, , , , , , , , , , ,

Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case could be a huge religion-beat sleeper story

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case could be a huge religion-beat sleeper story

The agenda for the U.S. Supreme Court term that began this month has zero cases involving the two religion clauses of the First Amendment.

That’s quite the change after the important religion rulings the past two years, not to mention religious conservatives’ and liberals’ agitation after the 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe , which had legalized abortion nationwide.

So religion-watchers may not be aware that the court soon takes up two potentially tectonic cases involving — would you believe it — small businesses that fish for herring off the New England coast and say they shouldn’t have to pay their federal monitors. The cases are Loper Bright v. Raimondo (docket # 22-451), newly combined Oct. 13 with Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce (docket #22-1219). Oral arguments could come as soon as January.

This gets into the weeds of administrative law, an area that normally does not set pulses pounding but here involves the hot political dispute over powers exercised by federal agencies. Conservatives assert that agencies have long been interpreting and enforcing laws in ways that Congress never intended or has never defined, thus usurping legislative prerogatives and violating the Constitution’s “separation of powers.”

Background: The two fishing companies seek relief by overturning the Court’s highly influential 1984 precedent in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This unanimous decision granted wide deference to federal agencies in “reasonable” interpretations, applications and enforcement of ambiguous laws passed by Congress.

The list of Loper briefs posted by the invaluable SCOTUSBlog.com shows the variety of interests that include 48 of the 50 states lined up on the two sides and the Republican U.S. House of Representatives, along with e.g. the AFL-CIO, American Cancer Society, Environmental Defense Fund, Gun Owners of America and e-cigarette industry.

You are waiting for the religion-beat angle?


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

Plug-In: The crucial role of religion in the dangerous Israel-Hamas war

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: The crucial role of religion in the dangerous Israel-Hamas war

Did you miss me? I traveled to Cuba on a reporting trip. Given my limited internet access while away, Plug-in took last week off.

That means this is our first edition since the Israel-Hamas war started.

What an overwhelming story with countless religious angles. But I’ll do my best to catch you — and me — up.

The latest: a blast on the campus of the historic St. Porphyrius Greek Orthodox Church in Gaza City, where scores of Palestinian families had been sheltering from Israeli air strikes. The omnipresent Clemente Lisi has the details.

This is our weekly roundup of the top headlines and best reads in the world of faith. We start, of course, with the deadly conflict in the Middle East.

What To Know: The Big Story

‘Blood libel’: “The heated discourse about the deadly rocket explosion near Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in the southern Gaza City neighborhood of Zeitoun on Tuesday is rooted in the centuries-old religious hatred underlying the current war in Gaza.”

That’s the lede from Gil Zohar, reporting from Jerusalem for ReligionUnplugged.

The blast occurred at Gaza’s only Christian hospital, reported Christianity Today’s Morgan Lee.

The why: Hamas is selling its assault on Israel as a holy war, as Religion News Service’s Michelle Chabin and Yonat Shimron detail:

When Hamas, the Islamic Palestinian terrorist group, stormed into southern Israel on Oct. 7, took over military bases, massacred more than 1,300 Israelis — most of them civilians — and kidnapped 150, it dubbed its military operation the “Al-Aqsa Deluge.”  


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

Upon Friar Review -- Looking for spiritual questions in the wilds of pop culture

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Upon Friar Review -- Looking for spiritual questions in the wilds of pop culture

During the 1990s, legions of kids could quote chapter and verse from the "X-Files" adventures of FBI special agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully.

Scully was the skeptic who put her faith in science, while Mulder plunged head-first into the supernatural. But in one case, Scully experienced mysterious visions that helped her save a life. Stunned, she returned to church. Confessing to a priest, she asked why she witnessed a miracle, but her partner did not.

Maybe, the priest said, God was only speaking to her. "With the Lord, anything is possible. Perhaps you saw these things because you needed to. … Why does that surprise you?"

Scully answered: "Mostly it just makes me afraid. … Afraid that God is speaking, but that no one is listening."

Father Casey Cole grew up in that era. While he wasn't an "X-Files" fan, many of his friends were, hooked by the show's mantra, "The truth is out there." Thus, this confession scene has become one of many video clips he uses as chaplain at three schools in Macon, Georgia.

When exploring pop culture, the young Franciscan friar is looking for good questions -- the kinds of questions he thinks the church needs to hear.

That's easier with some forms of entertainment than others. It's possible for savvy pastors, youth leaders and teachers to respond to high-quality movies and television programs, especially those that address spiritual issues, said Cole, describing the approach used in the "Upon Friar Review" videos he makes with Father Patrick Tuttle of Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Macon.

Then there are "times when Father Patrick closes his eyes and says, 'This is awful.' … There are times when I want to say, 'This is the worst thing ever.' But when we're at our best, we can say, 'Let's take a step back and let's analyze this. What question is being asked here? …

"These things ask important questions, and maybe questions the church seems unwilling or unable to answer. Well, we need to be the ones t


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

Trying to count religious believers in United States? Good luck with that ...

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Trying to count religious believers in United States? Good luck with that ...

QUESTION:

How many members do major U.S. religious groups have?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Well, that’s impossible to say with any accuracy since there’s no one agreed-upon statistical source and some groups do not collect or issue good numbers.

We do know two things for sure about the U.S. (1) It remains predominantly Christian despite a recent decline, and (2) There’s been notable growth in non-Christian religions through immigration and conversion.

Recently, some noteworthy new numbers about U.S. Christianity became available. We’ll review those below, but let’s begin with complexities regarding the major non-Christian faith groups.

Judaism is traditionally second in population size to Christianity. The American Jewish Population Project at Brandeis University reports there are 7,631,000 American Jews, children included, among which 4,873,000 are adults and “Jewish by religion” as opposed to a secular ethnic identity. That’s similar to the 7,387,992 ethnic total reported by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise.

A major report by the Pew Research Center, a go-to-source for surveys on American religion, said that as of 2020 there were “approximately” 5.8 million Jewish adults, of whom 4.2 million were “Jews by religion.” Then we can consult these two standard sources:

* The 3rd edition of the “World Christian Encyclopedia” (Edinburgh University Press), compiled by a study center at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, contains extensive information on all religions in all nations, not just Christianity and not just the United States. It counts 5.6 million Jews of all categories.

* The U.S. Religion Census, compiled once each decade by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, yielded 2020 data on 372 religious bodies posted here. With Jews, the Census primarily used groups’ own reports given to the Synagogue Studies Institute.


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

Podcast: Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix

When journalism historians write about the Hamas terror raid on Israel, and the Gaza war that followed, they will need to parse the early headlines about the explosion in the parking lot next to the Ahli Arab Hospital.

I am assuming that something called “journalism” will survive the rise of AI and the fall of an advertising-based, broad audience model of the press. I am an old guy with old dreams. Thus, we dug into this subject during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

What did the mainstream press report? Click here for a “conservative” collection of tweets, headlines and URLs to basic reports from the likes of BBC, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, etc. At this point in time, it’s “conservative” to care about old-liberal standards of journalism ethics.

What matters the most, of course is the New York Times headline that guided the digital rockets, so to speak, fired by elite journalists around the world.

Let’s work through that headline: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.”

My first question, of many (and I tweeted this one out): “In this tech age, could some satellite imagery tell us the origin of the rocket?”

Whoever wrote that Times headline, or the editor supervising that process, had to know that someone — Elon Musk even — was going to share images and data from space or nearby radar, drones, smartphones, etc., that showed where the rocket was launched and in which direction it was headed.

That information would, of course, come from the United States (one way or the other) or Israel. Thus, the basic question an editor had to ask: Do we produce a banner headline based on information from Hamas, alone? The editor or editors answered, “YES.” The rest is history.

Next question: What part of that headline is accurate, in terms of the evidence now? Israeli attack? No. Was the hospital hit? No. It was a parking lot full of refugees. Did “hundreds” — 500 in one reference — die? It appears the number was much lower than that. Did anyone “strike” or target the hospital? No. It appears that an Islamist rocket malfunctioned, on its way to Israel, and fell in Gaza.

We are left with, “Palestinians say.” Sorry about that.


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

Pope Francis enforces secrecy even while saying that he hopes for 'synodality'

, , , , , , , , , ,
Pope Francis enforces secrecy even while saying that he hopes for 'synodality'

There’s no better indicator of how fraught things have become in the upper echelons of the Catholic Church than Pope Francis’s surprising, last-minute decision to clamp strict secrecy upon his all-important Synod of Bishops. This Vatican assembly, very likely the major event of his reign, is running through October 29 with a second, concluding session a year from now.

GetReligion editor Terry “tmatt” Mattingly surveyed the pope’s decision last week, but to repeat the basics: Regulations governing the synod, reinforced in Francis’s opening address, direct participants to reveal absolutely nothing about the discussions, including even what they themselves have to say, not just now but forever after (though the Vatican says violators are not under threat of excommunication).

Paradoxically, Francis’s purpose for this synod was to foster openness, flexibility and “synodality,” a vague buzzword for broader participation of all Catholics in their church’s life and governance! His Kremlin-esque blackout breaks from prior synod policy under five popes — including Francis himself.

We’ll see how things play out, but as of this writing the media have been offered only official briefings that are far more anodyne than usual.

The problem with secrecy rules is that they usually work imperfectly or not at all.

A gag order upon actual participants hands the power of information to outsiders’ interest groups, speculations, suspicions and gossip that inevitably influence news coverage and historical interpretation. For instance, note this paywalled New York Times account — “Vatican Conference Draws All Stripes to Rome, Welcome or Not” — of the “Catholic menagerie" assembled in Rome outside the secret Synod.


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

Relevant numbers, right now: Culture wars are alive and well on college campuses

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Relevant numbers, right now: Culture wars are alive and well on college campuses

I write a lot about religion and politics.

That’s led to some speaking engagements about my research to a wide variety of groups. I wish I could list all the audiences I have spoken to but it’s really run the gamut. I’ve given talks to some of the most liberal Protestants in the United States, but also to Southern Baptist church planters. I’ve spoken to non-religious groups in a variety of contexts including major corporations and members of Congress.

One thing that I try to do when I’m asked to give a talk is show up before my scheduled engagement and get a sense of the room. I want to see what type of people are gathered, if they have any reading materials handed out to participants and eavesdrop a little on conversations happening among attendees. I need to figure out the political and theological viewpoints of folks before I plow through my material — which can sometimes cause friction.

I mean, I talk about religion and politics. It may not go over well with every attendee in every room.

I would like to think that we all do things like that in our own lives when we are confronted with a new environment. We need to get a lay of the land before we strategize about how we fit in.

That’s certainly the case with the college experience. I think most students want to desperately fit in (it’s something we all do), and one way to make that easier is to make sure your politics aligns with the politics of your local environment.

That’s really the point of this post — trying to understand the political climate of college campuses right now and how individuals fit in to those larger environments. I am using the terrific dataset from The FIRE that I’ve been exploring in several posts this month. Like prior sets of analysis, I restricted my sample to just 18-25 year old folks who are attending a college or university in the United States.

Let’s start with a basic, yet important, question: what is the political partisanship of young folks based on their religious affiliation?

Pretty clearly there are two groups with a strong contingent of Republicans.


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

Why editors in legacy newsrooms struggle with calling members of Hamas 'terrorists'

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Why editors in legacy newsrooms struggle with calling members of Hamas 'terrorists'

It’s been a little more than a week since Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israeli civilians, killing more than 1,300 people. Many of those killed were children, some even babies, on the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.

Since then, the situation in that part of the world has become a full-blown war. Israel has responded by attacking Gaza, with Hamas leaders (and even hostages) mixed among civilians who, in some cases, have been prevented from evacuating by Hamas.

Palestinians now face a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.

Not surprisingly, many in the elite media have gotten — and continue to get — this story wrong. For too many years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was treated like a political story. It was a story about land. It was about colonization. It was about human rights.

It may be about all those things, depending on whom you ask, but it’s also a story about about Jews. It’s about Muslims. It’s about sacred sites in the Holy Lands.

In other words, it’s a religion story.

As someone who covered the 9/11 attacks and the years that followed, I am well versed and experienced when it comes to news about terrorism. I know what terrorism looks like when I see it. So do most reporters and editors.

However, not everyone seems to have open eyes these days.

Let’s start with the BBC, one of the biggest and most influential news organizations in the world. The British state broadcaster came under pressure last week when its leaders refused to call Hamas terrorists. In an explanation posted to the BBC website on Oct. 11, John Simpson, who serves as World Affairs editor, defended the decision this way:

Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people — they're all asking why the BBC doesn't say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.

The answer goes right back to the BBC's founding principles.


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

Clouds of images, blood and chaos, as old-school news chases the digital Hamas blitz

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Clouds of images, blood and chaos, as old-school news chases the digital Hamas blitz

The following is not a normal GetReligion post.

It is not a critique of the powerful religion ghost that is haunting the coverage of the crisis in Israel and Gaza in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attacks. Julia Duin has already written that post: “Important religion-news angles are everywhere, as Hamas triggers war with Israel.”

No, this post is about the lens through which people in Israel were forced to view the hellish opening hours of that crisis, a digital lens so clouded by blood and the fog of war that the people caught in the middle of the chaos could SEE pieces of what was going on, but had no NEWS they could trust.

In other words, this post is about what happens when a major event in the real world is seen through social-media ALONE. Also, a hat tip to former GetReligion colleague Ira Rifkin for sending me this stunning Haaretz essay — it’s more like a scream of pain — by Yonatan Englender. Let’s start with the long, angry double-decker headline:

How Telegram and Twitter beat TV to cover the Hamas-Israel war as it happened

An hour after Israelis understood they were under attack, it was clear the news knew nothing. On TV, they reported sirens in central Israel and reports of Hamas militants crossing from Gaza. Reports? On social media I already saw them riding around in Jeeps

In a way, this Haartz essay is a depressing update on my recent piece for Religion & Liberty: “The Evolving Religion of Journalism,” which focused on how digital technology is changing both the content of our news, the business model that produces it and, of course, the audience for all of that.

But I was writing about “normal” life, as in ordinary chatter about politics, politics, politics and the other related subjects that matter to most journalists. Early in the piece, I wrote:

Politicians, parents, pastors, and plenty of other people are struggling to understand what is happening in their lives while turning to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Parler, BitChute, Gab, Gettr, Rumble, Telegram, and Truth Social. And there are darker corners of this world, such as 4chan and the “Dark Web.” And never forget this crucial journalism reality: Opinion writing is cheap, while hard-news content is expensive.

Oh, and in a war zone, hard-news content is dangerous.


Please respect our Commenting Policy