GetReligion
Wednesday, April 02, 2025

The Wall Street Journal

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

2020 was an election year in which many Christians felt torn and politically homeless

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2020 was an election year in which many Christians felt torn and politically homeless

Conservative patriarch Edmund Burke died in 1797 in Beaconsfield, England.

This didn't prevent columnist Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal, a Catholic conservative, from making Burke her write-in choice in the 2020 White House race. She wasn't the only voter who felt politically homeless, due to religious and moral convictions that clashed with the political and personal choices of President Donald Trump and, the odds appear good, president-elect Joe Biden.

Once again, there was no way to ignore issues linked to faith, morality and, yes, character. This was especially true with Catholic voters who frequent church pews.

Considering Trump, Noonan stressed the coronavirus crisis, where the president finally "met a problem he couldn't talk his way out of. I believe that's what happened: He played down the pandemic, lied, made uninformed claims at briefings that serious people were struggling to keep useful. He produced chaos. The country can't afford any of that in a crisis that is sudden and severe."

What about the Democrat, a lifelong Catholic? Noonan predicted Biden would be a "hapless and reluctant conductor" on a "runaway train," especially on moral and cultural issues.

"The progressive left," she argued, "endorses and pushes for the identity politics that is killing us, an abortion regime way beyond anything that could be called reasonable or civilized and on which it will make no compromise; it opposes charter schools and other forms of public school liberation; it sees the police as the enemy, it demonstrates no distinct fidelity to freedom of speech and, most recently, its declared hopes range from court packing to doing away with the Electoral College and adding states to the union.”

The bottom line: The political realities of 2020 left many Catholics and other active religious believers torn between political options that no longer seemed acceptable.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Happy birthday to Ganesh? How 'present' is Kamala's Hindu past?

, , ,

I’m not sure a presidential and vice-presidential candidate have ever observed the birthday of a Hindu god that’s half boy and half elephant, but this being 2020 — there’s a time for everything.

Ganesh is one of the most popular out of a huge pantheon of Hindu gods and you see his human body with an elephant head all over India. On his birthday, which was Aug. 22, Biden made a tweet, which was re-tweeted by his vice presidential nominee, as a greeting to his followers.

This from the India-based Economic Times:

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his Indian-origin running mate Kamala Harris on Saturday greeted the Hindu community in the US, India and around the world on the occasion of Ganesh Chaturthi.

"To everyone celebrating the Hindu festival of Ganesh Chaturthi in the US, India, and around the world, may you overcome all obstacles, be blessed with wisdom, and find a path toward new beginnings," Biden said in a tweet.

So why did Biden tweet this? Was this a nod to his vice presidential pick’s heritage? A move to win America’s tiny Hindu vote? A salute to India? You tell me.

The key, here at GetReligion, is where this side of the Democratic Party’s interfaith campaign is getting the news coverage that it deserves.

We’ve written about the whole Hindu angle before. For the record, Kamala Harris attends a Baptist church; her husband is Jewish and her mom was Hindu and she’s named after the Hindu goddess Lakshmi.

So … want some interesting reads on the heritage hook in the Kamala candidacy? Readers will want to search out media from India.


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

Plug-In: Faith vs. COVID-19 -- Restrictions prompt clashes over churches reopening

, , , , , , , ,

Culture wars, meet the coronavirus.

In the nation’s latest religious freedom battle, church leaders in numerous states — from New York to Oregon — are clashing with governors over how and when to resume in-person gatherings.

President Donald Trump entered the fray today, saying he has deemed houses of worship “essential.” He called on states to allow the reopening of churches, synagogues and mosques despite lingering concerns over the spread of COVID-19, according to The Associated Press.

Just one example of the debates happening nationally: The Boston Globe reported on Thursday’s front page that Gov. Charlie Baker allowed Massachusetts worship gatherings to resume because he knew courts might force his hand.

In California, more than 1,200 pastors have vowed to hold in-person services May 31, defying Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to the Los Angeles Times. The U.S. Justice Department has warned the state that its coronavirus rules might violate religious freedoms.

In Minnesota, Catholic and Lutheran churches have informed Gov. Tim Walz of their plans to begin meeting again despite his executive order limiting religious services to 10 people, the Star-Tribune reported. Church groups are divided on the governor’s order, according to the newspaper’s religion writer, Jean Hopfensperger.

“It’s hard to see how under any reading of the First Amendment the Mall of America can be allowed to reopen while churches must keep their doors closed to all but a handful,” the Wall Street Journal said in an editorial.

In related news:

* Federal guidance for reopening houses of worship was put on hold after a battle between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the White House, the Washington Post reported. (Update: President Donald Trump said Thursday that his administration would release guidelines for reopening places of worship by today, according to NBC News.)


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
, , , , , ,

Reading between lines of recent surveys: Is the worst of the Sexual Revolution over?

, , , , , ,

THE QUESTION:

“Is the Worst of the Sexual Revolution Over?”

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The New York Times ran a feature last month about teens wearing shirts that proclaim “Virginity Rocks.” This fad did not originate with those Christian “True Love Waits” crusaders but a YouTube personality who professed a “tongue in cheek” attitude but said he’s happy if teens advocate abstinence, and some actually do take the slogan seriously.

A dog-eared maxim in our business says “dog bites man” isn’t news but “man bites dog” is. Likewise, this fashion curiosity is newsworthy because so many young Americans think the opposite. And yet we encounter the question above, which was the headline of a recent article for thedispatch.com by David French, who has emerged as among the more interesting weekly commentators on modern morals and religion.

French’s article sidesteps two major aspects of the “sexual revolution,” legalized same-sex relationships, which are broadly accepted but remain central to unresolved religious-liberty disputes, and transgender or “non-binary” causes that are more contested.

His focus instead is on heterosexual principles in the heritage of all great world religions that have been challenged in the U.S. by easy divorce, rising promiscuity and cohabitation, and resulting single motherhood. Hefty majorities found those practices “morally acceptable” in Gallup’s annual values survey for 2019. (Adultery, by contrast, was still judged to be immoral by 89 percent of Americans.)

The headline’s use of “worst” conveys French’s view that the revolution has been unfortunate, and we’ll see more about that below.


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

How will America's religion marketplace change after coronavirus crisis is behind us?

, , , , , , ,

This evolving COVID-19 story is something like a combination of two earlier national crises that were incomparably worse — or so we assume and hope.

The public health parallel was the vast influenza pandemic of 1918-19. This scourge infected a third of the world population and killed 50 million people. Some 675,000 of the dead were in the United States, out of a national population of 104.5 million (less than a third of the current number.) As currently, there was no vaccine so the spread could only be fought through social separation, quarantines, and meticulous hygiene.

Then came the epic economic disaster of the Great Depression, beginning in 1929. In the U.S., by 1933 industrial production had declined by an estimated 47 percent and the gross domestic product by 30 percent while 20 percent of the population was unemployed and a fifth of the nation’s banks had failed. Economic weakness wore on through the decade.

The news media have a huge responsibility to report right now on both the raging health dangers and the economic damage caused by The Great Lockdown.

However, “social distancing” and “flattening the curve” will — someday — be mere bad memories and America will be able to fully assess the carnage. And, meanwhile, if there’s anything that should send people down on their knees in prayer it’s COVID-19.

But with few exceptions, Americans can only do this as individuals and families because of the massive halt of worship services. Here’s an arresting thought from political scientist Ryan Burge (a contributor to GetReligion): “This coming weekend may represent the fewest people engaging in corporate worship in the last two millennia.”

David Crary of The Associated Press (a former reporting team colleague of The Guy) has taken an early look at what religion is facing.


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

Outspoken but quiet, conservative but progressive: Media profile U.S. Catholic bishops' Latino leader

, , , , , , ,

Here’s a surefire way to make headlines: Do something significant — and this part is crucial — do it for the first time.

Such was the case with this week’s election of Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles as U.S. Catholic bishops’ first Latino leader.

Prominent religion writers — including the New York Times’ Elizabeth Dias, the Washington Post’s Julie Zauzmer and Religion News Service’s Jack Jenkins — were on the scene for the milestone vote. It helps, of course, that the bishops met in Baltimore, an easy drive or train ride from those journalists’ base in Washington, D.C., and New York City.

Other familiar names — The Associated Press’ David Crary, the Wall Street Journal’s Ian Lovett and the Los Angeles Times’ Sarah Parvini — covered the news remotely (Crary from New York and Lovett and Parvini from Los Angeles). The WSJ piece was more of a brief (four short paragraphs), but the financial newspaper at least acknowledged Gomez’s election.

Before analyzing all the coverage, I’ll note that I first became familiar with Gomez when he became archbishop of San Antonio in 2005. Based in Dallas, I covered religion for AP at the time. So I traveled to San Antonio to meet Gomez and do a story on him stepping into a new role as the leading Hispanic cleric in the U.S.

I remember him being friendly but not overly talkative. These were my favorite two paragraphs of the piece that I wrote for AP’s national wire:

Gomez showed that sense of humor as he recalled how he started attending daily Mass as a high school student in Monterrey. A sign of a future archbishop’s deep commitment to the church? Perhaps. But it was also a good way to get the car keys.

“The only way that my dad let me drive was to go to Mass,” Gomez said with a chuckle.

I noticed a few common themes in this week’s stories.


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

Friday Five: Mexico massacre, German Catholics, Christian contraception, John Crist, wild shot

, , , , , , ,

Welcome to another edition of the Friday Five.

Usually, I offer a bit of extra information or at least a little wit before getting to the point.

But this week I’ll confess that I’ve got nothing, so let’s dive right in:

1. Religion story of the week: The Los Angeles Times’ Jaweed Kaleem was among those who reported on the massacre of a large Mormon clan in Mexico.

Also on the story: New York Times religion writer Elizabeth Dias, who contributed to coverage here and here.

Elsewhere, The Associated Press noted that the slayings highlighted confusion over Mormon groups. The Washington Post explained “How Mexico’s cartel wars shattered American Mormons’ wary peace,” and the Wall Street Journal reported on Mormon families gathering to mourn those killed.

Here’s one more: A stunning New York Times feature on the details of the attack itself and on-the-scene reporting about the families wrestling with grief and the details of how to respond. The reporting is deep and detailed — except that there’s no real sense of why these believers are in Mexico and what separates them from mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints life.

That seems like a rather important subject, in this case.

2. Most popular GetReligion post: Editor Terry Mattingly has our No. 1 commentary of the week, headlined “Washington Post: Catholics should follow Germany's gospel when seeking future growth.”

No, tmatt was not a fan of the Post’s very one-sided story:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

The single-most important word in WSJ's fascinating portrait of Southern Baptists' generational divide

, , , , ,

The Washington Post’s Sarah Pulliam Bailey called it a “fascinating read.”

To which I say: Amen!

I’m talking about Wall Street Journal national religion writer Ian Lovett’s story this week on a generational divide shaking Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

The recent turmoil (recent as in the last year and a half) at that seminary is not breaking news, of course. But Lovett explores an angle that does seem fresh, especially for a major secular newspaper such as the Journal.

The lede sets the scene by outlining the news that has captured headlines and then putting it in a larger context:

FORT WORTH, Texas — After the Rev. Adam W. Greenway stepped to the lectern during his inauguration as the ninth president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he acknowledged the tumult that had engulfed the school in recent years.

The previous president was fired. Enrollment plummeted, and the training ground for many of the nation’s most famous pastors found itself at the center of a debate over the treatment of women in the church.

“I cannot change the past,” he said. “For any way in which we have fallen short, I am sorry.”

A generational gulf is threatening to split evangelical Christianity.

While older evangelicals have become a political force preaching traditional values, younger ones are deviating from their parents on issues like same-sex marriage, Israel, the role of women, and support for President Trump.

And then the Godbeat pro offers his nut graf:


Please respect our Commenting Policy