, , , , , , , , ,

Early arrests after U.S. Capitol riot: So were there evangelical leaders in the attack or not?

, , , , , , , , ,
Early arrests after U.S. Capitol riot: So were there evangelical leaders in the attack or not?

If you’ve worked as a reporter for any amount of time, you know what it’s like to return from covering a Big Story. Then you face your editor and get THAT LOOK.

Here is the religion-beat version of this scene. The editor asks a question that sounds something like this: “So what happened? Did (insert name of ecclesiastical group) finally make a decision about (insert hot-button topic, usually involving sex and/or politics) or not? We need to know how big a story this is.”

The reporter answers that this or that religious group passed a vague resolution calling for more study, dialogue and prayer, but the text contains slight hints — often involving scripture references — that one side or the other is making progress toward achieving this or that goal (maybe). They’ll be arguing about this newsy issue again next year (or whenever the assembly has its next legal gathering), as they have been arguing about it for 25 years.

The editor gives the reporter THAT LOOK. It says, “You have got to be kidding” (or stronger words) and/or “Why did we spend money to send you to cover this national meeting? You said this was a Big Story.” Trust me: Reporters can detect THAT LOOK in an editor’s voice, even if this encounter is on the telephone.

Editor’s don’t like to wait. They like clear results that produce a BOLD headline over a Big Story.

With that in mind, let’s look at a recent New York Times story about the slowly unfolding legal process surrounding rioters who were arrested for attacking the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” protests. The headline stated, “Arrested in Capitol Riot: Organized Militants and a Horde of Radicals.”

My question: Did the 14 reporters involved in covering this story get THAT LOOK when their reporting revealed that the kinds of people facing federal charges (as of Jan. 31) were pretty much what careful news consumers would have expected? In particular, why isn’t there evidence — at this point — linking the violent rioters with (wait for it) evangelical networks and institutions?

To dig a bit deeper into that question, I think readers should read a Tony Carnes essay — “Mysteries about the Mob in the Capitol cleared up“ — at the website called “A Journey Through NYC Religions.” (That’s a deep website that GetReligion reader should include in their “favorites” lists in online browsers.) Carnes explores lots of logical religion questions about this story.


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

Joe Biden era puts transgender rights atop newsroom agendas (which creates religion news)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Joe Biden era puts transgender rights atop newsroom agendas (which creates religion news)

Among American "social issues," freedom of abortion is long-settled as a matter of law, so foes largely nibble at the edges. Courtroom victories for gays and lesbians have put dissenters on the defensive seeking to protect conscience claims.

Meanwhile, in the Biden-Harris era the transgender debate -- emotion-laden, multi-faceted and religiously weighty -- is moving to the top of the news agenda. {The Guy admits at the start he brings no psychological insight to this complex terrain and has personal knowledge of only two such situations.}

Democrats' zeal is the major new factor. President Joe Biden has said that he believes "transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise." Last year, Donald Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch made the case for "gender identity" rights in the Supreme Court's Bostock ruling, but this covered only secular employment. During his first hours in office, President Biden issued an executive order that extends this outlook across the board.

The president declared, for instance, that school kids shouldn't have to worry about their "access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports," nor should adults be mistreated "because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes." He directed each government agency to spend the next 100 days reframing all gender policies accordingly.

Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez, elected leader of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, immediately responded that on this and other matters like abortion, America's second Catholic president "would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity." Chicago's Cardinal Blasé Cupich assailed Gomez's Inauguration Day statement as "ill-considered." (Click here for GetReligion post and podcast on this topic.)

Then New York's Cardinal Timothy Dolan and four other chairmen of bishops' committees jointly declared that by reaching beyond the Supreme Court ruling Biden "needlessly ignored the integrity of God's creation of the two complementary sexes, male and female," and threatened religious freedom. This protest echoed the 2019 Vatican pronouncement "Male and Female He Created Them (.pdf here).”

A second Biden executive order Feb. 4 defined the new "LGBTQI+" approach in U.S. foreign policy. He directed 15 Cabinet departments and agencies to press other countries to comply with America's new stance, using diplomacy and, as needed, financial sanctions or visa restrictions. The State Department is to report annually on problem nations.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

From social media to stocks: How are religious conservatives punishing Big Tech?

, , , ,
From social media to stocks: How are religious conservatives punishing Big Tech?

Part of getting the good religion story involves thinking ahead. Once the social media platform Parler got shut down, the question was where religious conservatives are going to go next.

Whether we’re talking evangelicals or Pentecostal/charismatics, Latter-day Saints or conservative Jews, these groups together number at least one-fifth of the American populace, so the question is an important one.

Oddly I’ve seen no stories about this.

The shutting down of Parler set off major alarms. I’ve been writing about Pentecostal prophets a lot in recent weeks and nearly everyone, when posting on places like Twitter or Facebook, darkly warn how this may be the last time you read them and to please get used to calling up their web sites instead. They don’t need to get warned twice.

Enter alternate social media platforms. Ever hear of Jesus.Social, ChristiansLikeMe.net, or SocialCross.org along with Minds, Gab, MeWe or Rumble? Or Xapit, the network sponsored by the prophetic web site ElijahList?

I’d like to see some stories on where religious folks are going. We know they are signing up by the millions on alternate sites.

Another angle is the depth of anger some feel toward the Big Tech folks that pushed Parler off the air. One reason Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is going to outlast the current controversies he’s involved in is that he’s concentrated on Big Tech and media censorship during his short career and those are issues a lot of people care about.

Fox Business News calls this the danger of “woke religion” taking over the internet.


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

Once again, AP accuses big Catholic bosses of abusing government coronavirus relief efforts

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Once again, AP accuses big Catholic bosses of abusing government coronavirus relief efforts

There they go again.

In this case, “they” refers to whoever is in charge of religion-news coverage these days at the Associated Press. Someone there needs to take a remedial course in (a) church history, (b) church-state law in the United States or (c) both.

Let’s start by flashing back about six months, when the AP rolled out an investigation of what its editors clearly thought was a scandal of epic proportions. Does anyone remember this lede, and this GetReligion dissection (“AP explains why it was wrong for local-level Catholic employees to get coronavirus relief money“), of the expose)?

NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. Roman Catholic Church used a special and unprecedented exemption from federal rules to amass at least $1.4 billion in taxpayer-backed coronavirus aid, with many millions going to dioceses that have paid huge settlements or sought bankruptcy protection because of clergy sexual abuse cover-ups.

That was a bizarre, but honest, opener. The entire story was built on the assumption that there is such a thing — corporately and legally speaking — as a “U.S. Roman Catholic Church.”

As I said at the time, this is “like saying that there is an ‘American Public School System,’ as opposed to complex networks of schools at the local, regional and state levels.” One could also note that there is a Planned Parenthood of America. However, government coronavirus aid in the paycheck-support program went to 37 regional and local Planned Parenthood groups.

The Associated Press has now produced a sequel, with this headline: “Sitting on billions, Catholic dioceses amassed taxpayer aid.” While the editors avoided the “U.S. Roman Catholic Church” label this time around, this lengthy story is built on a similar misunderstanding of what happened when Catholic parishes, schools, nonprofits and other ministries applied for coronavirus aid.

As readers can see in the headline, in the sequel AP leaders focused on finances at the diocesan level, as opposed to a mythical national Catholic structure. This is closer to the truth, but it still misses the mark. While many issues of church authority are linked to local bishops, in local dioceses, the crucial issue here was paycheck-relief money reaching staff members in individual parishes, schools and ministries that had been rocked by falling donations during the COVID-19 crisis. Let’s start with the overture:


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

President Joe Biden's a Pope Francis fan, but does that mean the pope's a fan of Biden?

, , , , , , , ,
President Joe Biden's a Pope Francis fan, but does that mean the pope's a fan of Biden?

Pope Francis appears to be a big supporter of President Joe Biden.

A majority of the U.S. Catholic bishops are not.

At least that’s a prominent narrative concerning America’s second Catholic president (after John F. Kennedy).

To wit: The headline on a Los Angeles Times news story this week declared: “Pope Francis is a Biden fan, but some U.S. Catholic leaders give president a frosty reception.”

My sincere question: Is it accurate to characterize Francis as a Biden fan?

“While Pope Francis has enjoyed a warm relationship with Biden from time spent together in both the U.S. and at the Vatican, it would be wrong to classify him as a partisan player in U.S. politics,” Christopher White, national correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, told me. “His approach to any world leader is to try to find common ground and see where there’s work to be done together.”

Clemente Lisi analyzes Catholic news for Religion Unplugged.

“I’d say the pope seems cordial to Biden, and the two have met a few times,” Lisi said in response to my question. “There seems to be a fascination in the media to lump these two men together.”

The Los Angeles Times is, of course, just the latest major news outlet to contrast the difference in tone between how the Vatican and top U.S. bishops — notably Los Angeles Archbishop José H. Gomez — have greeted Biden’s inauguration.

The prominent West Coast paper suggests:

The rift stems from opposition by many in the church to abortion and same-sex marriage, while others see a broader interpretation of the sanctity of life, promoted by Francis, to include climate change, immigration and fighting poverty.

Biden “keeps a picture in the Oval Office of himself with Pope Francis,” the story notes. But does that picture mean as much to Francis? The paper doesn’t say.


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

Protestants in pulpits say that the QAnon era is creating tension in many pews

, , , , , , , , , ,
Protestants in pulpits say that the QAnon era is creating tension in many pews

Having reached the vice president's chair in the U.S. Senate, the self-proclaimed QAnon shaman, UFO expert and metaphysical healer removed his coyote-skin and buffalo horns headdress and announced, with a megaphone, that it was time to pray.

"Thank you, Heavenly Father … for this opportunity to stand up for our God-given inalienable rights," proclaimed Jake "Yellowstone Wolf" Angeli (born Jacob Chansley), his face painted red, white and blue and his torso tattooed with Norse symbols that his critics link to the extreme right.

“Thank you, divine, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Creator God for filling this chamber with your white light and love," he added, in a prayer captured on video by correspondent working for The New Yorker. "Thank you for filling this chamber with patriots that love you and that love Christ. …

"Thank you, divine Creator God for surrounding and filling us with the divine, omnipresent white light of love and protection, of peace and harmony. Thank you for allowing the United States of America to be reborn. Thank you for allowing us to get rid of the communists, the globalists and the traitors within our government."

Many phrases in this rambling prayer would sound familiar to worshippers in ordinary churches across America, said Joe Carter, an editor with The Gospel Coalition and a pastor with McLean Bible Church near Washington, D.C. But the prayer also included strange twists and turns that betrayed some extreme influences and agendas.

"This is a man who has described himself as pagan, as an ordained minister, in fact," said Carter, reached by telephone. "The alt-right has always included some pagan influences. But now it's obvious that leaders with QAnon and other conspiracy theorists have learned that if they toss in some Christian imagery, then they'll really expand their base and their potential reach 100-fold."

Law-enforcement officials will soon present evidence attempting to prove who planned key elements of the illegal riot that crashed into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, after the legal "March to Save America" backing former President Donald Trump's claim that fraud cost him the White House.

This is just the latest example of how conspiracy theories, on the left and right, have soaked into public discourse about COVID-19 vaccines, Big Tech monopolies, sinister human-trafficking networks and, of course, alleged illegal activities in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

There is no way to deny that this digital tornado has shaken many Protestant churches, according to a new Lifeway Research survey that asked clergy to respond to this statement: "I frequently hear members of my congregation repeating conspiracy theories they have heard about why something is happening in our country."


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Spot the link between Trump ally Sen. Josh Hawley and hot 5th Century Christian dispute?

, , , , , ,
Spot the link between Trump ally Sen. Josh Hawley and hot 5th Century Christian dispute?

THE QUESTION:

How is Trump ally Sen. Josh Hawley linked with 5th Century Christianity’s hottest dispute?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

New York Times contributor Katherine Stewart doesn’t care much for conservative Christians.

Consider the subtitle of her 2012 book “The Good News Club: The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children.” (Actually, these non-political after-school clubs operate openly, and participation is voluntary.) Last year, she wrote the timely “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism.”

Stewart’s latest Times op-ed article (“The Roots of Josh Hawley’s Rage”) decries U.S. Senator Josh Hawley’s clenched-fist backing for President Trump’s attempt to have Congress overturn the 2020 election that culminated in the U.S. Capitol riot, Trump’s second impeachment and multitudes of criminal investigations.

The controversial 42-year-old is a Stanford and Yale Law alumnus whose rapid rise included clerking for Chief Justice Roberts and just two years as Missouri’s attorney general before winning his U.S. Senate seat. Pundits assume he’ll seek the presidency in 2024 if Trump does not or cannot run.

Hawley tells World magazine he is part of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, he was formerly a staff attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and some count him among Capitol Hill’s most devout figures.

Stewart makes the surprising assertion that to understand the senator’s role in the unprecedented furies of recent weeks we must look back 16 centuries to one of the hottest theological disputes in Christian history.


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

New podcast: Are tensions between Speaker Pelosi and her archbishop a valid news story?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Are tensions between Speaker Pelosi and her archbishop a valid news story?

The following is not a hypothetical case or a parable. This is the heart of the news story that was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

Step one: Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a guest on Hillary Clinton’s “You and Me Both” podcast. As you would expect, since this was recorded a week after the stunning January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, they spent some time discussing their views on the Donald Trump years.

This led to a discussion about the choices made by pro-life voters in the 2016 election. Here is some crucial material from a Catholic News Agency story about the exchange.

… House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that support of pro-life voters for former President Donald Trump was an issue that “gives me great grief as a Catholic.”

“I think that Donald Trump is president because of the issue of a woman’s right to choose,” she said of abortion, implying that pro-life voters boosted Trump to victory in 2016. She added that these voters “were willing to sell the whole democracy down the river for that one issue.”

Other than the “sellout” implication, the key phrase there is “as a Catholic.”

Step two: The archbishop who — canonically speaking — is charged with overseeing Pelosi’s life as a Catholic believer was not amused by this assertion. Here is another chunk of that CNA report.

“No Catholic in good conscience can favor abortion,” said Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, Pelosi’s home diocese. … “Our land is soaked with the blood of the innocent, and it must stop.”

Pelosi has long supported abortion despite her Catholic faith. In 2008, she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” regarding when life begins, “over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.” She said that her Catholic faith “shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to choose.” …

Archbishop Cordileone clarified that "Nancy Pelosi does not speak for the Catholic Church. … And on the question of the equal dignity of human life in the womb, she [Pelosi] also speaks in direct contradiction to a fundamental human right that Catholic teaching has consistently championed for 2,000 years.” …

Step three: Write a mainstream news story?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Israel issue complicates anti-Semitism definition. This could haunt Biden’s Middle East work

, , , , , ,
Israel issue complicates anti-Semitism definition. This could haunt Biden’s Middle East work

A tired Jewish cliche states, “two Jews, three opinions.” As a member of the tribe for, well, my entire life, I have to agree that it has a clear ring of truth.

However, I’m inclined to say that it’s not just Jews who seem to disagree about almost everything, certainly these days, and perhaps never. To quote the Talking Heads (one of my favorite post-punk rock bands, “same as it ever was, same as it ever was…”

So, President Joseph R. Biden, unity will not be had just for the asking. But I digress.

Among the latest Jewish communal verbal slugfests is one an outsider might reasonably think Jews would likely agree upon — which is, how do you define anti-Semitism?

But we don’t, because nothing is simple in life (allow me to refer you back to the “two Jews, three opinions” cliche above) no matter what we’d like to think.

This is particularly so when you add Israel to the equation. Or, to be more precise, the question of what constitutes fair political criticism of Israel and what is unfair — or biased — criticism of Israel that bleeds into hateful anti-Semitism?

The top of this JTA (the international Jewish news agency) story from mid-January lays out the issue.

(JTA) — When is it anti-Semitic to criticize Israel?

Anti-Semitism signifies hatred of Jews and the ways that hatred is perpetuated through age-old conspiracy theories and their modern variants. But what about when that hatred is expressed through rhetoric about the Jewish state? Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism?

Those questions have divided American Jews in recent years — and are doing so again.


Please respect our Commenting Policy