Church & State

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

Washington Post looks at 'school choice' bills, and (#surprise) omits 'equal access' info

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Washington Post looks at 'school choice' bills, and (#surprise) omits 'equal access' info

For a minute or two, I thought that the Washington Post was going to publish a fair-minded news feature about the complex issues involved in “school choice” legislation.

Alas, it soon became clear that this was another business-as-usual piece that was, for the most part, committed to featuring the voices of activists on one side of the story. The story also avoided a key church-state legal term that is shaping recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on this subject.

Thus, it’s time — once again — for readers to grab some highlighter pens. Hold that thought.

You can sense what’s going on in the headline: “More states are paying to send children to private and religious schools.”

Ah, but private schools are private schools, too. Some are secular, some are openly religious. Some of the religious schools are on the left, in terms of doctrine, and some are on the right. But they are all “private” schools. Are all private schools created equal? Did the Post team “get” this angle of the story and include some diversity in the sourcing?

The bottom line: What we have here is another one of those “highlighter pen” stories that GetReligion digs into every now and then. What readers need to do is print a copy of the story and then grab three pens with different colors — maybe red, blue and some variation on purple. The goal is to mark quotes representing voices on the cultural left, right and, maybe, even in the middle.

But first, here is how the story opens:

For years, school-choice advocates toted up small victories in their drive to give parents taxpayer money to pay for private school. Now, Republican-led states across the country are leaving the limitations of the past behind them as they consider sweeping new voucher laws that would let every family use public funds to pay for private school.


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

Death of old-school journalism may be why Catholic church vandalism isn't a big story

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Death of old-school journalism may be why Catholic church vandalism isn't a big story

The start of 2023 has brought with it renewed discussion about the role of journalism in society and, more importantly, how it should be practiced and for whom.

At the same time, more Catholic churches and crisis-pregnancy centers have been the target of vandalism.

You may not have noticed this trend — because it is receiving little elite-news coverage.

I can’t help but think these two things are linked. Here’s how.  

Journalists and news organizations are increasingly abandoning old-school objectivity — think basic standards of accuracy, balance, fairness, etc. — in favor of an ever-changing worldview linked to whatever is fashionable politically or culturally, especially stances that are popular with paying customers. These news organizations are increasingly focused on how to influence the now and future rather than report on basic facts surrounding events.

Journalism, however, is not solely about predicting the future — see, for example, the heavy coverage towards polls trying to predict the outcome of elections — but observing the present and the on-the-record facts that surround us at the moment on a particular topic or issue.  

This growing activism among journalists has led reporters to lose most of their curiosity, a crucial element in news coverage.

Instead of asking questions, many already think they have the answers on an array of issues. In the process, this sense of activism among this new journalist class (and their Gen X editors who suddenly think that journalists have been doing things all wrong for decades) has led it to loss its curiosity. Debates? Who needs debates? Tropes based in secular society’s current values, for example, automatically trump thousands of years worth of Judeo-Christian tradition.

This brings us to the continuing trend that has seen many churches vandalized over the past few years. It’s a story that has received very little news coverage in the national press. Why?


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

(Still) thinking about Americans wanting other people's religion to stay out of politics

, , , , , , , , ,
(Still) thinking about Americans wanting other people's religion to stay out of politics

How old does a “think piece” need to be for people to stop thinking about it?

Let me state that another way: What if a “think piece” is a year old and I am still thinking about it?

Part of my logic, in this case, is that discussion of certain topics linked to this particular Religion in Public blog piece have, if anything, only heated up in the 12 months since it was published. Consider the urgent push for reporting, publishing and polling about “Christian nationalism,” which has almost turned into an industry of its own, especially in certain niche corners of the press.

Oh, has the Associated Press ruled on whether the “n” in that term is upper- or lower-case? If this is a movement, it really needs its own website and corporate headquarters, or is that like asking for official contact information about the Mafia?

Anyway, this brings me to a really interesting piece by researcher Paul A. Djupe of Denison University, who is best known in these parts as a frequent co-writer with Ryan Burge, a contributor to this website. Here is the headline: “Congregations are Doing Acceptable Amounts of Political Engagement.”

The question at the heart of the essay: Do people who claim to want churches to stay out of politics include their own for of organized religion (and maybe unorganized sort-of religion)? Djupe is reacting, in part, to a Pew Research study posted online with this headline: “Americans Have Positive Views About Religion’s Role in Society, but Want It Out of Politics.”

So here is the first major chunk of material that readers — journalists especially — need to think about.

In October 2020, at the height of the voting phase of the presidential election, we asked 1,306 worship attenders about the level of political engagement in their house of worship, soliciting whether the congregation needed to be less political, more political, or had just the right level of political engagement. The (weighted) response is almost the exact opposite of the Pew result from a few years ago — 60 percent believe their congregation was just right or should be more political, while 40 percent say it should be less (or way less) political.


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

That timely AP interview: What, precisely, did Pope Francis say about homosexual 'sin'?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
That timely AP interview: What, precisely, did Pope Francis say about homosexual 'sin'?

Let’s say that Pope Francis decides to sit down for an Associated Press interview, thus guaranteeing coverage that will appear in the maximum number of mainstream publications around the world.

The basic headline is generic, but points to newsworthy topics: “Pope discusses his health, critics and future papacy.” As you would expect, editors just love a papal interview addressing the potential for a political horse race before a Vatican election (with armies of dangerous right-wing “critics” in the wings).

Now, what angle of this interview would you expect to immediately jump into headlines and social media? Maybe something like, “The AP Interview: Pope says homosexuality not a crime.”

Obviously, the reaction have been different if AP editors had used this accurate headline (written by me), based on this interview: “The AP interview — Pope says homosexual acts are sins, not crimes.”

Hold that thought. First of all, I would like to know more about the backstory for this interview. The timing is interesting, in light of recent news linked to the death of Pope Benedict XVI (“Pope Francis meets Benedict's top aide as memoir rattles Vatican") and yet another powerful conservative leader (“Cardinal Pell authored controversial memo critical of Pope Francis, journalist reveals”).

It is also possible that the timing of this interview is linked to headlines such as this one, at The Telegraph: “ ‘Gay clubs’ run in seminaries, says Pope Benedict in posthumous attack on Francis: New book by the late pontiff makes extraordinary claims about the Catholic Church under his progressive successor.”

Say what? You haven’t seen coverage of this story in your local newspapers or on evening newscasts? Here is a sample of that report:

In a blistering attack on the state of the Catholic Church under his successor’s papacy, Benedict, who died on Dec 31 at the age of 95, said that the vocational training of the next generation of priests is on the verge of “collapse”.

He claimed that some bishops allow trainee priests to watch pornographic films as an outlet for their sexual urges.


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

Podcast: Let's play 'spot the sound bite' with Joe Biden's sermon at Ebenezer Baptist

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Let's play 'spot the sound bite' with Joe Biden's sermon at Ebenezer Baptist

Communications specialists inside the D.C. Beltway — journalists, PR pros, everybody — used to have a game they would play when watching major speeches. Check out the Michael Keaton and Geena Davis flick “Speechless,” about two dueling speechwriters whose romance causes complications.

The goal: Watch the speech and predict the sound bite that would make it into news reports. The key was “buzz,” that mysterious factor linked to quotes — positive or negative — that grab editors and producers and, hurrah, affect whatever political war or horse race was in the headlines.

I offered a variation on this process during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast broadcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), only I applied it, at first, to the pope.

My editors always thought the most important part of a papal speech was whatever he said that was linked to “real news,” as in American politics. I argued that it helped to figure out what the pope was trying to say to millions of Catholics around the world and this (#TriggerWarning) usually had something to do with faith, worship and, well, Catholicism. You know, Jesus stuff.

The goal in this podcast was to apply this process to the elite press coverage of President Joe Biden’s Sunday morning appearance in the pulpit of the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was once pastor. This was, according to most of the mainstream press, a “sermon,” as opposed to a political speech of some kind (click here to read the White House transcript).

As you would imagine, conservative media focused on Biden remarks that may or may not have had some connection to real events or even his own life. Was it accurate, for example, for Biden to say he was active, as a young man, in the Civil Rights Movement and highly influenced by the Black church?

The mainstream press mainly went with political sound-bites, but stressed the ones that contained references to Biden’s liberal Catholic faith, biblical social-justice language or muted jabs at Republicans. In other words, the MSM focused on the messages that Biden wanted to deliver. Hold that thought.


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

Two leaders of the new U.S. House could put Baptist diversity in the news spotlight

, , , , , , , , , ,
Two leaders of the new U.S. House could put Baptist diversity in the news spotlight

There could hardly be a greater contrast than New Yorker Hakeem Jeffries’ glide into leadership of the U.S. House Democratic minority and that of California Republican Kevin McCarthy’s agonizing 15-ballot crawl to barely become House Speaker in the worst such Capitol Hill fuss since the Civil War.

Jeffries, of course, wins news renown as Congress’s first African-American party leader. But here’s a factoid has gotten little media notice. Yes, this is a religion angle.

By coincidence, both party leaders are now Baptists, a faith that outside the South has generally been underrepresented among the political elite. Catholics (think Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Paul Ryan) monopolized the speaker and minority leader posts for much of the 21st.Century.

There would be good feature potential in comparing the two Baptists’ congregations.

Though Jeffries has an Arabic first name (meaning “wise”), he’s a lifelong worshiper at Cornerstone Baptist Church,  a prominent African-American congregation in Brooklyn. Senior Pastor Lawrence Aker III and his wife Cynthia have the distinction of holding diverse divinity degrees from both “evangelical” Dallas Theological Seminary and “mainline” Yale.

McCarthy’s congregation is the equally well-known Valley Baptist Church in his hometown of Bakersfield. Senior Pastor Roger Spradlin, who trained at Criswell College, has served Valley since 1983 and now leads a team of eight clergy. This is a typical white evangelical fellowship and affiliated with the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, which Spradlin has served as chairman of the national executive committee.

Speaking of religion on Capitol Hill, reporters will want to keep on file the official religious affiliations of all 534 members of the incoming House and Senate (with one vacancy due to death) accessible by clicking here. The handy list is compiled every two years by the Pew Research Center from information the legislators themselves file with CQ Roll Call.

Labels may say little.


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

Another day, another RNS First Amendment story with zero focus on the First Amendment

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Another day, another RNS First Amendment story with zero focus on the First Amendment

Another day, another Religion News Service report about clashes between the First Amendment and the doctrines of the Sexual Revolution.

As is the norm, this news story about a crucial First Amendment issue does not include the term “First Amendment.”

As is the norm, this RNS story does not include material about how many, not all, private faith-based schools — they exist on left and the right — require students, faculty and staff to sign covenants in which they choose to join a community that is defined by a set of core doctrines that members promise to follow or, at the very least, not to attack.

It is always crucial for journalists, when covering these stories, to ask if a private school has a covenant of this kind. If one does not exist, then this radically strengthens the case of students who argue that the school is discriminating against them.

As is the norm, the RNS story includes one tiny bite of information from the bad-religion people, while framing the conflict in the arguments of the good-religion people. In this case, alas, the bad-religion people won. The headline: “Federal court dismisses LGBTQ students’ class-action discrimination lawsuit.”

As always, let me stress that there is an important story here. Some Christian schools do a bad job — when recruiting and orienting students — of being honest about their covenants or handbooks. As I said, there are schools that do not have covenants, which means students (and parents) may not know what they are getting into when they choose to enroll at one of these private schools that are“voluntary associations” under the First Amendment. Hold that thought. Here’s the overture:

There is no legal remedy for LGBTQ students who claim they were discriminated against at their religious universities, an Oregon federal district court ruled in a high-profile case late Thursday (Jan. 12).

The judge dismissed the class-action lawsuit filed in March 2021 on behalf of about 40 students and former students at religious schools nationwide. The case, Hunter v. the U.S. Department of Education, claimed that the department failed to protect LGBTQ+ students at religious schools from discrimination.


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

NYTimes editors ask, 'When does life begin?' and (bravo) include religious and legal responses

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
NYTimes editors ask, 'When does life begin?' and (bravo) include religious and legal responses

You never know what newsroom professionals will decide is a “holiday” story, of one kind or another.

For example, major publications have through the years run a wide variety of bizarre and even offensive stories that were, somehow, supposed to be linked to Easter. That season is problematic since it is so explicitly Christian, as in the faith’s most important holy day.

Christmas is a different matter, since the season is a cultural steamroller at the level of pop culture, big business and church-state warfare (a drag queens and you are on A1, for sure). Toss in the need for valid year-end features and lots of staff taking vacations and things can get pretty complex for editors.

All of that was an introduction to what I think was a totally valid Christmas-Yearender feature that ran at The New York Times with this big-issue headline: “When does life begin? The question at the heart of America’s abortion debate is the most elemental — and the most complicated.”

Talk about a complex, yet absolutely essential, topic to address after the fall of Roe v. Wade, and it’s absolutely essential that the editors assigned this one to the religion desk. That made sense because it’s impossible to draw a bright red line between the spiritual and legal issues in this debate. As if that isn’t enough, a reporter then has to deal with valid debates on this issue among scientists, and religious leaders (think popes) commenting on those debates.

Thus, this is a story that will draw few cheers from activists on either side of America’s abortion wars. That’s a compliment, with this kind of story. Here is a large chunk of its summary-thesis material:

When does life begin?

In the months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it has become unavoidable, as activists and politicians try to squeeze concrete answers from an eternal question of human existence.

Lawmakers and judges from Arizona to South Carolina have been reviewing exactly which week of development during pregnancy the procedure should be allowed. Some states draw the line at conception, or six weeks or 15 or around 40. Many others point to viability, the time when a fetus can survive outside the uterus. The implication is that after the determined time, the developing embryo or fetus is a human being with rights worth protecting.

Over the summer, when lawmakers in Indiana fought over passing a law banning most all abortions from conception, Republicans argued at length that a fertilized egg was a human life, at times citing their Christian principles — that “human life begins at conception” and “God our creator says you shall not murder.” A Democrat pointed to another answer found in Title 35-31.5-2-160 of the Indiana code: “‘Human being’ means an individual who has been born and is alive.” A disagreement over abortion policy became a fight over what it means to be human, the tension between conception and birth, church and state.

Like I said, that’s just the start.


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

Of course the fall of Roe was 2022's top religion-beat story (including those church attacks)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Of course the fall of Roe was 2022's top religion-beat story (including those church attacks)

In the years before Roe v. Wade, one of America's largest Christian flocks struggled to find a way to condemn abortion, while also opposing bans on abortion.

A 1971 resolution said: "Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor" while others "advocate no legal abortion," permitting it "only if the life of the mother is threatened." Thus, it backed legislation allowing "abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."

After the 1973 Roe decision, the same body stressed the "limited role of government" in abortion questions, while supporting a "full range of medical services and personal counseling" for expectant mothers.

That was the Southern Baptist Convention -- before its conservative wing gained control, creating a powerful cultural force against abortion rights.

Churches were always active in abortion debates, with some embracing centuries of doctrine on the sanctity of human life, while overs became strategic abortion-rights supporters. Thus, journalists in the Religion News Association named the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as the year's top American religion-news story. Now churches -- left and right face -- face the challenge of proclaiming certainties while many states seek compromise.

Stressing politics, the RNA stated: "The Supreme Court overturns the 1973 Roe v. Wade precedent and says there is no constitutional right to abortion, sparking battles in courts and state legislatures and driving voters to the November polls in high numbers. More than a dozen states enact abortion bans, while voters reject constitutional abortion restrictions in conservative Kansas and Kentucky and put abortion rights in three other states' constitutions."

This poll avoided other religion-news elements of this story, such as acts of violence against churches -- especially Catholic parishes -- and crisis pregnancy centers, ranging from vandalism to arson, from the interruption of sacred rites to the destruction of sacred art. Protestors marched at the homes of SCOTUS justices and police arrested an armed man who threatened to invade the house of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

This year, the RNA added an international list, selecting Russia's war against Ukraine as the top story, in part because of bitter tensions between the Russian Orthodox Church and the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine, backed by the United States and the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate in Turkey.


Please respect our Commenting Policy