Church & State

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

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

Podcast: How long to sing this song? Yes, we have another (M.I.A.) 'equal access' story

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: How long to sing this song? Yes, we have another (M.I.A.) 'equal access' story

How long to sing this song? Audible sigh.

How often, during GetReligion’s nearly 20 years online, have your GetReligionistas critiqued church-state stories about public schools, libraries and other state-funded facilities in which officials were wrestling with “equal access” guidelines — but it was clear that journalists didn’t know (or didn’t care) that they were covering an “equal access” story?

That was the Big Idea that loomed (once again) over this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). Before we jump into this new case study, let’s do a flashback into a few recent “equal access” headlines at GetReligion:

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

* “Another SCOTUS win for 'equal access,' whether most journalists realized this or not.”

* “Fellowship of Christian Athletes wins an 'equal access' case, even if LATimes missed that.”

* “Reminder to journalists (again): Private schools — left, right — can defend their core doctrines.”

For starters, what are we talking about here? Let’s flash back to a summary that I have used in posts more than once. Sorry for the echo-chamber effect, but that’s kind of the point of this post:

What we keep seeing is a clash between two different forms of “liberalism,” with that term defined into terms of political science instead of partisan politics.

Some justices defend a concept of church-state separation that leans toward the secularism of French Revolution liberalism. The goal is for zero tax dollars to end up in the checkbooks of citizens who teach or practice traditional forms of religious doctrine (while it’s acceptable to support believers whose approach to controversial issues — think sin and salvation — mirror those of modernity).

Then there are justices who back “equal access” concepts articulated by a broad, left-right coalition that existed in the Bill Clinton era. The big idea: Religious beliefs are not a uniquely dangerous form of speech and action and, thus, should be treated in a manner similar to secular beliefs and actions. If states choose to use tax dollars to support secular beliefs and practices, they should do the same for religious beliefs and practices.

At some point, it would be constructive of journalists spotted these “equal access” concepts and traced them to back to their roots in the Clinton era (and earlier). But maybe I am being overly optimistic.

Once again, the Bill Clinton era wasn't about throwing red meat to the Religious Right. Instead, you had old-school First Amendment liberals trying — more often than not — to find ways to prevent “viewpoint discrimination” in the use of public funds and facilities.


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

Let us attend: Mark Kellner offers readers a visit from the ghost of church-state past

, , , , , , , , ,
Let us attend: Mark Kellner offers readers a visit from the ghost of church-state past

Every now and then, religion-beat readers are granted a visitation from the ghost of church-state past.

In this case, we are dealing with a Washington Times report by former GetReligionista Mark Kellner, who has spent enough time inside the D.C. Beltway to understand that mass transit is the true public square for most citizens.

Thus, spot the classic church-state ghost in this headline: “Christian group, ACLU sue Metro over rejected bus ads featuring a praying George Washington.”

Need a hint? Who were some of the major players in the broad coalition that backed the near-unanimous votes in the U.S. Congress for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993?

OK, here is Kellner’s overture:

A Texas-based Christian education group has filed a free-speech lawsuit backed by the ACLU over the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority‘s rejection of the group’s ads that feature images of a praying George Washington.

WMATA earlier this year rejected the ads from WallBuilders, an Aledo, Texas, organization founded by evangelical author David Barton to communicate “the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation” of the United States. The ads would have been displayed on Metro buses.

Wallbuilders was joined in the suit by the American Civil Liberties Union and its D.C. chapter, the First Liberty Institute and the law firm of Steptoe LLP.

Wait a minute. The ACLU and a conservative Christian group are on the same side in a First Amendment free speech/religious liberty case?

Of course, there was a time when this kind of broad church-state coalition was common, as in the RFRA era. But, these days, it’s tempting to think that this kind of First Amendment logic can only be achieved with the help of a time machine (or a case involving a small, sympathetic religious minority group).


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

Guide to the mainstream media's failed attempts to report on Pope Francis-era scandals

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Guide to the mainstream media's failed attempts to report on Pope Francis-era scandals

Another month, another scandal. That seems to be the case these days with former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden. 

It’s also the case when we talk about Vatican life in the tense era of Pope Francis. World without end. Amen.

The most-recent drama in Rome involves Luca Casarini, who recently took part in the Synod on Synodality as a special nominee of Pope Francis. 

Here is the key for religion-news consumers: The problem isn’t that the mainstream press has done a poor job covering this case — it’s that mainstream journalists have’t covered it at all. This fits into a recent trend in which important and, for many, troubling stories about Catholic debates, scandals and divisions are simply ignored by leaders in elite newsrooms.

The Catholic press, however, has been on this latest story, especially newsrooms with Rome-based bureaus and reporters. This is what noted Vatican journalist John Allen reported on Dec. 3 for Crux:

Perhaps under the heading that no good deed ever goes unpunished, Pope Francis today finds himself dragged into a new controversy which, among other things, illustrates that even the very best of intentions have the potential to generate heartache.

The case centers on an Italian non-governmental organization called “Mediterranea,” the head of which is a former leader in the “no-global” movement and a longtime leftist activist named Luca Casarini, who recently took part in the Synod of Bishops on Synodality as a special nominee of Pope Francis.

While saving lives unquestionably is a worthy cause, there have been accusations that the group’s motives aren’t entirely altruistic.

Currently, Casarini and five other individuals associated with Mediterranea are under investigation in Sicily for an incident in 2020 in which the Mare Jonio, without permission from local authorities, disembarked 27 migrants in a Sicilian port whom it had taken on board from a Danish supply ship which had rescued them at sea 37 days before.

The Danish company that owned the ship, Maersk, later paid Mediterranea roughly $135,000, in what the company described as a donation but which prosecutors suspect was a payoff for violating Italian immigration laws. A judge is expected to rule Dec. 6 as to whether the case should go to trial.

The press in Italy has been all over the story since the start of this month, but legacy media in the English-speaking world have not. It may be because it involves this pope and a hot-button issue such as immigration, one of the most painful fault lines in European life today.

Either way, it is the latest in a growing number of scandals that have either been ignored or downplayed in recent years. 


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
, , , , , , , , , ,

Religion ghost? No, the new president of Argentina has openly bashed Pope Francis

, , , , , , , , , ,
Religion ghost? No, the new president of Argentina has openly bashed Pope Francis

Javier Milei is a practicing Catholic, but Argentina’s new president of has made zero attempts to hide his opposition to much of the cultural and economic agenda of Pope Francis.

In a stunning outcome that few would have predicted even a few months ago, this libertarian economist and former soccer player was elected Argentina's president. In this political story, there is no “religion ghost,” since many politicos openly called the election a referendum on Pope Francis’ status in his home nation.

Milei, 53, won a resounding victory last Sunday with nearly 56% of the vote in a runoff against Sergio Massa. This was the highest winning percentage in a presidential election since the South American nation returned to democracy in 1983.

The self-described anarcho-capitalist — who many have compared to former President Donald Trump — said in a victory speech that the “reconstruction of Argentina begins today.”

“Argentina’s situation is critical,” Milei told a crowd of supporters. “The changes our country needs are drastic. There is no room for gradualism, no room for lukewarm measures.”

Milei made headlines earlier this year with his caustic descriptions of Pope Francis, was born in Argentina and once served as cardinal of Buenos Aires. The pontiff became a campaign lightening rod after Milei called Francis “a communist” and “leftist son of a b----.”

Francis’ message against the accumulation of wealth — including criticism of an “economic system that continues to discard lives in the name of the god of money” — has been seen by some voters as an endorsement for Peronism, which some have argued is left-wing populism in the style of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

In it’s report on the election, The New York Times stirred religion and populism into this snarky mix:

Mr. Milei overcame criticism and questions about a variety of unusual behaviors during the campaign, including his harsh attacks against the pope, his clashes with Taylor Swift fans, his claims of being a tantric-sex guru, his dressing up as a libertarian superhero and his close relationship with his Mastiff dogs that are named for conservative economists — and are also all clones.


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

Israel's war brings focus on presidential candidate Cornel West, a key Religious Left voice

, , , , , , , , , ,
Israel's war brings focus on presidential candidate Cornel West, a key Religious Left voice

Never assume that America’s third parties don’t matter. Especially in a topsy-turvy political season like this one.

After all, some figure that Jill Stein’s 1% in three swing states produced Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, or that Ralph Nader’s 1.6% in Florida elected Bush 43 in 2000, or that Ross Perot’s 19% elected Clinton over incumbent Bush 41 in 1992.

More obviously, Republican rebel Theodore Roosevelt’s 27.4% meant Wilson beat incumbent Taft in 1912. The newborn Republicans were kind of a third party in the crucial 1860 election when Abraham Lincoln managed to win the White House with only 39.9%.

Last week, a CNN poll showed this current four-way split for 2024: Trump 41%, Biden 35%, Robert Kennedy Jr. 16%, and Cornel West 4%.

Might the two independents determine which of the other two wins? Also, Stein is back in it now that West has quit his Green Party flirtation. Who knows what Sen. Joe Manchin or his No Labels pals will do?

America’s painful, binary voting-booth vise is clearly under attack.

The Guy puts the focus on West, a rich topic for coverage as a celebrity of the Religious Left due to multi-media activities. West suddenly becomes more significant with the Hamas terrorists’ slaughter of civilians and Israel’s furious military response in Gaza, where civilians are trapped next to, or above, Hamas military outposts.

West’s campaign will presumably help focus sympathy for the Palestinian cause among fellow Black and liberal Protestants — even as some other Americans’ anti-Israel stance turns to antisemitism.


Please respect our Commenting Policy