GetReligion
Thursday, April 03, 2025

Deseret News

, , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Can the AP Stylebook team slow down the creation of new Godbeat 'F-bombs'?

, , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Can the AP Stylebook team slow down the creation of new Godbeat 'F-bombs'?

Words matter, especially when covering a topic as complex as religion.

That concept has, of course, been one of the core doctrines of GetReligion for nearly 20 years and it was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). This episode discussed a few of the religion-language changes in the evolving Associated Press Stylebook — an update project that involved both Godbeat patriarch Richard Ostling and Bobby “Are the Rangers playing today?” Ross, Jr.

I am gung-ho about making stylebook improvements. Carry on!

But I have my doubts about whether these changes will have a major impact, when it comes to the butchering of religious language, information and history when complex religion subjects are covered by reporters (especially political-desk stars) with zero training and experience on this beat. After all, we already know that religion-news coverage radically improves when editors hire qualified writers and editors.

Thus, The Big Question, for my entire career, has been: Why don’t more newsroom managers show respect for religion news by hiring religion-beat pros?

So, will the improved AP bible help? Well, consider the many GetReligion posts over the years praising the stylebook entry for “fundamentalist,” while noting that way too many reporters ignore that advice. Why does this happen? Here is some material from an “On Religion” column I wrote on the topic (“Define fundamentalist, please”). First, the classic stylebook language:

"fundamentalist: The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. ... However, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians.

"In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself."

Alas, for reporters and academics, one person’s "evangelical" is another's "fundamentalist” and “fundamentalist” is basically and F-bomb.


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

Plug-In: Nation's religion-beat pros gather -- in person this time -- for annual conference

, , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Nation's religion-beat pros gather -- in person this time -- for annual conference

BETHESDA, Md. — Let’s make this quick. I need sleep.

Seriously, I wrote this week’s post after an exhilarating — but exhausting — first day of the Religion News Association’s annual meeting.

Journalists who cover religion news — including ReligionUnplugged.com’s own Meagan Clark and Hamil Harris — convened Thursday at a hotel northwest of Washington, D.C.

It’s RNA’s first in-person conference in 2½ years.

Session topics range from expanding global religion coverage to when to label a religious group a cult. Follow the Twitter hashtag #RNA2022 to keep up with all the Godbeat discussions.

But be warned: The news doesn’t stop for any conference.

As attendees picked up their name tags Thursday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court “ruled 8-1 in favor of a death row inmate seeking to hear vocal prayers and feel his pastor’s touch as he dies,” as the Deseret News’ Kelsey Dallas reports.

“OF COURSE the Supreme Court is making me handle breaking news during my conference trip,” Dallas tweeted.

For more background on the case, see past coverage here and here.

Power Up: The Week’s Best Reads

1. Jackson invokes her Christian faith, stays mum on specifics: “Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has put her religious faith front, center — and vague.” I love that lede by The Associated Press’ Peter Smith.


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

Plug-In: No nostalgia -- some pandemic-weary souls want to reclaim Sunday as day of rest

, , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: No nostalgia -- some pandemic-weary souls want to reclaim Sunday as day of rest

In a hit song two decades ago, country music group Rascal Flatts offered banjo-tinged commentary on “the world spinning faster than it did in the old days.”

“Sunday was a day of rest,” the group proclaimed in its ode to a bygone era. “Now, it’s one more day for progress.”

Some of us are old enough to remember when most businesses — not just Chick-fil-A — closed on Sundays. It seems quaint now, but I did an Associated Press story in 2003 on Family Christian Stores — then the nation’s largest Christian retail chain — deciding to open on Sundays.

But in 2016, I was surprised during a reporting trip to North Dakota when I found an empty parking lot at a Bismarck Walmart — and then at Super Target — while looking to buy a few snacks and supplies before Sunday morning church.

I learned that for more than a century, the state had required most retailers to close from midnight to noon on Sundays. North Dakota finally became the last state to lift that ban in 2019.

I bring up this subject not just for nostalgia but because the day of rest — or the lack of it — is drawing renewed consideration nationally.

In a recent piece, Deseret News religion reporter Kelsey Dallas explains “why some political commentators and legal scholars are tweeting their support for taking a Sabbath”:

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic began, Americans were overworked and tightly wound. In the past two years, the situation’s only gotten worse.

Pandemic-related stress and a widespread desire for more time to rest are among the factors fueling the “Great Resignation.” They also help explain why some political commentators and legal scholars spent the weekend debating the Sabbath. …


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

Plug-in: Supreme Court questions inmate's demand for vocal prayers in Texas death chamber

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-in: Supreme Court questions inmate's demand for vocal prayers in Texas death chamber

Last week, we set the scene for the U.S. Supreme Court’s hearing of a religious freedom case involving a Texas death-row inmate.

This week, we summarize the mixed response justices gave in that inmate’s case.

Christianity Today’s Daniel Silliman lays out the plot aptly:

If you give a man in a Texas execution chamber the right to a prayer, is he entitled to two?

Can he ask for candles?

Or Communion?

If the United States Supreme Court says a condemned man has the religious right to have his pastor touch his foot while the state injects a lethal dose of chemicals into his veins, then will the court also have to allow a pastor to touch a man’s hand, his head, or even the place where the needle pierces the skin?

The justices quizzed attorney Seth Kretzer about the slippery slope of death penalty prayer on Tuesday morning, as they weighed whether the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), passed by Congress in 2000, give 37-year-old John Henry Ramirez the right to have his pastor lay hands on him and pray aloud when the state of Texas puts him to death.

The high court was skeptical of the inmate’s “demand that his pastor be allowed to pray out loud and touch him during his execution,” according to The Associated Press’ Jessica Gresko.

Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns “about inmates ‘gaming the system’ by asserting dubious religious claims that served to delay their executions, notes the Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin.

The court “seemed divided,” explains the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes, who produced a “deeply reported and evocative” advance piece on the case, reporting from Corpus Christi, Texas.


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

Plug-In: Clashes between religion and COVID-19 vaccines are (#DUH) not fading away

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Clashes between religion and COVID-19 vaccines are (#DUH) not fading away

Where to begin this week?

“As they impose COVID-19 vaccine mandates, company leaders across the country are facing a flood of requests for religious exemptions,” the Deseret News’ Kelsey Dallas reports in a story explaining how employers judge such requests.

“As the Biden administration prepares a federal vaccine mandate and more states and companies impose them to help accelerate the pandemic's end, letter-writing efforts by religious leaders (supporting exemptions) are being reinforced by legal advocacy groups such as Liberty Counsel,” according to Reuters’ Tom Hals.

“The prelate who oversees Catholics in the U.S. military issued a statement Tuesday (Oct. 12) supporting service members who have refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 on religious grounds,” Religion News Service’s Jack Jenkins notes.

Here we go again.

For the seventh time in the last year (yes, I counted), news of religion and the COVID-19 vaccines tops the latest Weekend Plug-in. See previous installments here, here, here, here, here and here.

Why does Plug-in keep focusing on this subject? Because it remains major news. And it likely will for a while.

Here are a few more related stories that caught my attention this week:

• Latino Catholics are among the most vaccinated religious groups. Here’s why. (by Alejandra Molina, RNS)

• ‘It’s not Satanism’: Zimbabwe church leaders preach vaccines (by Farai Mutsaka, Associated Press)

• The pandemic has helped religion’s reputation. Do religious vaccine resisters put this progress at risk? (by Kelsey Dallas, RNS)


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

Plug-In: From life issues to gov't mandates, religious reactions to vaccines have been complex

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: From life issues to gov't mandates, religious reactions to vaccines have been complex

Want to be smart?

Then avoid simple narratives in news coverage. That’s especially true on the still-timely subject of religion and debates about the COVID-19 vaccines.

For evidence, check out these recent stories:

• “As vaccine mandates become a reality, politicians, pastors and even the pope are speaking out against faith-based exemptions,” the Deseret News’ Kelsey Dallas reports.

But here’s the twist: “In many cases, those who claim a religious exemption are part of a denomination that doesn’t share their concerns, although many faith leaders do support making exemptions available.”

• “Does respect for human life mean vaccine mandates?” asks a story by the Washington Post’s Michelle Boorstein.

The answer? It’s complicated.

“In recent days, with a handful of organizations from Facebook and Google to the University of Virginia announcing vaccine mandates, religious leaders and organizations have considered their own teachings and values on the question of how to show respect for life,” Boorstein writes. “And their conclusions vary widely.”

• This news, via USA Today, jumps out at you: “Florida church vaccinates hundreds after 6 members die from COVID-19 in 10 days.”

"It's just been ripping our hearts apart,” the senior pastor says in the story by Marina Pitofsky.

It’s probably no surprise that social media pounced on the church for waiting until members died to promote vaccinations.

Except, as anyone reading the entire report learns, it didn’t: “The church vaccinated about 800 people in March at a similar event as COVID-19 vaccines became widely available in the U.S.”

While not religion related per se, Peggy Noonan’s Wall Street Journal column this week makes some excellent points.


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

Spot the religion test (again): What's at stake when politicos ask if nominees believe in God?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Spot the religion test (again): What's at stake when politicos ask if nominees believe in God?

This is one of those GetReligion topics that — alas — keep popping up every year or two. Here is the Deseret New headline on the latest case study for journalists to file in the growing “Spot the religion test” file: “Is it legal to ask nominees to federal office if they believe in God?”

There’s a reason that this keeps happening. Church-state conflicts, especially those involving Sexual Revolution doctrines, are among the hottest of America’s hot-button political issues. The First Amendment is, for different reasons, under assault from some camps on the political right and also from many illiberal voices on the left.

In terms of raw statistics, Democrats rely on a grassroots base that, with the exception of the Black Church, is increasingly made up of Nones, agnostics, atheists and religious liberals. Republicans seeking office cannot afford to ignore people in pews — period.

All of this leads us back to these words in Article 6 in the U.S. Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives … and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The headline on the Deseret News piece reads like an opinion essay, but this is actually a solid news feature that quotes a variety of voices active in debates about this church-state issue. Here is the overture:

The Constitution states that the government can’t create a religious test for public office. But does that mean confirmation hearings should include no mention of faith?

There are at least a few members of each party who think some religion questions are fair game.


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

Plug-In: Who is the alleged Baptist minister accused in Haiti's presidential assassination?

, , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Who is the alleged Baptist minister accused in Haiti's presidential assassination?

In 2018, I was blessed to visit Haiti with an American mission team and write about a Christian humanitarian aid organization that drills water wells around the world.

I keep thinking about that trip — and the amazing people I met — as I read about the latest turmoil facing that Caribbean island nation.

This week, I hand off the top part of my column to ReligionUnplugged’s managing editor, Meagan Clark. She found an interesting detail about the self-described pastor accused in the Haitian president’s assassination:

By Meagan Clark

An American suspect in Haiti’s presidential assassination, Christian Emmanuel Sanon, 63, was arrested at his gated home in Port-au-Prince by Haitian police last week.

Sanon identifies himself on social media as a “Medical Doctor and Christian Minister.” The Sun Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, may have been the first to unearth that Sanon did not have a license to practice medicine in Florida. At ReligionUnplugged, we wondered about his faith background, credentials and motivations.

The New York Times, TIME and others reported that Sanon attended Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, citing the Florida Baptist Historical Society. But when I called Midwestern, the registrar’s office said the school has no records of Sanon ever attending, online or in-person.

A Florida Baptist Society representative told ReligionUnplugged that Sanon wrote in a biographical profile of himself that he attended Midwestern, and the society relies on honesty to compile its biographies. The representative said that in fact, the society has since learned that Sanon attended a training course that Midwestern sponsored, not the seminary itself. The Florida Baptist Society has updated its website.


Please respect our Commenting Policy