Social Issues

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

Courage vs. civility? It doesn't help when believers join mobs in social media

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Courage vs. civility? It doesn't help when believers join mobs in social media

It seemed that whenever the Rev. Daniel Darling ventured into social media, he saw the same red flags -- so he posted a commentary on "Christians and Conspiracy Theories."

"Because it's online, doesn't mean it's true," he noted. "Because a story is advanced by someone whose ideology I agree with, doesn't mean it's true. …

"For some reason, we are a people who want to believe there is a big plot behind every single thing that happens. … If you watch enough cable TV, depending on your political persuasion, you will come to think that behind every act in Congress there is a string of connected dots that go back to either George Soros (liberal) or the Koch brothers (conservative)."

This wasn't a hot take on QAnon letters or rumors of shredded Georgia ballots.

Darling wrote those words a decade ago, while leading an evangelical church near Chicago. Now he's a crucial voice for the National Religious Broadcasters and author of a book -- "A Way with Words: Using Our Online Conversations for Good" -- pleading for believers to think twice about their online lives.

"I'm not saying we should run away and hide," said Darling, in a telephone interview. "There's no way to avoid the fact that social media is a crucial part of American life. I don't think Christians have any choice about whether or not to be engaged. …

"What we need to do is be more careful when deciding where to draw lines and take stands. But, unless you're Amish, I don't see anyone sitting this one out."

It's especially important for religious leaders to warn their followers not to join the online "mobs" that are destroying America's ability to have sane public debates. In some cases, digital attacks are also threatening lives and reputations.

Consider, for example, the woke social-media attacks that fueled inaccurate mainstream news reports about Covington Catholic High School students at the 2019 March for Life. Then there were the conservative social-media warriors who embraced #pizzagate conspiracy theory claiming that prominent Democrats were linked to a global child-trafficking ring.

Did Russia steal the White House in 2016? Yes, there were mainstream-news reports. Did China, Cuba, Venezuela or some other evil force steal the 2020 election? Yes, there have been headlines on the other side of America's partisan media wars.

The result is anger and pain that has reached many pews and some pulpits.


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

New podcast: Who stands in the middle of American politics? Often, that's a religion question

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Who stands in the middle of American politics? Often, that's a religion question

There were two major stories in American life this week, when it seemed like the world turned in a matter of minutes.

The riot at the U.S. Capitol grew out of yet another legal Donald Trump rally, with its familiar mix of hero worship, populist rage and, yes, rhetoric and symbols used by conservative, often Pentecostal, Christians. Fired up by a truly radical message from the president, many (not all) of these protestors marched to Capitol and turned into an illegal mob, crashing through security fences and then through doors and windows. Yes, some of the Christian banners and signs went with them.

We will be learning more about the makeup of that mob as participants are identified, arrest and tried — perhaps under (irony alert) Trump’s June 26th executive order authorizing a “penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment for the willful injury of Federal property.”

There have been waves of statements by religious leaders condemning the violence, including many by evangelicals who (a) opposed Trump, (b) reluctantly voted for him or (c) enthusiastically backed him. I expect more coverage on all of that (I’m collecting material for an “On Religion” column). Readers can start with this piece from the left, care of HuffPost.com: “Trump’s Evangelical Allies Condemn Violence At The Capitol.” It focuses on evangelicals who are still finding it hard to attack Trump, while — almost hidden at the end — noting views from some of condemned both the violence and the president’s role in it.

Let me know, via comments or email, if you see more religion-driven riot coverage.

Meanwhile, this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) centered on a GetReligion post that was written about two hours before the riots began: “Life after Georgia — Questions about a pro-life Democrat in U.S. Senate and other issues ...”

The key is that victories by two Democrats (one a liberal Baptist pastor) put a very interesting conservative (and Catholic) senator at the middle of America’s increasingly divided and even bloody political map.

That man, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, is a living symbol of what used to be a major force in American politics — the white Southern Democrat. Although he has been endorsed by Democrats For Life, his pragmatic political views on that topic will not be found in the Democratic or Republican platforms, but do resemble the views of millions of centrist Americans.

Many Democrats, in the past, have insisted that Manchin is not really a Democrat. Well, how many want to toss him out of the party right now (with that 50-50 Senate split)?


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

Ties that bind Joe Biden and Cardinal Gregory: How will Catholic issues shape the news?

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

Politics and religion can make for strange bedfellows. We know that from the past four years and the cozy alliance President Donald Trump forged with conservative Christians.

Evangelicals and traditional Catholics in large numbers voted for Trump over the last two elections, many with enthusiasm and others with great reluctance. The fallout from that voter trend will be felt for years to come.

President-elect Joe Biden is the nation’s second Catholic president, the first since John F. Kennedy in 1960. Biden didn’t run away from his faith in 2020. Instead, he embraced it.

Biden’s brand of Catholicism resonated with the mainstream press and many voters. The election now over, how Biden navigates the complicated world of the church’s hierarchy will be a big storyline.

There will be a general sense of calm in news coverage once Biden starts his term. That means the typical honeymoon period offered every president (with the exclusion of Donald Trump) will stretch far beyond the first 100 days.

How religion is covered in this climate — and Catholicism specifically — by mainstream newsrooms will affect many news stories. Look for stories that celebrate any and all Catholic images and teachings cited by Biden in support of left-of-center political efforts. There will be a revival on the religious left.

Coverage during recent weeks may serve as a prelude to what’s to come.

Many journalists feel that the press helped elect Trump, offering waves of coverage of his candidacy during the GOP primaries before the 2016 election. This year, the Hunter Biden scandal offered the press a chance to beat up on Joe Biden and we could have seen a repeat of 2016. Instead, the press ignored the scandal — with help from Big Tech — and blamed it on Russian disinformation.

With the election now over, we have learned that there was an investigation underway and that this topic would have been fair game for coverage.

You don’t need to be a Trump fan to see that many professionals in America’s press have gone astray. Many journalists are now rationalizing an advocacy brand of journalism, instead of doing what they traditionally have been paid to do — report the facts and give readers and viewers unbiased reporting.

How will these trends affect coverage of Biden’s faith and Catholicism in this country?


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

How should Biden-era Americans understand 'religious freedom' and First Amendment?

, , , , , , , , ,

THE QUESTION:

What does American “religious freedom” now mean?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Protection of Americans’ “free exercise” of religion has been guaranteed by the Bill of Rights for 229 years and counting.

Until recently, people generally agreed on what this means. The debates involved whether this constitutional right should be exercised or restricted in specific, unusual situations. For example, the Supreme Court has permitted the Santeria faith to conduct ritual slaughter of animals, and exempted Amish teens from mandatory high school attendance laws.

Now this principle is swept up into culture wars that divide the population and the two political parties. In October, the Brookings Institution, a moderately liberal think tank, issued a lengthy white paper titled “A Time to Heal, A Time to Build” with recommendations on religion policy for the U.S. president. It states that the older consensus “began breaking down as new issues emerged, particularly around the struggle for LGBTQ equality.” Brookings consulted 127 experts on church and state for this document, though few were from the so-called “religious right.”

Consider some history: Back in 1993, Democrats were central in passage of the federal “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” Then-Congressman Chuck Schumer, who is Jewish, introduced the bill in the House, where it won 170 co-sponsors and easily passed by voice vote. In the Senate, Ted Kennedy, a Catholic, was the Senate co-sponsor with Republican Orrin Hatch, a Latter-day Saint, and the act was approved 97–3. President Bill Clinton, a Protestant, enthusiastically signed it into law.

The act states that government cannot “substantially burden” the “exercise of religion,” even when the burden applies to people generally, unless limiting of the freedom is “the least restrictive means” to further a “compelling governmental interest.” Those whose freedom is wrongly suppressed have the right to “obtain appropriate relief” in court. (This restored prior U.S. Supreme Court doctrine that the court had shelved in its 1990 Smith ruling.)

That was then.


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

Hey, New York Times editors: Did painful Thanksgiving dinners really begin in 2016?

, , , , , , ,

Apparently, no one knows where the saying came from, but by 1840 or so variations were appearing in etiquette guides: “Never talk about religion or politics,” especially at the dinner table.

This wisdom made the leap to popular culture in 1961, when the philosopher Linus commented in a Peanuts comic strip: ““There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people — religion, politics and the Great Pumpkin.” The Great Pumpkin is, of course, a faith issue for Linus.

Now, with that timeline in mind, please consider this follow-up question: Before 2016, does anyone remember reading waves of mainstream news stories near Thanksgiving built on horror stories about bitter political arguments around the extended-family holiday table? I mean, surely loved ones in the past argued about Richard Nixon, the nature of the Trinity, Bill Clinton’s private life, the quality of the modern hymn “On Eagles Wings” or other hot-button topics in religion and politics (or both)?

What happened in 2016 that suddenly made this a must-cover issue in elite newsrooms? Maybe this topic suddenly became urgent, for some reason, among journalists who had escaped heartland zip codes and found their true selves by moving to New York City and Washington, D.C.?

The New York Times published an archetypal feature of this kind the other day that ran with this dramatic double-decker headline:

Families Have Been Torn Apart by Politics. What Happens to Them Now?

Unlike 2016, when conflicts emerged over political choices, this time many are centered on the legitimacy of the result itself.

The overture follows the formula that readers have seen dozens of times in the past four years.

Tho Nguyen’s parents, who immigrated from Vietnam, were always Republican. They are Catholic and oppose abortion. Four years ago they voted for Donald Trump.

But nothing prepared Ms. Nguyen, 25, a medical student in Kansas, for how much politics would divide her family over the next four years, as her parents became increasingly passionate about the president.


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

Justice Alito warns: To spot religious-liberty trends in USA, listen to voices on campuses

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Justice Alito warns: To spot religious-liberty trends in USA, listen to voices on campuses

Almost a half century ago, comedian George Carlin recorded his controversial "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" monologue.

That was then.

"Today, it would be easy to create a new list entitled, 'Things you can't say if you are a student or a professor at a college of university or an employee of many big corporations.' And there wouldn't be just seven items on that list -- 70 times seven would be closer to the mark," said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, via Zoom, addressing the recent Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention.

Discussing religious beliefs, he argued, has become especially dangerous.

"You can't say that marriage is the union between one man and one woman," he noted. "Until very recently, that's what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it's considered bigotry."

Consider, for example, the case of Jack Denton, a Florida State University political science major whose long-range plans include law school.

In June, he participated in a Catholic Student Union online chat in which, after the death of George Floyd, someone promoted a fundraising project supporting BlackLivesMatter.com, the American Civil Liberties Union and similar groups. Denton criticized ACLU support for wider access to abortion and the BLM group's "What We Believe" website page that, at that time, pledged support for LGBTQ rights and efforts to disrupt "nuclear family" traditions.

"As a Catholic speaking to other Catholics," he said, "I felt compelled to point out the discrepancy between what these groups stand for and what the Catholic Church teaches. So, I did."

Denton didn't expect this private discussion to affect his work as president of the FSU Student Senate. However, an outraged student took screenshots of his texts and sent them to the Student Senate. That led to petitions claiming that he was unfit to serve, a painful six-hour special meeting and his forced exit.


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

What hath Trump wrought? New York Times helps fuel new journalism fires in 2020s

, , , , , , ,

The New York Times obituary for Seymour Topping, who died Nov. 8 at age 98, accurately summarized the 1969-1986 reign at the newspaper by this No. 2 man with legendary editor A.M. Rosenthal. We're told the team "above all prized high standards of reporting and editing, which demanded fairness, objectivity and good taste in news columns free of editorial comment, political agendas, innuendo and unattributed pejorative quotations."

That was not just a farewell to "Top" but to a fading ideal in American journalism that's steadily supplanted by opinionated and entertaining coverage that wins eyeballs, ears, clicks, digital subscribers -- and profits. Public trust in the news media is eroded to an alarming degree while social media inflame everything, reporters' tweets expose their biases and Donald Trump's attacks accompany media hostility.

This growing trust deficit shapes all aspects of our business, the religion beat included.

A lengthy Times piece Nov. 13 about why 2020 polls were so misleading said Republicans were wary about participating because Trump "frequently told his supporters not to trust the media."

That’s an easy answer. But is suspicion entirely the president's doing? Wholly apart from Trump smears ("the enemy of the American People!"), did mainstream media treatment of the Trump movement, Republicans and political, cultural and religious conservatives sew distrust? What's ahead if Trump succeeds in controlling the GOP and his 73 million voters through 2024?

Vest-pocket history: Starting in 1988 with Rush Limbaugh's outspoken show, conservative talk radio pretty much saved the AM industry. Fox News Channel and MSNBC arrived in 1996, with Fox partially imitating Limbaugh while MSNBC veered ever more leftward, eventually followed by pioneer CNN (founded in 1980). The Times, financially pressed dailies and broadcast networks were tempted toward a more cautious slant.

But with the Trump Era, traditional restraints all but vanished. This advocacy journalism approach — known as “Kellerism,” here at GetReligion — became the norm on coverage of moral and cultural topics in American life.

That brings us to last January's Pew Research Center report "U.S. Media Polarization and the 2020 Election: A Nation Divided." Media personnel should delve into these data on how 12,043 respondents view 30 varied news outlets.

The Times, so influential among the cultural elite, educators, policy-makers and journalists, exemplifies the concrete news "silos" into which Americans now sequester themselves.


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

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks -- a modern voice in the news, defending ancient truths

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks -- a modern voice in the news, defending ancient truths

A typical Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks speech would open with a self-deprecating jab at long-winded rabbis and then flow into a blend of Hebrew texts, science, law, literature, current events and the scriptures other faiths.

When the former chief rabbi of the United Kingdom died on Nov. 7 at age 72, after battles with cancer that began in his 30s, the Prince of Wales said: "His immense learning spanned the secular and the sacred, and his prophetic voice spoke to our greatest challenges with unfailing insight and boundless compassion. His wise counsel was sought and appreciated by those of all faiths and none."

Most of all, Lord Sacks was known for using modern information and insights to defend ancient truths. One famous address, at a 2014 Vatican conference on marriage, began with fish mating in a Scottish lake 385 million years ago before charting humanity's rise from polygamy to monogamy, including some awkward biblical dramas.

Before this speech ended with a standing ovation, the rabbi explained that his goal was to defend the “most beautiful idea in the history of civilization," the concept of love as the origin of new life.

"What made the traditional family remarkable, a work of high religious art, is what it brought together: sexual drive, physical desire, friendship, companionship, emotional kinship and love, the begetting of children and their protection and care, their early education and induction into an identity and a history," he explained.

“Seldom has any institution woven together so many different drives and desires. … It made sense of the world and gave it a human face -- the face of love. For a whole variety of reasons, some to do with medical developments like birth control, in vitro fertilization and other genetic interventions, some to do with moral change like the idea that we are free to do whatever we like so long as it does not harm others, some to do with a transfer of responsibilities from the individual to the state … almost everything that marriage once brought together has now been split apart. Sex has been divorced from love, love from commitment, marriage from having children and having children from responsibility for their care."

Lord Sacks was part of the Modern Orthodox movement and wrote two dozen prayer books and works about science and spirituality, as well serving as a commentator on BBC Four's "Thought for the Day." He became chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth in 1991, holding that post until 2013, Queen Elizabeth knighted him in 2005 and he entered the House of Lords in 2009.


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

Looking back at 2020 voting: Here's five religion-news trends to think about -- so far

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

Looking in the rearview mirror, it appears that Election Day 2020 led to a series of verdicts, but with many questions unanswered. While a few insist that the presidency remains in the balance, there were a series of changes and trends that emerged as a result of 2020 voting.

Control of the U.S. Senate, to the surprise of many, still appears to be up for grabs. while Republicans managed to gain ground in the House of Representatives, to the shock of the Democratic Party majority.

President Donald Trump did a lot better than the pre-election polls, but, in many states, did not capture as many votes as down-ballot Republicans. The president, and a small number of his supporters, continue to argue that judges may rule that ballot fraud will overturn or weaken Democrat Joe Biden’s narrow victory at the polls.

As a result of this confusion, details regarding some voting trends — particularly from faith voters — were slow to trickle in given that so many mail-in ballots were used as a result of the pandemic. Here is a summary of some of what we have learned, so far, about the impact of religious issues and voters in the 2020 election:

Catholic vote makes a difference, but for whom?

The Catholic vote mattered once again in this election cycle. Biden, who is poised to become first Catholic president since 1960, spent the past few months courting faith voters. Trump, in turn, also pursued the Catholic vote in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The Catholic vote usually decides the Presidential election. This year the exit polls for Catholics all have @JoeBiden under water. This is curious given @realDonaldTrump's vote count in the rust belt.
New York Times: Trump 68%
AP: Trump 46%
NBC: Trump 66% pic.twitter.com/whJyYlldZU

— Raymond Arroyo (@RaymondArroyo) November 4, 2020

The Catholic vote, according to The Associated Press, seems to be evenly split — 49% going for Trump and 49% for Biden. NBC News, however, offered contradictory numbers — 37% of Catholics voting for Biden and a whopping 62% for Trump.

An EWTN News/RealClear Opinion Research poll from last month found Catholics favoring Biden by a 12-point margin (53% to 41%) over Trump. As expected, the president did better with Catholics who regularly attend Mass.


Please respect our Commenting Policy