Social Issues

, , , , , ,

Could Democrats win more Latter-day Saint Votes? Here's where they diverge from evangelicals

, , , , , ,

I’ve long been fascinated by the dynamic between Mormons and white evangelicals.

On the surface, the two groups look remarkably similar. Both communities are religiously devout, remain focused on evangelizing while maintaining strong social ties within their faith community and tend to lean to the right in American politics.

Under that veneer there’s been a lot of turmoil. It’s been my impression that Mormons have always felt a bit ostracized from the general American public. To combat this, the LDS church (or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) put together a media campaign called “I’m a Mormon” with the goal of normalizing their faith to the average American. I think, in some ways, that Mormons wanted to be seen as evangelicals.

But, many evangelicals want to ensure that doesn’t happen. Some of the leading voices in conservative American evangelicalism have labeled Mormonism a “cult.” Even the Billy Graham website once described Mormonism in cultish terms before the nomination of Mitt Romney in 2012. External similarities papers over the fact evangelicals and Mormons are some strange bedfellows, to be sure. But, do they really see politics in the same way? The data tells a pretty complicated story.

Let’s start broadly, with a look at partisanship and political ideology. In both cases, white evangelicals tend to be more apt to identify with the right side of the spectrum. For instance, 73.3% of white evangelicals identify as Republicans. It’s a bit lower for Mormons at 65.7%.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

FX documentary on Norma McCorvey omits key Catholic sources who knew her best

, , , , , ,

Years ago, a pro-life activist told me that her movement had several dirty little secrets — as in people who had been on the abortion-rights side of the equation, then flipped to the other side but were impossible to deal with or had weird lifestyles.

One such personality was Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” of the famous 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Shortly before McCorvey died in 2017, she consented to being part of a documentary that just aired on FX Networks (I saw it on Hulu) last week. McCorvey’s “deathbed” assertions first hit the Los Angeles Times:

When Norma McCorvey, the anonymous plaintiff in the landmark Roe vs. Wade case, came out against abortion in 1995, it stunned the world and represented a huge symbolic victory for abortion opponents: “Jane Roe” had gone to the other side. For the remainder of her life, McCorvey worked to overturn the law that bore her name.

But it was all a lie, McCorvey says in a documentary filmed in the months before her death in 2017, claiming she only did it because she was paid by antiabortion groups including Operation Rescue.

“I was the big fish. I think it was a mutual thing. I took their money and they’d put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say. That’s what I’d say,” she says in “AKA Jane Roe,” which premieres Friday on FX. “It was all an act. I did it well too. I am a good actress.”

Many of us religion reporters who were working in the 1990s also interviewed McCorvey. There is no way she was putting on an act when I talked with her and I know other journalists who’d say the same thing. The most gaping hole in this story is linked to McCorvey’s conversion to Catholicism and the wealth of evidence that she sincerely practiced that faith.

After watching the movie on Hulu, it’s hard to tell what’s true and what’s false about this woman. She’s switched personas more than once in this battle.


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

New York Times on young Republicans and African-American voters? Look for familiar ghosts

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

What we have here are two New York Times political stories that really needed input from (a) the religion-news desk, (b) polling experts who “get religion” or (c) both.

Both of these important reports are, to use GetReligion-speak, haunted by “religion ghosts.” If you look at them through the lens of politics, alone, then you won’t “get” what is happening with millions of voters who don’t want to vote for Donald Trump in 2020, but believe that they will have no choice but to do just that.

The headline on one story states: “Trump Pushes Young Republicans Away. Abortion Pulls Them Back.”

Oh my. I wonder if religious convictions might have something to do with this? You think?

So let’s do some familiar searches in this text. How about “church”? Zip. Maybe “God”? Zero. Surely “religion” or “religious” will show up? Nyet. How about “Christian”? Nope.

That’s strange. Look at this summary material and I think you will sense the ghost that is present.

Like millennials, who are now in their mid-20s to 30s, members of Generation Z — born after 1996 — tend to lean left. But there are still plenty of young Republicans, and the generational divide that is so apparent between younger and older Democrats is no less present on the other side of the aisle. It’s just less visible.

In interviews with two dozen Republicans ages 18 to 23, almost all of them, while expressing fundamentally conservative views, identified at least one major issue on which they disagreed with the party line. But more often than not, they said one issue kept them committed to the party: abortion.

While polling shows an age gap in opinions on abortion, it is smaller than the gaps on some other issues, and researchers say that for people who oppose abortion, that opposition has become more central to their political choices.


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

Jess Fields meets Ryan Burge: As you would image, they're talking 'nones,' 'evangelicals,' etc.

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

So here is the question: Is podcaster Jess Fields just going to work his way through the entire GetReligion team, sooner or later?

I think it would be logical to do that, since Fields is especially interested in topics linked to religion, current events and the impact of journalism on all of that. You can see that with a quick glance at his homepage at Apple Podcasts.

The other day, I spent an hour or so online with him and that podcast link was included in the GetReligion post that I wrote about Fields and his work: “Jess Fields got tired of short, shallow news interviews: So he started doing loooong podcasts.”

You may recall that Fields is a small businessman in Houston who also has worked quite a bit in nonpartisan think tanks linked to state and local governments. He is an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and that has affected a few of his podcasts.

So now he has had a lengthy chat (very long, even by Fields standards) with social scientist, and progressive Baptist minister, Ryan Burge.

Why not? Burge is all over the place right now — writing and chatting about the tsunami of charts, survey samples and commentary that he keeps releasing, day after day, on Twitter. He also showed up the other day in an NBC special:


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

British tabloids use online reach and clickbait stories to intensify tale of warring popes

, , , , , , , , , ,

Where do you get your news? This is a question I often ask of my journalism students. If being aware of the world around us hinges on the websites we read, then the answer to this question often reveals a lot about a person’s worldview.

Political polarization and news consumption is a real. For example, even during a pandemic, Republicans and Democrats remain starkly divided in their attitudes toward journalists. Pew Research found recently that while 66% of Democrats say the news media’s COVID-19 coverage has been largely accurate, just 31% of Republicans. The viral Plandemic video has fueled conspiracy theories on platforms where users generate content like YouTube and Reddit.

Toss in decades of liberal media bias, the growing influence of conservative talk radio, advocacy social media and tweet-storms from President Donald Trump and it combines for a lethal cocktail of mistrust. It has gotten more difficult to differentiate between trustworthy news sources on Facebook and Twitter.

This brings me to a news outlet not afraid of covering religion (great!), but one that often fails in its delivery (that’s the bad part). What happens when journalists in this kind of newsroom take one the pope? How about two popes at the same time?

I’m referring to The Daily Express, a newspaper headquartered in London that was founded 120 years ago. You may have not heard of it, but you’ve certainly seen their stories in your Google News stream or retweeted by a friend on both the left and right. Like most online newspapers, the tiny “About us” section at the very bottom of the homepage reveals the following:

Express.co.uk is the digital arm of the Daily Express and Sunday Express – one of Britain’s most famous and trusted news brands.

Since 1900 the Express has been at the forefront of the news, and a fundamental part of the fabric of British life, crusading for truth and dignity and bringing millions of readers informed coverage of the most important world events in both print and online.

The Express has stood up for Britain, talked common sense, and fought for the rights of hard-working men and women across the country.


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

Calling BS on NC-17

, , , , , , , ,

The Ringer has published an odd report by Keith Phipps that traces the doomed path of the NC-
17 rating in a time when streaming TV has eclipsed the importance of films. Its headline is an
engaging two-sentence summary: “Thirty Years Ago, Hollywood Won the Battle Against the X
Rating. But It Lost the War.”

Phipps devotes nearly 2,600 words to this topic.

You just know that simple-minded religious people play a major role in this drama. His one reference to cultural conservatives (“a religious right eager to protest whatever they [sic] felt to be an affront to their values”) is as predictable as a media release from Americans United. He adds this:

“They didn’t lack targets and, in fairness, those targets felt closer at hand thanks to neighborhood video stores with curtained ‘adults only’ sections and scandalous music videos just a click away on cable.”

That’s as far as the fairness extends, though. This isn’t hard-news journalism, of course. Still, it would have been nice — interesting even — to see some serious discussions of the views of people on both sides of this issue. Diversity is often interesting.

Phipps makes no effort to demonstrate such eagerness or easily affronted values, but simply notes
these factors as though they were universally established realities.

But here comes an informative turn, as Phipps presents a few examples of films that were
harmed by the dreaded adjective controversial:

Though ultimately more talked about than seen, Jean-Luc Godard’s 1985 film Hail Mary — featuring a modern day retelling of the nativity story — earned protests and the condemnation of Pope John Paul II. But that was a mere prelude to what greeted Martin
Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. …


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

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

Democrats (and political reporters) need to start asking different religion questions

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Democrats (and political reporters) need to start asking different religion questions

After Democrats voted in the Alabama primary in early March, researchers for CNN and other National Exit Pool newsrooms asked them several questions.

Reactions to the candidates were sorted by gender, race, LGBTQ identity, age, education level, political ideology and other factors. However, researchers didn't ask about religious faith and how often voters attended worship services. They didn't probe differences between evangelicals, Catholics, Mainline Protestants and "nones" -- Americans who claim zero ties to organized religious groups.

"We don't know the answers to these kinds of questions because they are rarely being asked," said Michael Wear of Public Square Strategies. He is best known for his work as faith-outreach director for Barack Obama's 2012 campaign and as part of the president's White House staff.

"This isn't just about exit polls. It's hard for Democrats to do their planning, and to allocate resources during campaigns, without this kind of data. … We need cross-tabs in these polls so that we can compare differences between white evangelicals and black evangelicals, between Catholics who go to Mass all the time and those who don't and other groups as well."

Exit Pool researchers did ask about religion in South Carolina, the pivotal state in former Vice President Joe Biden's stunning surge. It was significant that Biden was backed by 56% of Democrats who attend religious services "once a week or more," while 15% of those same voters backed Sen. Bernie Sanders. Among those who "never" attend services, Sanders was the clear winner.

Similar religion gaps emerged in North Carolina, Florida and Tennessee. In news coverage, these trends were linked to Biden's support from African-Americans, including churchgoers -- a huge voter bloc among Democrats.

That's important information, said Wear. But it would have helped to know how Catholics in South Carolina voted, as well as more about evangelical Protestants -- black and white. It would have helped to know what issues mattered most to active members of various religious groups and how faith affected their choices.

It's possible that pollsters and journalists do not ask these questions, he said, because key "players in the Democratic Party leadership aren't asking the big questions about religion, either."


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

Ostling in Mississippi, religion-politics 2020 and video of first GetReligion forum at Ole Miss

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Who knew?

In his long and distinguished career in journalism, GetReligion Patriarch Richard Ostling had never set foot in Mississippi. The Time magazine and Associated Press religion-beat scribe had covered events in 43 states across America, but had never made it into the land of William Faulkner.

Ostling was on hand, Tuesday night, for the first GetReligion-related public forum at the Overby Center at the University of Mississippi. The host, of course, was journalism educator Charles Overby — best known for his 22 years as CEO of the Freedom Forum, a non-partisan foundation focusing on the press, religious freedom and the First Amendment. Also, this was my first visit to the center as a senior fellow, after GetReligion’s move there at the start of 2020.

The weather was sketchy, but the crowd came loaded with great questions.

Our topic was the role that religion is playing, early on, in the 2020 race for the White House. I was expecting that to stir up lots of conversation about (all together now) the 81% of white evangelicals who just love Donald Trump. This forum was being held deep in the Bible Belt, of course. I also expected questions about liberal Democrats attempting to build bridges to voters in black churches.

But who knew?

The topic that dominated the night — starting with Ostling’s first salvo — was the role of centrist and pew-frequenting Catholics in the crucial swing states that will decide this year’s election. We are talking, of course, about the Rust Belt Midwest and Florida. (Click here for GetReligion’s typology on the four basic kinds of “Catholic voters.”)

Click on other to the next page of this post to see the video of the forum.


Please respect our Commenting Policy