Baptists

Thinking about an ancient question that's back in the news: 'Terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'?

Thinking about an ancient question that's back in the news: 'Terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'?

What we have here is a news-you-can-use explainer on a controversial topic that comes from a source that, for some readers, will automatically be controversial.

The headline: Why terrorists aren’t freedom fighters.” The source is the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest non-Catholic religious body.

Ah, but if you follow SBC politics, you know that many on the political and cultural right now believe that the ERLC is kind of “woke” when it comes to issues of this kind. For other readers, the SBC is the SBC and that is that. I would suggest that it helps to contrast the ERLC staff’s material with, let’s say, “just war” thoughts from the Catholic left (care of the Jesuits at America magazine).

Also, the “one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” debate looms over the results of this year’s “top stories” poll from the Religion News Association (Bobby Ross, Jr., summary here).

Here a view clips from the ERLC thinker. It’s always interesting when Southern Baptists get involved in debates that include Latin terms (jus ad bellum”). Thus, let’s jump down to the section on the “moral requirements for going to war.” This isn’t the whole list of conditions, of course:

The primary difference is how they align with the criteria of the just war tradition. First, let’s measure them against the jus ad bellum, the moral requirement for going to war:

1. Just Cause: Like nation-states, non-state actors may have just and proper reasons for going to war. For example, they may be acting in self-defense to prevent genocide or acting to restore human rights wrongly denied.

2. Proportionate Cause: Again, like established nation-states, non-state actors could go to war to prevent more evil and suffering than their warfare is expected to cause.

3. Right Intention: Non-state actors may also have the right intentions for going to war. They could, for instance, be motivated by Christian love and pursuit of justice instead of an illegitimate intention to go to war, such as revenge.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Finding religion ghosts in the Ivy League wars, with help (sort of) from Andrew Sullivan

Finding religion ghosts in the Ivy League wars, with help (sort of) from Andrew Sullivan

If you have been following the horror shows at Ivy League schools, you know how agonizing this situation has become for old-school First Amendment liberals.

Are the tropes of anti-Semitism still protected forms of speech? Back in the 1970s, ACLU lawyers knew the painful answer to that question when Nazis wanted to legally march through Skokie, Illinois, a Chicago-area community containing many Holocaust survivors.

America has come a long way, since then. Today, the illiberal world considers a stunning amount of free speech to be violence, except in myriad cases in which speech controls are used to prevent “hate speech” and misinformation/disinformation in debates when one side controls the public space in which free debates are supposed to be taking place.

Clearly, death threats, physical intimidation and assaults are out of line. But what about a slogan such as, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”? Is that automatically a call for genocide? The Associated Press has this to say:

Many Palestinian activists say it’s a call for peace and equality after 75 years of Israeli statehood and decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians. Jews hear a clear demand for Israel’s destruction.

Ah, but what does Hamas say? The same AP report notes:

“Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” Khaled Mashaal, the group’s former leader, said that year [2012] in a speech in Gaza celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas. “There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”

The phrase also has roots in the Hamas charter.

The key is that Hamas opposes a two-state solution allowing Israel to continue as a Jewish homeland. How is Israel eliminated without the eliminating, to one degree or another, millions of Jews?

This brings us back to the Ivy League. At this point, I think that it’s time for someone to ask if other minorities on Ivy League campuses have — in recent decades — experienced severe limitations on their free speech and freedom of association. To what degree are other minorities “ghosts” on these campuses? Do they barely exist? Has the rush to “diversity” eliminated many religious and cultural points of view?

Ah, but the Ivy League giants are private schools. They have rights of their own.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Rosalynn Carter memorials, with coverage about faith, family and, yes, political fashions

Rosalynn Carter memorials, with coverage about faith, family and, yes, political fashions

The public drama of Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter continues this week with a public memorial service and a family funeral, the kind of events that pull people into church sanctuaries, especially in the Bible Belt.

It’s safe to say that the more private funeral today — in the couple’s home church, Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Georgia — will be a worship service in a progressive Baptist congregation. It will be interesting to see if footage is provided featuring the eulogy, along with the hymns and scriptures chosen by the Carters.

The memorial service was held in Glenn Memorial United Methodist Church, near the Carter Center at Emory University. The 99-year-old president — 10 months into home hospice care — spent Monday night at the center, close to where is wife’s body lay in repose. Atlanta is 164 miles from the Carter home in Plains.

Let’s give credit to the Associated Press for getting some mention of the couple’s faith into the lede of its story about the public, rather political, memorial service:

ATLANTA (AP) — Rosalynn Carter was remembered Tuesday as a former U.S. first lady who leveraged her fierce intellect and political power to put her deep Christian faith into action by always helping others, especially those who needed it most.

A gathering of first ladies and presidents — including her 99-year-old husband Jimmy Carter — joined other political figures in tribute. But a parade of speakers said her global stature wasn’t what defined her.

Later on, there was this, as well:

Family members described how Rosalynn Carter went from growing up in a small town where she had never spoken to a group larger than her Sunday school class to being a global figure who visited more than 120 countries.

Kathryn Cade, who stayed on as a close adviser as Rosalynn Carter helped build The Carter Center and its global reach, called Rosalynn Carter’s time as first lady “really just one chapter in a life that was about caring for others.”

GetReligion readers may recall that I chided AP for producing a stunningly faith-free obit for the former First Lady.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: CNN offers an old opposition-research file on Speaker Mike 'theocrat' Johnson

Podcast: CNN offers an old opposition-research file on Speaker Mike 'theocrat' Johnson

Before we return to the never-ending saga of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and his efforts to create a totalitarian theocracy that destroys democracy in America, let’s pause for a Journalism 101 case study.

Don’t worry, this is directly related to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

Now, gentle readers, are any of you old enough to remember Marabel Morgan, the evangelical superstar who wrote “The Total Woman,” which sold something like 10 million copies? Morgan was an anti-feminist crusader clothed in pink (as opposed to something else) who had a knack for infuriating blue-zipcode elites. Here is a quick flashback, via the Faith Profiles website:

An editor at Time magazine once confided in Marabel Morgan that he came away from a cocktail party with high-heel marks all over his chest at the mere mention of her name.

And what heinous crime did Morgan commit that could provoke such a sharp reaction? Morgan wrote a book in the early 1970s that sold more than 5 million copies about how she salvaged her marriage. The widespread belief was that she proposed that women rekindle their marriages by such innovations as greeting their husbands at the door dressed in Saran Wrap or having sex under the dining room table.

Whee!

During my early 1980s religion-beat work at The Charlotte News, I ventured out to a suburban megachurch where Morgan spoke to several thousand fans. I left that meeting absolutely furious, my mind packed with outrageous punchline quotes from her (I had to admit entertaining) speech.

Driving back to the newsroom on deadline, I started figuring out what would be in the crucial first two or three paragraphs of the story. Then I realized that, if I followed my own prejudices, I was going to frontload this story with stuff that would fire up my editors and others who detested Morgan and her tribe.

Thus, I decided to attempt a story that opened with material that included (a) what Morgan said that I knew would appeal to her critics and (b) what she said that drew cheers and applause from her supporters.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Dear Associated Press editors: The story of Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter includes lots of faith

Dear Associated Press editors: The story of Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter includes lots of faith

When former President Jimmy Carter describes his life he almost always mentions each of these subjects — his wife, Rosalynn, their shared Christian faith, community service and the Bible.

In his mind, these subjects are linked. Could someone please pass that information on to the political-desk editors of the Associated Press?

The bottom line: It is impossible to write about the Carters without paying some attention to the topics that mattered the most to them, as opposed to the subjects that matter the most to political-desk journalists. If you know lots of people who have followed the Carters for decades (I even have a nephew named “Carter”), you know the role that their evolving, progressive Baptist convictions played in their story.

The death of Rosalynn Carter this weekend gives news consumers a first draft of the coverage that will follow the looming death of the 99-year-old former president, who remains in hospice care.

Much of the Carter coverage today is starkly secular and faith-free. How is that possible?

But let’s start with a positive note, care of a nuanced passage in the New York Times obit that offers an outline of what journalists will find if they explore Carter territory with open eyes and even the slightest interest in the faith elements therein. Read the following carefully

Reared in the same tiny patch of Georgia farmland, 150 miles south of Atlanta, they were similar in temperament and outlook. They shared a fierce work ethic, a drive for self-improvement and an earnest, even pious, demeanor. Their Christian faith was central to their lives. Both were frugal. Both could be stubborn.

After Mr. Carter lost his re-election bid in 1980 to Ronald Reagan, he and Mrs. Carter embarked on what became the longest, most active post-presidency in American history. They traveled the world in support of human rights, democracy and health programs; domestically, they labored in service to others, most prominently pounding nails to help build houses for Habitat for Humanity.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: How the tragic fall and suicide of a pastor-politico became national clickbait

Podcast: How the tragic fall and suicide of a pastor-politico became national clickbait

I get waves of emails and in that flood I always look forward to hearing from former Getreligionistas.

Obviously, no one knows more about news stories that I need to see than journalists who have spent time writing for this weblog. Since we’re nearing our 20th birthday, that’s an interesting, deep list of former contributors who get what we do and why we do it.

A few days ago, Mark Kellner — currently covering religion news for The Washington Times — sent a note asking my reactions to the tragic suicide of the Rev. F.L. “Bubba” Copeland in Alabama. Kellner was reacting to one of those long tabloid headlines that are common in the online edition of The Daily Mail:

Inside the secret life of Bubba Copeland: How Alabama mayor and pastor adopted a second persona online — becoming a transitioning curvy girl called Brittini — before killing himself

There’s a lot of news happening right now and, to be honest, I had not clicked into the stream of stories about Copeland’s life and death. However, when I did I immediately saw an issue that I thought would interest listeners for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

Kellner said I could share his concerns here, focusing on the first report from a conservative Alabama news and commentary website:

Given that Mr. Copeland had not been charged with any crime, should "1819news.com" have "outed" him? Yes, his behavior was odd, to say the least, for a pastor and a local politician. But having strange fantasies and even posting them online isn't necessarily criminal. It might merit his removal from the pulpit and perhaps his defeat at the next mayoral election, but apparently, this online report — and the subsequent media storm — pushed a rather fragile soul over the edge. 

In short: Does the media exist to crucify people without real cause? If someone is a child molester or otherwise acts inappropriately or illegally, that's one thing. But there should be a line somewhere, right?

Here is the key, for me. This started out as a rather sensationalistic (to say the least) story about a man who was clearly a public figure in Alabama (yes, a photo of Copeland with President Donald Trump pushed buttons). At the same time, Copeland was also the pastor of a Southern Baptist congregation, a flock of believers that has been quite outspoken on matters of sexual morality.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

When it comes to Speaker Mike Johnson, some journalists have become unhinged

When it comes to Speaker Mike Johnson, some journalists have become unhinged

Much to the rejoicing of the American populace, the House of Representatives got back to work Oct. 25 when the Republicans finally agreed on a speaker after an agonizing three weeks with no one in charge.

But to read media reports about the new speaker, you’d think the Rev. Jerry Falwell had risen from the dead and was occupying the spot. There’s an evangelical Christian at the podium and that’s red meat for a lot of scribes out there.

Watch the above video and listen to the two anchors scoff at the very idea of monitoring your kid’s internet content. Imagine, they said, being concerned about whether your son is watching porn!

It’s hard not to listen to such repartee without one’s mouth falling open. Youth suicides are soaring; kids are watching stuff online and carrying it out and these folks just think it’s all so ridiculous. I know the parents of a 13-year-old who was into really dark stuff online. By the time they figured out what he was up to, it was too late. They found his body in the garage.

A lot of America does believe in monitoring their kids’ internet viewing, porn included; a concept that some of the media I’ll be discussing cannot comprehend. Some of the most unhinged coverage has come from the Rolling Stone and finally backlash over the Stone’s over-the-top coverage is starting to emerge. More on that in a moment.

At the base of the media hysterics is the news about a father/son arrangement between Johnson and his 17-year-old son, to use a shared software program to make sure the other hasn’t been looking at porn. My prize for the most faux rage headline comes from the New Republic:

Mike Johnson and His Son Monitoring Each Other’s Porn Intake Is Worse Than You Think

The House speaker admitted to a wild new detail about his personal life. And it’s a bigger deal than it seems.

 First off, this headline is deceptive. What Johnson has said is not that the two of them are perusing dark websites on the sly; the point is neither of them are looking at porn at all.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: Inside the conservative Baptist faith of new Speaker of the House Mike Johnson

Plug-In: Inside the conservative Baptist faith of new Speaker of the House Mike Johnson

Why not start here? My beloved Texas Rangers won the World Series for the first time. You knew I’d write a column about it, right?

In shocking news, actor Matthew Perry, best known for playing Chandler Bing on TV’s “Friends,” was found dead Saturday at age 54. Perry “did not speak about faith often, but the stories he did share highlighted religion’s pivotal role in his life and career,” the Deseret News’ Kelsey Dallas explains.

Meanwhile, a day of prayer and reflection followed last week’s mass shooting that claimed 18 lives in Maine, The Associated Press’ Jake Bleiberg, David Sharp and Robert F. Bukaty report.

But in our weekly survey of the top headlines and best reads in the world of faith, we start with the role of religious faith in the politics of the new U.S. House speaker.

What To Know: The Big Story

One of their own: “Evangelical Christian conservatives have long had allies in top Republican leadership in Congress. But never before have they had one so thoroughly embedded in their movement as new House Speaker Mike Johnson, a longtime culture warrior in the courthouse, in the classroom and in Congress.”

That’s the lede from The Associated Press’ Peter Smith.

The veteran religion writer notes:

Religious conservatives cheered Johnson’s election (Oct. 25), after which he brought his Bible to the rostrum before taking the oath of office. “The Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority ... each of you, all of us,” he said.

“Someone asked me today in the media, ‘People are curious, what does Mike Johnson think about any issue?’” Johnson said (Oct. 26) in a Fox News interview. “I said, ’Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.’”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Surprise! Speaker of the House is pro religious liberty, which means he's ultra-conservative

Surprise! Speaker of the House is pro religious liberty, which means he's ultra-conservative

Before diving into the valid religion-angle hooks in the life and career of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, please allow me to address that “election denier” thing, since I am a pedigreed (nod to Religion News Service editors) #NeverTrump, #NeverClintonBiden voter.

Yes, I have closely followed election-denial issues from 2016, when the deniers were elite Democrats haunted by Russia ghosts. Ditto for 2020, when the deniers were Republicans, who kept losing court cases — even when the judges were selected by Donald Trump. I do think Big Tech efforts to cancel hot news stories affected the election (but maybe not, since the nation seems frozen 50-50 in red/blue concrete).

Truth is, I am more interested in Johnson’s First Amendment activism than I am in Trump stuff. “First Amendment,” of course, means religious liberty, free speech and freedom of association. Is Johnson concerned about religious liberty for all or for some? His legal career should include on-paper info on that.

Meanwhile, the mainstream coverage of his surprise election stressed his “anti-gay” work and related religious convictions. On X, I tweeted a question: “Does anti-gay rights mean pro-First Amendment?”

Everything you need to know on press views of that can be found in this double-decker headline at the New York Times, serving as a kind of editorial memo to the news industry as a whole:

For Mike Johnson, Religion Is at the Forefront of Politics and Policy

The new House speaker has put his faith at the center of his political career, and aligned himself with a newer cohort of conservative Christianity that some describe as Christian nationalism.

Obviously, “Christian nationalism” is currently one of the hot terms in journalism. Also, it’s clear that many journalists are concerned about the success that Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers are having at the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere. Again, there is a crucial question there: Is this First Amendment group winning victories for a variety of religious minorities?

The Times editors simply went with this, stating that Johnson spent time as a “lawyer and spokesman for the anti-abortion and anti-gay rights group Alliance Defense Fund.” Of course, that puts him in interesting company — with Times columnist David French (whose First Amendment work I have admired for two decades).

It’s important to know that Johnson declined a Times interview request. I think that he should have done that interview, with an agreement that he could post a transcript online. Would the Times have agreed? The speaker should test that.


Please respect our Commenting Policy