GetReligion
Friday, April 04, 2025

GOP

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

Yo, Nashville Tennessean: What does 'people of faith' mean in a political argument?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Yo, Nashville Tennessean: What does 'people of faith' mean in a political argument?

When I arrived at the Rocky Mountain News (RIP) long ago — think early ‘80s — I quickly learned that the city-desk team had an informal way of checking the Colorado pulse on religious issues.

Basically, they were interviewing clergy at the churches in downtown Denver. That was pretty much it. They would also call the Denver Catholic archdiocese (rather progressive at that time) and the “local seminary,” as in the already “woke” Iliff School of Theology, nationally known as an edgy United Methodist campus. It appeared no one knew about the larger Denver Seminary (evangelical) only a few blocks from Iliff.

What kind of churches were downtown? Almost all of them were mainline Protestant congregations and very few of them were showing any sign of life, in terms of attendance and growth. But they were nearby and most were progressive, so that was that. Why talk to folks at the region’s growing megachurches?

Hang in there with me. I am working toward a recent Nashville Tennessean article that ran with this headline: “Hundreds of people of faith call on Tennessee's Republican congressional delegation to repudiate lies about election fraud.” The key question: Define “people of faith”?

Back to Denver, for one more comment. Early on, I attended a press conference linked to the Colorado Council of Churches. Here is how I described what happened in a post back in 2013:

The key was that the organization … was claiming that it spoke for the vast majority of the state's churches. The problem was that, by the 1980s, the conversion of the Colorado Front Range into an evangelical hotbed (including evangelicals in many oldline Protestant bodies) was well on its way. Also, a more doctrinally conservative Catholic archbishop had arrived in town, one anxious to advocate for Catholic teachings on public issues on both sides of the political spectrum. …

Still, it was an important press conference that helped document one side of a religious debate in the state.

Near the end of the session, I asked what I thought was a logical question: Other than the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver, did any of the CCC leaders present represent a church that had more members at that moment than during any of the previous two or three decades?

Well, hey, I thought it was a fair question.


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

On the agenda until Inauguration Day 2025: Whither Trumpism and, thus, evangelicalism? 

, , , , , , , , ,
On the agenda until Inauguration Day 2025: Whither Trumpism and, thus, evangelicalism? 

In a city locked down as an armed encampment, Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris were inaugurated without the disruptions many feared. There were prayers and familiar political calls for healing and unity.

References to the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol came early and often.

Regarding that historic day, much remains to be investigated but Wall Street Journal veteran Gerald Seib offered a brisk summary: "Mr. Trump sent a crowd of his supporters to the Capitol to stop the constitutional transfer of power to his elected successor. That crowd turned into a mob that ransacked the seat of American democracy and tried to hunt down its elected leaders." Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell stated much the same Tuesday.

Seib added that in the melee, "mainstream Trump supporters were overshadowed by those swinging fire extinguishers at cops and a man wearing a 'Camp Aushwitz' sweatshirt." That is, the fringe dwellers, unhinged devotees and insurrection plotters emerged from a larger throng that obeyed the president's summons to attend his "Stop the Steal" rally and march upon the Capitol.

The same with a certain number of evangelical-style Protestants at the "Steal" protest and explicitly religious "Jericho" march. They were swept into the criminal rampage alongside violent extremists who trashed the symbolic citadel, spewed F-bombs, assaulted police (battering one to death) and chanted threats to assassinate America's #1 evangelical office-holder, Vice President Mike Pence.

Several top religion reporters publicized this unnerving aspect of the fray. In response, GetReligion editor Terry Mattingly questioned whether the rioting rabble truly represented elements of the power structures of the evangelical movement and its leadership, as some claimed.

The evangelical elite does not control many among the proletariat, as The Guy noted while pondering evangelicalism's future last July 29, and the gap has grown since then. Revulsion over Trump's words and deeds provoked some evangelical leaders to favor Biden but evangelical voters gave Trump a healthy margin (as always with Republican nominees, witness Romney, McCain, Bush). This is especially true among nondenominational, independent churches and among some self-proclaimed Pentecostal prophets (see this important Julia Duin post)

Whatever the numbers and stature of the those who waved Jesus banners, the day sullied evangelical Protestantism, and perhaps even religious faith in general, for the vast American citizenry that believes Trump and his disciples tried to steal the election from Biden.

Fairly or not, in the public mind and in the media, evangelicalism is now fused not just with the Republican Party but its dominant Trumpite wing.


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

Podcast: Anyone surprised that a rich Yankee Republican laughs at Bible Belt folks?

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

First things first: This week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) was recorded before the stunning news that President Donald Trump and his wife Melania tested positive for COVID-19.

As you would expect, Twitter was immediately jammed with thoughts (of all kinds), prayers and more than a few curses. Quite a bit of the friction was linked, of course, to Trump’s many connections with religious conservatives of various kinds.

As it turned out, host Todd Wilken and I had talked about a subject that is directly related to all of that. I am referring to the advocacy journalism blast at The Atlantic that ran with this double-decker headline:

Trump Secretly Mocks His Christian Supporters

Former aides say that in private, the president has spoken with cynicism and contempt about believers.

This was the article that I received more email about during the previous week than any other. As a rather old guy — in terms of decades of exposure to coverage of religion and politics — this piece sounded so, so, so familiar.

The bottom line: Lots of country-club people at the top of the GOP food chain have always — behind closed doors — viewed religious conservatives with distain and distaste. That’s big news? Does it surprise anyone that Trump is even more raw in his humor about certain types of religious people (hold that thought, we’ll come back to it) than others in his New York City-South Florida social circles?

Here are two key chunks of this McKay Coppins essay:

The president’s alliance with religious conservatives has long been premised on the contention that he takes them seriously, while Democrats hold them in disdain. In speeches and interviews, Trump routinely lavishes praise on conservative Christians, casting himself as their champion.


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

Wait a minute: This New York Times Story is about the state of GOP life in Tennessee?

, , , , , , , , , ,

Well, I’m not in Kansas anymore. I’m back in Tennessee, but I’m borrowing WiFi in the lobby of an auto-repair establishment (don’t ask the details) while trying to get home.

But being back in the Volunteer state did remind me that I wanted to comment on a recent New York Times piece that ran just before our state primaries. The story is about the brutal, at times, race to win the GOP nomination to chase the U.S. Senate seat that for years belonged to the courtly Lamar Alexander.

The establishment candidate, Bill Hagerty won the race, but it was tight. The Times team focused, of course, on the toxic existence of Citizen Donald Trump. The president’s endorsement of Hagerty was important, but that was only one reason that Tennessee Republicans — at least the ones I know — were so torn up in this race.

But there’s no need to discuss cultural and religious issues in a Bible Belt state like Tennessee when you can focus exclusively on You. Know. Who. Thus, this double-decker headline:

Tennessee Republicans, Once Moderate and Genteel, Turn Toxic in the Trump Era

In the Senate primary race to replace Lamar Alexander, two candidates are fighting to see who can better emulate the president. It isn’t pretty.

The thesis statement near the end adds:

What is perhaps already clear, however, is that the Republican Party that Mr. Alexander long sought to shape — a “governing party,” he once wrote, that translated “principled ideas” into “real solutions” — is not the one he will ultimately leave behind.

Both of the major candidates were conservatives, but one — Hagerty — had a blue-chip GOP establishment heritage, with ties to President George W. Bush. The other, Dr. Manny Sethi — an Indian-American, Harvard-educated surgeon at Vanderbilt University hospital — was clearly running as the outsider.

Believe it or not, Trump backed the GOP establishment guy even as Sethi attempted to appeal to voters on many of Trump’s cultural issues.


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

Conservative news? White GOP justice strikes down bill by black, female pro-life Democrat

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No doubt about it, there were some interesting political angles linked to the latest U.S. Supreme Court setback for Americans who want to see more safety regulations applied to the abortion facilities.

Much of the news coverage of this 5-4 decision focused — with good reason — on Chief Justice John Roberts voting with the court’s liberal wing. Once again, press reports stressed that Roberts showed maturity, independence and nuance as he voted against his own alleged convictions, as stated in a dissent in an earlier case on a similar bill.

The coverage also stressed — with good cause — the potential impact of this decision on the Election Day enthusiasm of (wait for it) evangelicals who back the Donald Trump machine.

But there was another crucial element of this story that I expected to receive some coverage. I am talking about the origins of the actual Louisiana legislation that was struck down by the court.

Who created this bill and why did they create it? Was this some kind of Trump-country project backed by the usual suspects? Actually — no. The key person behind this bill was State Sen. Katrina Jackson, an African-American lawyer from Monroe, La. The bill was then signed by Governor John Bel Edwards, also a Democrat.

But wait, you say: Democrats in Louisiana are different. The Catholic church and the black church are major players, when it comes to the state’s mix of populist economics and a more conservative approach to culture.

In other words, there is a religion angle to this story, as well as the obvious political hooks that dominated the coverage. Hold that thought, because we will come back to it. First, here is the top of the Associated Press story that ran across the nation:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics, reasserting a commitment to abortion rights over fierce opposition from dissenting conservative justices in the first big abortion case of the Trump era.

Chief Justice John Roberts and his four more liberal colleagues ruled that a law that requires doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals violates abortion rights the court first announced in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.


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

Trump support weakens among white evangelicals: So @NYTimes talks to lots of old folks

, , , , , , , , , , ,

I was reading a New York Times piece the other day — “Trump’s Approval Slips Where He Can’t Afford to Lose It: Among Evangelicals” — when I found myself thinking about the Rev. Pat Robertson and quarterback Tom Brady.

This may take some explaining.

For starters, if you know anything about the 2016 election, you know that white evangelicals helped fuel Trump’s success in the GOP primaries. Then, in the general election, white and Latino evangelicals were crucial to his pivotal win in Florida. But the key to his election was winning the votes of Rust Belt (a) Democrats who previously voted for Barack Obama, (b) conservative and older Catholics, (c) angry labor union members/retirees or (d) citizens who were “all of the above.”

Catholic swing voters were much more important to Trump than white evangelicals — in the 2020 general election (as opposed to primaries).

But back to aging NFL quarterbacks and this sad Times political desk feature. Here is a key passage, which is linked — of course — to the bizarre Bible photo episode:

Unnerved by his slipping poll numbers and his failure to take command of the moral and public health crises straining the country, religious conservatives have expressed concern in recent weeks to the White House and the Trump campaign about the president’s political standing.

Their rising discomfort spilled out into the open … when the founder of the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, scolded the president for taking such a belligerent tone as the country erupted in sorrow and anger over the police killing of an unarmed black man, George Floyd, in Minneapolis.

Speaking on his newscast, “The 700 Club,” the televangelist whose relationship with Mr. Trump dates to the 1990s said, “You just don’t do that, Mr. President,” and added, “We’re one race. And we need to love each other.”

This leads us to some summary material that could have been written by some kind of automated writing program on a blue-zip-code newsroom computer:


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

Thinking along with Emma Green: Sen. Josh Hawley dares to tilt at many GOP windmills

, , , , , , , ,

It’s the question that many politicos have been asking: What happens to the Republican Party after the Citizen Donald Trump era?

Here’s another question that is linked to that: What happens to cultural and religious conservatives — those that backed Trump and those that opposed him (openly or privately) — after this fever dance of an administration is over?

That was the topic looming in the background of a recent Emma Green think piece (yes, another one) at The Atlantic that ran with this headline: “Josh Hawley’s Mission to Remake the GOP.”

In most press coverage, the Missouri freshman is painted as a rather standard-issue conservative in the U.S. Senate. After all, those conservatives are all alike — even if libertarian folks often clash with religious conservatives in ways that don’t get much ink.

However, journalists who parse the texts produced by Hawley will notice strange subplots, like the fact that he is known for, as Green puts it, “casually citing the philosopher Edmund Burke and the Christian monk Pelagius in a single stretch.” But here is the paragraph where things get serious:

His speeches around town, including one he delivered … while accepting an award at the annual gala of the American Principles Project Foundation, a socially conservative public-policy organization, are bracingly defiant of Republican orthodoxy: He rails against income inequality, condemns the policy deference afforded to corporations, and speaks warmly about the civic value of labor unions. He often talks about the “great American middle” being crushed by the decline of local communities, the winner-take-all concentration of wealth, and the inaccessibility of higher education. And he said that the modern Republican Party’s split over competing impulses toward free-market economics and social conservatism has led some conservatives to ignore the effects of their policies on the middle and working class. “It’s time to do away with that,” he told me.

You need another clash?


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

Ryan Burge combination punch: Concerning Republicans, Democrats and gaps in pews

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Attention religion-news professionals and all of your news consumers. Do you remember where you were in 2012 when you read your first news report about the stunning rise of the “nones,” as in religiously unaffiliated Americans? Or, in terms of style, is it just Nones, at this point?

I sure do. In my case, I was actually at the press conference to announce the Pew Research Center survey results that became known as the “Nones on the Rise” report.

The religious implications of these numbers were stunning, especially for America’s declining Mainline Protestant flocks. However, the political implications were just as important — something noted by a scholar who has been following the “pew gap” phenomenon for decades. What is the “pew gap”? Here is the basic concept: The more a person (especially if she or he is white) attends worship services, the more likely they are to vote GOP.

Here is a bite of info from my “On Religion” column about that event, including a very prophetic quote from the pollster and scholar John C. Green of the University of Akron. Ready?

The unaffiliated overwhelmingly reject ancient doctrines on sexuality with 73 percent backing same-sex marriage and 72 percent saying abortion should be legal in all, or most, cases. Thus, the "Nones" skew heavily Democratic as voters — with 75 percent supporting Barack Obama in 2008. The unaffiliated are now a stronger presence in the Democratic Party than African-American Protestants, white mainline Protestants or white Catholics.

"It may very well be that in the future the unaffiliated vote will be as important to the Democrats as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party,” said Green, addressing the religion reporters. "If these trends continue, we are likely to see even sharper divisions between the political parties."

As you would expect, this observation leads us to a pair of new charts from political scientist Ryan Burge of the Religion in Public blog (and now a regular here at GetReligion).

Scan on.


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

Evangelicals and Trump, again: Alan Cooperman says journalists should ponder four myths

, , , , , , ,

This just in: It appears that 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump and, thus, totally embrace his agenda to destroy all of humanity.

Or something like that. Also, it doesn’t matter that evangelical voters aren’t all that powerful in several of the key purple or blue states in which Hillary Clinton received way fewer votes than Barack Obama, thus costing her the election.

But let’s return to the great 81 percent monolith again, a number that hides complex realities among morally and culturally conservative voters. For more information on that, check out this survey by LifeWay Research and the Billy Graham Institute at Wheaton College. Also, click here for a GetReligion podcast on that topic or here for a “On Religion” column I wrote on this topic.

I bring this up because of interesting remarks made during a recent Faith Angle seminar, an ongoing religion-news education project organized by the Ethics & Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

The topic this time: “America’s Religious Vote: Midterms and New Trends.” Clicking that link will take you to a website containing a video of the event and, eventually, a transcript. I heard about this through Acts of Faith at The Washington Post, specifically its must-get online newsletter. In a recent edition, religion-beat veteran Michelle Boorstein pointed readers to remarks at that event by Alan Cooperman, director of religion surveys at the Pew Research Center (and a former Post reporter). The Christian Post offered a summary of what Cooperman had to say — focusing on four myths about evangelical voters.

This is interesting stuff, although it doesn’t really explore key fault lines and mixed motives inside that massive white evangelical Trump vote (click here for tmatt’s typology of six different kinds of evangelical voters in 2016 election).

… Cooperman outlined what he says are “straw men” arguments, or “myths,” that he hears being asserted in political discussions today. Four of those myths involve some common misconceptions about white evangelical voters.

Myth 1: Evangelicals are turning liberal or turning against Trump

While there certainly are some white evangelicals who are staunch in their opposition to President Donald Trump, he doesn't see any rise in their numbers in Pew data.

Citing aggregated Pew Research Center data compiled from 2017 to 2018, Cooperman stated that there is “a lot of stability” when it comes to Trump’s approval ratings among self-identified white evangelical or born-again Protestants.

“Right up before the election, aggregated data from our polls over the last several months [showed] 71 percent approval rating for the president [among white evangelicals],” Cooperman said. “If anything, party ID among white evangelical Protestants is trending more Republican. This notion that white evangelical Protestants are turning liberal, I don’t see. … I don’t see it anywhere.”

Now, here is the crucial question: Is saying that “party ID among white evangelical Protestants is trending more Republican” the same thing as saying that all of those white evangelical Protestants wholeheartedly support Trump?


Please respect our Commenting Policy