Church & State

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

Brace for SCOTUS wars: Three big questions people keep asking about Amy Coney Barrett's faith

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

It’s been two weeks since President Donald Trump officially nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Right on cue, Barrett’s Catholic faith and religious life became the focal point of news coverage, particularly by the secular press.

What has ensued is an exercise among journalists — particularly in elite newsrooms — to question Barrett’s fitness for the lifetime position, particularly because of her religious beliefs.

For many people in elite zip codes, this is life-and-death territory, since Barrett would give the Supreme Court a solid 6-3 conservative majority on some issues.

The nomination — taking place just weeks before the Nov. 3 presidential election — has already triggered a nasty tug-of-war between Republicans and Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged to hold a vote, leaving Democrats with very few options to halt it. In retaliation, Democrats have threatened to pack the Supreme Court with as many as 15 members (from the current nine) should Joe Biden win the race and his party gain a Senate majority in 2021.

Barrett, 48, currently serves on the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, a position she attained after being nominated to the bench by Trump. Barrett, who also teaches at Notre Dame Law School, was one of Trump’s finalists for the Supreme Court two years ago, but he instead went with Brett Kavanaugh.

As Election Day draws near in an atmosphere of near chaos, both the Trump and Biden campaigns have made appeals to communities of faith — particularly Catholic voters in the Rust Belt states of Ohio and Pennsylvania — by highlighting issues they believe resonate with them. In Pennsylvania, Biden has seen his lead widen in recent weeks. It remains a key battleground state with a very large Catholic voting bloc that Trump needs to win.

Overall, Catholics, according to recent polling, favor Biden — but traditional Catholics do plan to join evangelicals and vote for the president. Trump’s pick will certainly serve as an overture to faith voters like evangelicals and a segment of white Catholics who tend to be politically conservative.

With religion so crucial to this campaign season, here are three things you need to know about Barrett’s faith:


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

Podcast: Political facts about evangelicals make news, but what about all the nones?

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

Let’s assume, faithful readers, that you have heard that 81% of white evangelicals voted for Citizen Donald Trump in the 2016 election. It’s been in all the papers.

Now, if you have been reading GetReligion over the past 17 years you are also familiar with another important trend, which is the growing number of Democrats who fit into a very different faith-defined (sort of) political niche. That has been part of our call for increased coverage of the Religious Left, especially on the evolution of doctrine over there (including the whole “spiritual, but not religious” theme).

Of course, we are talking about the famous “nones” — “religiously unaffiliated” is the better term — who crashed into American headlines in 2012, with the release of the “Nones on the Rise” study by the Pew Research team. That launched thousands of headlines, but not many — this is actually pretty shocking — on how this trend has affected life inside the Democratic Party.

That was the subject of our discussion on this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). The podcast chat grew out of my post earlier this week with this headline: “How powerful are 'nones' in Democratic Party? That's a complex issue for reporters.”

The talk, as often happens, took us back through quite a bit of GetReligion history, much of it linked to the work and wisdom of pollster and scholar John C. Green of the University of Akron and the now omnipresent political scientist (and GetReligion contributor) Ryan Burge of Eastern Illinois University (must-follow Twitter handle here).

Here are a few crucial dates on this timeline.

First, there were the studies done by political scientists Gerald De Maio and Louis Bolce, who were intrigued with the rise — inside the machinery of Democratic Party life — of what they at first called the “anti-fundamentalist voters,” but later changed that to “anti-evangelical.” Here’s a bite of an “On Religion” column from 2004.

Many are true secularists, such as atheists, agnostics and those who answer "none" when asked to pick a faith. Others think of themselves as progressive believers. The tie that binds is their disgust for Christian conservatives.


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

How powerful are 'nones' in Democratic Party? That's a complex issue for reporters

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

Sorry to bring this up again, but I really have to because of the many religion-news angles unfolding in the final weeks of this year’s presidential race, and lots of U.S. Senate races as well.

Hang in there with me. We are heading toward a puzzling passage in a recent Religion News Service analysis that ran with this headline: “ ‘Humanists for Biden-Harris’ to mobilize nonreligious vote.”

Now, that flash back: Frequent GetReligion readers will recall that, in the summer of 2007, political scientist and polling maven John C. Green spoke at a Washington Journalism Center seminar for a circle of journalists from around the world. The topic was press freedom in their home countries, but most of the journalists — especially those from Africa — wanted to talk about the young Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who was jumping into the White House race.

The bottom line: Obama was speaking directly to Democrats in the black church, but he was also reaching out to an emerging power bloc in his party — a group Green called the “religiously unaffiliated.” These so-called “nones” were poised to form a powerful coalition with atheists, agnostics and liberal believers. They shared, you see, a common cultural enemy on many issues, as in believers in traditional forms of faith. As I wrote in 2012:

On the right side of the American religious marketplace, defined in terms of doctrine and practice, is a camp of roughly 20 percent (maybe less) of believers who are seriously trying to practice their chosen faith at the level of daily life, said Green. Then, on the other end of the spectrum, there is a growing camp of people who are atheists, agnostics or vaguely spiritual believers. …

In recent national elections this growing camp of secularists and religiously unaffiliated people have formed a powerful coalition with Catholic liberals, liberal Jews and the declining numbers of people found in America's liberal religious denominations (such as the "seven sisters" of oldline Protestantism). Add it all up, Green said in 2009, and you had a growing camp of roughly 20 percent or so on the cultural left.

The bottom line: This coalition was emerging as the dominant voice in the modern Democratic Party on matters of culture and religion.

In those days, Green was doing quite a bit of work with the Pew Research Center — so this was a foretaste of the information that would create waves of headlines with the 2012 release of the “ ‘Nones’ on the Rise” studies.

At press events linked to the release of that data, Green said, once again:


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

There they go, there they go again: New York Times views #ACB through eyes of conservative women

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

I recently raised a few eyebrows with a post that — #TriggerWarning — praised The New York Times for a piece about Judge Amy Coney Barrett and why her nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court was so symbolic for cultural and religious conservatives. The headline on that post: “Speaking of people being praised: New York Times offered solid, old-school story about Barrett.”

Why was that Times report so important?

Well, no surprise here, but it was crucial that the team that produced the story include a religion-beat professional — as opposed to coming from the Donald Trump-era political desk. I also noted:

… Here is the key point I want to make: Unlike many Times stories in recent years, almost all of this material comes from qualified sources (left and right) whose names are attached to their opinions and the information they provided. There are attribution clauses all over the place, just like in Times of old.

Lo and behold, the Times followed up on that story with another religion-team feature that dug deeper on a perfectly valid point that was hinted at in the previous feature. Here’s the double-decker headline on that second story, which drew quite a bit of praise from conservatives on social media:

For Conservative Christian Women, Amy Coney Barrett’s Success Is Personal

Judge Barrett is a new kind of icon for some, one they have not seen before in American cultural and political life.

This is another fine story. However, I have one criticism of it that some may find a bit ironic, or even hard to take seriously.

The story does a fine job of demonstrating that the pro-ACB women are not a simplistic choir of cloned conservatives each with precisely the same point of view in terms of politics and culture. For example, it’s clear that some of these women are not all that fond of Trump the man or even the president. What unites them are commitments to specific values and concerns about specific moral, cultural and political issues.

This is where Judge Barrett comes into the picture. They applaud her because of her personal life, faith and choices, as well as her intellectual prowess and sparkling legal career.

So what is missing? The story briefly mentions the fierce opposition to Barrett, but never digs into the views of progressives — thus allowing Barrett supporters to debate them.

Yes, this is a Times story that needed MORE on-the-record material from the cultural left.


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

Plug-in: Do religious conservatives really care what Trump says about them in private?

, , , , , , , , ,

Every 24-hour news cycle seems to bring a new alleged scandal involving President Donald Trump.

If you believe the headlines, Trump has referred to Americans who died in war as “losers” and “suckers.” He has avoided paying federal taxes. And he has — according to McKay Coppins of The Atlantic — secretly mocked his Christian supporters. (Click here for tmatt’s “Crossroads” podcast and post on this topic.)

My question is: Does it matter from a political standpoint?

“The president’s alliance with religious conservatives has long been premised on the contention that he takes them seriously, while Democrats hold them in disdain,” Coppins wrote this week. “In speeches and interviews, Trump routinely lavishes praise on conservative Christians, casting himself as their champion.”

But while Trump critics hyperventilate over such stories, voters knew about his propensity to be a jerk before they elected him.

Even in his public statements, the Republican incumbent typically sounds more like a blabbering professional wrestler than a prominent world leader. (Did you catch the debate the other night?)

With all that in mind, I thought Michelle Boorstein, the award-winning religion writer for the Washington Post, had a spot-on response to Coppins’ report.

“What's the evidence that conservative Christians support Trump because of his attitude towards THEM,” Boorstein asked on Twitter, “vs. his willingness to advance his policy priorities?”

“Exactly,” replied John Daniel Davidson, political editor for The Federalist. “Most conservative Christians couldn't care less what Trump thinks about them.”

Which is why, it seems to me, his policies and his nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court (more on that in a moment) matter more to his base than anything he might say.

• • •

One obvious update: Generally, I put the finishing touches on this column on Thursday night.

That was the case this week, so I wrote and scheduled “Weekend Plug-in” before President Donald Trump revealed early Friday morning that he and first lady Melania Trump have tested positive for the novel coronavirus. As The Associated Press put it, the “stunning announcement … plunges the country deeper into uncertainty just a month before the presidential election.”


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

Updates for a very #2020 day: Trump, COVID-19, Twitter, Bob Dylan and words from St. Paul

, , , , , , , ,

Journalists are trained to react to major news stories in a very particular way. A voice inside your head is supposed to say, no matter how earth-shattering the news: What happens next?

Continuing with that line of thinking, in the wake of the news that President Donald Trump and his wife Melania have tested positive for COVID-19, journalists will be asking: What is the next story? And, in particular, how does this affect my beat, the topic that I cover day after day.

You may have seen those mock headlines about the end of the world? What’s the headline at The New York Times for this religion story? "God says world to end tomorrow (story and analysis on page B11)." Or how about USA Today: "WE’RE DEAD!" The Washington Post: "World to end tomorrow; Polls look bad for GOP." The Wall Street Journal: “Stocks are down, market closing early tomorrow.”

Right now, there are political-beat reporters who are being tempted to tweet: “Take that, all of you white evangelicals.”

Surely it says something bad — about me and our times — that the SECOND thing I thought of was this: Blue-checkmark journalists are going to be tempted to show their stuff on Twitter. The THIRD thing was: Brace yourselves for some really bad “thoughts and prayers” wisecracks.

What was my first reaction? I hesitate to share it, since regular GetReligion readers are probably aware that I have been a #NeverTrump guy since his first announcement that he was running for president. I simply didn’t think he was qualified for the office, as a basic issue of temperament and political skills.

But, I confess that my first thought this morning was this: “God is not mocked.”

Yes, that’s a theological reflection and I need to stress that this is actually a pretty good scriptural reaction to all kinds of serious news events, as opposed to being a comment about Citizen Trump alone. For serious believers, that’s a comment about the state of the world — period.

Care for some context?


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

Feeling Godforsaken? A dark night for people who care about religious issues in public life

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

At some point during the primaries leading up to the 2016 election, I decided that I was going to stop watching the alleged “debates” between the candidates.

It was better for my health — physical and spiritual — to tune them out and then read transcripts, if there was anything relevant that I needed to know on issues crucial to me. Yes, I am talking about the First Amendment and religious liberty.

During that campaign I went further and decided that I would not allow Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton onto my television screen. I was trying, you see, to take anger and emotions out of the process, as much as I could. I’m not joking.

Based on what I am reading — and saw last night in about 30 minutes of Twitter — this remains a solid strategy.

So the big news last night had to do with Joe Biden and Trump downplaying the radical fringes of their tense coalitions?

Trump did a “Proud Boys” call out, while refusing the clearly condemn the alt-right. Biden basically said that antifa was an “idea,” not a network of organizations that, in the dark of night, has been violently hijacking demonstrations about race and justice.

Did I get that right? Help me out here.


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

Plug-in: Press handles religion differently in news coverage of Ginsburg and Barrett

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The big news this past week was, of course, the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the furor over President Donald Trump’s intention to nominate a replacement before the election.

There were faith angles galore and — for added intrigue — questions over whether journalists applied different standards to the religion of Ginsburg, the liberal icon, and that of 7th Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the justice’s possible conservative successor.

For example, Religion News Service extolled Ginsburg as “passionate about Judaism’s concern for justice,” while characterizing Barrett as a “controversial Catholic” — a designation questioned by Religion Unplugged’s own Clemente Lisi. (P.S. Don’t miss Lisi’s fact check on Barrett’s faith.)

“Yes RBG’s religion shaped her approach,” RNS’ Bob Smietana said on Twitter. “And yes if (Barrett) is nominee it will be controversial. We can report both things.”

A Reuters story about “a self-described charismatic Christian community” to which Barrett purportedly belongs also drew scrutiny. At the conservative National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out a series of edits to the wire service’s original report.

“We all know what this means, in terms of press coverage,” GetReligion’s Terry Mattingly argued in a post in which he singled out praise for a story by New York Times religion writer Elizabeth Dias and her colleague Adam Liptak. “Many of the same reporters who are perfectly comfortable calling Joe Biden a ‘devout’ Catholic — while his actions clash with church doctrines on marriage and sex — are going to spill oceans of digital ink warning readers about the dangerous dogmas that dwell loudly in the heart and mind of Barrett.”

However, the focus on religion in the battle over the Supreme Court concerns Ira Rifkin Of GetReligion.org, a former RNS national correspondent who has covered domestic and foreign religious issues since the 1980s.

“It should not be about Amy Coney Barrett’s traditional Catholicism any more than Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s key attribute was that she was an ultra-liberal Jew. Or Martin Luther King Jr.’s liberal liberation Protestantism,” Rifkin said on Facebook.

“It should not be about ‘bad’ religion vs ‘good’ religion,” he added.


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

Baptist thinking on anti-Catholicism: Scribes covering SCOTUS war need to know some history

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

Anyone who knows their church-state history is aware that Baptists played a key role in the creation of America’s tolerant marketplace of ideas and “free exercise” on matters of faith.

Ask Thomas Jefferson. Here is a much-quoted, with good cause, passage from his pen, taken from the famous 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

At various times in history, activists on the left and the right have found that letter disturbing.

So, as journalists prepare for whatever awaits Judge Amy Coney Barrett and her family (click here for this week’s podcast post on the “handmaid” wars), journalists may want to take a look at this short article from Baptist historian Thomas Kidd, published at The Gospel Coalition website. The headline: “Amy Coney Barrett and Anti-Catholicism in America.”

It’s sad to have to say this, but it helps to know that Kidd has taken his fair share of shots from social-media warriors on both sides during the Donald Trump era. Through it all, he has consistently defended — as a Baptist’s Baptist — an old-school liberal approach to the First Amendment and religious liberty (without “scare” quotes).

Here is Kidd’s overture:

The looming nomination of Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court justice has renewed an ugly but persistent tradition in American politics: anti-Catholicism. Since 1517 there have been enduring and fundamental theological divides between Protestants and Catholics about tradition and Scripture, grace and works, the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, and more. Disagreement over theology certainly is not the same thing as outright anti-Catholicism, though theological differences are often components of anti-Catholicism.


Please respect our Commenting Policy