Business

Stay tuned: Ceasefire in battles between LGBTQ rights and religious liberty?

Stay tuned: Ceasefire in battles between LGBTQ rights and religious liberty?

No doubt about it, someone will have to negotiate a ceasefire someday between the Sexual Revolution and traditional religious believers, said Justice Anthony Kennedy, just before he left the U.S. Supreme Court.

America now recognizes that "gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," he wrote, in the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. "The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."

Kennedy then punted, adding: "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts."

The high court addressed one set of those circumstance this week in its 6-3 ruling (.pdf here) that employers who fire LGBTQ workers violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Once again, the court said religious liberty questions will have to wait. Thus, the First Amendment's declaration that government "shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise of religion" remains one of the most volatile flashpoints in American life, law and politics.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch -- President Donald Trump's first high-court nominee -- expressed concern for "preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution." He noted that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 "operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws." Also, a 1972 amendment to Title VII added a strong religious employer exemption that allows faith groups to build institutions that defend their doctrines and traditions.

Nevertheless, wrote Gorsuch, how these various legal "doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases too."

In a minority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito predicted fights may continue over the right of religious schools to hire staff that affirm the doctrines that define these institutions -- even after the court's 9-0 ruling backing "ministerial exemptions" in the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School case in 2012.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

A religion (and business) question: Why do we have so many different Bibles?

THE QUESTIONS:

Why are there so many Bible translations in English on the market? Should there be?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The Evangelical Textual Criticism blog (click here) is an international forum where conservative Protestant experts chew over what’s stirring with ancient manuscripts and translations of the Bible. It’s esoteric stuff for the most part, but some items carry broad interest.

This week’s top posting, worth pondering by everybody, begins with this biblical bang: “It’s time for someone to stand athwart American Christianity and yell ‘STOP.’” The piece pleads with publishers and scholars to no longer turn out ever more new Bible translations because this “rising tide sinks all boats,” causing confusion that undermines trust in the Scriptures. The writer is Mark Ward, academic editor of Lexham Press, which publishes Bible study materials that include its own Lexham English Bible (LEB) translation, with textual detail for “specialized study,” not everyday use.

The article takes direct aim at the newly announced Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) that is being translated by an influential California pastor Ward greatly respects, John MacArthur, and colleagues at The Master’s University and Seminary. MacArthur has long favored the very literal (and thus rather wooden) New American Standard Bible, issued in 1971 and now available in a 1995 update. Another NASB update is due within a year but the pubisher will keep the 1995 rendition in print also. Ward says MacArthur’s Bible is in the same tradition, so soon we’ll have three variants of one Bible on the market.

He is not pleased about that. And he “simply cannot bear” MacArthur’s “marketing slogan” that his Bible will be “absolutely accurate.” Legitimate views on what that means with a particular passage will never agree, he says, and “there is no possibility — none” that the new Bible is more accurate than the major translations already available.

This debate deals with only the actual text of the Bible translated into English, not the host of study editions that add explanatory footnotes, sidebars, maps, charts and articles, some pitched to particular audiences such as women, youth, or recovery groups. Those variants are one answer to the “why” question above. Another is that Protestants and Catholics have different Bibles because their Old Testament has a slightly different list of books. And — let’s be honest — there’s money to be made from the novelty of a new translation, especially if it catches on.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: What's next in terms of Sexual Revolution vs. religious liberty news?

Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court usually make headlines, especially when the court is bitterly divided. Few things cause as much chaos in American life than 5-4 decisions from on high.

Meanwhile, 9-0 decisions — which are actually quite common — often receive little attention. They are, however, extremely important because they display a unity on the high court that should, repeat “should,” be hard to shatter.

I bring this up, of course, because of the 6-3 SCOTUS ruling redefining the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the wake of that historic victory for LGBTQ activists, reporters who cover legal issues, especially church-state conflicts, have to start thinking: Where is this story going now?

That’s precisely what “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken and I talked about in this week’s podcast (click here to tune that in). Journalists can expect clashes sooner, rather than later, when it comes to LGBTQ Americans presenting evidence that they were fired, or were not given a fair chance to be hired, at businesses operated by traditional Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

One could start a timer, methinks, to measure how long it will be until the first story of this kind breaks involving Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A. The more important story, however, will be how this new legislation passed by the Supreme Court will affect traditional religious believers across the nation who own and operate small businesses. Journalists looking for stories on the cultural left will want to visit businesses led by religious believers who stress that they have had no problems with their employees.

However, let’s go back to that other religious question: What is the next shoe that will drop?

With that in mind, reporters may want to ponder the implications of a 9-0 church-state decision at the Supreme Court in 2012 — which isn’t that long ago, in legal terms. I am referring to Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. That’s the case that strengthened the concept of a “ministerial exception” that gives doctrinally defined religious institutions great freedom in the hiring and firing of employees. The bottom line: The state isn’t supposed to become entangled in personnel decisions that involve doctrine.

Why does that matter right now? As I argued this week (“ 'But Gorsuch...' crashes at Supreme Court: Now watch for 'Utah' references in news reports“), debates about Title VII religious exemptions are looming in the near future. At that point, all roads lead to the 9-0 ruling on Hosanna-Tabor.

The question legal minds are asking: Are we about to see a drama with two acts?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Journalism cancels its moral voice: What does this mean for Catholic news? For religion news?

I have always been fascinated with the concept that journalism functions as a moral watchdog on our society. As someone who spent most of his career at two New York tabloids (15 years at the New York Post, two others at the rival Daily News), reportage and story selection revolved heavily around morality.

A lot of it mirrored traditional religious morality.

Editors and reporters never used that language to describe their work, of course.

They still reported both sides of the story and gave people who were the subject of said story the chance to rebuke accusations. Whether it was a news account about an unfaithful politician (former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and former Congressman Anthony Weiner spring to mind), a Wall Street executive who embezzled money or a regular guy who shot and killed a convenient store clerk over a few dollars, if you broke one of the Ten Commandments then you had a very good chance of being splashed all over page one.

ProPublica, one of my favorite investigative news sites, has a mission statement that sums up this philosophy very well:

To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing.

Where does this morality come from? It is rooted primarily in Judeo-Christian values, something that helped form American society during what is now called The Great Awakening.

News coverage — be it about politics, culture or religion — is largely made up of crimes (in the legal sense) or lapses in judgement (in a moral one). But the news media has changed in the Internet age, primarily because of social media. Facebook, Twitter and TikTok, to name just three, allows users — everyday people — to pump out content. That content can take many forms — from benign observations to what’s called hot takes — for all to read and see.

Truth, fact checking and context are not important. What matters are likes and followers. What we have now is something some have called “The Great Awokening” and it appears to have forever transformed our political discourse and the journalism that tries to report on it.

Mainstream news organizations, in their quest for clicks amid hope of figuring out a new business model, now mirror the content we all see on social media platforms.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

This is a news story: Shuttered churches fuel death of Catholic newspapers during pandemic

When it comes to religious media, there is nothing like the Catholic press. Spanning the doctrinal spectrum, there are 600 Catholic-based news websites and newspapers in the United States and Canada alone. In the past few years, the diversity of the Catholic press has provided a wealth of information and insights to readers and to mainstream journalists.

Like secular news outlets, Catholic media also face financial hardships created by the pandemic.

This is a trend that has, of course, affected all news media and across many other industries, such as hospitality and tourism to name just two. Secular news outlets, particularly local newspapers, faced an uphill battle before the coronavirus. They face an even tougher battle now that advertising has dried up amid an ever-worsening economy.

Over the last two months, the nation’s unemployment rate has ticked up. At the same time, layoffs have affected many large newsrooms like The Atlantic despite some of the best pandemic coverage. If technology like the internet has led to the slow death of print, the pandemic has accelerated what always seemed like the inevitable. Indeed, as Axios recently pointed out, no publisher is immune to COVID-19. It’s something newspaper publishers are monitoring very closely as their editors and reporters work from home and continue to report on the pandemic.

Catholic media outlets are not immune to such hardships. The first real sign that the situation was worsening came on April 9 when Bayard, which owns and operates 190 magazines, announced it would cease print publication of four magazines: Catechist, Hopeful Living, Today’s Catholic Teacher and Catholic Digest. This last monthly magazine, which has been published since 1936, boasts a circulation of 300,000. Catholic Digest also has a website that is updated regularly. It’s reach, as expected, is greater online — with traffic reaching nearly 16,000 visits each month.

All print publications have been struggling to make money since Google and Facebook now take the largest slices of the advertising revenue pie.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Medical ethics or religion? Killing Grandma and other questions during the COVID-19 cris

I bring this column to you, once again, from my news organization’s hastily configured satellite bureau.

That’s correct: I’m writing from home, where I’m properly socially isolated in the time of coronavirus. (Right, Ted Olsen?)

I launched the “Weekend Plug-In” column in January with big dreams of bringing readers new and exciting topics each week. Lately, though, it’s all coronavirus all the time, and guess what? That doesn't appear likely to change anytime soon.

Amid the COVID-19 horror stories, I’m stressed. I’ll admit that much. How about you? As a person of faith, I’m trying my best to trust in God. But it’s a crazy, crazy time to be alive. Can I get an amen?

Once again this week, I’ll forgo our normal format. Let’s focus on key coronavirus-related questions making religion headlines.

Power Up: The Week’s Big Questions

1. Should we kill Grandma to boost the economy?: Apparently, that’s not a rhetorical question.

Here’s how Washington Post religion writer Sarah Pulliam Bailey described the issue on Twitter: “Today I watched a miserable debate unfold: should we let older Americans die or save the economy.” As Bailey’s Post story noted, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick suggested that “he and other older Americans should be willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the economy, which he said was in mortal jeopardy because of shutdowns related to the coronavirus pandemic.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

This debate is older than you think: Is socialism Christian? Is capitalism Christian?

This debate is older than you think: Is socialism Christian? Is capitalism Christian?



THE QUESTION:

Is Socialism Christian? Is Capitalism Christian?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The COVID-19 crisis has produced a nearly unprecedented degree of U.S. government intervention in the economy and more may lie ahead. This occurs at a time of surprising and rising Democratic Party fondness for more thoroughgoing socialism. Although the prime mover of this phenomenon, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, is very unlikely to win the presidential nomination, his status as the runner-up in both 2016 and 2020 is significant.

While polls show growing fondness for socialism among Democrats, Americans as a whole disagree, due to opposition from self-identified political Independents and, more especially, Republicans. Some remarkable numbers show this is no business-as-usual era, as surely as did the election of President Trump.

After the 2018 election, BuzzFeed found that 47% of young Democrats (ages 22 to 37) identified as socialists, or democratic socialists, or accepted either label. Early this year. Gallup said 76% of Democrats are willing to vote for a socialist as president. Public Opinion Strategies reported that 77% of Democrats thought the nation would be “better off” by moving in a more socialistic direction.

Yet another thunderbolt came this month from a CBS/YouGov tracking poll. It showed that 56% of Democratic primary voters in Texas had a favorable view of socialism but only 37% were favorable toward capitalism. In California, voters aligned the same way, 57% vs. 45%.

All factions recognize that “markets” are the universal fact of life in modern internationalized commerce. The issue is how “free” or centralized they should be, whether businesses are owned by the government or workers or private investors or some blend, whether unguided market forces or public officials control decision-making, and the extent to which government imposes regulations and what they should be.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Did Hobby Lobby letter really say God told company to keep stores open during virus crisis?

It’s totally logical that many unbelievers (and thus some pros in newsrooms) have trouble understanding how religious believers talk about prayer.

This is especially true when it comes to evangelical and Pentecostal Protestants, who have their own lingo about spiritual matters that is easy for outsiders to mock. This can become a problem, for example, when an evangelical who is a political conservative becomes Secretary of the Interior and starts using insider language about creation and the end times.

This brings us to — no, not Chick-fil-A — coronavirus news linked to another evangelical powerhouse that the Twitter left loves to kick. That would be the wealthy (evangelicals might prefer the word “blessed”) folks at Hobby Lobby.

For years, I have told my students that business news is a chunk of the journalism marketplace that is relatively free of political and cultural bias. People who invest billions or millions of dollars like their news to be rather objective, in terms of accurate quotes and information.

This, apparently, does not apply to Business Insider editors making a good-faith effort to understand how evangelical Christians think and talk. That brings us to that story that roared through social media under this headline: “Hobby Lobby founder reportedly told employees a message from God informed his decision to leave stores open amid the coronavirus outbreak.” Here’s the overture:

Hobby Lobby, the craft store chain that is no stranger to controversy, is once again finding itself in hot water for allegedly citing a message from God in its decision to leave stores open amid the coronavirus outbreak.

Though more than 90 retailers in the US have temporarily shuttered in the past week in an effort to stem the spread of the coronavirus, Hobby Lobby has remained steadfast in staying open for business. … (D)igital strategist Kendall Brown tweeted a widely circulated photo of a note allegedly written by Hobby Lobby founder David Green, in which the openly conservative Christian businessman repeatedly mentions the power of God as part of his justification to leave stores open.

In the note to employees, Green reportedly wrote that the decision was informed by a message from God bestowed upon his wife Barbara Green, who he described as a "prayer warrior."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

About that rich young Seattle millionaire: Wasn't there some Bible in there somewhere?

Remember the rich young entrepreneur in Seattle who took a drastic pay cut so that all his employees could make at least $70K and then buy houses and start families and things like that?

Odds are good that you do. Now, do you remember how a ton of media outlets did stories on this guy and nearly all of them somehow never got around to mentioning that this benevolent entrepreneur is an evangelical Christian?

Well the pros at BBC just did an update on the man that was thorough and entertaining. But guess what part of the story the Beeb team barely mentioned?

In 2015, the boss of a card payments company in Seattle introduced a $70,000 minimum salary for all of his 120 staff — and personally took a pay cut of $1m. Five years later he's still on the minimum salary, and says the gamble has paid off…

Raised in deeply Christian, rural Idaho, Dan Price is upbeat and positive, generous in his praise of others and impeccably polite, but he has become a crusader against inequality in the US.

"People are starving or being laid off or being taken advantage of, so that somebody can have a penthouse at the top of a tower in New York with gold chairs.

"We're glorifying greed all the time as a society, in our culture. And, you know, the Forbes list is the worst example — 'Bill Gates has passed Jeff Bezos as the richest man.' Who cares!?"

It would help if this BBC reporter looked at a map.

Price attended a Christian high school in Nampa, Idaho, which is right on I-84. It’s right next to Boise and hardly a rural outpost like, say, places like Caldwell, Sandpoint or Stanley.


Please respect our Commenting Policy