California

, , , , , , , , , ,

Yo, San Diego Union-Tribune editors: Is it still OK to ask religious leaders hard questions?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Yo, San Diego Union-Tribune editors: Is it still OK to ask religious leaders hard questions?

Is it good for religion-beat journalists to ask questions that they already know specific religious leaders will not want to answer?

I would say, “Yes.” I’ve been saying that my entire journalism career.

I believe that it is appropriate to ask conservative religious leaders questions that they don’t want to answer. I also think it’s appropriate to ask liberal religious leaders questions that they don’t want to answer.

Oh, and I think it’s especially important for journalists to ask “establishment” religious leaders questions that they don’t want to answer. In my experience, the “establishment” folks are usually ecclesiastical bureaucrats who have financial reasons to avoid hard questions, because they need to keep cashing checks from people on both sides of lingering doctrinal disputes. Thus, they say, “Peace, peace!”

This brings me to a San Diego Union-Tribune article with this headline: “San Diego Nazarene pastor fired for same-sex marriage stance.” GetReligion readers will not be surprised to learn that this is a totally one-sided story, containing zero heretical small-o orthodox voices that are allowed to defend the denomination’s affirmation of two millennia of Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality.

Did the newspaper even bother to contact the heretics? I don’t know.

Did the newspaper contact mainstream Nazarene leaders? Did they decline to answer questions that they don’t want to answer, (a) because they don’t trust the newspaper or (b) they really want this issue to go away, as if there was a chance in hades that this could happen in the California media climate?

We will come back to this news story, even though there is nothing unusual about it. Like I said, there is no evidence that small-o orthodox Nazarene leaders were asked hard questions (Will you ask Nazarene college faculty members to vote on whether they support church teachings?), if they were contacted at all. And there is no evidence that progressive Nazarene leaders were asked hard questions (Who owns your campus?), since the goal of the story appears to have been to back their cause.

Before we return to the Union-Tribune press release, let’s remember some words of wisdom from the Baptist left, care of Mercer University ethicist David Gushee, who was once a small-o orthodox voice who then converted to mainline American doctrine:


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

Catholic archbishop offers some candid thoughts to a conservative Lutheran crowd

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Catholic archbishop offers some candid thoughts to a conservative Lutheran crowd

Serious fasting is hard, even for a Catholic archbishop, especially when the aroma of spaghetti sauce is wafting through a church during an Italian community dinner.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone learned that lesson during California's bitter battles over the meaning of "marriage," "family" and other common terms that had become controversial. But he had promised to join in 100 days of prayer, and 40 days of fasting, as part of an ecumenical coalition's efforts to defend centuries of teachings on sexuality.

It was evangelical Protestants who proposed the fast, even though traditional Catholics have practiced that discipline for centuries.

"They meant serious fasting — like not eating, or eating very little, just one meal a day. So, not just giving up dessert, you know?", said Cordileone, during this summer's "Issues, Etc." conference at Concordia University in Chicago, sponsored by Lutheran Public Radio. (This independent online network also produces my GetReligion.org podcast.)

The inside joke about Catholics "giving up dessert" hit home, even though he was speaking to Missouri Synod Lutherans.

There was a time when Lutherans would not have invited a Catholic archbishop to this kind of event, said Cordileone. There was a time when it was rare for Catholics to cooperate with evangelicals and other believers seeking common ground on moral and social issues.

"To tell you the truth, I actually long for the good old days when we used to have the luxury to fight with each other over doctrinal issues," said Cordileone, drawing laughter. "But right now, the ship is going down. … The crew cannot afford to stand on the bridge and discuss the best kind of navigation equipment to use — when the ship is going down."

The "ship," he stressed, is not the church — "It's our civilization." If clergy cannot work together to defend ancient doctrines on marriage and family, while also striving to convince their own flocks to live by them, then "our civilization is … hanging by a thread."


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

Yo, LA Times: Maybe, must maybe, issues of faith, family and culture matter in California?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Yo, LA Times: Maybe, must maybe, issues of faith, family and culture matter in California?

If you follow the mainstream press coverage of religion — primarily coverage by reporter who are NOT religion-beat specialists — then you know that what really matters in life is politics.

As we say here at GetReligion: Politics is real. Religion? Not so much.

Now, it’s also true that money is real, as in news coverage of economics (which often overlap with politicals). If a story cannot be linked directly to politics, journalists will study its economic implications.

The Big Idea: Politics and economics matter more than culture and religion. Maybe journalists think they can ignore that classic book by candid liberal Thomas Frank: “What's the Matter with Kansas?”

This brings me to a recent Los Angeles Times piece that ran (this is the Yahoo! News version) with this headline: “4 in 10 California residents are considering packing up and leaving, new poll finds.”

This is a religion-free story. Sort of. Here is the sunny overture:

With its unmatched natural splendor and cultural attractions, California is a beacon that attracts people from around the world who put down roots and call it home.

About 70% of residents said they are happy living here, a new statewide poll shows, crediting the state's diversity, economic opportunities and an enjoyable lifestyle as reasons to stick around.

Yet large swaths of residents are also considering packing up and leaving. Many also believe that the state is headed in the wrong direction, and are anxious about the direction of the economy and their ability to pay their bills.

Message received, right there at the end.

Just in case you missed the point, the Times team goes further:


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

Doctrine and discrimination: Is the California anti-'caste' bill unfair to Hindu believers?

, , , , , , ,
Doctrine and discrimination: Is the California anti-'caste' bill unfair to Hindu believers?

QUESTION:

Is California’s anti-“caste” effort unfair to Hindus?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

A bill sponsored by a Muslim legislator and passed by California’s Senate May 11 would make this the first U,S. state to add “caste” to the categories of illegal discrimination under civil rights laws.

The bill defines caste as “a system of social stratification on the basis of inherited status” that involves “socially enforced restrictions on marriage, private and public segregation” and “social exclusion on the basis of perceived status.” Action on the bill by California’s state Assembly is pending. Earlier this year, Seattle became the first U.S. city to enact a parallel statute.

As of 2022, the 23 campuses of the California State University system likewise banned caste discrimination.  Other campuses with such policies include the University of California campus at Davis and California’s Claremont colleges as well as Brandeis University, Brown University, Carleton University, Colby College, Colorado College, and Harvard University, with others expected to join this new movement.

Caste is well-known for close association with Hinduism, whose billion followers make it the world’s third-largest religion behind Christianity and Islam. California’s actions have roused intense divisions among immigrants from India, with some telling legislators about incidents when they suffered from caste bias. A 2018 report by the anti-caste Equality Labs found 67% of Indian-Americans from low-status groups felt they were treated unfairly at work.

But groups such as the Hindu American Foundation contend that the bill itself “will perpetuate racist European stereotypes and misconceptions” and rouse discrimination against Hindus. Some deny that caste is any core tenet of the Hindu religion, if properly understood, or say that British colonial rule exaggerated and exploited the system.


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

Podcast: Much to learn in ongoing cases with cannabis church and yet another Christian baker

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Much to learn in ongoing cases with cannabis church and yet another Christian baker

A cannabis church (It’s California) keeps fighting for freedom of worship.

Another Christian baker wins what may be a temporary (It’s California) First Amendment victory in her fight to stay in business, even though she declined to create a one-of-a-kind, artistic wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

What connects these two stories? That was the topic at the heart of this weeks “Crossover” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which was recorded this week while I was on grandfather duty. This post is a day late because I’ve been driving back to East Tennessee and it’s really hard to write in a car in cross winds on the High Plains.

The connecting link in the podcast is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 — or RFRA for short. This was a crucial piece of liberal (in the old sense of the word) church-state law backed by a stunningly broad coalition of religious and legal groups during the Bill Clinton administration. Try to imagine: There were only three “nay” votes in the U.S. Senate. Would that happen now? Clearly, the answer is “nay.’

These days, many reporters act as if “RFRA” was some kind of dirty, four-letter term that cannot be spoken in elite newsrooms. If you want some additional info on this syndrome, click here (“Covering a so-called 'religious liberty' story? Dig into religious liberty history”) or here (“Religious Left returns to RFRA: Washington Post explores a crucial Florida abortion showdown”).

The key is that RFRA doesn’t guarantee a victory for citizens who claim that their First Amendment rights have been violated. RFRA states that people have a right to argue that case and that — following some guidelines that have developed over the years — courts have to take these arguments seriously.

So let’s start with this Religion News Service headline: “Shuttered cannabis church takes fight to reopen to California Supreme Court.” Here’s the overture:

A cannabis church in Southern California — which was shut down by the county of San Bernardino over accusations it was illegally functioning as a dispensary — is taking its fight to reopen to the state Supreme Court, arguing that it uses cannabis for religious healing.


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

Plug-In: Roe falls, plus the Supreme Court's four other biggest religion cases of 2022

, , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Roe falls, plus the Supreme Court's four other biggest religion cases of 2022

It happened.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

The Associated Press’ Mark Sherman reported:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Friday’s outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states.

The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump.

The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.

Read the full opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

• • •

I haven’t always paid close attention to the Supreme Court. But lately I do.

On days the nation’s high court releases new opinions, I vow find myself refreshing — again and again — the justices’ home page.

The court’s five biggest religion cases of 2022 have piqued my interest. The Dobbs decision, highlighted above, was not specifically about religion. But religious voices on both sides are a major part of the debate.

Here is where the other four religion cases stand:


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

NPR report: Americans are 'sorting' themselves into red vs. blue zones (religion ghost alert)

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
NPR report: Americans are 'sorting' themselves into red vs. blue zones (religion ghost alert)

I absolutely love specific, symbolic details in Big Picture stories based on trends in statistics and culture.

During what we could call America’s “Divided We Fall” era (let’s hope that it passes), there are all kinds of ways to illustrate the tensions between blue citizens and red citizens. NPR recently did a feature — “Americans are fleeing to places where political views match their own“ — that had a great cultural detail way down in the script that suggested there’s more to this divide than politics.

The key fact: In the 2020 election, Joe Biden “won 85% of counties with a Whole Foods and only 32% of counties with a Cracker Barrel.”

What was missing in this fine, must-read story? It’s that issues of faith, morality and culture have just as much to do with America’s blue-red schism as politics. As the old saying goes, partisan politics is downstream from culture. If you have doubts about that, check out this GetReligion commentary on the classic 2003 “Blue Movie” essay in The Atlantic. Author Thomas B. Edsall observes:

Early in the 1996 election campaign Dick Morris and Mark Penn, two of Bill Clinton's advisers, discovered a polling technique that proved to be one of the best ways of determining whether a voter was more likely to choose Clinton or Bob Dole for President. Respondents were asked five questions, four of which tested attitudes toward sex: Do you believe homosexuality is morally wrong? Do you ever personally look at pornography? Would you look down on someone who had an affair while married? Do you believe sex before marriage is morally wrong? The fifth question was whether religion was very important in the voter's life.

Respondents who took the "liberal" stand on three of the five questions supported Clinton over Dole by a two-to-one ratio; those who took a liberal stand on four or five questions were, not surprisingly, even more likely to support Clinton. The same was true in reverse for those who took a "conservative" stand on three or more of the questions.

Note the religion question in that mix. Thus, the Big Idea in this Edsall essay?

According to Morris and Penn, these questions were better vote predictors—and better indicators of partisan inclination—than anything else except party affiliation or the race of the voter (black voters are overwhelmingly Democratic).

The new NPR piece, while stressing politics, does contain a few killer cultural details. The religious elements of the story? There are hints, but that is all.


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

Return of 'nuns' growing weed: A Rolling Stone puff piece on this emerging religious group

, , , , , , , , , ,
Return of 'nuns' growing weed: A Rolling Stone puff piece on this emerging religious group

Those PR-friendly, pot-puffing Sisters of the Valley are back. I’m sure that this is shocking news (#NOT) to readers who know anything about the history of this group.

Here’s a GetReligion flashback. Some reporters struggled, in early happy talk features about this group, to make it clear these “sisters” were not, in fact, some progressive Catholic order. One classic piece inspired a blog post by Catholic Deacon Greg Kandra — a CBS News professional in his career before moving to the altar — with this classic headline: “Newsweek, Go Home. You’re Drunk. Those Aren’t Nuns.”

Now we have an update about the Sisters of the Valley in, logically enough, Rolling Stone. Here’s the double-decker headline on that:

Our Ladies of the Perpetual High

How a New Age order of feminist nuns is reimagining spiritual devotion and trying to heal the world — one joint at a time

Yes, some headline writers cannot resist “Our Lady” jokes, which is unfortunate. However, the second part of that headline is clear about the contents of this feature, which helps readers know what is what and who is who. This clarity is what makes this story worth reading.

Before we get to that, let me remind readers of a key point in that “thinker” that ran here at GetReligion last weekend: “Two think pieces on changes in American religious life, with a few political twists.” One of the pieces that I recommended was a Rod “Live Not By Lies” Dreher post pointing to a new blast of information from the Pew Research Center team.

Forget politics for a moment. The headline on Rod’s post — “Christianity Declines — But Not ‘Spirituality’ “ — is what connects that Pew data to this new Rolling Stone feature. Dreher wants to note a renewed surge in a tend that has been around for decades (think “Sheilaism”). Here is a key passage:

America continues to transition to its post-Christian reality. … One of the most interesting, and unexpected, developments is that in the US, relatively few of these people who are falling away from Christianity are becoming atheists. Rather, they are cobbling together a bespoke bricolage religion, one designed just for them.


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

Christians, Jews, Muslims and lobbyists left and right fret over SCOTUS 'donor privacy' case  

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Christians, Jews, Muslims and lobbyists left and right fret over SCOTUS 'donor privacy' case  

What cause could ever possibly unite Christian Right activists, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Zionist Organization, "pro-family," "pro-life," "pro-choice" and gun-rights lobbies, Mitch McConnell, the American Civil Liberties Union, Chamber of Commerce, Judicial Watch, NAACP, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Southern Poverty Law Center, Columbia University's First Amendment institute and religious-liberty advocates?

Answer: These and many more are allied in the Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra case (#19-251), which the U.S. Supreme Court put on its upcoming docket January 8.

Yes, that Becerra is Xavier, as in President Biden's controversial pick for secretary of Health and Human Services, acting in his previous role as California's attorney general. Moreover, this situation implicates the track record of his predecessor as A.G., Kamala Harris — now U.S. vice president and a major 2024 presidential prospect.

At issue is "donor privacy." Non-profit groups cannot operate or raise money in the state of California unless they give its attorney general the names and addresses of their major donors, the same list that's required as an appendix to their federal IRS returns. The non-profits argue that this violates their right to freedom of association under the Constitution's First Amendment.

Obviously this is something for alert media eyes, including pros on the religion beat.

Adding to news interest, this case displays contrasting beliefs of the U.S. Department of Justice in its Trump Administration brief filed last November (.pdf here) versus its revised stance under the new Biden Administration (.pdf here). The Trump brief strongly backs non-profit interest groups. The Biden brief dodges the question and asks the court to bounce the case for further investigation.

Religion specialists note: The Supreme Court consolidated the Americans for Prosperity case, raised by the libertarian political foundation established by the Koch brothers, with a second appeal from the Thomas More Law Center. This second agency provides free legal representation for "people of faith" to uphold "the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values and the sanctity of human life."


Please respect our Commenting Policy