Monday Mix

, , , , , , , , , ,

Trump calls COVID-19 vaccine 'medical miracle;' some religious believers remain skeptical

, , , , , , , , , ,

“A medical miracle.”

In a Friday night video, that’s how President Donald Trump characterized the first COVID-19 vaccine approved by the U.S. government.

“We have delivered a safe and effective vaccine in just nine months,” Trump said. “This is one of the greatest scientific accomplishments in history.”

But as the New York Times’ Simon Romero and Miriam Jordan note, “A vast majority of people will need to be vaccinated to create a decisive decline in infections.”

However, “only about half of Americans are ready to roll up their sleeves when their turn comes,” report The Associated Press’ Lauran Neergaard and Hannah Fingerhut.

What’s religion got to do with it? (A lot, actually.)

The Times article features a Mississippi pastor named Adam Wyatt who enrolled in a vaccine trial after one of his congregants died of the virus:

Mr. Wyatt views hospital visits as one of his most important obligations as a pastor, and recalls feeling helpless as he gathered with the congregant’s family in a hospital parking lot, barred from entry by pandemic precautions.

But Mr. Wyatt, 38, did not tell many people about his decision afterward to enroll in the trial in Hattiesburg, about an hour’s drive west of his small town. “You hear, ‘This vaccine is the mark of the beast, don’t get this, it’s Bill Gates’s population control, you’ll get the microchips in you,’” he said. “A lot of my folks probably won’t get it.”

Meanwhile, Washington Post religion writer Sarah Pulliam Bailey traveled to Houston to talk to a pastor whose life depends on the vaccine but who faces skeptics within his own church.


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
, , , , , , ,

Even in 2020, Bobby Ross, Jr., has a reason to give thanks (plus week's top religion reads)

, , , , , , ,

For decades, my mother, Judy Ross, has made the best Thanksgiving feast on the planet.

I’m talking about a mammoth spread of turkey, chicken and dressing, ham, mashed potatoes, gravy, corn, green beans, cranberry sauce and steaming hot rolls — plus carrot cake, chocolate pie and other homemade desserts that fill an entire table.

Amazingly, this big meal comes only a few hours after a “light” holiday breakfast that always includes fried and scrambled eggs, biscuits and gravy, sausage, bacon and pancakes with chocolate syrup.

What am I thankful for? Well, for one thing, that I’ve never suffered a heart attack after all that I eat on this particular day. But seriously, I’m grateful for Mom — a kind, loving Christian woman who has spent her entire life serving other people.

Even before a recent mishap, Thanksgiving was shaping up to be a different experience for the extended Ross family in this crazy year. With concerns about big indoor gatherings contributing to the spread of COVID-19, crowding all the brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandbabies and great-grandbabies into Mom and Dad’s home seemed unwise.

But then my iPhone buzzed on a recent Monday morning, and my sister Christy Fichter’s face flashed on the screen. Read the full story.

Power Up: The Week’s Best Reads

1. Madison Cawthorn arrives in Washington: This is a fascinating interview with a controversial 25-year-old Republican congressman-elect from western North Carolina.

The piece by the Jewish Insider’s Matthew Kassel contains a whole lot of juicy religious details, such as Cawthorn — a nondenominational Christian who comes from a family of “true frickin’ believers” — talking about his desire to convert Muslims and Jews.

Read more on that angle from GetReligion’s Terry Mattingly.

2. The evangelical reckoning begins: As the Election 2020 post-op continues, The Atlantic’s Emma Green ponders with megachurch pastor Andy Stanley how to pursue faith over politics.


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

Lies, damned lies, statistics: Shifts in religious voting were crucial for Joe Biden — maybe

, , , , , , , ,

In the 2020 election, what happened with the religious vote that was seen as so crucial to President Donald Trump’s upset win four years ago?

Take your pick:

* Not much changed, according to Religion News Service’s Yonat Shimron.

* A small decline in Trump support among White Catholics represented a slight but significant change, NPR’s Tom Gjelten proposed.

* President-elect Joe Biden “swung the religious vote” just enough to defeat Trump, Politico’s Gabby Orr reported.

* White evangelicals “stuck by” Trump and, despite Biden’s win, “still took heart in their strong presence at the polls and the GOP’s success in down-ballot races,” according to The Associated Press’ Elana Schor and David Crary.

* Biden closed the gap among White evangelicals to the tune of “well over four million votes nationally,” Biden supporter Michael Wear proclaimed in a New York Times op-ed.

Wait, what?

“I think there's been a bit of, ‘I'm going to read whichever exit polls make my efforts seem fruitful,’ among a certain group of people in the post-election time period,” said Ryan Burge, an assistant professor of political science at Eastern Illinois University. His research focuses on the intersection of religiosity and political behavior, especially in the U.S.

The problem, according to Burge, is that exit polling “is very unreliable.” He pointed to a USA Today column by Robert Griffin making the case that more time is needed for reliable analysis.

“The only data that I am trusting right now comes from the CCES. Which is not an exit poll but is the gold standard for political science now,” Burge said, referring to the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Religious liberty and foster care: five key numbers as SCOTUS weighs dogma and LGBTQ rights

, , , , , ,

We voted.

Then we waited. And fretted over the outcome. And waited some more.

While we did, perhaps some of us missed Wednesday’s arguments in the latest U.S. Supreme Court case pitting religious freedom vs. gay rights and the Sexual Revolution.

The dispute involves the city of Philadelphia ending its foster care contract with Catholic Social Services over the faith-based agency’s refusal to place children with same-sex parents.

Here are five key numbers that stood out to me:

5,000 CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

NPR’s Nina Totenberg’s reported:

On one side is the city of Philadelphia, which has custody of about 5,000 abused and neglected children, and contracts with 30 private agencies to provide foster care in group homes and for the certification, placement, and care of children in individual private foster care homes.

Reuters’ Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung asked a city official about the potential impact if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Catholic Society Services:

A ruling against Philadelphia could make it easier for people to cite religious beliefs when seeking exemptions from widely applicable laws such as anti-discrimination statutes.

“If individual organizations can begin to choose to discriminate against whom they want to serve, then it does begin to set an unfortunate precedent,” said Cynthia Figueroa, Philadelphia’s deputy mayor for children and families.

ZERO SAME-SEX PARENTS DENIED

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post quoted Lori Windham:

“Zero” was the answer from Windham, a lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, when asked how many same-sex couples had been denied the opportunity to be foster parents because of CSS policy. She said if ever approached, the agency would refer the couple to one of the more than two dozen agencies that have no issue with same-sex marriage.


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

Here we go again, 2020 version: Five revealing questions to ask on Election Night

, , , , , , , , , ,

In Tuesday’s big vote, politics matter.

So, too, does religion.

On Election Night, here are five revealing questions that Godbeat pros will be asking:

1. Was President Donald Trump able to maintain his overwhelming level of support — roughly 80% in 2016 — among White evangelicals?

“If that number is significantly lower, I would think it has to do with younger evangelicals and maybe women evangelicals getting fed up,” said Kimberly Winston, an award-winning religion reporter based in California.

The pre-election outlook? Trump is “losing ground with some — but not all — White Christians,” reports FiveThirtyEight’s Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux.

On the flip side, Christianity Today’s Kate Shellnutt highlights evangelical voters who express “more faith in Trump” than they did four years ago.

2. What difference did Catholic voters make, particularly in all-important swing states?

NPR religion correspondent Tom Gjelten notes that in 2016 “it was not the evangelicals who carried Trump to victory but Catholics, a group he had rarely mentioned in his speeches.”

Gjelten explains:

Despite losing the popular vote, Trump reached the presidency in large part because he won traditionally Democratic Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, all states in which Catholics outnumber evangelicals by significant margins.

Religion Unplugged’s Clemente Lisi, The Atlantic’s Emma Green and the Columbus Dispatch’s Danae King offer more insight on this key voting bloc. This is has also been a major topic in GetReligion coverage of American politics for more than a decade, especially in the work of Richard Ostling and Terry Mattingly.

3. How did various subgroups — Mormons, Muslims and even the Amish among them — influence the outcome?

Trump’s campaign has made a “concerted effort” to expand support among Arizona and Nevada members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Salt Lake Tribune’s Lee Davidson reports.


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

Plug-in: No anti-Catholic sequel, as Democrats avoided loud dogma at Barrett hearings

, , , , , , , , , ,

This time, the Democrats avoided the dogma. So far.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s faith was a big focus going into this week’s Senate Judicial Committee hearings.

In advance of the confirmation proceedings, The Associated Press’ Mary Clare Jalonick and Elana Schor noted:

WASHINGTON (AP) — “The dogma lives loudly within you.”

It’s that utterance from California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, that’s on the minds of Democrats and Republicans preparing for this coming week’s hearings with Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Feinstein’s 2017 remarks as she questioned Barrett — then a nominee for an appeals court — about the influence of Barrett’s Catholic faith on her judicial views sparked bipartisan backlash, contributing to the former law professor’s quick rise as a conservative judicial star.

Similarly, the Wall Street Journal’s Francis X. Rocca and Lindsay Wise pointed out:

In her 2017 confirmation hearings, senators from both parties brought up the connection between Judge Barrett’s faith and her rulings. But Democrats, especially California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, got backlash for their questions.

Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley asked, “When is it proper for a judge to put their religious views above applying the law?”

Sen. Feinstein said, “Whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma…I think in your case, Professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.”

In response to the line of questioning, Judge Barrett said, “My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.”

With the 2017 backlash in mind, Democrats steered clear of Barrett’s religion at this week’s hearings, even as Republicans focused on it.


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

Plug-in: What spiritual ramifications of the fly that landed on Mike Pence's head?

, , , , , , , , ,

My journalist son Keaton and I were watching the vice presidential debate Wednesday night when he burst out laughing.

“Is that a fly on Mike Pence’s head?” my 23-year-old son wondered out loud.

I glanced up from the Words With Friends game on my iPad and squinted at the TV.

“It sure looks like it,” I said.

We both rushed to check Twitter. Confirmation of our suspicion came quickly. And suddenly, a nation weighted down by too much heavy news had a reason to giggle again.

The New York Times dutifully reported:

Vice President Mike Pence, his hair perfectly coiffed, never reacted to the fly’s appearance on the right side of his head. It stood out against his bright white hair, standing still for the most part but moving around slightly before, well, flying away.

A local TV news reporter from California clocked the fly’s screen time on Mr. Pence’s head at 2 minutes, 3 seconds.

Despite the buzz that it created, the fly did not respond to an interview request. However, America’s most famous insect did start a viral social media account.

Please don’t whack me with a fly swatter, but that “spiritual ramifications” title at the top of this week’s column was clickbait.

If that bugs you, though, Sojourners’ Jenna Barnett has you covered with “5 Bible verses about flies.” See, there’s always a religion angle. Even with Flygate.

Concerning the actual debate, Pence and California Sen. Kamala Harris clashed briefly over religious belief. Religion Unplugged’s Timothy Nerozzi delves into the specifics.


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