David French

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

Surprise! Speaker of the House is pro religious liberty, which means he's ultra-conservative

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Surprise! Speaker of the House is pro religious liberty, which means he's ultra-conservative

Before diving into the valid religion-angle hooks in the life and career of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, please allow me to address that “election denier” thing, since I am a pedigreed (nod to Religion News Service editors) #NeverTrump, #NeverClintonBiden voter.

Yes, I have closely followed election-denial issues from 2016, when the deniers were elite Democrats haunted by Russia ghosts. Ditto for 2020, when the deniers were Republicans, who kept losing court cases — even when the judges were selected by Donald Trump. I do think Big Tech efforts to cancel hot news stories affected the election (but maybe not, since the nation seems frozen 50-50 in red/blue concrete).

Truth is, I am more interested in Johnson’s First Amendment activism than I am in Trump stuff. “First Amendment,” of course, means religious liberty, free speech and freedom of association. Is Johnson concerned about religious liberty for all or for some? His legal career should include on-paper info on that.

Meanwhile, the mainstream coverage of his surprise election stressed his “anti-gay” work and related religious convictions. On X, I tweeted a question: “Does anti-gay rights mean pro-First Amendment?”

Everything you need to know on press views of that can be found in this double-decker headline at the New York Times, serving as a kind of editorial memo to the news industry as a whole:

For Mike Johnson, Religion Is at the Forefront of Politics and Policy

The new House speaker has put his faith at the center of his political career, and aligned himself with a newer cohort of conservative Christianity that some describe as Christian nationalism.

Obviously, “Christian nationalism” is currently one of the hot terms in journalism. Also, it’s clear that many journalists are concerned about the success that Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers are having at the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere. Again, there is a crucial question there: Is this First Amendment group winning victories for a variety of religious minorities?

The Times editors simply went with this, stating that Johnson spent time as a “lawyer and spokesman for the anti-abortion and anti-gay rights group Alliance Defense Fund.” Of course, that puts him in interesting company — with Times columnist David French (whose First Amendment work I have admired for two decades).

It’s important to know that Johnson declined a Times interview request. I think that he should have done that interview, with an agreement that he could post a transcript online. Would the Times have agreed? The speaker should test that.


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

Thinking, with The Free Press, about what Brooklyn folks don't 'get' about Iowa

, , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking, with The Free Press, about what Brooklyn folks don't 'get' about Iowa

Let’s do something different with a “think piece” this week.

What we’re going to do is watch a short video and then, hopefully, GetReligion readers can leave a few comments about what they saw or, more importantly, what they didn’t see.

The video itself comes from those savvy urbanites at the must-follow website/Substack feed called The Free Press. What’s going on in this light-hearted, chatty, laugh-to-keep-from-crying offering? The goal was summed up in this epic double-decker headline:

Pork Chops! Politics! The Free Press Goes to the Iowa State Fair. …

Brooklynite Ben Kawaller dives headfirst into livestock, fried food, and the great political divide at America’s annual country circus.

Kawaller states, right up front, that he knows a lot more about musical theater than he does agrarian life (and, needless to say, hip eateries in and around Park Slope don’t serve deep-friend Oreos). So why would he want to spend a week hobnobbing with Iowa farmers?

Read the headline again.

We’re talking politics and the Iowa primaries, of course. Thus, Kawaller offered this online confessional:

Along with showcasing some of the state’s most impressive agriculture, the fair has, since the 1970s, become a de rigueur campaign stop for political candidates. Over the course of this year’s fair, which runs until Sunday, August 20, no fewer than sixteen presidential hopefuls have appeared or are expected to. My visit coincided with some big ones: Florida governor Ron DeSantis was there on Saturday, only to be upstaged by Donald Trump, who also may have arranged for the flight of an aerial banner urging “Be likable, Ron!” (You have to hand it to him: the man knows how to taunt.) 


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

Podcast: David Brooks is still trying to describe the 'flexidoxy' DNA in American elites

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: David Brooks is still trying to describe the 'flexidoxy' DNA in American elites

People who spend years riding commuter trains — Baltimore to Washington, D.C., for me — learn that there are community rules. For example: Don’t crack up laughing and make a lot of noise.

I violated that written law several times while reading a snarky, hilarious 2000 book by David Brooks called, “Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There.” The term “Bobo” was short for “Bourgeois Bohemians.”

But what is a religion writer supposed to do while reading its “spirituality” chapter, which ended with a vision of "Bobo Heaven.” Brooks offers a tweedy angel of death sentencing an urban lawyer to spend eternity in her chic, “green” summer house, with National Public Radio on every channel. Heaven or hell?

Readers who have been online lately will know where this is going, because of the multi-media firestorm ignited by his New York Times column: “On Anti-Trumpers and the Modern Meritocracy.” That Brooks essay provided the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). Here’s a sample:

The meritocracy isn’t only a system of exclusion; it’s an ethos. During his presidency, Barack Obama used the word “smart” in the context of his policies over 900 times. The implication was that anybody who disagreed with his policies (and perhaps didn’t go to Harvard Law) must be stupid.

Over the last decades, we’ve taken over whole professions and locked everybody else out. When I began my journalism career in Chicago in the 1980s, there were still some old crusty working-class guys around the newsroom. Now we’re not only a college-dominated profession; we’re an elite-college-dominated profession. Only 0.8 percent of college students graduate from the super-elite 12 schools (the Ivy League colleges, plus Stanford, M.I.T., Duke and the University of Chicago). A 2018 study found that more than 50 percent of the staff writers at the beloved New York Times and The Wall Street Journal attended one of the 29 most elite universities in the nation.

Now, let’s leave Orange Man Bad out of this. I’d like to focus on the fact that Brooks has been writing about this phenomenon for several decades now.

As you would expect, I appreciated that Brooks dared to mention the ice-blue trends in elite journalism. I started paying attention to that in the late 1970s (hold that thought). However, I have to admit that I wondered why Brooks defined his meritocracy in terms of class (correct), zip codes (correct), resume credentials (correct), but — in this case — ignored the obvious religion themes in this drama.


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

Catholic press, and Ross Douthat, remain must-reads during a busy Vatican summer

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Catholic press, and Ross Douthat, remain must-reads during a busy Vatican summer

It should come to no surprise to any reader that we live in a polarized nation. We are separated along political partisan lines and in our own media universes.

There are those who watch and/or read Fox News on the web and consume copious amounts of information regarding President Joe Biden and his son’s alleged ties to corruption.

On the other side, the Hunter Biden is ignored. Instead, we get investigative journalism from The New York Times looking into the dealings and relationships of conservatives such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

This is why tmatt keeps quoting, here at GetReligion and in his national column, the opening lines of the David French book "Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation.”

"It's time for Americans to wake up to a fundamental reality: the continued unity of the United States cannot be guaranteed," wrote French. Right now, "there is not a single important cultural, religious, political, or social force that is pulling Americans together more than it is pulling us apart."

Confession: I have found it healthy and important to watch both Fox News and read The New York Times. Both are highly influential in their respective partisan bubbles. Both impact the world around us, for better or worse, and that’s of great importance in a world were journalistic objectivity is a relic of a pre-internet world.

I also like to read columnists. I like a few. Longtime Vatican observer John L. Allen, Jr., is one. J.D. Flynn over at The Pillar is another.

Yet another must-read is New York Times columnist, blogger and author Ross Douthat.

Douthat is a convert to Catholicism and often writes about the church. He is openly pro-Catholic Catechism. Thus, it is often refreshing to read Douthat because he tackles issues his own newspaper often fails to cover. I don’t know Douthat’s reading habits but I have to think he reads guys like the aforementioned Allen and Flynn.

Douthat was the target of recent criticism in the Jesuit magazine America.


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

Americans need moving vans? AP says it's politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, etc.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Americans need moving vans? AP says it's politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, etc.

No doubt about it: The rise of the divided states of America is one of the most important news stories of our time, and that has been obvious for several decades now (think red-blue JesusLand cartoons starting in 2000, or thereabouts).

The bottom line: If you don’t own a copy of David French’s 2020 book, “Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation,” then order one right now.

How many times have I quoted that volume’s tense, scary opening sentences? Here’s that passage, again, from my recent red journalism vs. blue journalism piece for the journal Religion & Liberty:

The bottom line: Americans are divided by their choices in news and popular culture, choosing to live in protective silos of digital content. America remains the developing world’s most religious nation, yet its secularized elites occupy one set of zip codes, while most religious believers live in another. These armies share no common standards about “facts,” “accuracy,” or “fairness.”

“It’s time for Americans to wake up to a fundamental reality: the continued unity of the United States cannot be guaranteed,” wrote French. At this moment, “there is not a single important cultural, religious, political, or social force that is pulling Americans together more than it is pulling us apart.”           

The Los Angeles Times published the definitive “This is all about economics, stupid!” piece about this trend, which I discussed in this recent GetReligion post: “Yo, LA Times — Maybe, must maybe, issues of faith, family and culture matter in California?”

The Big Idea in that piece was the truth that, when striving to avoid covering issues of religion and culture, journalists have the option of stressing economic issues, as well as politics, politics, politics. Now, the Associated Press had produced a news feature with a variation on that theme. Headline: “Conservatives go to red states and liberals go to blue as the country grows more polarized.”

This time around, the story does include lots of commentary about “cultural” issues, but culture is defined — quite literally — as politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics, politics. Actually, I may have missed one or two variations on the word “politics” in this AP report.

References to “religion”? Zero. “Faith”? Zip. “Morality?” Nada.


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

Double-thinking about atheists: What's up with their role in America's hot public square?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Double-thinking about atheists: What's up with their role in America's hot public square?

I live in Southern Appalachia, which is in Bible Belt territory on anyone’s map of America.

Then again, I live near the Oak Ridge National Laboratory — a place where the nerdy PhD’s per-square-foot count is the same or higher than, well, the California Institute of Technology or the University of California, Berkeley. In other words, it’s surprisingly easy to run into local atheists and agnostics just about anywhere one engages in conversation (take the gym, for example).

Are these unbelievers hostile? Let’s just say that the real people I meet in this niche religious group (#ducking) are different from those I encounter in cyberspace. Maybe there’s something about the Southern Highlands that attracts friendly atheists-agnostics?

I thought about this phenomenon when I saw this recent Graphs about Religion headline from political scientist (and GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge: “Just How Much Do Americans Dislike Atheists?”

This new Burge piece reminded me of his earlier piece: “No One Participates in Politics More than Atheists — Even White Evangelicals.” Remember these reflections on the Cooperative Election Study question: “Have you done any of the following activities in the previous month?”

The group that is most likely to contact a public official? Atheists.

The group that puts up political signs at the highest rates? Atheists.

HALF of atheists report giving to a candidate or campaign in the 2020 presidential election cycle.

And while they don’t lead the pack when it comes to attending a local political meeting, they only trail Hindus by four percentage points.

Anyway, I stashed these Burge URLs in my growing “Thinker piece” file — along with a very interesting (and I would argue, related) Pew Research Center post with this headline: “One-in-six Americans have taken steps to see less of someone on social media due to religious content.”

Let’s try to connect a few dots.


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

After 303 Creative: Can readers find Twitter voices (hello David French) that help us think?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
After 303 Creative: Can readers find Twitter voices (hello David French) that help us think?

It’s been a scary couple of days for post-liberals in America, with two major Supreme Court decisions (one of them unanimous) defending old-liberal concepts of religious liberty and free speech.

When the 303 Creative LLC decision hit the headlines (click here to read the majority opinion), I did something that’s quite rare in my household — I turned on the television and tried to watch mainstream cable-TV news.

Let’s face it: I struggle to understand why we have journalists who want the state to have the power to compel speech (intellectual content in general) in the work of writers, artists, video professionals, etc. But this post isn’t about the content of the news coverage of these decisions.

No, this is a post that I was requested to write after a recent luncheon with clergy, students, faculty and others at the Overby Center at Ole Miss. We kept coming back to a crucial question for news consumers: How do we find a compelling mix of news and commentary — representing different points of view — in an age in which most newsrooms embrace business models in which they tell paying customers exactly what they want to hear?

Here is another way of stating that: How do we find news and commentary that helps us understand the views of people what we need to respect (or at the very least truly tolerate), even when we disagree with them?

This led me to Twitter. I told folks that, when the 303 Creative decision was released, they needed to read whatever First Amendment specialist David French wrote about it. Why? Because I was convinced that he would find a way to parse the opinions and offer insights that made people on both sides of the decision very uncomfortable.

This is, frankly, why I have followed his work for several decades. This is why he is on a short list of people that I follow on Twitter when digging into major news trends and events. Hold that thought, because I will share my current version of that list at the end of this post.

But back to French and the headline on his New York Times column about this SCOTUS decision: “How Christians and Drag Queens Are Defending the First Amendment.”

Told ya.


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

July 4, 2023, thoughts about our divided United States and potential for a 'civil war'

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
July 4, 2023, thoughts about our divided United States and potential for a 'civil war'

What ails the United States of America? Why have some serious thinkers even talked about a second “civil war”?

Both journalists and religious leaders should be pondering that on July 4th. Consider some recent media coverage.

To begin, America’s religious center is imploding. Political scientist Ryan Burge (also a GetReligion contributor) calculates that if nine major Protestant denominations — especially the old “mainline” — had only kept pace with national population growth they’d have 21 million more members than they actually do. (Meanwhile, non-denominational independents surge.) And Burge analyzes the significant increase of Americans, and especially Democrats, who never attend worship.

Obituaries remind us how Pat Robertson, alongside fellow Virginia clergyman Jerry Falwell and others, unexpectedly rallied a sector of conservative Christians and upended American politics and religion -- as well as mass-media treatment of religion.

Culture wars envelop Disney, Target and Budweiser, and the Los Angeles Dodgers even honored a group that mocks the Catholic faith (pious Branch Rickey spins in Ohio grave).

One-year anniversary reporting conveys nationwide tumult since the Supreme Court returned abortion policy to Congress and 50 state legislatures.

Then consider all the fears and furies over fentanyl deaths, teen suicide, urban crime, border chaos, race and reparations, college admissions, impeachment, gerrymandering, 2020 rehash, January 6, COVID-19 policy, gender transition laws and pronoun wars, LGBTQ+ rights and religious rights, “Christian nationalism,” “cancel culture,” “woke” classrooms, sliding test scores, book-banning, guns and whatever else you’d like to add.


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

Podcast: Religion ghosts in Pornhub's battle with Utah, Louisiana and red-state America?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Religion ghosts in Pornhub's battle with Utah, Louisiana and red-state America?

When I first encountered David French, roughly two decades ago, he was a First Amendment expert known for his defense of religious liberty — for all kinds of people, including evangelicals in blue zip codes.

That was “conservative,” back then. Today, French has moved to the op-ed pages of The New York Times. I guess, in the ongoing Donald Trump era (#ALAS), that makes him what some would call a “New York Times conservative.” That isn’t a compliment.

I don’t always agree with French, but he remains a voice that old-school First Amendment liberals — folks who are often called “conservative” these days — will need to follow as conflicts continue to escalate on issues of free speech, religious liberty and freedom of association.

This brings me to a byte of French material that I inserted into this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). These are the first two sentences of French’s must-read 2020 book “Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation.” Here we go:

“It’s time for Americans to wake up to a fundamental reality: the continued unity of the United States cannot be guaranteed. At this moment in history, there is not a single important cultural, religious, political, or social force that is pulling Americans together more than it is pulling us apart.”  

A few lines later he adds this material, to which I alluded in the podcast (and in my recent Religion & Liberty essay on the state of American journalism):

“We lack a common popular culture. Depending on where we live and what we believe, we watch different kinds of television, we listen to different kinds of music, and we often watch different sports.

“We increasingly live separate from each other. … The geography that a person calls home, whether it is rural, exurban, suburban, or urban, is increasingly predictive of voting habits.”

The Internet, however, is everywhere. So is digital pornography.

Some people are more concerned about that than others and, yes, the level of concern seems to have something to do with religion and culture (and, thus, zip codes). This brings us to the Axios headline that inspired this podcast: “Pornhub blocks access in Utah in protest of new age verification law.”

The religion angle? Well, we are talking about politics in Utah. Here is some of that Axios news-you-can-use information:

Driving the news: Pornhub.com now opens on devices in Utah with a message that states the company has "made the difficult decision to completely disable access to our website in Utah."


Please respect our Commenting Policy