GetReligion
Thursday, April 03, 2025

Kelsey Dallas

Plug-In: Can a high school coach pray at 50-Yard line? Five SCOTUS hearing takeaways

Plug-In: Can a high school coach pray at 50-Yard line? Five SCOTUS hearing takeaways

The case of Joseph Kennedy, a Bremerton, Washington, high school football coach who wants to kneel and pray at the 50-yard line, made it to the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

Arguments took nearly two hours, double the time scheduled. Here are five key takeaways:

1. The issue: “The case pits the rights of government workers to free speech and the free exercise of their faith against the Constitution’s prohibition of government endorsement of religion and Supreme Court precedents that forbid pressuring students to participate in religious activities,” the New York Times’ Adam Liptak explains.

2. The significance: It’s “one of its most significant cases on prayer in decades … in a clear test for how the court's new conservative majority may rule on prayer in public schools,” Newsweek’s Julia Duin reports.

Duin adds:

The case focused on whether a high school coach could openly pray after the end of a football game. Arguments included examples from elsewhere in the sports world, with mentions of former Denver Broncos football player Tim Tebow, known for kneeling on the field in prayer, and Egyptian soccer player Mohamed Salah, who kneels in a thanksgiving prayer to Allah after he scores a goal.

Read Plug-in’s past coverage of Tebow’s controversial prayers. Also, see this Duin post — “Coach Joe Kennedy goes to the Supreme Court and the media coverage gets a B+” — here at GetReligion.

3. The hypotheticals: “The U.S. Supreme Court justices spun more than a dozen hypothetical prayer scenarios during oral arguments,” Christianity Today’s Daniel Silliman notes.

The Associated Press’ Jessica Gresko highlights some of those scenarios:

A coach who crosses himself before a game. A teacher who reads the Bible aloud before the bell rings. A coach who hosts an after-school Christian youth group in his home.

Supreme Court justices discussed all those hypothetical scenarios.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

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: Just say no to 'cult' -- That four-letter word journalists really need to avoid

Plug-In: Just say no to 'cult' -- That four-letter word journalists really need to avoid

“Don’t Call It a Cult.” That was the title of one of the more intriguing sessions at last week’s Religion News Association annual meeting, held at a Washington, D.C.-area hotel.

Moderated by independent audio journalist Sarah Ventre, the panel featured Anuttama Dasa, global communications director for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness; Melissa Weisz, a podcaster who grew up in a Hasidic Jewish community; and Shirlee Draper, who was born and raised within a polygamous sect known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

“The goal was to explore the ways in which we report on marginalized religious communities, particularly those that are often referred to as ‘cults,’” said Ventre, who hosted the award-winning 2020 podcast ”Unfinished: Short Creek,” about the fundamentalist Mormon community where Draper grew up on the Utah-Arizona border.

"I wanted to unpack the responsibilities we have both to our audience and to our sources,” the moderator added, “and examine the ways in which our reporting affects the communities we report on long after we publish.”

“Show, don’t tell” is a journalistic adage.

This session reinforced the importance of describing a specific pattern of abusive or manipulative behavior rather than resorting to more generalized terms like “cult” or “brainwashed.” This has, of course, been a topic of frequent discussion here at GetReligion for two decades. Here’s a few recent items to check out, but there are many more:

* “Define ‘cult’ -- give three examples.”

* “Updates in the journalism style bible: Appropriate 'cult' advice and other tweaks.”

* “Entering a religion-beat minefield: What is the proper definition of the word 'cult'?

All of this is not to say sources can’t describe their own experience as having escaped from a cult. Nor do journalists have to be completely relativist: They have a responsibility, to the extent possible, to evaluate and assess people’s — and leaders’ — accounts. Often, groups do have systemic ways of enabling abusers and abusive behavior, and journalists can identify that where they can verify it.

But news organizations need to be careful.


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

Keep the Bible in one hand, a newspaper in the other: Tips for stressed-out preachers

Keep the Bible in one hand, a newspaper in the other: Tips for stressed-out preachers

“You preach with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other.”

That’s what Bishop Timothy Clarke, an Ohio senior pastor, said in a recent front-page feature by Danae King, the Columbus Dispatch’s religion writer.

It’s an idea that originated with the late Karl Barth, one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century. Barth put it this way: “Take your Bible and take your newspaper, and read both. But interpret newspapers from your Bible.”

Barth’s concept was a prominent theme of a Facebook Live panel discussion organized this week by the Siburt Institute for Church Ministry at Abilene Christian University in Texas.

“We used to think the hard part was interpreting the Bible, but now we've decided the hard part is interpreting the newspaper,” quipped Randy Harris, one of the co-hosts, along with Carson Reed, of the discussion on “Light, Truth and Fake News.”

The panel — on which I was honored to speak — aimed to help stressed-out ministers make sense of the news in a time of polarization and conspiracy theories.

“Read broadly. Value truth,” urged Cheryl Mann Bacon, a Christian Chronicle correspondent and retired journalism chair at Abilene Christian. “Be compassionate when you share it, but be courageous when you share it.”

Co-host Harris is a longtime preacher and spiritual director who works with the Siburt Institute.

He advised: “Pay attention to local news. We can get caught up with what's happening in Washington, but there's stuff that's happening in your town that needs a response. The second thing is, to ministers: You've made a commitment to read the news through a certain lens, and that's the lens of a crucified and risen Messiah.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Hotter than inauguration! Christian financial guru Dave Ramsey burns religion-beat pro

Hotter than inauguration! Christian financial guru Dave Ramsey burns religion-beat pro

Joe Biden’s inauguration as America’s 46th president produced a ton of religion news. We’ll get to all that in a moment.

First, though, the most jaw-dropping Godbeat story of the week comes not from the Beltway but from the Bible Belt, courtesy of Religion News Service national writer (and gainfully employed) Bob Smietana.

Last Friday, RNS published Smietana’s 4,150-word investigative piece on the “cultlike environment” inside Christian financial guru Dave Ramsey’s $42 million headquarters in Franklin, Tenn., south of Nashville. That piece followed a December story by Smietana on Ramsey’s for-profit enterprise defying COVID-19 precautions such as wearing masks.

Ramsey Solutions didn’t take kindly to Smietana’s latest questions, responding with a sarcastic email that said, “Who would have guessed that an unemployed guy, oh I am sorry, a ‘freelance reporter’ would be the one to show us how horrible we are so we can change and to let the world know of our evil intent, secrets, and complete disregard for decency…..but YOU did it, you with all your top notch investigative skills have been able to weave together a series of half-truths to expose our evil ways. You are truly amazing.”

It’s unclear why Ramsey Solutions thinks one of the nation’s top religion correspondents is unemployed. But the statement proceeded to dox Smietana, sharing his email address, phone number and hometown with pastors, business leaders and the entire Ramsey team.

In a Religion Unplugged online panel discussion, Smietana talked about his coverage of Ramsey and the company’s response to him.

Also offering their insight were Cheryl Mann Bacon, retired journalism chair at Abilene Christian University; Meagan Clark, managing editor of Religion Unplugged; Holly Meyer, religion writer for The Tennessean; and Warren Cole Smith, president of Ministry Watch.

“If I were teaching PR Principles this semester, we would start with that as an example of how to never, ever, ever do public relations,” Bacon said of the email. “It just violated all of the basic principles of ethical public relations.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy