

Plug-In: Who were the religion-politics winners and who were the losers in '22 midterms?

, , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Who were the religion-politics winners and who were the losers in '22 midterms?

America voted.

But you knew that already, so we’ll make this quick.

Big winners included abortion rights proponents and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a potential 2024 GOP presidential contender.

Among the notable losers: a predicted red wave and former President Donald Trump. Alas, Trump is not one to acknowledge electoral defeat. The question becomes: Will the Republicans who’ve enabled him finally do so and move on?

Still to be decided: Georgia’s crucial U.S. Senate race, which is headed to a Dec. 6 runoff between Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Herschel Walker. In the general election campaign, the two offered clashing religious messages, as noted by The Associated Press’ Bill Barrow.

For more insight on Tuesday’s voting, check out these religion stories:

• Abortion rights scored the biggest midterm victory (by Yonat Shimron and Jack Jenkins, Religion News Service)

• Republicans win on inflation but lose on abortion (by Daniel Silliman, Christianity Today)

• After wins at the ballot, abortion rights groups want to ‘put this to the people’ (by Sarah McCammon, NPR)

• Catholic leaders say abortion referendum results ‘does not bode well for the future’ (by John Lavenburg, Crux)


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

What kind of believers want to sit in pews surrounded by their political allies?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
What kind of believers want to sit in pews surrounded by their political allies?

Just over half of churchgoing American Protestants went into the tense midterm elections believing that the people in the pews around them would vote the same way they did.

A Lifeway Research online survey in September found that 50% of those in its national panel agreed with the statement, "I prefer to attend a church where people share my political beliefs, while 55% agreed that "My political views match those of most people at my church." At the same time, 10% were not sure about the first question and 22% the second.

"What we are seeing is a pretty complex situation," said Scott McConnell, executive director at Lifeway Research. While churchgoers are divided on the need for political uniformity in their pews, there are enough believers who take that stance to prove that "this is not one or two people that pastors need to talk to and try to understand. This is a GROUP of people in most of our churches and that's something pastors have to deal with now."

This new survey began with questions used in 2017, he noted, and while the results are similar some new trends are clear. In the earlier survey, 51% of the respondents felt their church was politically homogenous, with only 11% "strongly" agreeing. Now, 21% strongly agree. Also, a rising number of believers assume they can predict the politics of others in their churches. In 2017, 30% were unsure if they shared the views of others in their congregations, but that number dropped to 22% this time.

In a survey result clashing with a popular stereotype, those with evangelical beliefs (44%) were less likely than non-evangelicals (54%) to say they wanted a church in which believers shared their political views. The survey defined "evangelical" in doctrinal terms, stressing beliefs such as, "The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe" and "Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God's free gift of eternal salvation." Other significant results included:


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

Podcast: More ink about crazy churches sinking down (maybe) into partisan politics

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: More ink about crazy churches sinking down (maybe) into partisan politics

I’m hiding in a different set of mountains this week, but it’s my understanding that important political stuff has happened. Was that the midterm elections or something like that?

I also understand — based on reading stories on my smartphone — that those nasty evangelical churches had a bad week, in terms of getting “their candidates” elected. I know that because I wrote a post about that topic earlier this week, right before I fired up the electric car and rushed off to hide in the hills. That headline: “Crazy political stuff happening in churches right now, but which events get the elite ink?”

We revisited that topic in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), as a way of dipping a toe into the churning midterm waters. The key to the discussion was trying to discern whether political-beat reporters — religion-beat pros tend to do much better work — understand what religious leaders are allowed to do when talking about “political” topics and politicos who are running for office.

This happens on the Religious Right and (#triggerwarning) even more on the Religious Left (click here for more on that from Baptist progressive Ryan Burge). But most of the political-beat coverage is built on scary passages like this one from a piece at The Guardian that ran with the headline, “He was chosen’: the rightwing Christian roadshow spreading the gospel of Trump.” The coverage focus on the ReAwaken rallies that blend lots of Donald Trumpian talk with nondenominational evangelical-speak. That sounds like this:

Mark Trudo, who runs his own swimming pool construction company near St Louis, is more optimistic, saying: “Right now I’m hopeful, I think things are going to turn around, a great awakening is taking place.”

Like most of his ReAwaken peers, he sees the current politics in apocalyptic terms: “The country is being taken away from us from within. This is good versus evil.”

Actual evil? As in satanic evil?

“Is God real, is Satan real? Yes, I believe they are,” he says.

Is Biden satanic?


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

Overlooked voting trend: Atheists and agnostics are a growing force for Democrats

, , , , , , ,
Overlooked voting trend: Atheists and agnostics are a growing force for Democrats

It’s hard to remember now, given the attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, but the day after votes were cast, one theme stood out — voter turnout.

Every state in the nation saw higher turnout in 2020 than 2016, according to an analysis from the Pew Research Center. Overall, there were more than 158 million votes cast, according to the Federal Election Commission — nearly 22 million more than just four years prior.

Turnout will likely play an outsize role in the 2022 midterms, too, as voters determine what political party will have control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate in January 2023.

As a political scientist who studies the intersection of religion and politics, I am interested in which groups may have a strong impact on the balance of power. And if the data is any guide, there are two key communities political analysts often overlook — atheists and agnostics. Journalists need to be paying attention to these trends, as well.

In 2008, almost 8% of the entire U.S. population claimed to be atheist or agnostic, according to my analysis of data from the Cooperative Election Study, or CES — an annual survey coordinated by a team at Harvard University. Atheists believe that there is no higher power in the universe, while agnostics contend that a higher power may exist but it’s impossible to know for certain.

By 2021, that share had risen to just about 12%. But atheists and agnostics are often left-leaning in their political persuasion, and their rapid ascendance in the American religious landscape is proving much more consequential to the Democratic Party than the GOP.


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

U.S. bishops preach pro-life Catholic doctrine to Biden: Isn't that a story during midterms?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
U.S. bishops preach pro-life Catholic doctrine to Biden: Isn't that a story during midterms?

The looming midterm elections have the Republicans giddy over the potential that they may take control of the House and Senate. Democrats, on the other hand, are hoping to stem the loses knowing that they still have President Joe Biden in the White House.

Amid all this midterm mania are the talking points politicians are pushing in order to appeal to their core voters. Republicans are campaigning on inflation and crime and Democrats on diversity and, of course, abortion following the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

Polls show that voters care more about inflation, but Democrats are hoping that talking up abortion will get out their base. Abortion, however, isn’t just a political issue. As Biden, a practicing Catholic, promises to make abortion a federal right by codifying Roe v. Wade into law should Democrats keep a majority, tension among him and several prominent U.S. bishops has heated up once again.

Some of these bishops have been in the news in the past regarding Biden’s support of abortion, threatening to deny him the sacrament of Holy Communion. It was last week that the issue came to the forefront again.

At least, it come to the forefront in Catholic news publications. In the elite press that GetReligion studies? Not so much or not at all.

This is how Catholic News Agency reported it on Oct. 25:

President Joe Biden, a professed Catholic, must end his “single-minded” abortion extremism and see the humanity in unborn children, the U.S. bishops have said. They said abortion’s impact is “tragic” and urged the president to support mothers.

“The president is gravely wrong to continue to seek every possible avenue to facilitate abortion, instead of using his power to increase support and care to mothers in challenging situations,” Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said Oct. 25.

“This single-minded extremism must end, and we implore President Biden to recognize the humanity in preborn children and the genuine life-giving care needed by women in this country,” he said.

The U.S. bishops’ statement noted that last week Biden declared that his top legislative priority after the November elections is to codify a national right to abortion.

This is a major story that was covered by the Catholic press, but big secular newsrooms ignored it.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Earth to RNS: Why not show a bit less deference to 'devout' Catholic abortionists?

, , , , , ,
Earth to RNS: Why not show a bit less deference to 'devout' Catholic abortionists?

Last week, I was in New York receiving three awards for my work that appeared last year in Newsweek, Politico and National Geographic. Writers for Moment magazine, Sojourners, The Forward, The Washington Post, the San Francisco radio station KALW and many other organizations won as well, including Religion News Service.

In the case of RNS, much good work has been done. Which is why I’m scratching my head at two recent pieces: one a hagiography of the Rev. James Martin, a Catholic priest known for his ministry to gays, and a Catholic gynecologist who insists she keeps the faith –- yet performs abortions.

It was difficult to know exactly what the Martin piece, written by two rabbis was: A news story? An opinion piece? An analysis? A sermon? A nomination for sainthood?

The last is in jest yet only partially; Martin’s teachings are radical enough that then Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput had to release a statement in 2019 about how Martin does not speak for the Catholic Church and “to caution the faithful about some of his claims.”

The authors put Catholic teaching in the worst possible light in this paragraph:

This time of great change affords Catholic clergy the chance to adapt to new needs and serve people in new ways. Even as some may feel constrained by vows of obedience that obligate leadership to line up with papal directives, others are finding support for new areas of ministry and outreach to underserved and marginalized groups…

With this multifaceted approach, Father Martin brings his ministry outside the traditional institutional framework to directly reach the people he seeks to serve. His work provides a new model for clergy leadership within the Catholic Church, modeled on the example of Jesus.

Well actually, whenever Jesus encountered someone operating outside the bounds of traditional sexual mores, he certainly reached out to them, but he also said, “Go and sin no more.” Not sure Martin is doing that.


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

Tips for reporters covering feds arresting abortion-facility protestors, from Christianity Today

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Tips for reporters covering feds arresting abortion-facility protestors, from Christianity Today

Long ago, back in 1980s Denver days, I was out of town covering a national religion-news event when something interesting happened during an Operation Rescue protest at abortion facility.

The protest was going as planned, with peaceful protestors willing to be arrested for blocking the entrance (think civil disobedience) when someone rushed forward and started verbally and physically harassing a client and her escort. This became the big story of the day.

When I heard about what had happened I asked the city desk if anyone had checked to see if the attacker was actually part of the planned protest. There was a possibility, of course, that this was a rogue protestor or even a plant from pro-abortion-rights groups whose goal was to get Operation Rescue shut down.

The key question: Had this person signed the Operation Rescue card to take part in the protest, in which participants promise to do nothing more than pray and sing hymns during the blockade, then allow themselves to be arrested? I had included that tactical detail in my earlier coverage of the protests.

Well, no one asked. To cut to the chase: No one really wanted to ask.

The template for the story had already been created. Factual details about Operation Rescue techniques were irrelevant. Once I was home, I checked. No one knew the identity of this rogue protestor and he had not signed the pledge card. He wasn’t part of the organized protest.

I thought this was a story. My editors just shook their heads.

I bring this up because of an interesting story I read at Christianity Today: “DOJ Steps Up Prosecution of Pro-Life Protestors at Clinics.” GetReligion rarely looks at coverage in religious-market publications, but I thought that this piece included some information that might help MAINSTREAM reporters cover this important trend story. Here is the overture:

In the past month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has indicted more than a dozenpro-life protestors across the country for obstructing access to abortion clinics.

Such prosecutions have been rare historically, with just a case or two annually for the past decade. But after the US Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade this summer, the DOJ announced a task force to pursue more enforcement against anyone obstructing access to abortion clinics. Many of those protestors facing charges are Christian.


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

Catholic voters and the midterm elections: Mainstream news blitz ignores major voter bloc

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Catholic voters and the midterm elections: Mainstream news blitz ignores major voter bloc

We are in the middle of another election season and in full mud-slinging mode.

Elections are an annual occurrence, to one degree or another, but the vote that will dominate this Nov. 8 are known as the midterms. It’s when a majority of seats in both the House and Senate are up for grabs, allowing for the party in the minority (in this case the Republicans in both chambers) to potentially becoming the majority. Midterm elections are also traditionally viewed as referendums on presidents.

This takes us to the Catholic vote and its impact on the outcome. This is a topic that is receiving little or no mainstream press coverage. As we say here at GetReligion: “Hold that thought.”

While inflation and crime will certainly be on the minds of most as they cast ballots, “culture war” issues are very much alive and well. Abortion, especially after this June’s Supreme Court decision that once again made it a state issue after Roe v. Wade was rolled back, will certainly be an issue.

There have been many, many news stories about how the abortion issue will motivate those on the political left to come out and vote following the Dobbs decision. The Washington Post, on Oct. 8, reported on the issue in a news feature that appeared under the headline, “Women powered Democrats in the 2018 midterms. Will they again in 2022?”

After opening with two Colorado women, Robin Kupernik and Elizabeta Stacishin, who had joined forces in 2016 to combat Donald Trump, who was elected to the presidency that year. This is the feature’s thesis:

In the 2018 midterm elections, women like Kupernik and Stacishin were part of a women-led army that changed politics. Women who had never been particularly active politically worked phone banks, wrote postcards and sent text messages to voters. They were repulsed by Trump and determined to do something about it.

They met in small groups, marched in the streets and went door-to-door to encourage people to vote for Democrats. Their passions were palpable. Many of the congressional candidates they were supporting flipped Republican-held seats, all part of a political tide strong enough to flush the GOP from control of the House, dealing Trump a major defeat. The Pew Research Center has estimated that 62 percent of White women with college degrees backed Democrats for the House four years ago.

That has become the major press-coverage storyline of the midterms.


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

Journalism question for these times: When are death threats 'real' death threats?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Journalism question for these times: When are death threats 'real' death threats?

Here is a journalism question for you: When is a death threat an actual “death threat”?

Let me state that another way: When do words that clearly communicate a death threat represent a “real” or legitimate death threat in the eyes of journalists, local police and (wait for it) the Department of Justice?

We can add another question I received via email from a religion-beat veteran: In what sense is a death threat “pro-choice”?

Yes, once again we are looking at a story that is linked to abortion, a topic that mixes politics, religion, law and science. In this case the event that made news (barely) was the vandalism of yet another Catholic church in a blue zip code. Here is the entire report from a local CBS newsroom and note the headline, which inspired that email question: “Catholic Church in Lansing vandalized with pro-choice graffiti.”

(CBS DETROIT) - The Diocese of Lansing released video footage of three people vandalizing the Church of the Resurrection with spray-painted pro-choice graffiti.

The incident happened on Saturday, Oct. 8, between 11:52 p.m. and 11:56 p.m. Video footage shows the three suspects walking up to the church from the area of Jerome and Custer, spay-painting the church, and then leaving the area.

The suspects spray-painted on the doors, signage, and sidewalk of the church, and the messages included: "Restore Roe" and "Is overturning Roe worth your life or democracy?"

Police are reviewing the security footage and searching for the suspects. According to the Diocese of Lansing, the graffiti has been power-washed.

If anyone has any information about this crime, they are urged to contact the Lansing Police Department at 517-483-4600.

The key language: “Is overturning Roe worth your life or democracy?" What are the logical implications of the words “worth your life”?

I realize that some anti-abortion demonstrators use chants claiming (thinking “mortal sin” consequences) that those taking part in abortions are risking their souls. Is that the same thing as saying that the U.S. Supreme Court voting to overturn Roe v. Wade is, addressing Catholic worshippers, “worth your life”?


Please respect our Commenting Policy