Church & State

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

Ties that bind Joe Biden and Cardinal Gregory: How will Catholic issues shape the news?

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

Politics and religion can make for strange bedfellows. We know that from the past four years and the cozy alliance President Donald Trump forged with conservative Christians.

Evangelicals and traditional Catholics in large numbers voted for Trump over the last two elections, many with enthusiasm and others with great reluctance. The fallout from that voter trend will be felt for years to come.

President-elect Joe Biden is the nation’s second Catholic president, the first since John F. Kennedy in 1960. Biden didn’t run away from his faith in 2020. Instead, he embraced it.

Biden’s brand of Catholicism resonated with the mainstream press and many voters. The election now over, how Biden navigates the complicated world of the church’s hierarchy will be a big storyline.

There will be a general sense of calm in news coverage once Biden starts his term. That means the typical honeymoon period offered every president (with the exclusion of Donald Trump) will stretch far beyond the first 100 days.

How religion is covered in this climate — and Catholicism specifically — by mainstream newsrooms will affect many news stories. Look for stories that celebrate any and all Catholic images and teachings cited by Biden in support of left-of-center political efforts. There will be a revival on the religious left.

Coverage during recent weeks may serve as a prelude to what’s to come.

Many journalists feel that the press helped elect Trump, offering waves of coverage of his candidacy during the GOP primaries before the 2016 election. This year, the Hunter Biden scandal offered the press a chance to beat up on Joe Biden and we could have seen a repeat of 2016. Instead, the press ignored the scandal — with help from Big Tech — and blamed it on Russian disinformation.

With the election now over, we have learned that there was an investigation underway and that this topic would have been fair game for coverage.

You don’t need to be a Trump fan to see that many professionals in America’s press have gone astray. Many journalists are now rationalizing an advocacy brand of journalism, instead of doing what they traditionally have been paid to do — report the facts and give readers and viewers unbiased reporting.

How will these trends affect coverage of Biden’s faith and Catholicism in this country?


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

Fights over First Amendment rights will likely top religion-beat agenda in 2021 and beyond

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

What's on the agenda for journalism about religion in the United States in 2021 and beyond?

Ongoing fights about the First Amendment and religious liberty are likely to prove the most newsworthy, but two other themes deserve attention.

A prior Religion Guy Memo here at GetReligion surveyed the competing partisan concepts of "religious freedom" that face the United States and the incoming Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, with potential for big conflicts if Democrats win both Senate runoffs in Georgia.

One aspect is religious groups' desire to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws so they can hire doctrinally like-minded employees, while qualifying for federal grants. Lame duck Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia (son of the late Supreme Court justice) wrapped up the Donald Trump years with an important "final rule" to nail down and clarify exemption rights. It goes into effect a dozen days before Biden's inauguration.

Understandably, much news like this was all but ignored by media focused on COVID-19developments and President Trump's remarkable, fruitless efforts to erase the 2020 election returns, supported at the U.S. Supreme Court by 60 percent of House Republicans and the GOP attorneys general of 18 states.

Labor's “final rule” policies could be re-examined in the Biden years. The huge text (.pdf here) provides journalists full documentation on religious employment disputes as seen from the conservative side of the culture wars, and summarizes 109,000 officially filed comments pro and con.

The rule clarifies that exempt groups need not be connected to specific house of worship (as with many schools and Protestant "parachurch" organizations) and that even for-profit companies can qualify if they have "a substantial religious purpose." It states that "religion" covers not only creedal beliefs but "all aspects of religious observance and practice." The rule allows exemptions of religious groups that provide "secular" help, relying on the 9th Circuit appeals ruling in Spencer v. World Vision (read text here).

Importantly, Labor's new rule says religious organizations cannot ignore anti-discrimination protections regarding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in situations where "there is no religious basis for the action."


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

Jericho march in DC: Coming-out party for a movement journalists haven't really covered

, , , , , , , ,

There is a massive cat fight going on right now among evangelical and Pentecostal Christians that mainstream religion reporters have all but ignored.

Other than one story by Religion News Service — that ran mainly because famed Southern Baptist Bible teacher Beth Moore has gotten involved — there’s been little coverage on the schism between two evangelical camps as to whether President Donald Trump won or lost last month’s election.

Wait, you say. The electoral college voted Monday that Trump decisively lost, right? And all evangelicals love Trump. Right?

Not so fast.

Turn your attention to the folks attending a “Jericho march” in Washington DC last Saturday where a mix of evangelical Protestants, Catholics and Messianic Jews claimed that President Trump had indeed won the election (but it was stolen) and that somehow, miraculously, God would see to it that he, not Joe Biden, will be inaugurated next month. This might require use of military force or militias.

Every religion reporter should have watched this rally; if not all of it, at least in part to see the most poisonous marriage of religion and politics I’ve seen in 40-plus years on the beat.

I don’t usually lead with an opinion piece, but veteran religious-liberty activist David French, a #NeverTrump evangelical, sums it up best here at The Dispatch:

This is a grievous and dangerous time for American Christianity. The frenzy and the fury of the post-election period has laid bare the sheer idolatry and fanaticism of Christian Trumpism.

A significant segment of the Christian public has fallen for conspiracy theories, has mixed nationalism with the Christian gospel, has substituted a bizarre mysticism for reason and evidence, and rages in fear and anger against their political opponents — all in the name of preserving Donald Trump’s power.

I’ll explain the “bizarre mysticism” part in a moment. It has to do with the Pentecostals and charismatics, starting with the president’s pastor, the Rev. Paula White, who have prophesied Trump’s victory in 2020. I wrote about this trend a few weeks ago here and it’s basic reading for anyone trying to understand this movement.

Back to the French essay:


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

Washington Post explores Joe Biden's faith, while embracing language of Catholic left

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

Any serious discussion of Catholicism and national politics has to include material from the 1960 speech by Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.

This would certainly be true — #DUH — of discussions of the life and times of President-elect Joe Biden. I would say the same thing about citing the “personally opposed, BUT … “ approach to doctrine seen in the 1984 speech by the late New York Gov. Mario Cuomo at the University of Notre Dame.

Right now, there are Catholics arguing about whether Biden is “a Roman Catholic.” It’s safer to say, at this point, that he is an American Catholic or even a Cuomo at Notre Dame Catholic.

This brings us to the must-read Washington Post story that ran the other day with this headline: “Biden could redefine what it means to be ‘a Catholic in good standing.’ Catholics are divided on whether that is a good thing.” The key words are “in good standing” — referring to Biden continuing to be active in the sacraments of the Catholic faith, as symbolized by him going to Mass and receiving Holy Communion.

In terms of journalism, the good news is that this Post story quotes Catholic voices on both sides of this doctrinal debate. The bad news is that key passages in this report are worded — oh so precisely — in ways that will please Catholics on the doctrinal left and infuriate those on the doctrinal right.

Hold that thought. First, what did Kennedy say in 1960? Here is a crucial summary passage, with JFK stressing that his personal Catholic beliefs would never force his hand when making political decisions.

… (These) are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

Later, a witty critic noted (my online searches haven’t yielded the name) that anyone who knew anything about JFK’s private life would have to say this was the rare example of a presidential candidate making a campaign promise that it was absolutely certain that he would keep.

Kennedy makes his first appearance at the end of the Post article’s overture:


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

Thinking about Xavier Becerra: A conservative Catholic checklist of sure-fire news stories

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

First things first. Yes, the following think piece is from a conservative Catholic news source.

But there are times when doctrinally conservative Catholic folks need to read the National Catholic Reporter. And this is a time when doctrinally liberal Catholics — and journalists, especially — should read and mark up an article from the National Catholic Register.

Here’s why: This essay contains a long checklist of valid story ideas, as in issues from the past that are almost certain to come up again in the near future. You can see this in the long, long second line in this Register headline:

What a Xavier Becerra HHS Could Mean for Catholics

Becerra’s record in California shows that he, perhaps more than any other state attorney general, has been willing to wield the power of the state to enforce pro-abortion policies against religious and pro-life groups.

Now it’s true that, for conservative Catholics, this story is packed with potential public-policy nightmares, in terms of their impact on traditional Catholic groups and ministries. Can you say “Little Sisters of the Poor”?

At the same time, many — but not all — Catholic liberals will cheer if some of these policy showdowns come to pass.

In terms of doctrine and church-state law, Catholics on the left and right will have radically different views of Becerra being handed this crucial high ground in the culture wars. Evangelicals who lead colleges and universities will be concerned, as well.

But that’s beside the point, if one looks at this piece through the eyes of a religion-beat professional (or even an open-minded scribe on the political desk) who is looking for valid stories to cover. Journalists need to read all of this, but here are a few items that demonstrate what I am saying. Spot the potential stories in this passage:


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

India's 'love jihad' interfaith marriage story may be political spin -- but its effects are real

, , , , , , , , , , ,

I don’t recall ever watching it but I do remember the brouhaha that erupted within the Jewish community when the short-lived TV sitcom “Bridget Loves Bernie” debuted in 1972.

Despite the show’s audience popularity it was cancelled after just one season because of the high-profile flak it drew from establishment American Jewish community leaders who objected to the show’s premise — an interfaith romance between Bridget, a Catholic, and Bernie, a Jew. (Neither of its stars, Meredith Baxter and David Birney, were Jews.)

Given the entertainment media’s level of religious, racial, and gender mixing and matching today, “Bridget and Bernie” probably strikes you as pretty tame. However, the show’s timing couldn’t have been worse; the American Jewish community was just starting to publicly debate, with alarm, its growing intermarriage rate.

Leading Orthodox, Conservative and even theologically liberal Reform rabbis lambasted the show as an insult to one of Judaism’s most sacrosanct values, marrying within the tribe, which was particularly strong in the decades after the Holocaust. Boycotts were organized and meetings were held with the TV execs who backed the show. The radical, and sometimes violent, Jewish Defense League issued threats.

Yet in the end, “Bridget Loves Bernie” turned out to be a Jewish-American harbinger. Today, an estimated 50 percent-plus of American Jews marry non-Jews, though it’s still relatively rare within traditionalist Orthodox circles..

But as scandalous as “Bridget Loves Bernie” was in its day, it pales in comparison to the controversy now engulfing the contemporary Indian TV drama “A Suitable Boy.”

That’s because the show — which became available to American audiences via the streaming service AcornTV today (Monday, Dec. 7) — features a love story between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman. For India’s fervent Hindu nationalist politicians, that constitutes “love jihad” — a calculated attack by Muslims on the nation’s Hindu heritage.

In India, “A Suitable Boy,” a BBC production, was broadcast by Netflix. And even though the platform has a relatively small subscription base there it was enough to create quite a stir.

Here’s the top of the New York Times piece that alerted me to this story just before Thanksgiving.


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

SCOTUS flips script on COVID-19 worship bans, but Francis Collins of NIH urges closures

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

First New York.

Now California.

With the addition of a fifth, solidly conservative member — new Justice Amy Coney Barrett — the U.S. Supreme Court has flipped the script on months of legal battles over pandemic-era worship gatherings.

“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote last week as the 5-4 court blocked New York from imposing strict attendance limits on religious services.

Then on Thursday, the court “sided with a California church protesting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pandemic-related restrictions on indoor worship services,” noted the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes. The brief, unsigned order returned the issue to lower court judges and “suggests the state’s ban on indoor services is likely to fall,” reported the Los Angeles Times’ David G. Savage.

In San Francisco, Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has complained that the city’s “treatment of churches is discriminatory and violates the right to worship,” as explained by the Catholic News Agency. For more details on the California battle, see Sacramento Bee writer Dale Kasler’s story this week on churches defying Newsom’s order.

In related news, the Deseret News’ Kelsey Dallas highlighted a clash over in-person classes in religious schools in Kentucky. And Boston.com’s Nik DeCosta-Klipa covered Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker’s concerns over “COVID-19 clusters stemming from religious gatherings.”

Here in my home state of Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt has refused to issue a statewide mask mandate that might help slow the spread of COVID-19. But he declared Thursday a day of prayer and fasting over the coronavirus, as reported by The Associated Press’ Ken Miller.

Amid a surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths nationally, a top public health official Thursday “called on religious leaders to keep their worship spaces closed, despite rising protests from some church leaders,” according to NPR’s Tom Gjelten:


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

Podcast: NYTimes op-ed offers sharp media criticism on SCOTUS and religious liberty

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

In light of trends in the past year or so, the op-ed page of The New York Times was the last place I expected to find sharp media criticism focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court, the First Amendment and, to be specific, religious liberty concerns during the coronavirus pandemic. Miracles happen, I guess.

Here’s the context. There was, of course, a tsunami of press coverage of the 5-4 SCOTUS decision overturning New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s aggressive rules controlling in-person religious services in New York. Frankly, the coverage was all over the place (and let’s not get started discussing the Twitter madness) and I had no idea how to write about it.

Thus, I was both stunned and pleased to read the recent Times op-ed that ran with this headline: “The Supreme Court Was Right to Block Cuomo’s Religious Restrictions.” That essay provided the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

This op-ed was written by a former federal judge named Michael W. McConnell, who directs the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and Max Raskin, an adjunct law professor at New York University. While their essay includes lots of interesting information about the logic of the recent ruling, GetReligion readers will be interested in its commentary on how the decision was viewed in public discourse — including media coverage.

Here is a crucial block of material at the top that includes some specific facts that would have been appropriate in news stories:

Unfortunately, the substance of the decision has been drowned out by a single-minded focus on judicial politics — the first evidence that President Trump’s appointments to the court are making a difference. Maybe that is so. In the first two pandemic-related worship-closure cases to get to the court this year, it declined to intervene by 5-to-4 votes, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the Democrat-appointed justices in deferring to state regulators. Last week’s decision went in favor of the Catholic and Orthodox Jewish plaintiffs, with the chief justice in dissent.

But politics is a distorted lens for understanding the case. Looking to the substance, six justices agreed that the Free Exercise Clause was probably violated by the governor’s order. The restrictions, which are far more draconian than those approved by the court in the earlier cases, are both extraordinarily tight and essentially unexplained. In red zones, where infection rates are the highest, worship is limited to 10 persons, no matter how large the facility — whether St. Patrick’s Cathedral (seating capacity: 2,500) or a tiny shul in Brooklyn. Because Orthodox Jewish services require a quorum (“minyan”) of 10 adult men, this is an effective prohibition on the ability of Orthodox women to attend services.

In other words, many journalists and public intellectuals — I am shocked, shocked by this — decided that Trump-era political divisions were more important than information about the legal and religious realities at pew level.


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

Hey, New York Times editors: Did painful Thanksgiving dinners really begin in 2016?

, , , , , , ,

Apparently, no one knows where the saying came from, but by 1840 or so variations were appearing in etiquette guides: “Never talk about religion or politics,” especially at the dinner table.

This wisdom made the leap to popular culture in 1961, when the philosopher Linus commented in a Peanuts comic strip: ““There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people — religion, politics and the Great Pumpkin.” The Great Pumpkin is, of course, a faith issue for Linus.

Now, with that timeline in mind, please consider this follow-up question: Before 2016, does anyone remember reading waves of mainstream news stories near Thanksgiving built on horror stories about bitter political arguments around the extended-family holiday table? I mean, surely loved ones in the past argued about Richard Nixon, the nature of the Trinity, Bill Clinton’s private life, the quality of the modern hymn “On Eagles Wings” or other hot-button topics in religion and politics (or both)?

What happened in 2016 that suddenly made this a must-cover issue in elite newsrooms? Maybe this topic suddenly became urgent, for some reason, among journalists who had escaped heartland zip codes and found their true selves by moving to New York City and Washington, D.C.?

The New York Times published an archetypal feature of this kind the other day that ran with this dramatic double-decker headline:

Families Have Been Torn Apart by Politics. What Happens to Them Now?

Unlike 2016, when conflicts emerged over political choices, this time many are centered on the legitimacy of the result itself.

The overture follows the formula that readers have seen dozens of times in the past four years.

Tho Nguyen’s parents, who immigrated from Vietnam, were always Republican. They are Catholic and oppose abortion. Four years ago they voted for Donald Trump.

But nothing prepared Ms. Nguyen, 25, a medical student in Kansas, for how much politics would divide her family over the next four years, as her parents became increasingly passionate about the president.


Please respect our Commenting Policy