Science

Now that everybody is homeschooling, a newsworthy elite assault slams the usual version

The COVID-19 Era has produced a temporary revolution in American education.

Call it universal homeschooling. Just about everyone from kindergarten through grad school is studying at home. Unlike usual homeschooling, where parents are teachers, Covid coursework is led by schools’ regular teachers online, though parents often manage matters.

Right at this odd moment, normal homeschooling has come under a major attack that provokes vigorous reactions. The coronavirus news hook offers an ideal moment to take a substantial look at the pros and cons of this growing phenomenon that involves some 3% of American children and young people. The story fits the education and religion beats alike, since the majority of homeschool families are religious.

The big new development here is an 80-page anti-homeschool blast in the current issue of the Arizona Law Review by Harvard University Professor Elizabeth Bartholet (click for .pdf), who directs the law school’s Child Advocacy Program. She also makes her case in an interview with Harvard magazine.

The bottom line: Bartholet wants courts and legislatures to ban homeschooling, for the most part, as Germany and Sweden do.

She thinks government should permit exceptions case by case, for instance to accommodate the regimens of talented young athletes or artists. Such permission would be reviewed annually.

Less drastically, Bartholet thinks states are far too lax and should require home schools and public schools to meet similar standards. States would set qualifications for parents to teach (she favors college degrees for high school teachers and high school diplomas for the lower grades), ensure that the curriculum meets minimum state standards, check up via home visits, and require annual standardized tests. If home schools don’t measure up, states would transfer children to public schools.

Policy-makers might see those as common-sense proposals well worth debating. But her advocacy of virtual prohibition signals a strong aversion to the whole idea of homeschooling and a particular hostility toward religious subcultures.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Devil in the details: Italian exorcist describes lifelong battle against demons and the occult

At a time when the planet is gripped by a pandemic, science and faith have again come into conflict in the public square, including news reports.

That nagging age-old question about good versus evil (“theodicy”) and the role of God in our lives is on the minds of many (click for tmatt “On Religion” column) while our houses of worship remain shut down for safety reasons.

To be blunt: Debates about the nature of evil now loom over many front-page headlines.

It is in this quarantine life of ours that the book “The Devil is Afraid of Me: The Life and Works of the World’s Most Famous Exorcist” has hit our bookshelves. Open-minded journalists may want to check this one out.

While most people think of the Hollywood version of good versus evil as portrayed in the 1973 movieThe Exorcist “(which would end up spawning a series of less-than-spectacular squeals), this book assures us that the fight against Satan should not be trivialized as part of an afternoon watching a Halloween movie marathon.

The book (originally in Italian and now available in English through Sophia Institute Press) goes into great detail into the life and times of Father Gabrielle Amorth, a Catholic priest who performed scores of exorcisms over his lifetime. The book, edited by a fellow Italian priest named Marcello Stanzione, delves into great detail regarding Amorth’s biggest cases of demonic possession over the years.

While the English translation from the original is, at times, a little stilted, this is a book that forces the reader to explore the supernatural and try to grasp how the fight against evil can take on many forms.

Amorth claims to have conducted some 100,000 exorcisms over a 30-year span before his death in 2016 at the age of 91. Beloved in Italy, Amorth may be the world’s most famous exorcist, but he isn’t alone. Some 200 priests around the world are tasked with taking on demons following the consent of a local bishop.

Amorth was just one of the most famous since he worked in Rome and gained a high-profile thanks to his books and many TV and radio appearances.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Yes, there's still a November election and propaganda about religion will merit examination

Despite the dormant U.S. campaign and 24/7 news coverage on COVID-19, political verbiage continues unabated, some of it religious in flavor.

Writers are unlikely to scan this scene at the moment, but The Religion Guy thinks it merits examination sometime before Election Day seven months hence.

The overriding trait of U.S. political propaganda in our time — from left and right — is that it ever more narrowly “preaches to the choir,” as the old saying goes, reinforcing prior mindsets and allegiances rather than trying to persuade fence-sitters or people with opposite views. Ditto with religious verbiage.

There are two categories of propaganda. (1) Promotional material disgorged by political groups themselves. (2) Opinion journalism that drifts toward the rabidly partisan newspapering of the Adams-Burr-Hamilton-Jefferson days. Click here for a sample.

A typical example of appeals to hidebound attitudes is a direct-mail plea that Ralph Reed’s Faith & Freedom Coalition says went to 10 million Christians. They were asked to donate $22.5 million to register 5 million new voters in 16 battleground states, re-elect President Donald Trump, and maintain Republicans’ Senate control.

The mailer said 81% of “conservative Christians” voted for Trump, which signaled that the intended audience here was white evangelical Protestants, not minority Protestants or Catholics who resent it when the “Christian” label is co-opted this way.

Reed’s mailer came in mid-March, just before the president shifted to sterner warnings about COVID-19, so that looming crisis went unmentioned while the then-booming economy was touted. The pitch cited federal judge appointments but notably skipped past other evangelical concerns like support for Israel, religious liberty, LGBTQ and gender identity disputes, the drug epidemic and abortion.

Instead, believers were told to combat the “OPEN BORDERS, socialist, anti-God, anti-family agenda of today’s Democrat Party” whose “VOTE FRAUD” threatens democracy, all of this abetted by the “dishonest media.” The enemy would “erase Christianity from America” and have the U.S. “governed by the United Nations” instead of its Constitution. Those “vicious and unhinged” liberals “can destroy America forever” so it becomes “a failed, corrupt, one-party socialist country like Cuba or Venezuela.” Etc.

With propaganda via journalism, let’s start at the elite level with Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate, emeritus economics prof at Princeton and New York Times columnist. His March 28 opus accusing the Trump administration of inadequate COVID-19 response blamed its “denialism” in part upon “the centrality of science-hating religious conservatives.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Many patients and not enough ventilators: Is religion part of this coronavirus debate?

Let’s state this coronavirus question bluntly: Is the emerging “let Granny die” puzzle a political story, an economics story or a religion story? Based on the coverage I am seeing, it appears that the safe route is to call this a “medical ethics” story.

Something tells me — based on his fierce writings about materialism, greed and modernity — that Pope Francis would insist that centuries of traditions in multiple faiths are relevant during debates about this equation.

But I understand that news organizations only have so much space and time. However, I believe this is a case where some editors are editing religious questions and voices out of stories that — for millions of people in America and around the world — are “haunted” by religion. This is, of course, what GetReligion is all about.

So here are the bare bones of the story, as covered in faith-free USA Today story with this headline: “Who lives and who dies': In worst-case coronavirus scenario, ethics guide choices on who gets care.” The overture states:

In a worst-case scenario of ventilator shortages, physicians may have to decide “who lives and who dies,” said Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and chairman of the University of Pennsylvania’s department of medical ethics and health policy.

“It’s horrible,” Emanuel said. “It’s the worst thing you can have to do.”

Respiratory therapists, who take care of patients who struggle to breathe, are aware of the pressures that comes from a swift, sudden need for ventilators

This story contains tons of valid information. However, it’s clear that the team that produced it didn’t include anyone with a background in religion reporting or debates about “whole life” doctrines in moral theology.

The only mention of faith may have been an accident — through an interview with a prominent scientist who also happens to be an articulate Christian.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Atlantic feature on Francis Collins covers lots of COVID-19 territory, but gets the faith angle, too

One of the most important religion stories in America right now are the tensions inside many religious organizations — usually between high-ranking clergy and laypeople in the pews — over the extreme forms of “social distancing” that are shutting down worship services or, at best, sending them online.

Ironically, these tensions would fade, to some degree, if American Christians were willing to listen to some of the coronavirus lessons learned by believers in other parts of the world, especially Asia. Click here for a recent GetReligion post on that topic.

Like it or not, these arguments are also being shaped by politics, more than theology, as political scientist and mainline Baptist pastor Ryan Burge has been demonstrating in some of his recent work dissecting some older poll information. See the recent post entitled, “Faith in quarantine: Why are some people praying at home while others flock to pews?”

At the same time, the pew-level arguments about COVID-19 and congregational life may contain themes that are common in many arguments about faith and science. One way to address that divide — as Clemente Lisi said the other day — is to focus on people of faith whose work in labs and hospitals is helping shape the global response to this crisis. See his GetReligion post: “The quest for religion and science coverage of COVID-19 — in the same news report.

If GetReligion readers want a strong summary of some of this material — viewed through the lens of science — they can turn to a strong Peter Wehner feature at (#NoSurprise) The Atlantic. Here’s the double-decker headline:

NIH Director: ‘We’re on an Exponential Curve’

Francis Collins speaks about the coronavirus, his faith, and an unusual friendship.

This long, long interview is worth reading — top to bottom. It’s packed with newsy material and how Collins views what is going on. Note, in particular, the reference to remdesivir and the tests that are underway to see if this drug is as effective as it appears to be in fighting, even curing, COVID-19. Can you think of a bigger potential news story right now than that?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

The quest for religion and science coverage of COVID-19 -- in the same news report

We are living in surreal times.

The world as we knew it just over a week ago has been brought to a halt by the COVID-19 pandemic. After the virus devastated China’s Wuhan province, it spread to Europe and now the rest of the world. Our daily lives have been disrupted in a way never seen in our lifetimes.

I have for weeks been concerned about the virus. Most of my family lives in Italy, a nation hard hit by it. My many uncles and aunts — all 65 and older and therefore more at-risk of dying — have not left their homes after the government imposed a national lockdown. What has happened in Italy and now the rest of Europe could certainly happen in the United States.

There has been some very good journalism being done. My go-to sources for news have been The Associated Press and The New York Times. For broader context and commentary have been valuable resources such as The Atlantic and The Economist. We must give these journalists praise and thanks for the long hours they have been putting in to inform us all. In a time where misinformation can lead to death, the press should be largely lauded for their efforts. I can tell you, as someone who covered a massive event like the Sept. 11 attacks and its aftermath, that newsrooms are in overdrive at this moment and will be for months.

While the aforementioned four media outlets — and the countless others — have done an exceptional job covering the pandemic, so have Catholic news organizations. For those across the Catholic doctrinal spectrum, the religious press has also done a wonderful job covering COVID-19 from a faith perspective. EWTN, with its TV and radio broadcasts as well as digital media, has done a wonderful job.

In particular, Catholic News Agency has updated readers with a constant stream of stories over the past few weeks.

The mainstream press, other than focusing on churches going remote during this time of social distancing (and the usual questions about Holy Communion from a “common cup”), hasn’t bothered much with the religion angle.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

UPDATE: CNN sort of repents on 'fetus' language in story about Senate born-alive bill

Year after year, debates about abortion continue to raise questions about ethics, politics, morality and science — as well as arguments about language and style in journalism.

The latest, of course, focuses on the legal status of a baby that is born accidentally — perhaps during a botched abortion — as opposed to being delivered intentionally. If you think that is a relatively black-and-white issue, then talk to Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam. Meanwhile, what role should the beliefs of doctors and parents, secular or religious, play in this discussion?

Some readers may flinch because I used the term “baby” in that previous paragraph. However, in this case we are discussing the status of a human being who has already been born. Meanwhile, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary continues to define “fetus” as:

[Click to the next page for update on this post.]


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Prediction for 2020: Lots of adults will keep worrying about teen-agers and morality

American media are forever fascinated — or frightened — regarding what teens and young adults are up to, especially in matters linked to morality and religion.

The Guy’s October 24 Memo highlighted an important new survey showing, for instance, that only half of “mainline” Protestant young adults still uphold the very basic belief that God is “a personal being involved in the lives of people today,” which is affirmed by virtually all evangelicals. 

Now comes a comprehensive survey of 5,600 U.S. teens who were tracked from 1999 into young adulthood. 

The topline: Those who were raised to attend worship (of whatever faith) on a weekly basis, and to pray or meditate daily, show notably favorable life outcomes compared with others. 

This is highly newsworthy. But, as often the case with academic research, it will be brand new info for most or all journalists, though reported a year ago in the American Journal of Epidemiology.  The authors are Professor Tyler VanderWeele (tvanderw@hsph.harvard.edu or 617 – 955-6292) and doctoral student Ying Chen of Harvard University’s  School of Public Health. The project was supported by the federal National Institutes of Health and the Templeton Foundation. 

The investigators found that in comparison with non-attenders, later outcomes for young adults who worshipped weekly as teens showed greater satisfaction in life, volunteering, sense of personal mission and forgiveness, a lower probability of drug abuse, early sexual  initiation and sexual infections, fewer lifetime sexual partners, possibly less depression and higher rates of voter registration, etc. 

The cautiously worded conclusion: Results “suggest that religious involvement in adolescence may be one such protective factor for a range of health and well-being outcomes. … Encouraging service attendance and private practices may be meaningful avenues of development and support, possibly leading to better health and well-being.” 


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Why does GetReligion want to keep doing that journalism thing that we do?

I have never really enjoyed listening to infomercials, to tell you the truth. But, like it or not, creating one of those was a small part of the agenda in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

Yes, host Todd Wilken and I talked about GetReligion’s upcoming move to the Overby Center at the University of Mississippi, where I will also be a senior fellow linked to events focusing on religion, news and politics. I announced that in a post the other day with this headline: “Religion news, the First Amendment and BBQ: GetReligion will soon have a new home base.” And, yes, we talked about the fact that GetReligion needs to raise some money in order to do what we do in the future.

However, I think it’s significant how we got to that topic. We started off talking about the doctrinal wars over LGBTQ rights at George Fox University, which was addressed in this post: “Here we go again (again): RNS/AP offers doctrine-free take on George Fox LGBTQ battles.”

Readers can tell, just from that headline, that this story linked into many familiar GetReligion themes, including the crucial role that doctrine — whether academics call it “doctrine” or not — plays in defining life on private-school campuses, both on the left and the right. All to often (think “Kellerism”), journalists report and edit these stories as if journalists are in charge of determining what is “good” doctrine and what is “bad” doctrine.

There’s no need for an accurate, fair-minded debate when you already know who is right and who is wrong. Here’s a bit of that George Fox post:


Please respect our Commenting Policy