Americans United

200-plus North American Muslim authorities join the sexuality culture wars

200-plus North American Muslim authorities join the sexuality culture wars

North America’s Christian and Jewish leaders have long been active, politically and legally, in taking differing sides on same-sex and transgender issues. Authorities in Islam are comparatively disengaged. That changes in dramatic fashion with a new declaration of alarm from a broad group of 59 authorities, quickly joined by 150 further endorsers from Muslim organizations and local mosques.

Journalists will want to ponder the May 23 “Navigating Differences” statement, which is publicized on Muslim websites and social media, though The Guy has seen no “mainstream media” coverage. Yet?

The ad hoc grouping upholds the “immutable” teaching on sexuality defined by the Quran and Hadith sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, then “unanimously agreed upon” in Islamic jurisprudence over the succeeding 14 centuries.

The newer news is that these scholars also assert that believers have been unfairly put on the defensive. The signers acknowledge that North American law and culture have moved away from traditional beliefs on marriage, sexual relations and gender identity, and affirm that citizens of a democracy who disagree with Islam have every right “to live in peace and free from abuse.”

However, they say, religious dissenters face “unwarranted accusations of bigotry” and, more troubling, “an increasing push to promote LGBTQ+ beliefs among children through legislation and regulations, disregarding parental consent” and suppressing Muslims’ “conscientious objection.” This is said to “subvert” parents, worsen “intolerance” in society and violate citizens’ religious freedom.

“We call on policymakers to protect our constitutional right to practice our religious beliefs freely, without fear of harassment, and to oppose any legislation seeking to stifle the religious freedoms of faith communities.”

These thinkers also urge public figures who are Muslims to “uphold the sanctity of our faith” and shun “erroneous pronouncements” on “sexual and gender ethics that contravene well-established Islamic teachings” and spurn or misrepresent “the will of God.” They “categorically reject” as indefensible any efforts to reinterpret tenets that are “not subject to revision.”

Journalists need to assess the importance of the declaration, which agrees with other religious conservatives.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

This time, will U.S. Supreme Court finally clarify rights of same-sex marriage dissenters?

This time, will U.S. Supreme Court finally clarify rights of same-sex marriage dissenters?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021-2022 term produced biggies on abortion, religious freedom and the separation of church and state. The term that opens October 3 will bring another blockbuster — if the high court finally settles the unending clashes over LGBTQ+ rights versus religious rights.

Newsroom professionals will want to watch for the date set for the oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis (Docket #21-476).

In this six-year dispute, graphic designer Lorie Smith is suing Colorado officials over the state’s anti-discrimination law, seeking to win the right to refuse requests to design websites that celebrate same-sex marriages, which she opposes, based on the teachings of her faith. She does not reject other work requests from LGBQ+ customers.

As currently framed, the case involves Smith’s freedom of speech rather than the First Amendment Constitutional right to “free exercise” of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped the religious rights problem in 2018 (click here for tmatt commentary) when it overturned Colorado’s prosecution of wedding cake baker Jack Phillips (who is still enmeshed in a similar case per this from the firm that also represents Smith). Nor did the high court rule on religious freedom aspects when it legalized same-sex marriage in the 2015 Obergefell decision.

Last month, the Biden Administration entered 303 Creative (.pdf here) on the side of Colorado and LGBTQ+ interest groups. Essentially, the Department of Justice argues that as enforced in Colorado or elsewhere, “traditional public accommodations laws ... burden no more speech than necessary to further substantial government interests — indeed, compelling interests of the highest order.”

Smith has support from 16 Republican-led state governments and 58 members of Congress, while 21 Democratic states and 137 Congress members take the opposite stance alongside e.g. the American Bar Association.

The issue will face the U.S. Senate after the November elections as Democrats try to “codify” Obergefell into federal law but for passage may need to accept a Republican religious-freedom amendment. The Equality Act, which won unanimous support from House Democrats but is stalled in the Senate, would explicitly ban reliance on federal religious-freedom law in discrimination cases, include crucial laws passed by a broad left-right coalition during the Bill Clinton administration.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Coach Joe Kennedy goes to the Supreme Court and the media coverage gets a B+

Coach Joe Kennedy goes to the Supreme Court and the media coverage gets a B+

God and football. Angry school officials and Satanists. That’s a combo that gets a lot of readers.

In the fall of 2015, soon after I moved to Seattle, a conflict arose across Puget Sound about a football coach who prayed on the 50-yard line after games and a school district that forbade him to do so. Here’s what I wrote back then about the coverage.

On Monday, Coach Joe Kennedy’s case went before the U.S. Supreme Court, the first time in decades that a school-prayer case has been heard by the justices. This time I was covering it for Newsweek, starting at 7 a.m. my time, which is when the debate went live on the East Coast.

Usually, the justices race through their hearings in only one hour. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District took nearly two. (You can listen to these debates on a live audio feed.)

You heard justices ask about Young Life clubs. They pondered the significance of whether a teacher who goes to an Ash Wednesday service and arrives at school with a smudge on her forehead is doing anything illegal. Would a coach have been disciplined by the school district if he planted a Ukrainian flag on the 50-yard line instead of praying?

In short, it was fascinating, and I thought most of the stories on the hearing were quite good with a few bad apples. Many of the headlines said the majority-conservative court “appeared sympathetic” to the coach, which I disagree with. The justices appeared more confused by the conflicting narratives. As Justice Stephen Breyer plaintively noted at one point: "One of my problems in this case, is that the parties seem to have different views of the facts."

The Supreme Court had turned down the case a few years ago because the facts weren’t clear and apparently, they still weren’t as of Monday. For instance, the defense said that students felt coerced into joining the coach in his prayers, and they included an amicus brief from one unnamed former player who said he felt coerced. Yet, when the Seattle Times pigeonholed three local football players about the issue back in 2015, none of them said they felt forced to go along.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What role will religion play in current U.S. Supreme Court nomination intrigue?

What role will religion play in current U.S. Supreme Court nomination intrigue?

When President Biden soon chooses a successor to Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, journalists will need to keep in mind highly contentious religious issues, not just on matters like abortion but over how much to limit First Amendment claims of religious freedom, as in same-sex disputes, and where to draw lines on church-state separation.

Liberal, secularist and separationist voices are quick out of the gate with warnings to Biden about the Court's 6-3 conservative majority. Americans United for Separation of Church and State wants a new justice who'll be "a bulwark against the court's ultra-conservative majority, who seem set on redefining religious freedom as a sword to harm others instead of a shield to protect all of us." This lobby asserts that "our democracy depends on it."

A must-read from the cry-of-alarm forces is the analysis of numerous recent Supreme Court religion rulings from Ian Millhiser — Vox.com's specialist covering law and "the decline of liberal democracy." He asserts that a religion "revolution" is the "highest priority" of the Court's six Republican appointees, who are "rapidly changing the rules of the game to benefit" religious interests.

However, Kelsey Dallas at Salt Lake City's Deseret News tabulates that Breyer, in tandem with fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, voted with conservative justices in nine out of the 13 Court's decisions from 2006 to 2020 that backed religious-freedom claims.

The most illustrative example of the Jewish justice's thinking came in 2005 with two apparently contradictory rulings about Ten Commandments displays on public property. Beyer formed a 5-4 majority to permit the display on the Texas state Capitol grounds (Van Orden v. Perry) but then switched to create a 5-4 majority that outlawed displays in two Kentucky courtrooms (McCready County v. A.C.L.U.)

How come? Breyer advocated the "fullest possible" religious liberty and tolerance to avoid societal conflict.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Don't neglect the Supreme Court's potentially weighty case on religious schools funding

Don't neglect the Supreme Court's potentially weighty case on religious schools funding

Media eyes are trained on the U.S. Supreme Court's December 1 argument on Mississippi's abortion restrictions, preceded by a fast-tracked November 1 hearing about the stricter law in Texas. But don't neglect the Court's December 8 hearing and subsequent decision on tax funding of religious schools in the potentially weighty Carson v. Makin case (docket #20-1088).

University of Baltimore law Professor Kimberly Wehle certainly wants us to pay heed, warning October 14 via TheAtlantic.com that this is a "sleeper" appeal that "threatens the separation of church and state." In her view, the high court faces not just the perennial problem of public funding for religious campuses. She believes the justices could decide "religious freedom supersedes the public good" by aiding conservative Christian schools that, based on centuries of doctrine, discriminate against non-Christian and LGBTQ students and teachers.

Journalistic backgrounding: Thinly-populated Maine provides an unusual context for this story because the majority of its 260 school districts do not operate full K-12 systems and instead pay tuition for public or private schools that families choose for upper grades. Religiously-affiliated schools are included, but not if Maine deems them "sectarian."

Notably, the parents' plea for tuition is backed by major institutions of the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and other evangelical Protestants, the Church of God in Christ (the nation's largest African-American denomination), Latter-day Saints (formerly called "Mormons") and Orthodox Judaism, alongside the 63-campus Council of Islamic Schools. A reporter's question: Has such a religious coalition ever formed in any prior Supreme Court case?

Of further interest, the case engages a major religious-liberty theorist, Michael W. McConnell, director of Stanford University's Constitutional Law Center and former federal judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. He wrote that circuit's 2008 opinion in Colorado Christian University v Weaver (.pdf here), which tossed out a law that barred "pervasively sectarian" colleges from a state scholarship program.

In Carson, McConnell filed a personal brief September 8 that hands the Supreme Court a history lesson (.pdf here) on religious freedom as conceived when the Constitution's First Amendment was framed. He has explored this ground since a significant Harvard Law Review article in 1989.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Notable omission among liberal religious voices in phase 2 of Supreme Court abortion case

Notable omission among liberal religious voices in phase 2 of Supreme Court abortion case

The media are prepping for the U.S. Supreme Court's December 1 hearing on the strict Mississippi abortion law and the subsequent ruling.

In a prior Guy Memo on religious "friend of the court" briefs filed on the pro-life side, I promised a second rundown when pro-abortion-rights activists weighed in with their views. Now that second wave of religious arguments has landed — with a notable omission in those ranks that journalists will want to pursue.

To explain, we'll need some religion-beat history on this issue.

In 1967, two years before NARAL Pro-Choice America was founded, the 1,400-member Clergy Consultation Service formed to help women obtain abortions and fight legal barriers. After the high court legalized U.S. abortions in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision currently at issue, the related Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights was founded to campaign for moral acceptance. (In 1994 it dropped the A-word and was renamed the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice or RCRC).

Founders included a significant chunk of "mainline" and liberal Protestantism, including the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Mission Agency, United Church of Christ and several independent Protestant caucuses. The United Methodists' General Board of Church and Society hosted the founding, and the Methodist women's division also joined, but both later backed away. The Coalition also included major non-Orthodox Jewish organizations and the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA).

In the new Court filings, abortion-rights law gets continued support from RCRC, UUA and Jewish organizations. But no Protestant denomination that favors abortion choice has joined to support Roe. Reporters should find out why they sidestepped this historic showdown. For example, have complex schism talks led to silence on the United Methodist left, as opposed to earlier debates (see YouTube video at the top of this post)?

The silence from "mainline" churches deprives the high court of in-depth moral thinking from pro-choice Christians that answers conservatives on issues that make abortion unusually difficult for public policy, among them: Does a genetically unique and developing human embryo or fetus have value? Why, or why not?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Anatomy of a scandal: What's next for journalists working on the Ravi Zacharias fallout?

Anatomy of a scandal: What's next for journalists working on the Ravi Zacharias fallout?

File this memo under “be careful what you wish for.”

Those planning last May's funeral for evangelical star Ravi Zacharias were pleased to obtain live-streamed tributes from celebrities like Vice President Mike Pence and athlete Tim Tebow. Those outside the oft-disdained evangelical subculture may not comprehend the esteem Zacharias won by turning "apologetics" (defense of the Christian faith) from defensive bombast to intelligent and personable persuasion through books, countless personal appearances worldwide and the global team of some 100 speakers he built.

Presidential Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany teared up as she told CBN News that Zacharias equipped multitudes so "you didn’t have to check your brain at the door when you became a Christian." She concluded, "Rest assured, his legacy will always be here and he will continue to change lives."

That encapsulates the drama of this harder-they-fall saga.

All the posthumous praise for Zacharias shocked one onlooker, a massage therapist who says he groped her, masturbated in her presence and asked her for sexualized photos. She searched his name online, contacted Steve Baughman of the hyper-hostile RaviWatch.com and then spoke with Daniel Silliman, news editor of the evangelical magazine Christianity Today.

Silliman's resulting investigation found three victimized massage therapists and provoked fury among some staffers and beyond, eventually forcing Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) to drop its kid-gloves response and commission a totally independent investigation by a major Atlanta law firm, Miller & Martin.

Media analysts should understand that it takes far more guts for an evangelical magazine that survives on donors and advertisers to expose such situations than a metropolitan newspaper. Upshot: Silliman and colleagues can take satisfaction in distinguished service to the Christian constituency — which echoes those utterly candid authors of the Bible. [Disclosure: The Guy was this magazine's news editor early in his career.]

As agreed, RZIM released the attorneys' full findings on Feb. 9 (click here for .pdf) and they were mind-numbing. Christianity Today's lede had this socko summation:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Yearenders-palooza: What do a swarm of religion websites want you to read about 2020 news?

Yearenders-palooza: What do a swarm of religion websites want you to read about 2020 news?

Once upon a time, it was normal for news organizations to produce lists of the Top 10 stories of the year, usually with the emphasis on their city, region or nation. Others focused on the concerns of their readers or the unique editorial viewpoint of the publication. Some focused on the whole world or a specific kind of news in the world.

That was then. This year, I can’t even find a hard-news Top 10 list at The Associated Press mega-promotional page for “The Year in Review.” If I missed that list somewhere, please let me know.

Here at GetReligion, we have published several items looking back and also looking forward:

* Of course the pandemic was top 2020 religion-news story: But which COVID-19 story?

* So what went wrong in #2020, other than that whole coronavirus pandemic thing?

* Final #2020 podcast: The year when religion news went viral, and that was a bad thing

* New year and many old issues: Catholic storylines journalists need to keep an eye on in 2021

* Pondering 'Things to Come,' with help from savvy thumbsuckers and backgrounders

We will have a collection of Bobby Ross, Jr., items on 2020 — from several different angles — this coming Monday.

What happened to the old Top 10 list format?

It got lost, of course, in the need to point niche readers toward specific links of topical news, features and commentaries, hoping that they will click, click, click there way through a specific website’s offerings.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. After all, I just hit readers with a blitz of #2020 GetReligion URLs.

Now, let me point readers toward lots of other features of this kind elsewhere, all with specialty religion-news hooks. If I missed some good ones, please let me know in our comments pages.

First, there is “Our best religion stories from a terrible year” at Religion News Service. Summary:

It’s no news that 2020 will go down as one of the worst years in recent memory. But the triple-whammy of pandemic, economic crisis and demonstrations for racial justice that left many Americans beleaguered and angry also yielded some inspiring and profound stories of faith and spiritual connection. Here are 11 stories by our staff and frequent contributors that captured moments of resilience and perseverance, and even a few moments of celebration.

Looking ahead, there is this: “RNS reporters on the big stories they expect to cover in 2021.” As a sample, here is the item from veteran religion-news scribe Bob Smietana:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Where are reporters supposed to turn for a balanced list of 2020 religious pundits?

Where are reporters supposed to turn for a balanced list of 2020 religious pundits?

In a time of intense anxiety across America, an influential clergyman brands a president he opposes for re-election as “essentially” the same as a foreign “dictator,” and even calls him the “Fuhrer.”

When? Who? Though opponents of Donald Trump have applied an alternative N-word— “Nazi” — during the equally tense 2020 campaign, The Guy is talking about some harsh words aimed at Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was seeking his controversial third term.

The president’s accuser was the Rev. Charles Clayton Morrison, who served 39 years as editor of the “mainline” Protestant Christian Century magazine, who despised Roosevelt’s military preparedness and the draft. As an anti-war socialist, he thought Adolph Hitler’s conquests, though displeasing, could create “a united Europe governed from the German center, with a unified planned economy” that would supplant “perverted” capitalist influences.

Journalists of that era would have been well advised to also seek out contrasting religious views from a trio of eminent Roosevelt friends in the New York City clergy establishment, Protestant Professor Reinhold Niebuhr at Union Theological Seminary, Jewish Reform Rabbi Stephen Wise and the recently appointed Catholic Archbishop Francis Spellman. Reporters always need to know who to call for diverse points of view.

The Guy’s musings about matters 80 years ago are provoked by a list of 20 campaign sources suggested to the media by the Religion News Association’s handy ReligionLink website.

Journalists can reflect on how times have changed. A 2020 listing can offer no divines with the public stature of those 1940 leaders. ReligionLink cites no thinkers from religious periodicals like the Century, or Christianity Toda, or the Catholic America, Commonweal,or conservative EWTN media cluster, or the Jewish upstarts at www.tabletmag.com.

For some reason, the list bypasses religion analysts at the Washington think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Ethics & Public Policy Center, Brookings Institution or Center for American Progress. With legal conflicts raging, the listing proposes calls to Rachel Laser at Americans United for Separation of Church and State but no attorney backing contrary religious liberty claims from the Becket Fund or the Alliance Defending Freedom — groups active in arguing cases at the U.S. Supreme Court.

On a list heavy with academics, it’s surprising not to see John C. Green of the University of Akron, the poli sci patriarch on the religion factor since the 1980s, or any specialist on the vast Southern Baptist Convention and white southern evangelicalism.


Please respect our Commenting Policy