GetReligion
Thursday, April 03, 2025

Jimmy Carter

, , , , , ,

Why are U.S. voters so wary about electing atheists? What about voting for evangelicals?

, , , , , ,

THE QUESTION:

Why are U.S. voters so wary about electing atheists?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Political firsts are piling up!

Joe Biden was America’s first Catholic vice president elected alongside the first Black president, Barack Obama, and hopes to be its second Catholic president. Running mate Kamala Harris would be the first female, first African-American, and first Asian-American as vice president. Jimmy Carter was not the first evangelical president but the first whose faith got such scrutiny. (See note below on how Americans view evangelical candidates.)

In other landmarks on major party tickets, losing nominees for president include the first woman, Hillary Clinton, the first Latter-day Saint, Mitt Romney, the first Eastern Orthodox candidate, Michael Dukakis, and the first Catholic, Al Smith, in 1928. Vice presidential hopefuls on losing tickets include the first Catholic, William Miller, the first woman, Geraldine Ferraro, and the first Jew, Joseph Lieberman.

Ted Cruz was the first Latino to win a primary election, and Pete Buttigieg the first openly gay candidate to do so. The halls of Congress have welcomed numerous Blacks, women, Latinos and those of other immigrant ethnicities, as well as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims.

One exception. “Why is it so hard for atheists to get voted into Congress?” That’s the title of an October article by Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman for theconversation.com that was picked up by The Associated Press, patheos.com, Religion News Service and other outlets.

In a Gallup Poll last year, Americans said they’re willing to elect a president who is:


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

Thinking with Ryan Burge: What REALLY happens after people get 'born again'?

, , , , , , , , ,

I didn’t know it at the time, but it was one of those moments when America changed.

Well, that isn’t true. America didn’t change on this particular night early in Jimmy Carter’s campaign for the Democratic Party nomination to seek the presidency. It was a moment when American journalism changed, when lots of reporters in East and West Coast media centers were forced to wrestle with the term “born-again Christian” for the first time.

The number of born-again Christians in American didn’t change, just because a major political figure applied the term to his own status as a believer. But this term — rooted in church history and doctrine — moved into a political context, which meant that it became a real thing for many journalists.

I’ve told this story before, but it’s relevant once again — because of a fascinating new think piece by political scientist Ryan Burge, a GetReligion contributor, about what happens (and what rarely happens) after a person claims to have been born again.

Hold that thought, while we head back to 1975.

… I'll never forget the night when an anchor at ABC News — faced with Democrat Jimmy Carter talking about his born-again Christian faith — solemnly looked into the camera and told viewers that ABC News was investigating this phenomenon (born-again Christians) and would have a report in a future newscast.

What percentage of the American population uses the term "born again" to describe their faith? Somewhere between 40 and 60 percent back then? I mean, Carter wasn't telling America that he was part of an obscure sect, even though many journalists were freaked out by this words — due to simple ignorance (or perhaps bias).

Actually, the percentage was almost certainly 40% in that era and I was wrong to assume that it had ever been higher.

Nevertheless, 40% is not a small chunk of the population and many of those believers are found among the 20% of Americans who consistently practice their religious faith in daily life. We know that because, for decades, the Gallup organization has been asking “born-again” and “evangelical” questions in its polling research.


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

Jerry Falwell Jr. vs. Liberty U: Journalists need to understand the school, to get this story

, , , , , , , , , ,

What is there to say about the mainstream press coverage of the Jerry Falwell, Jr., soap opera?

For several years now, he has, along with a few other pastors and activists, been treated as the face of evangelicalism. This is interesting, since this Falwell’s Liberty University has rarely played a major role in evangelical life in America — other than through waves of coverage in the mainstream press.

In this way, he can be seen as the successor of both his father, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, and the Rev. Pat Robertson. He’s famous because he is famous and, most of the time, his actions fit the popular press narrative of crazy evangelicals storming out of the backwoods to threaten the blue American way of life.

In recent years, Falwell has constantly been in the press for one reason — his embrace of Donald Trump. Falwell has made as many mistakes, in this role, as a man can possibly make.

So this brings us to That Photo and this Washington Post headline, chosen from the blitz of stories in the American press as a whole: “Jerry Falwell Jr., a prominent evangelical supporter of Trump, on indefinite leave of absence from Liberty U.”

It’s a fine story and the key details are all in there — in terms of focusing on Falwell and Trump. Here is a key passage:

Since taking over as president of the school in 2007, Falwell has vastly expanded the size and scope of the university co-founded by his father, the televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr., in 1971. It is now one of the largest private online universities in the country. The school claims to have more than 100,000 students, including about 16,000 who study on its Lynchburg, Va., campus.

The school’s chapel has also become a pilgrimage site for many politicians, particularly GOP presidential contenders hoping to woo Christian conservatives.

Falwell was one of the first high-profile leaders in the evangelical world to endorse Trump in 2016. A former chairman of Liberty’s executive committee, Mark DeMoss, resigned over the endorsement, saying Trump’s insult-laden presidential campaign was a flagrant rejection of the values that Falwell Sr. espoused and that Liberty aims to promote. …

In an interview with The Post last year, Falwell said there was nothing Trump could do that would endanger his support or that of other conservative Christian leaders. “I can’t imagine him doing anything that’s not good for the country,” he said.

I want to focus on one word — “particularly” — in the reference to Liberty serving as a “pilgrimage site for many politicians, particularly GOP presidential contenders.”

This is true. But other interesting politicos have visited the campus and have received polite or even warm welcomes.


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

Evangelicals know better: President Trump just doesn't know how to 'Billy Graham' a Bible

, , , , , , , ,
Evangelicals know better: President Trump just doesn't know how to 'Billy Graham' a Bible

For generations, young Christians have learned how to hold and respect their Bibles during competitions known as "Sword drills."

The sword image comes from a New Testament affirmation that the "word of God is … sharper than any two-edged sword."

Drill leaders say, "Attention!" Competitors stand straight, hands at their sides.

"Draw swords!" They raise their Bibles to waist level, hands flat on the front and back covers. The leader challenges participants to find a specific passage or a hero or theme in scripture.

"Charge!" Competitors have 20 seconds to complete their task and step forward. For some, four or five seconds will be enough.

The key is knowing how to open the Bible, as well as hold it.

It's safe to say the young Donald Trump didn't take part in many Bible drills while preparing to be confirmed, at age 13 or thereabouts, as a Presbyterian in Queens, New York City. His mother gave him a Revised Standard Version – embraced by mainline Protestants, shunned by evangelicals – several years earlier.

President Trump was holding a Revised Standard Version during his iconic visit to the historic St. John's Episcopal Church, after police and security personnel drove protesters from Lafayette Square, next to the White House. To this day, evangelicals favor other Bible translations, while liberal Protestants have embraced the more gender-neutral New Revised Standard Version.

A reporter asked: "Is that your Bible?"

The president responded: "It's a Bible."

"Trump is a mainline Protestant. That's what is in his bones – not evangelicalism. It's clear that he's not at home with evangelicals. That's not his culture, unless he's talking about politics," said historian Thomas S. Kidd of Baylor University, author of "Who Is an Evangelical? The History of a Movement in Crisis."


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Friday Five: Thanksgiving, God and Trump, LATimes vs. Fuller, Jimmy Carter, Satan

, , , , ,

We interrupt this day-after-Thanksgiving holiday to update you on the latest religion headlines.

I hope you and your family are enjoying a wonderful time of Black Friday shopping or — if you’re like me — watching football and eating leftover chocolate pie while spending precious time with my family.

In my case, I am enjoying quality time with my 1-year-old grandson, Bennett.

Anyway, let’s dive right into the Friday Five:

1. Religion story of the week: We posted earlier in the week on those news reports that Rick Perry believes God “ordained” Donald Trump (not to mention Barack Obama) to be president.

The Post and Courier of Charleston, S.C., has an interesting follow-up piece on that — tied to comments by Nikki Haley — concerning whether politicians are chosen by God.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Jesus, sin, the cross: AP skips past an interesting quote by former Iranian revolutionary

, , , , , ,

Every now and then, you hit a direct quote in a news story that makes you pause, scratch your head and say, “What?”

That’s what happened recently to a GetReligion reader who while looking at an Associated Press report about an interesting plot twist in the life of man who participated in one of the most important news events of the late 1970s.

Here is the headline that appeared atop the Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne, Ind.) version of this AP story: “Iranian student now regrets seizing embassy.”

Let’s look at the overture, reading down to the key quote:

TEHRAN, Iran — His revolutionary fervor diminished by the years that have also turned his dark brown hair white, one of the Iranian student leaders of the 1979 U.S. Embassy takeover says he now regrets the seizure of the diplomatic compound and the 444-day hostage crisis that followed.

Speaking to The Associated Press ahead of today's 40th anniversary of the attack, Ebrahim Asgharzadeh acknowledged that the repercussions of the crisis still reverberate as tensions remain high between the U.S. and Iran over Tehran's collapsing nuclear deal with world powers.

Asgharzadeh cautioned others against following in his footsteps, despite the takeover becoming enshrined in hard-line mythology. He also disputed a revisionist history now being offered by supporters of Iran's Revolutionary Guard that they directed the attack, insisting all the blame rested with the Islamist students who let the crisis spin out of control.

“Like Jesus Christ, I bear all the sins on my shoulders,” Asgharzadeh said.

Yes, that’s apparently what he said.

As our reader commented in an email: “He mentions Jesus taking on the sins of the world on his shoulders, and he is doing likewise. Might he have become Christian?


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

Make America great again? Washington Post essay shows a more complex evangelical viewpoint

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

It’s easy to feel depressed about the state of American journalism these days.

For starters, there is the digital advertising crisis, with Google, Facebook and others sucking up billions of dollars that used to go to local newspapers and broadcast newsrooms to provide coverage of local, regional and state news. To fight back, some of America’s top newspapers have mastered the art of hooking waves of digital subscribers by telling them what they want to hear about national news.

Meanwhile, many news consumers are completely confused about what is “news” and what is “commentary” or analysis writing. People talk about getting their news from television channels (think MSNBC and Fox News) that offer some traditional news reporting, surrounded by oceans of commentary. The Internet? It is a glorious and fallen mix of the good and bad, with many readers choosing to read only what reinforces their core beliefs.

What is news? What is opinion?

Well, the Washington Post recently ran a pair of articles that — in a good way, let me stress — illustrated why some of this confusion exists. Both focused on white evangelicals and their celebrated or cursed support of President Donald Trump. In this case, the news article and the opinion essay are both worth reading, but it was the opinion essay that truly broke new ground. Hold that thought.

First, the news. I am happy to report that the Post, in this case, let the religion desk handle a story about religion and politics. The headline: “He gets it’: Evangelicals aren’t turned off by Trump’s first term.”

There’s only one point I would like to make about this article. Read the following summary material carefully:

Trump enjoyed overwhelming support from white evangelicals in 2016, winning a higher percentage than George W. Bush, John McCain or Mitt Romney. That enthusiasm has scarcely dimmed. Almost 70 percent of white evangelicals approve of Trump’s performance in office, according to a 2019 Pew Research Center poll.

Interviews with 50 evangelical Christians in three battleground states — Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — help explain why. In conversation, evangelical voters paint the portrait of the Trump they see: a president who acts like a bully but is fighting for them. A president who sees America like they do, a menacing place where white Christians feel mocked and threatened for their beliefs. A president who’s against abortion and gay rights and who has the economy humming to boot. …

Evangelical Christians are separated from other Protestants (called mainline Protestants) by their belief in the literal truth of the Bible as well as their conservative politics on gender roles, sexuality, abortion and other subjects.

Wait, do most evangelicals — of all colors — have what are essentially POLITICAL views on abortion, sexual morality, gender, etc.? Wouldn’t be more accurate the say that they have theological views that, like many others, they struggle to defend when they enter voting books?


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

Thinking about beating Trump: How many Democrats would back a pro-life Democrat?

, , , , , , , , , ,

The conservative interfaith journal First Things is not the place that one would normally look for an essay offering advice to Democrats who absolutely, positively, want to defeat Donald Trump in the next race for the White House.

I had intended to put this piece up as this past weekend’s “think piece,” but was not able to get that done. My free WIFI options in the North Carolina mountains were much worse than normal. Where I hang out, there isn’t even service on my smartphone.

So what is going on with this First Things piece by John Murdock, an attorney in Texas?

First of all, he takes very seriously the evidence that many, many conservative Protestants and Catholics really didn’t want to vote for Trump the last time around, but felt they were stuck in a lesser-of-two evils crunch — because of Hillary Clinton’s stances on issues such as abortion and religious liberty.

So what if the Democratic Party ran a candidate — a popular governor in a state Trump carried — who is a consistent Catholic on moral and social issues as well as a solid Democrat on a host of economic and justice issues. Yes, we are headed back into those interesting pro-life Democrat waters, again (following up on some interesting coverage at The New York Times).

We are talking about Gov. John Bel Edwards of Louisiana. Hold that thought, because we’ll come back to it.

Let’s start with this interesting Murdock analysis of the Hyde Amendment issue. That’s the longstanding ban on using federal dollars to fund abortions.

Polling by Morning Consult earlier this month found that 38 percent of likely Democratic primary voters supported the Hyde Amendment, as did 49 percent of the overall electorate (with only 33 percent opposed). That largely corroborates what Marist polling found in early 2018. Their survey showed that 24 percent of Democrats “strongly oppose using tax dollars to pay for a woman’s abortion.” Another 19 percent were “opposed,” making the total Democratic opposition to taxpayer-funded abortions 43 percent. While these voters may have other issues — like civil rights, immigration, or healthcare — driving their election day choices toward the Democrats, many would still prefer a more pro-life candidate if one were available. Today, none are.


Please respect our Commenting Policy