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

Plug-In: Americans favor religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccine mandates — sort of

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Americans favor religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccine mandates — sort of

What a difference a year makes.

Or not.

Fifty-two weeks ago, this news topped Weekend Plug-in.

Sound familiar?

Trump calls COVID-19 vaccine ‘a medical miracle,’ but many religious people are skeptical

Guess what? Many religious people remain highly skeptical of the vaccines, despite their strong effectiveness at preventing serious illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

Which leads us to this week’s news: a new public opinion poll on religious exemptions to the vaccines.

Religion News Service’s Jack Jenkins reports:

WASHINGTON (RNS) — A new poll reveals most Americans are in favor of offering religious exemptions for the COVID-19 vaccines, yet express concern that too many people are seeking such exemptions. In the same survey, more than half of those who refuse to get vaccinated say getting the shot goes against their personal faith.

The poll, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and Interfaith Youth Core and released Thursday (Dec. 9), investigated ongoing debates about COVID-19 vaccines as well as emerging divisions over whether religious exemptions to the shots should even exist.

According to the survey, a small majority (51%) of Americans favor allowing individuals who would otherwise be required to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to opt out if it violates their religious beliefs, compared with 47% who oppose such religious exemptions.

See additional coverage of the poll by the Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner, a former contributor at GetReligion, and NPR’s Megan Myscofski.


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

Lessons learned from black-and-white visions of Christmas past -- movies from 1940s

, , , , , , , , , ,
Lessons learned from black-and-white visions of Christmas past -- movies from 1940s

It's a black-and-white movie Christmas, with snow falling as joyful families mingle on city sidewalks while window-shopping -- buying food, presents, decorations and fresh-cut trees for festivities that are only two days away.

For Americans, this scene represents the ghost of Christmas past, long before suburban malls, big-box scrums and Amazon.com. And as "The Bishop's Wife" opens, an angel -- a graceful Cary Grant -- enters this 1947 tableau, smiling at carolers and children and helping the needy and lost.

"Christmas is always in danger in Christmas movies -- we'd have no reason to make such movies otherwise," wrote critic Titus Techera, executive director of the American Cinema Foundation. In this classic movie, "we have a remarkable concentration of problems in one household: A man's faith, his family, community and church … are all tied together."

It isn't unusual to find miracles, tight-knit communities, glowing churches and parables about human choices, temptation, sin and redemption in old Christmas films, said Techera, contacted by Zoom while visiting Bucharest.

That's why Techera -- a native of Romania, before his work brought him to America -- has written four online essays about the lessons learned from watching '40s movies that were remade in the '90s. The other films in this Acton Institute series are "The Shop Around the Corner," "Miracle on 34th Street" and "Christmas in Connecticut."

There's a reason many modern Americans keep watching these movies, he said. Some yearn for a time before most Americans became so isolated, separated by jobs far from extended families, sprawling suburban neighborhoods and all the paradoxes built into digital networks that were supposed to keep people connected.

"What we see in these movies is a time when Christmas was a far less commercial celebration and there was quite a bit of continuity with traditions from the past. … For many, the church was part of that," he said. "Christmas was a family thing. It was a community thing. … Commerce was more subservient to ordinary life. Commerce had not taken over all of life, including Christmas."


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

In search of the elusive liberal evangelical: Is this tiny flock worthy of big news coverage?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
In search of the elusive liberal evangelical: Is this tiny flock worthy of big news coverage?

I was listening to a podcast the other day and the host asked a guest a question that I have heard way too many times over the last year — “Why did you decide to focus only on conservative evangelicals?”

I fully admit that a lot of my work does focus on conservative evangelicals. Why? Because, in the current political landscape, there’s not a more important force in American politics. The nones are too disorganized at this juncture to have a systemic impact. Catholics and Mainline Protestants are too politically divided to be considered anything close to a coherent voting bloc.

The fact is simply this: 13% of all American adults in 2020 were white evangelical Republicans.

No other group comes even close to that size. Nine percent of Americans are nothing in particular Democrats — but that’s not an easy group to wrap your arms around. There are twice as many white evangelical Republicans as there are white Catholic Republicans. For every Democratic atheist, there are 2.5 white evangelical Republicans.

But, I wanted to devote some time trying to look at the other side of the evangelical coin: those who describe themselves as politically liberal. Because the Cooperative Election Study is so large, even if that group is a relatively small percentage of the population, it’s still possible to do in-depth statistical analysis of liberal evangelicals.

Of all self-identified evangelicals, 58% describe themselves as conservative, 29% indicate they are moderate, while 13% say they are liberal. If that is restricted to just white evangelicals: 8% are liberal, 24% are moderate, and 68% say they are conservative.

That’s obviously much different than the general population. In 2020, 30% of all Americans said they were liberal, along with 28% of just white respondents.


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

New podcast: Are some SCOTUS justices asking, 'Are all religious schools equal in Maine?'

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Are some SCOTUS justices asking, 'Are all religious schools equal in Maine?'

Let’s say that, in the state of Maine, there are two very different “Lutheran” schools. You could, in this hypothetical case, also say “Episcopal,” or “Presbyterian” or “Congregational.”

Leaders at one of these schools insist that their school is in “the Lutheran tradition,” and it may retain ties to a doctrinally liberal flock. The school has a chapel, but attendance is optional since its students (it may be an elite boarding school) come from all kinds of religious faiths or have no stated faith at all. Classes on hot-button moral issues — sexuality, for example — stress this church’s progressive doctrines.

Academic life is very different at the other Lutheran school, which draws most of its students and financial support from a conservative Lutheran body. Chapel attendance is required and classes linked to moral theology are quite countercultural — defending 2,000 years of Christian tradition.

The question, in the latest church-state case at the U.S. Supreme Court, is whether the state of Maine has the power to say that the first school is eligible for tuition support — using tax dollars — because it’s policies do not clash with those in public schools. Students at the conservative school are not eligible, because its beliefs are “sectarian.”

This is tricky territory and church-state experts on the Religious Right would certainly disagree with experts from the Religious Left and secular think tanks. The question discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) is whether journalists covering this case allowed readers a chance to understand the views of activists on both sides.

Let me state, right up front, that my dueling Lutherans illustration is based on “equal access” church-state principles that emerged from a left-right coalition during the Bill Clinton administration. The big idea: If state officials create policies that affect nonprofits, they cannot back secular groups while discriminating against religious organizations. States could, however, deny aid to both. In other words, religious faith is not a uniquely dangerous form of speech or activity.

Let me state this another way. Under the separation of church and state, officials are not supposed to use tax dollars to back state-approved forms of religion. Ah! But what if some religious groups have doctrines that are consistent with state policies, while others clash with the doctrines of the state?


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

As the news media churn, two rising religion muckrakers belong on your source list

, , , , , , , , ,
As the news media churn, two rising religion muckrakers belong on your source list

It's the worst of times for the American media, with vanishing newspapers and magazines, shrinking staffs and budgets with what's left, the heavy-handed slant on cable TV "news" and polls showing record lows for consumer confidence in the accuracy and honesty of work done by journalists.

But the religion beat offers one ray of hope with gutsy investigative journalism from within evangelical Protestant ranks that sets the standard for other media -- and is one reason this movement so dominates religious news.

For years, Christianity Today and World magazines have bravely lifted rocks regarding what's been called the "evangelical industrial complex.". One can hope World will persist after its recent shakeup (click here for GetReligion post on that topic).

This Memo spotlights two muckrakers who belong on source lists of religion writers and religious organizations: Julie Roys of "The Roys Report" and Warren Cole Smith of "Ministry Watch."

Alas, there's much muck for them to rake. Religion-watchers are unlikely to miss any newsworthy scandals if they subscribe to free listserves and monitor their original reporting, alongside pick-ups such as this $600,000 mystery at THE Houston superchurch or this academic fuss at Cornerstone University.

By coincidence, both editors, who are resolutely conservative in terms of religious beliefs, jumped into the scene in 2019. Either or both would make for a good story, as would Roys' "Restore 2022" conference May 20-21 at Judson University in Elgin, Illinois.

Roys, a Wheaton and Medill School alumna, was a newswriter and reporter for Chicago TV stations. She took 13 years off to raise her three children and then, for a decade, hosted Moody Radio Network's "Up For Debate" show. She then exposed "corruption and mission drift" at the sponsoring Moody Bible Institute on her personal blog, which evolved into the "Report," with a special focus on #ChurchToo sexual exploitation scandals. She is even a watchdog of watchdogs, catching the president of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability in resume-padding.


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

Behold! The New York Times dared to explore the spiritual 'fire' inside Denzel Washington

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Behold! The New York Times dared to explore the spiritual 'fire' inside Denzel Washington

Behold. It is time for me to praise — at great length — something published in The New York Times. It was even written by Maureen Dowd, of all people.

The headline on this length first-person feature: “Denzel Washington, Man on Fire.” No, this story isn’t about the stunningly violent, but at times quite biblical, 2004 movie entitled “Man on Fire.” It’s about the new film — “The Tragedy of Macbeth” — that combines the Oscar-level talents of Washington, director Joel Coen and producer-actress Frances McDormand, who is married to Coen. For Washington, playing the lead role represented a return to his theater roots with Shakespeare.

As you would expect, a Times piece by Dowd is going to include quotes from Hollywood A-listers such as Ethan Hawke, Liev Schreiber, Melissa Leo and Meryl Streep. Tom Hanks has this to say about Washington: ““He is our Brando. Nicholson. Olivier.”

However, the key to this feature is that the “fire” in the headline is both artistic and spiritual. It is, literally, a reference to Washington’s Pentecostal Christian upbringing and the Christian faith that he is not afraid to discuss in the context of his talent and his vocation.

It’s hard to know what to quote from this piece — since it covers so many bases. If you want insights into filmmaking and the complex minds of Coen and McDormand, you will find it. This isn’t a religion story. However, it’s a story that is willing to let Washington speak his mind.

The faith element enters with one of those “here I am talking to Denzel Washington” scenes that are far too common in arts and entertainment journalism. But, in this case, this tired device works. This passage is long, long, long, but essential. I will break it up, just a bit:

[Washington] said he had gotten very little sleep. He had just put the final touches on a film he directed, “A Journal for Jordan,” the true story of the romance between Dana Canedy, a former New York Times reporter and editor, and Sgt. Charles Monroe King, a soldier who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq, after meeting their infant son only once. It stars Michael B. Jordan and Chanté Adams and also opens widely on Christmas Day.

“It’s just a beautiful story of loss and love,” Mr. Washington said, “a story about real heroes and sacrificing, men and women who have given their lives so that we have the freedom to complain.”


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

About Southern Baptist wars and the Merritt family: Here's some inside baseball worth covering

, , , , , , , ,
About Southern Baptist wars and the Merritt family: Here's some inside baseball worth covering

I rarely write about Southern Baptist affairs unless one of their annual conventions is at hand, but I can’t resist commenting on a fascinating sideshow happening between the highly symbolic Merritt family and their fellow conservatives.

Jonathan Merritt is the openly gay (and I assume celibate, based on previous comments) son of the Rev. James Merritt, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. It’s been a tough ride for the past 10 years as the younger Merritt has tried to reconcile his sexuality with his faith, while working as a news- columnist. His father has been under immense pressure as well.

The latest fracas, with a hat tip to JulieRoys.com, has to do with the elder Merritt walking away from his position as a visiting professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C. The whole affair has gone unnoticed by many newsrooms, even though this is a topic that is newsworthy for a variety of reasons. Here is what Roys wrote:

Former Southern Baptist Convention President James Merritt resigned last week as a visiting professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary over controversy sparked by Merritt’s decision to share a sermon online by his son who’s gay. …

The decision came after Merritt, who’s also pastor of Cross Pointe Church in Duluth, Georgia, tweeted a link to a sermon by his son, Jonathan Merritt. The younger Merritt is a graduate of Southeastern Baptist and an author, journalist, and popular speaker. In August, Jonathan Merritt announced on Instagram that he’s gay.

“I don’t agree with my loved son @JonathanMerritt on everything to be sure,” James Merritt tweeted November 22. “But I encourage you to listen to his message on Mark 13. It is both brilliant and faithful to the gospel and the coming of Jesus!”

After that, things got really interesting. Here is the chronology:

Nov. 22 — James Merritt publishes his tweet.

Nov. 23 — The Conservative Baptist Network, a group of some 6,000 members based in Memphis, issues a statement with the headline: “Promoting homosexual preachers is not loving, biblical or Baptist.” The elder Merritt responds that same day.


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

Attention please: Two housekeeping items (both important) as GetReligion enters 2022

, , , , , , , ,
Attention please: Two housekeeping items (both important) as GetReligion enters 2022

Believe it or not, GetReligion has been around since 2004.

Doug LeBlanc clicked a mouse and launched the earliest version of this weblog on February 1, to be precise. When you’ve been working that long in the craziness that is the World Wide Web, you end up with some inevitable housekeeping issues.

Please hang in there with me for a minute or two for updates on two pieces of in-house business.

First, we have had to change — once again — the format of our daily mini-newsletter for those who would rather read GetReligion via email. The current list will vanish in a day or so.

A bit of history: Long, long ago, we had more than 600 people signed up for this kind of service. Then we switched platforms (it’s a long story) and lots of email readers got lost in the process. It’s always a hassle when something changes what does, and what doesn’t, show up in your daily wave of emails.

Now, we are having to relaunch our Mailchimp list. This is yet another side effect of the 2014 death of our co-worker Arne Fjeldstad of the Media Project, who launched the current version and, thus, was the “owner” of that list. Yes, many people (around the world) still miss Arne.

Now this feature needs to be updated. However, signing up for this updated Mailchimp list isn’t rocket science. Just click here and fill in the blanks. That’s all there is to it.

Item No. 2 is linked to the end of 2021 — think taxes and end-of-the-year donations to nonprofit groups.

For many of you, GetReligion is in that list. To cut to the chase, we still need your help.


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

Just how big is the Mississippi abortion case at U.S. Supreme Court? Well, THIS BIG

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Just how big is the Mississippi abortion case at U.S. Supreme Court? Well, THIS BIG

“The most important abortion case in decades” is how the New York Times’ Adam Liptak describes it.

“The most significant abortion case in a generation,” agree the Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall.

“The biggest challenge to abortion rights in decades,” echo The Associated Press’ Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko.

It’s not hyperbole: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, faces its biggest test yet. The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes explains:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday signaled it is on the verge of a major curtailment of abortion rights in the United States, and appeared likely to uphold a Mississippi law that violates one of the essential holdings of Roe v. Wade established nearly 50 years ago.

Whether the court would eventually overrule Roe and its finding that women have a fundamental right to end their pregnancies was unclear.

But none of the six conservatives who make up the court’s majority expressed support for maintaining its rule that states may not prohibit abortion before the point of fetal viability, which is generally estimated to be between 22 and 24 weeks of pregnancy.

At Christianity Today, Kate Shellnutt reports that “pro-life evangelicals who had rallied for the cause for decades were encouraged that the conservative-leaning court appeared willing to uphold a contentious Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks.”

Other helpful religion coverage:

• How faith groups feel about this major abortion case (by Kelsey Dallas, Deseret News)

• Before there was Roe: Religious debate before high court’s historic ruling on abortion (by Adelle M. Banks, Religion News Service)

• Religion abortion rights supporters fight for access (by Holly Meyer, The Associated Press)


Please respect our Commenting Policy