mainstream press covers religion news in politics, entertainment, business
It’s been about three weeks since Neil Gorsuch has been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court and we’re no closer to figuring out what makes him tick, spiritually. However, there have been a few jabs at trying to gauge the spiritual temperature of his family's parish in downtown Boulder, Colo..
The most aggressive reporting has been by a British outlet, the Daily Mail, whose reporters have shown up at Gorsuch’s parish, St. John’s Episcopal. The Mail has also been sniffing about Oxford University (pictured above), which is where Gorsuch apparently became an Anglican during his studies there. It was also where he met his future wife Marie Louise. Her family is Anglican and the Mail, explains that all here and here.
Very clever of them to nail down his wife’s British background and that of her family and to have interviewed Gorsuch’s stepmother in Denver.
They too see a dissonance in Gorsuch’s purported conservative views and the church he attends:.He has been described as 'the heir to Scalia' and is a religious conservative whose appointment to the Supreme Court was greeted with jubilation on the pro-gun, anti-abortion Right.But DailyMail.com can reveal that Neil Gorsuch's own church, in Boulder, Colorado, is a hotbed of liberal thinking -- and is led by a pastor who proudly attended the anti-Trump Women's March in Denver the day after the President's inauguration.Another member of the clergy at St. John's Episcopal Church is outspoken about the need for gun control, and helped organize opposition to a gun shop giveaway of high-capacity magazines in the run-up to a 2013 law that banned them from the state of Colorado…And in a twist that may surprise religious conservatives who welcomed Gorsuch's appointment, church leader Rev. Susan Springer, 58, has said she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same sex couples.The church, which trumpets its 'inclusive' ethos on its website, also operates a homeless outreach program that includes an LGBT center and a sexual health clinic in a pamphlet setting out the best places for those in need of help.
As noted in other posts here at GetReligion, Gorsuch had plenty of Catholic influence in his upbringing -- but he’s chosen the Episcopal Church (which has been dropping in numbers for decades partly because of its very liberal stances) and a left-of-center parish at that.
There are plenty of conservative Episcopal or Anglican church choices within a reasonable drive that he could attend, but his family picked St. John’s for a reason. And it’s up to reporters to tell us that reason, right? Or, as this CBN piece wonders, is Gorsuch’s attendance at St. John’s trying to tell us something?
I understand how difficult it may be to get some answers. The Mail is asking the same questions. Its long piece details how radical St. John’s really is. Unlike other media, it sent a reporter out to the church to investigate.When DailyMail.com visited the church in Boulder, parishioners and clergy alike were reluctant to discuss Gorsuch's elevation to the Supreme Court and the liberal policies espoused by church leaders.(One of the clergy) made repeated efforts to evade approaches from this website, while Springer is on holiday and refusing to take calls.Visited at her home, (another parish employee) said she was not prepared to answer questions and instead directed enquiries to the church office where staff also declined to comment.
That told us a lot more than most other pieces I’ve read. For instance, this Washington Post piece had only this to say about his church:By contrast, Gorsuch has been aggressively vetted for the court by conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation, and they have backed him enthusiastically. These groups even scrutinized his attendance at St. John’s Episcopal Church -- which draws from the largely liberal population in Boulder, Colo., calls itself a largely liberal congregation and advertised on its website for the Women’s March in Washington last month -- and concluded it was not a strike against him.For their part, the church’s leaders alluded in a recent newsletter and Sunday sermon to the political divide between most of its parishioners and Gorsuch. But they added that Gorsuch’s views are not as narrow or predictable as some might think -- or fear.“I am privileged to have spent enough time with the family to come to know Neil as a broad-thinking man, one eager to listen and learn, and one thoughtful in speaking,” wrote the Rev. Susan W. Springer. “Those foundational qualities are ones I would pray that all public servants in any leadership role in our country might possess.”
Three weeks into this vetting process and the best we can get is a parish newsletter?
The wording is odd. What is this about Gorsuch’s views not being as “narrow or predictable?” The previous paragraph alluded to a conservative group looking at Gorsuch’s church. The right wording, then, would have been something more like “loosely liberal” or “theologically left of center like his own denomination.”
Other profiles such as this Politico piece give us no hint of Gorsuch’s religious beliefs. This Mother Jones piece tells us a bit about Gorsuch’s time at Oxford and his subsequent belief in natural law as “God’s law” as an indication of the theocracy the judge could install, if confirmed.
The Denver Post’s Washington correspondent gave Gorsuch’s religious background a decent shot with this piece that includes a quote from Judge Gorsuch’s younger brother about how they were raised as Catholics. But there’s no word on why the nominee switched from Catholic to Episcopalian and when.
So, it looks like the Mail has done the most work here.
It’s not surprising that Gorsuch became enamored of Anglicanism in a place like Oxford, once the home of the famous literary discussion group the Inklings, several of whose members (C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, Owen Barfield) were Anglicans. The city practically drips Anglicanism with its zillions of chapels, its status as the birthplace of the Oxford Movement and so on.
Did the judge’s time at Oxford acquaint him with its Anglican history or the writings of its famous Anglican residents? Are there Anglican writers whose books are in his library? Has he been known to offer a C.S. Lewis quote or two?
The reasons behind why a conservative jurist would choose a liberal parish could be something quite prosaic (St. John’s may be the parish preferred by Marie Louise) or perhaps it’s the only local parish that allows the Gorsuch daughters to be acolytes. One can make all sorts of guesses.
Most curious is the fact that the Episcopal News Service has written exactly zero on the man who is currently the country’s most famous Episcopalian. Now why do you think that is?
So the coverage of Gorsuch’s spiritual bonafides seems to have hit a dead end at his parish although the Mail sure made a valiant attempt.
Someone, somewhere has the answers to all of these questions. One thing is certain: Questions about the contents of Gorsuch's head and heart are not going to go away anytime soon.
Sometimes, the best Godbeat stories don't make for the best GetReligion posts.
Like most everybody in the blogging world, we're focused on producing engaging content that people will read, share and, just maybe, comment on.
That means that we often gravitate toward the hottest, most timely topics — the kind trending on social media — when deciding which stories to review.
Moreover, negative posts pointing out journalistic problems and bias in mainstream media coverage of religion news tend to generate much more interest and buzz.
Please allow me to summarize the response to most of our positive posts about stories that do everything right: zzzzzzzzz. In case you need a video illustration of that response, here goes:
But since — amazingly — you actually clicked on a post promising "great reads," I'm going to reward you with three nice stories by Godbeat pros. All published within the last week, these are the kind of excellent pieces that sometimes get lost in our GetReligion guilt files.
What's the common thread that binds all three of these stories together? For one, all of the writers are religion beat pros who've received frequent praise from GetReligion: Jaweed Kaleem of the Los Angeles Times, Peter Smith of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and our former GetReligion colleague Sarah Pulliam Bailey of the Washington Post.
Kaleem reports on Sikhs opening their temple doors to strangers fleeing a potential disaster:RIO LINDA, Calif. — Each morning before the break of dawn, Nirmal Singh makes his way to a small stage at the Shri Guru Ravidass Temple adorned with roses and silk. There, the priest sits and reads prayers from a centuries-old Indian text to open the day.It's usually a quiet affair, with words spoken in Punjabi to an empty hall the size of a large backyard — a solemn start at the small Sikh temple that sees few people outside of weekend services.But this week, Singh had company. Bodies shuffled under blankets in front of him. On Tuesday a Mexican couple and their kids woke up to his right, revealing the head scarves they wore in respect of Sikh traditions. In a nearby room, an African American man was also was getting up to the sounds of prayer. As tens of thousands fled low-lying regions on the Feather River this week amid warnings of flooding from the rapidly filling Lake Oroville, Sikh temples across in the Sacramento area opened their doors to evacuees.
Just as I wondered "why Sikhs?" the L.A. Times writer provides the crucial background:Sikhs in Sacramento, home to 10 temples and about 11,000 Sikh families, began putting out calls for supplies and volunteers on Sunday evening after 180,000 people living in communities downstream of Lake Oroville were given short notice for mandatory evacuations.
Smith, meanwhile, offers a fascinating account of "The Duquesne Weekend: a retreat that started a movement":David Mangan looks back on a retreat held 50 years ago this weekend as a life-altering event. And not just for him. Roman Catholics throughout the world are still feeling the effects of the spiritual movement launched by the small gathering at a retreat house about 15 miles north of Pittsburgh.Mr. Mangan, a recent Duquesne University graduate, had joined a group of Duquesne students and staff in mid-February 1967 for a three-day retreat focused on biblical teachings about the Holy Spirit.There, he was struck by a speaker’s comment that when the Bible promises “power” to Jesus’ followers, it uses the same Greek word that forms the root for “dynamite.”“I had to come to grips with the fact that although I was a solid Catholic, dynamite was not the descriptor of my spiritual life,” he said. That was soon to change. He went upstairs to pray in the retreat house chapel — a small, carpeted room with few furnishings other than some cushions and an altar.“When I walked into the chapel, I was completely overcome by the power of God,” the Turtle Creek native, now living in Michigan, said. “I found myself prostrate on the floor. Little explosions were going on in my body. I knew it was God. I knew it was the Holy Spirit. When I went to thank him, I started speaking a language I didn’t know. I later found out that was the gift of tongues.”
And Bailey travels to Denver for a profile of an undocumented immigrant seeking sanctuary at a church:DENVER — On Wednesday morning, Jeanette Vizguerra was scheduled to show up for a check-in at the local office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Service.Instead, Vizguerra, a 45-year-old undocumented immigrant from Mexico, senther attorney to request a stay of her deportation. As Hans Meyer entered the low-slung brown brick building, a pastor by his side, scores of protesters waving signs shouted “No hate, no fear. Immigrants are welcome here.”A few minutes later, Meyer returned. Vizguerra’s request had been denied. Then an activist put Vizguerra on speakerphone and held it up to a megaphone and, her voice choking with tears, the mother of four delivered her announcement to the crowd: Vizguerrahad decided to seek sanctuary 15 miles away in a makeshift bedroom in the basement of First Unitarian Society of Denver. There, she would remain indefinitely.“This is not the end… This is just a step in a long, long journey,” she declared in Spanish.ICE public affairs officer Shawn Neudauer affirmed in an email that Vizguerra was denied a stay of her deportation. He called her “an ICE enforcement priority” based on two misdemeanorconvictions.Propelled by President Trump’s campaign rhetoric and the election in November, the number of churches and other houses of worship that have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants like Vizguerra has doubled to an estimated 800 over the past year, according to leaders of the loosely-knit movement.
Beyond the specific bylines that drew my attention, each of these stories impresses me with insightful reporting and helpful context (mixed with important history).
And, yes, they are full of specific religious details, which in case you hadn't noticed, we highly recommend.
Truth be told, the Bible is a very complicated book. It also doesn't help that there are many different versions of it.
Why bring this up? Well, it's time to look at another error abut the Bible found in a story published in The New York Times. Another error? Click here for some background.
This one isn't quite as spectacular as the famous case in which the Gray Lady published a piece on tourism in Jerusalem that originally contained this rather infamous sentence:"Nearby, the vast Church of the Holy Sepulcher marking the site where many Christians believe that Jesus is buried, usually packed with pilgrims, was echoing and empty."
That one still amazes me, every time that I read it. This error led to a piece at The Federalist by M.Z. "GetReligionista emerita" Hemingway with this memorable headline: "Will Someone Explain Christianity To The New York Times?"
That error was rather low-hanging fruit, as these things go. Surely there are professionals at the copy desk of the world's most powerful newspaper who have heard that millions and millions of traditional Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?
This time around we are dealing with something that is more complicated. To be honest, if I was reading really fast I might have missed this one myself, and my own Christian tradition's version of the Bible is linked to this error.
So what do we have here? Well, it's a nice, friendly piece about some very bright New Yorkers, with this headline: "Testament to Their Marriage: Couple Compete in Worldwide Bible Contest." Try to spot the error as you read this overture, in context:A question in the lightning round seemed to make Yair Shahak think twice.The question was, “Who struck the Philistines until his hand grew tired and stuck to the sword?”Mr. Shahak, 28, was competing in a worldwide Bible competition in Jerusalem that one Jewish news outlet described as “sort of a spelling bee, but with biblical verses rather than words.” Or maybe “Jeopardy!” with often-complicated questions in only one category -- the Bible. Specifically, Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. (For most readers this is the Old Testament, but a couple of books in the Hebrew Bible are not in the King James or the Revised Standard versions.)In that lightning round, Mr. Shahak zipped through the first half-dozen questions. Then came the one about the exhausted warrior. He thought for a couple of seconds before he said Eleazar, who is mentioned in 2 Samuel. It was the correct answer -- one of more than 70 that Mr. Shahak got right on his way to tying for first place.
What a minute. Take a second and reread that material about the Tanakh and the Old Testament canon. What is the problem that the Times team is trying to describe here?
Is the problem that there is a clash between the contents of the Hebrew Bible and Protestant texts such as the King James Version or the Revised Standard Version? Or is the problem here found when one compares the Jewish canon and the books found in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (and often Anglican) Bibles?
One of the readers who spotted this was GetReligion patriarch Richard Ostling, who sent me an email that noted:Oops. As you know Protestants per the KJ / RSV followed the Jewish canon and both are identical. Rather the difference is between those two canons and the Catholic and slightly different Orthodox canons which add more than "a couple of books."
As I said, this is complicated material.
However, with a few clicks of a mouse one can find resources -- a Catholic site here or an Eastern Orthodox site here -- that explains what is going on. Or the Bible Odyssey page (linked to the American Bible Society, the National Endowment for the Humanities and others) has an essay with this headline, that includes some of the logical search terms: "What is the Difference between the Old Testament, the Tanakh, and the Hebrew Bible?" It opens with this extended paragraph:The term Old Testament, with its implication that there must be a corresponding New Testament, suggests to some that Judaism’s Bible and by extension Judaism are outdated and incomplete. Well-intended academics thus offered Hebrew Bible as a neutral alternative. However, the new language confuses more than it clarifies by erasing distinctions between the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Tanakh. It is understandable if Christians think the Old Testament and the Tanakh are one and the same thing, but a closer look reveals important distinctions. For example, Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox Christian Old Testament canons include additional books, either written or preserved in Greek (Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabees, etc.), that are not in the Jewish canon. And some Orthodox communions only use the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint) -- which varies in word choices and length from the Masoretic (Hebrew) Text. The Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Tanakh are also distinct from each other in terms of punctuation, canonical order, and emphases.
Now, the rest of this Times story is fine, as far as I know. It's a nice feature about some interesting people. Here's a typical passage about this bright couple:Mordechai Z. Cohen, a professor of Bible and associate dean of Yeshiva University’s graduate school, said the contest served a valuable purpose because it was “important to appreciate people who understand the original Hebrew text of the Bible.” And he said Mr. Shahak and Ms. Frohlich, who met as undergraduates at Yeshiva, where she attended Stern College, “know it far better than I do.”“I could recite passages,” Dr. Cohen said, “but I don’t know it at the same level of expertise as Yaelle and Yair. They have knowledge of the original sources. They could repeat it to you backwards and forwards in the original language. But their knowledge is not just rote knowledge. It’s really in-depth knowledge.”
I am glad that the Times published this story, which does involve some complicated, truly academic material.
However, if journalists are going to add notes to their stories that explain complicated issues, it helps if these notes are accurate. Thus, the Times needs to publish a correction in this case. As of the writing of this post, there is no correction attached to this feature.
Is this a matter of media bias? Probably not. This is a different kind of failure, in terms of not "getting religion." Often it is hard for journalists to know what they don't know and, thus, know what they need to look up.
However, there is a good chance that the world-class pros at the Times copy desk (who long ago used to call GetReligion about some of these issues) needs a wider shelf of reference books? Or maybe editors -- in the frantic dash of journalism in the Internet age -- need a better online library of resources or experts to consult?
But, yes, one more time let's note the candid words of Dean Baquet, the executive editor at the Times:I think that the New York-based and Washington-based too probably, media powerhouses don't quite get religion. We have a fabulous religion writer, but she's all alone. We don't get religion. We don't get the role of religion in people's lives.
That's true. But there is also the simple truth that religion is complicated stuff and the facts matter, especially when things are published in the world's most powerful newspaper.
I'm not at all sure when the first story about declining church attendance might have been written, but it's surely been a staple for the past two or three decades. Perhaps the modern iterations stem from the famous April 8, 1966 cover story in Time magazine, headlined, "Is God Dead?"
Since then, we've seen any number of pieces on how church attendance is in decline, how congregations are shrinking and, here's the biggest trend, how the old mainline Protestant denominations are in straitened times.
I've written such stories myself.
Whatever the present-day genesis, a piece in Fosters Daily Democrat, a daily in Dover, New Hampshire and the state's seventh-largest paper by circulation, examines the decline of faith in the state's seacoast region. There are several good things to read here, but also a couple of easily avoidable omissions, I believe.
Let's dive in:Seacoast religious leaders said a recent cultural shift towards secularism has caused them to make significant changes, including altering their strategy for attracting members and consolidating churches.Secularism, which experts say has always been prevalent in New Hampshire and has continued to rise, have caused attendance to dwindle in many religious congregations. A Gallup poll in 2015 stated 20 percent of New Hampshire was considered "very religious," the lowest percentage found in the poll. Mississippi came in at the highest with 63 percent.In Portsmouth, Corpus Christi Parish, which is comprised of St. James Church, St. Catherine of Siena Church and the Immaculate Conception Church, is being consolidated into one church, and St. James Church is being put up for sale. Father Gary Belliveau, who leads the parish, said there is no longer a need for three churches led by three different priests.
Reporter Max Sullivan, described on the paper's website as "a Seacoast native and [University of New Hampshire] grad[uate]," certainly knows the area and the people. He also seems to understand one of the key factors in the decline of religious activity seen there.
The following passage is, well, chunky (i.e., long), but it bears close reading:Belliveau said Catholicism was more prevalent in Portsmouth in the 1980s, but church attendance began to decrease in the late 1990s, leading to the three churches joining under one parish in 2006. Shifts in the city's demographics played a part in this, he said, but secularism was a factor."What I think we're facing today with secularism is basically, there's been the shift from a reliance upon God and a deeper appreciation for the things beyond what we can see and figure out, to the reliance on self," Belliveau said.Dover's St. Charles Church was torn down last month and the site is expected to be used for workforce housing. Tom Bebbington, director of communications for the archdiocese in Manchester, said changes in demographics were a factor in the diminishing need for St. Charles Church, as well as the building's poor condition. However, he said secularism has played a part in that need going away as well.Michele Dillon, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire who specializes in religion, said New England states have experienced a drop in religious participation at an accelerated rate compared to other parts of the country.
There are a couple of interesting journalistic issues here: With the exception of the sociology professor and the diocesan spokesman, every voice in the article is that of a clergy member: Catholic, Baptist, Congregationalist, Jewish and Unitarian Universalist. What about the pews? Were there no parishioners of any congregation who might have observed changing trends, whose voices might have added something here?
Also apparently absent are any voices from relatively new and/or possibly growing religions on the scene.
Yes, reporter Sullivan reached out to the local Islamic Society, but what about the regional branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? The church's missionaries serve as many as 24 months knocking on doors and reaching out in places just like the New Hampshire seacoast. Might one of those missionaries have something to say about spiritual temperatures there? (If permitted, that is.) Pentecostal churches are on the upswing in most of America, along with nondenominational Protestant churches. Were there none in the paper's coverage area?
Another corner not heard from is Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, an evangelical institution in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, about an hour's drive away. Might someone on that faculty know a thing or two about trends in the Granite State and the wider region? How about the teacher of that class on "Evangelism and Discipleship Through the Local Church"? Or how about a professor at the Boston University School of Theology, also relatively nearby?
I learned a lot from this story about the religious situation in New Hampshire, but left hungry for more voices and more information.
Perhaps another roundup of voices, particularly incorporating the thoughts of those in the pews (and those not in the pews), might be helpful in understanding why what has apparently happened indeed took place.
The daily maelstrom that is the Donald Trump administration has left journalists across the religious and political spectrum gasping for air. There is so much real news -- don't get me started on the "fake news" dystopia -- that even a 24-7 news cycle is unable to keep pace.
So being only human, I've had to prioritize which issues I pay close attention to in an effort to keep my head from exploding. Not surprisingly, my priority issues are the ones I think impact me most directly.
These would include the future of the environment and climate change policy, White House attacks on the integrity of the press, health care, religious liberty for all, the economy and class divisions and the increase of anti-Semitic acts -- including a continuing rash of bomb threats -- and the president's reaction to them.
Meanwhile, the headlines just keep on coming.
Sure enough, just prior to this post going live, the president commented on the bomb threats and other anti-Semitism incidents that have manifested of late. Click here for the latest.
The debates will continue. To say the least, the elite media, the American Jewish press and Israeli media have been all over the anti-Semitism issue.
I've read and viewed numerous reports that I thought handled it quite adequately and fairly. As you might expect, it's an explosive topic for any Jew who publicly identifies as such, as I do, and has family history connected directly to anti-Semitism at its very worst -- the Holocaust and Muslim terrorism against Israeli and non-Israeli Jews.
As a former wire service reporter (United Press International in New York and San Francisco during the 1960s), I retain a fondness for a well-crafted round-up on a complicated subject -- such as the charges from some Jews (and others) that President Trump harbors anti-Semitic inclinations. Of course, others say he at least looks the other way when such inclinations appear to surface in his associates and supporters.
Here's one Associated Press report from Godbeat veteran Rachel Zoll that ran last week.
It's a fine example of the wire's adherence to what used to be prized as "objective reporting," but which I prefer to call fair, fact-based journalism. She managed to include last week's developments relating to Israel and Trump's designated ambassador to Israel, all in about 950 words.
I assume most GetReligion readers are familiar with the particulars, but if you aren't or need a quick refresher, please read Zoll's piece.
Now allow me to slip into journalism professor mode for a few paragraphs.
Mainstream, hard news journalists are expected to separate fact from opinion. If that's you, how do you reach some conclusion about whether or not the president and/or some of his key aides are anti-Semites, absent some huge smoking gun?
It's easy with a Hitler, a David Duke. Their paper trails are clear -- as is this screed from a neo-Nazi publication (covered by The Forward).
But Trump insists he's not -- though, staying true to form, he's not above saying that in an absurd manner.
Plus, his administration includes a bevy of Jews, many Jews on the political right support him and -- as he keeps reminding us -- his convert daughter, Ivanka, and her husband, Jared Kushner, are Modern Orthodox in their Jewish religious observance. (On Monday, Ivanka -- but not her father -- did tweet a call for "religious tolerance." Later in the day, the presidential press office also issued a similar statement. But neither specifically mentioned anti-Semitism, as the president did Tuesday morning.)
So how does a news reporter decide whether Trump (leaving aside for now his entourage and any of supporters) is an anti-Semite?
You can't, of course, unless you're able to read his mind (which nobody I know is capable of) or have first hand knowledge of a time when he clearly acted so (which I don't, and probably you as well). Instead, we quote the opinions of others who, for one reason or another, we deem to be expertly informed on the matter.
It's called journalism 101.
But you may turn to the avalanche of analysis and opinion that's out there on this issue and every other aspect of the president's temperament and policies. Just make sure to balance your reading between those of varying opinions. When so many people are screaming, it's hard to know which voices to trust.
Here are a few analysis/opinion pieces I've found indicative of the range that's available. If you've read any you particularly appreciated please let me know in the comment section below.
This piece from The Times of Israel concludes that whether or not Trump is an anti-Semite matters less than how his actions power or disempower anti-Semitism. The author is a well-known left-wing Jewish activist.
This one from a prominent conservative Jewish writer published in National Review argues that Trump's actions around the issue by no means warrant his critics' Hitler comparisons. The writer, who strongly opposed Trump during the primary season and is still a critic of his governing style, also warns that left-wing anti-Semitism must not be overlooked.
Here's one more piece from the right, specifically the Daily Caller, in which the writer says asking Trump to denounce anti-Semitism is "insulting" and as conniving as would be asking the president when he stopped beating his wife.
To keep it even, here's my last example from, the liberal side. It's from The Atlantic and attacks Trump for acting personally aggrieved -- as if he's the victim -- by the anti-Semitism issue rather than responding to how he might assuage the fears of those who are the actual victims of anti-Semitism, which is to say, Jews.
That's more than enough to chew on. Besides, this issue surely won't go away -- certainly not as long as anti-Semitism persists in the United States, which I expect to be a long time. Look for oodles more stories and columns to become available by the hour. Remember, journalists, to seek out transcripts and original texts (or in this White House, tweets).
Oh, and I'm sorry to disappoint you if you were hoping I'd unequivocally say whether I think Trump and some of his friends are anti-Semites, a damning charge, in my opinion, that's not to be bandied about lightly.
Truth is, I think he's an equal-opportunity amoral (or perhaps immoral) manipulator who is willing to throw any one (his immediate family aside), or any group to the wolves if he thinks it might momentarily advance his all-consuming interest, which is himself.
Jews are just one such group. Unfortunately, there are also many others.
OK, let's try this again. One of the hardest things for journalists to explain to ordinary news consumers is the whole concept of what makes a story a "story."
For example, a "march" in your city that draws two dozen protesters may end up on A1, while a rally that draws thousands may not even make the newspaper. An editor would probably say that the "march" was about a new issue, while the massive rally was about a cause that's "old business." Readers may suspect that it has something to do with subjects that do or do not interest the editors.
So the other day I wrote a post asking why it wasn't news that the Catholic committee that coordinates Boy Scout work released a statement saying that a new policy allowing trans scouts will not apply to the many, many units hosted by Catholic parishes. What, I asked, about other doctrinally conservative faith groups? This is a big story, since religious groups host about 70 percent of America's Boy Scout troops.
But that wasn't a "story" in mainstream news publications.
Now we have a story -- that is receiving quite a bit of online push in the national USA Today network -- about an Asheville, N.C., pastor who has a problem with a new product from the American Girl company.
Why is this a national story? Look for the really interesting details in this overture:ASHEVILLE, N.C. -- A move by a national doll manufacturer to add the first boy to its lineup has one local minister in a tizzy.The Rev. Keith Ogden of Hill Street Baptist Church sent a message to more than 100 of his supporters and parishioners Wednesday titled, "KILLING THE MINDS OF MALE BABIES."Ogden invoked Scripture as he criticized the American Girl company for its debut of Logan Everett, a drummer boy doll, who performs alongside Tenney Grant, a girl doll with a flair for country western music. ..."This is nothing more than a trick of the enemy to emasculate little boys and confuse their role to become men," the minister said in the e-mailed statement he sent at 9:45 a.m. Wednesday after watching a segment about American Girl on Good Morning America.
That's right! This pastor sent an email to about 100 members of his "supporters and parishioners." In other words, his church only has 100 members or so (or that many with email addresses)? If you know anything about the South, this is not a large church.
Clearly, the hook here is that this wild Baptist man said something about gender that might have something to do with trans issues. Maybe. There is this quote later on in the story."There are those in this world who want to alter God's creation of the male and female," he wrote. "The devil wants to kill, steal and destroy the minds of our children and grandchildren by perverting, distorting and twisting (the) truth of who God created them to be."Later that morning Ogden told the AshevilleCitizen-Times that he doesn't think that boys should play with dolls, that he thinks American Girl's move will confuse children."Now you are going to have little boys playing with baby dolls, and that's not cool," he said. "We need to get back to our old values and morals."
Oh, those wild fundamentalist types.
But there is a problem with that image, this time. If you visit the website of this pastor's church -- he will soon be leaving this pulpit, apparently for reasons linked to his wife's health -- you discover that it is part of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc. This is a small, but significant, African American flock. Here is a bit of background:The Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc., (PNBC) is a vital Baptist denomination with an estimated membership of 2.5 million people. PNBC was formed to give full voice, sterling leadership and active support to the American and world fight for human freedom. The convention was the convention-denominational home and platform for the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who addressed every annual session of the Convention until his death in 1968. New generations of Progressive Baptists are continuing the struggle for full voter registration, education and participation in society, economic empowerment and development, and the realization of universal human rights and total human liberation for all people.
Sure enough, the USA Today piece does note:Ogden has been influential in Asheville's community, often speaking publicly about race and policing, violence in low-income communities and his opposition to same-sex marriage. ... Ogden said churches need to stand up and speak truth to power as the community wrestles with gender identity and changing values, especially as it relates to youth programming and activities. The Boy Scouts of America, last month, for example, announced that it will allow transgender children to enroll in scouting programs."It just doesn't make sense," Ogden said. "It's not natural for a boy to act like a girl. It's not natural for a girl to want to be a boy. You've got the government and people who placate this mess instead of telling little boys they can't change their biology."
So we have a black pastor with a tiny Bible Belt flock -- in a trendy, hip city in the mountains -- who has taken a stand linked to the gender wars. If you look at the larger picture, it's clear that his public activism has in the past addressed a mix (from the viewpoint of journalists) of liberal and conservative issues.
So why is this a story?
It's a story in Asheville, in part, because this pastor has made news in the past (see this earlier Citizen-Times story) on other newsworthy topics, such as race and same-sex marriage. Maybe the journalists there are trying to figure out why he is a good guy on some issues and a bad guy on others.
Why is this a national story worthy of promotion by the wider USA Today network?
I would assume that the answer is rather simple: It fit into a template, with a silly -- the pastor went into "a tizzy" -- fundamentalist pastor who is on the wrong side of history making a big deal out of a PR campaign for a new boy doll.
Dolls are symbolic and they are big business. The leaders of the USA Today network made sure to link this story to other developments in the world of Barbie diversity, for example. And thus:The YWCA of Asheville, which works to empower women and eliminate racism, operates child care programs that serve children from infants through school age throughout Buncombe County. Though it does not have any specific programming or initiatives that address gender roles or gender neutral clothing or toys, it said American Girl's move was in line with progress."At the YWCA, we encourage play that helps all children explore what it means to be human and to accept each other's differences," CEO Beth Maczka said. "We are happy to see dolls that celebrate diversity and represent different races, abilities, body types and genders."
The bottom line: This was the kind of novelty culture wars story that produces "clicks" online. I mean, this story has the potential to get onto Comedy Central and Fox News! Tweeter in chief Donald Trump might even weigh in.
So this email from a Progressive Baptist pastor to a tiny circle of church members and friends (with a reporter or two in that list, based on previous contacts) in a small city suddenly becomes the stuff of national social-media chatter and maybe even late-night humor.
This is America.This is news. Right?
Evangelicals and Jews: Religion & Politics report has a thoughtful profile on famous Orthodox leader
Some time ago, there was an opening for a religion reporter-like person to work at something new on the Washington (DC) landscape: A John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics. It is named after the former U.S. senator from Missouri who is also an Episcopal priest.
I didn’t know any of the folks who were hired at the center, but recently I stumbled across its site and hit upon some intellectually meaty think pieces. For example, there’s a piece on newly confirmed Education Secretary Betsy DeVos by someone who appears to understand Calvinism and why DeVos probably isn’t a Calvinist at all. There’s a piece on President Donald Trump and “militant evangelical masculinity” by a Calvin College professor.
But what really interested me was another piece; this one on “How an Orthodox Rabbi became an Unlikely Ally of the Christian Right.” It begins:We are in a third world war,” said Shlomo Riskin, slamming his fist on the table. We were sitting in a windowless room in the D.C. convention center, and Riskin, an Orthodox rabbi, was explaining how he had ended up here, at the annual summit of Christians United For Israel, giving a speech to thousands of conservative evangelicals.Riskin kept banging on the table. “If you have eyes to see, extremist Islam has taken over Islam. And this is the third world war!”Riskin is one of the most influential rabbis of his generation. Now an Israeli, he was born and raised in Brooklyn. As a young man, Riskin voted for Democrats. He marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., in Selma. He officiated at a young Elena Kagan’s bat mitzvah and advocated for women’s rights. Over time, he developed a reputation as a religious progressive.In the last decade, Riskin has quietly developed another project: outreach to Christians, and especially to conservative American evangelicals. His most important partnership is with John Hagee, a Texas megachurch pastor whose organization, Christians United For Israel (CUFI), claims a membership roll larger than that of AIPAC. Like AIPAC, CUFI advocates for policies that it sees as pro-Israel and organizes activists and donors across the country.
I remember Riskin’s controversial move to the West Bank in the early 1980s when he was leading the influential Lincoln Square Synagogue in Manhattan. And I’ve been reporting on Hagee ever since my Houston Chronicle days. And I was covering CUFI long more most reporters even noticed it, such as when Hagee endorsed then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain; McCain repudiated the endorsement on the grounds that Hagee was anti-Semitic and a bunch of Jewish leaders sprang up to endorse the San Antonio pastor.
Hagee and CUFI now carry more heft than ever, which is why The Danforth Center’s Religion & Politics page has a large piece on Riskin.
Riskin is one of a rare breed of pragmatic Orthodox rabbis who do business with evangelical Protestants but he’s not the first. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, who lives near me in the Seattle area, came before him. Both rabbis –- and those like them -– have taken stock of American Christianity, figured out that evangelical Protestantism is where the future lies and learned how to align themselves with it. And it means everything that these evangelicals are fervently pro-Israel.
Meanwhile, CUFI is the new AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee known for lobbying for Israeli interests) and it’s the smart rabbi who goes where the influence is. Here’s how the piece describes one CUFI gathering:THERE ARE MORE Christians in Texas than Jews on earth. But at CUFI’s annual summit, it is the Jews -- their tortured past, fraught present, and uncertain future -- that are the center of attention. Each summer, a few thousand CUFI members from around the country attend exhibits and hear speeches by American and Israeli leaders. They participate in a Night to Honor Israel that is part fundraising dinner, part revival. In the summit gift shop, they buy metal seder plates, elegant Shabbat candles carved from wood, and CUFI’s signature mezuzot—the small box-bound scrolls that Jews traditionally affix to the doorposts of their homes. A vial of “anointing oil for the royal priesthood” costs six dollars.
Now, I commented here on the fracas that happened last September when then-candidate Donald Trump got draped with a Jewish prayer shawl during service at a Pentecostal church. What people blasted as cultural appropriation back then is encouraged at CUFI gatherings.
The reporter in this Politics & Religion piece correctly summarizes the mixed feelings among Jews about all this philo-Semitism and how evangelicals aren’t basing their romantic pro-Israel convictions on relationships with actual Jews. What’s thrown Jews and Christians together in recent years is not so much shared brotherhood but a common enemy: radical forms of Islam.
It’s a very interesting piece, especially when it points out the difficulties of trying to interview Hagee plus how Christians affiliated with Riskin and rabbis like him have toned down their convert-the-Jews rhetoric. I wish the reporter had interviewed a Messianic Jewish group for their take on this. In the past, Jews for Jesus has looked quite askance at Hagee’s group and those like it for wimping out when it comes to telling Jews of the messiahship of Jesus.
Also, I would have liked to have heard from a more liberal Jewish organization if it thinks Riskin’s alliance with CUFI is a savvy alliance or a pact with the devil. Reporters are always told to follow the money and John Hagee Ministries, the article points out, has contributed generously to Riskin’s Orthodox movement.
It would be interesting to know what would happen to that alliance should that money dry up or when Hagee, now 76, either retires or dies. However, Riskin is the same age.
Are there younger rabbis and pastors willing to keep up this mutually beneficial relationship?
Journalists looking for news: That could be the next story that needs to be done.
"So much religion potential here ... and yet so many ghosts."
A faithful GetReligion reader offered that assessment of a long — LONG! — Politico Magazine profile of U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford, R-South Carolina:
‘I’m a Dead Man Walking’ https://t.co/XOiHUKmhhl— POLITICO Magazine (@POLITICOMag) February 18, 2017
After reading the piece — which focuses on Sanford's willingness to criticize President Donald Trump, the leader of his own party — here's my own, succinct response to the reader's critique: Amen!
The story, published just a few days ago, approaches 5,000 words. Roughly 4,997 of them are completely devoid of any religion content. So what else is new?
Before delving into the specifics of the Politico profile, it might be helpful to recall that holy ghosts (click here if you're not familiar with that term) have haunted the Sanford story for years.
Way back in 2009, reporters ignored the religion angle when Sanford — then South Carolina's governor and a married father of four — became embroiled in a sex scandal. Dig deep in the GetReligion archives, and you'll find posts from that year with titles such as "Sin and God's law at press conference," "Adulterers who pray together" and "Sanford's mission from God."
In 2013, when Sanford resurrected his political career and won a return to Congress, I wrote:God figured heavily in Sanford's victory speech, with Yahoo News! noting that Sanford said he wanted to "publicly acknowledge God's role in this." (God was unavailable for comment, and I can't say I blame him.)I am pretty certain Sanford was referring to God's alleged role in his election victory — as opposed to a role in Sanford carrying on a secret affair with an Argentine mistress, to whom he's now engaged after his divorce from the mother of his four children.
Amazingly, "God" fails to make even a cameo appearance in the Politico story. Yet the first holy ghost shows up in the first paragraph:None of this feels normal. The congressman greets me inside his Washington office wearing a wrinkly collared shirt with its top two buttons undone, faded denim jeans and grungy, navy blue Crocs that expose his leather-textured feet. Nearing the end of our 30-minute interview, he cancels other appointments and extends our conversation by an hour. He repeatedly brings up his extramarital affair, unsolicited, pointing to the lessons learned and relationships lost. He acknowledges and embraces his own vulnerability—political, emotional and otherwise. He veers on and off the record, asking himself rhetorical questions, occasionally growing teary-eyed, and twice referring to our session as “my Catholic confessional.”
The piece does not mention Sanford's religious affiliation. But according to the Pew Research Center, he is Anglican/Episcopalian.
Other ghosts sprinkled throughout the piece include a note that his rehabilitation included "virtual Bible studies with his four sons," while his return to Congress required "a bottomless supply of soul-bearing mea culpas."
Yet "God" is not alone in his absence from the profile. Terms such as "church," "faith" and "sin" are conspicuously missing, too.
The ghosts are even more amazing considering the life-and-death symbolism cited by Politico as Sanford explains why he has nothing to lose by opposing Trump:All this gives Sanford a unique sense of liberation to speak his mind about a president whose substance and style he considers a danger to democracy. “I’m a dead man walking,” he tells me, smiling. “If you’ve already been dead, you don’t fear it as much. I’ve been dead politically.”His digs at Trump cover the spectrum. The president, Sanford says, “has fanned the flames of intolerance.” He has repeatedly misled the public, most recently about the national murder rate and the media’s coverage of terrorist attacks. He showed a lack of humility by using the National Prayer Breakfast to ridicule Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ratings on “The Celebrity Apprentice.” Most worrisome, Sanford says, Trump is unprepared for the presidency.For the first time, Sanford begins to measure his words. “I’ve got to be careful,” he says. “Because people who live in glass houses can’t throw stones.”
It's fascinating, really.
I just wish Politico had felt compelled to explore — at least a bit — the spiritual as well as the political. When it comes to Sanford, a little soul searching certainly seems appropriate.
If you ever talked with Norma McCorvey, you know that there was one thing that she wanted journalists to do more than anything else: To tell her story, with all of its messy and complicated details.
She had more than her share of regrets. She had deep sorrows and, through the years, crossed an ocean of shame. As "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade she was a footnote in just about every textbook used in an American History class, at any level of education. Yet, from her point of view, she was famous because of a lie at the heart of her own life.
She knew that she could not make her lies go away. But she did want journalists to allow Americans to hear her tell the story of when she lied, why she lied and how she came to regret what legal activists built with the help of her most famous lie. Thus, she told her story over and over and over, while also trying to walk the walk of a conception to natural death Catholic pro-lifer.
The key point: For McCorvey, her adult life begins with lies and ends with attempts to live out the truth. For those on the cultural left, her public life began with truth and then sank into sad confusion and religious sentiment.
Now McCorvey has died, at age 69. That means that almost every newsroom in America will offer some version of her story -- one last time. How many of the scandalous details of her complicated life will make it into print? When looking at the mainstream obits, there is one key detail to examine: How seriously did each news organization take McCorvey's conversion to Roman Catholicism?
Let's start with the Associated Press, since that feature will appear in the vast majority of American newspapers. To its credit, the AP piece puts both halves of the McCorvey journey in the lede, where they belong.DALLAS (AP) -- Norma McCorvey, whose legal challenge under the pseudonym “Jane Roe” led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision that legalized abortion but who later became an outspoken opponent of the procedure, died Saturday. She was 69.
A few lines later there is this crucial summary of her life -- stated from McCorvey's own point of view, drawn from an autobiography.“I’m 100 percent pro-life. I don’t believe in abortion even in an extreme situation. If the woman is impregnated by a rapist, it’s still a child. You’re not to act as your own God,” she told The Associated Press in 1998.After the court’s ruling, McCorvey had lived quietly for several years before revealing herself as Jane Roe in the 1980s. She also confessed to lying when she said the pregnancy was the result of rape.Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, she remained an ardent supporter of abortion rights and worked for a time at a Dallas women’s clinic where abortions were performed.Her 1994 autobiography, “I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice,” included abortion-rights sentiments along with details about dysfunctional parents, reform school, petty crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, an abusive husband, an attempted suicide and lesbianism.
This brings us to a crucial point in the story: McCorvey was converted to Christianity, and became active in anti-abortion work, in the context of evangelical -- some would say "fundamentalist" -- Protestantism.
I am often amazed how few journalists realize that the pro-life movement is a large and complex thing. It ranges from genuine cultural liberals -- take Secular Pro-Life, Pro-Life Humanists and Atheists Against Abortion -- to a radical fringe whose acceptance of violence against abortionists is rejected by the overwhelming majority of activists in the movement.
The life stories of some activists begin in more radical groups and then swing into the mainstream. Often, the most extreme radicals are people who have been pushed out of mainstream groups because they refused to embrace the style and tactics of those in the mainstream.
The AP obit wades into this minefield, once again leaning on McCorvey interviews and her own writings. This is long, but essential:... She was baptized before network TV cameras by a most improbable mentor: The Rev. Philip “Flip” Benham, the leader of Operation Rescue, now known as Operation Save America. McCorvey joined the cause and staff of Benham, who had befriended her when the anti-abortion group moved next door to the abortion clinic where she was working.
When I met McCorvey, she said that a crucial element of her conversion was her contact with the mothers and children of families involved in the anti-abortion protests.McCorvey also said that her religious conversion led her to give up her lover, Connie Gonzales. She said the relationship turned platonic in the early 1990s and that once she became a Christian she believed homosexuality was wrong. She recounted her evangelical conversion and stand against abortion in the January 1998 book “Won by Love,” which ends with McCorvey happily involved with Operation Rescue.But by August of that year, she had changed faiths to Catholicism. And though she was still against abortion, she had left Operation Rescue, saying she had reservations about the group’s confrontational style.
The AP obit then wades into the long timeline of McCorvey's life and journey, including the messy personal details that led to the crisis pregnancy at the heart of the Roe case.
If you are looking for a McCorvey obit that takes a radically different approach, the best one to read is in The Washington Post, with the headline: "Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide, dies at 69."
But there is another Post piece, with another headline, that is getting quite a bit of push online.
"Jane Roe" made abortion legal. Then a minister made her repent. https://t.co/4MiCCtR3hY— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 19, 2017
Readers can also see this headline in the Post summary of the day's news, sent to online readers who are registered for this service.
Here is a screenshot of that.
The headline on this sidebar now reads: "‘Jane Roe’ made abortion legal. Then a minister made her rethink."
Suffice it to say, there is no branch of Christianity that believes that a minister can make someone repent of her or his sins. This is a terribly offensive headline and Post editors were right to change it.
But who crafted the original wording and put it into circulation in promotional materials? Who decided that she converted to a "cause," as opposed to a faith?
All in all, the Post coverage deals with the messy details of McCorvey's story, but consistently emphasizes the voice of Benham and stresses the Operation Rescue period in her life. This "Acts of Faith" feature focuses on that time period, alone.
There are many interesting details here -- but the word "Catholic" never appears in the "Acts of Faith" feature.
How is her conversion to Catholicism handled in the main Post obit? Here is the only passage that addresses key part of the final decades of her life:She wrote another memoir, “Won By Love” (1997), with co-author Gary Thomas, founded the Dallas-based Roe No More ministry and reportedly became a Catholic. She participated in antiabortion protests and was arrested in 2009 for disrupting the Senate confirmation hearings on Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
The key word there, obviously, is "reportedly."
She "reportedly" became a Catholic? For two decades?
It would appear that, in the Post coverage, the word "reportedly" is used to describe material that McCorvey herself either wrote or said.
The bottom line: It would appear that, to Post editors, McCorvey is not a crucial voice in describing the second half of her own life. Should McCorvey have been allowed to offer testimony of her own (there are stacks of videos and texts to consult and possibly quote) in the debates about who she was and why she did what she did?
Here is a key passage of the Post piece, which is extremely well written, but also captures the newspaper's approach to this topic. Once again, the key person interpreting McCorvey's Christian faith is Benham -- someone who would clash with the vast majority of Catholic pro-lifers on many issues of theology (to say the least) and tactics.She admitted that she peddled misinformation about herself, lying about even the most crucial juncture in her life: For years, she claimed that the Roe pregnancy was the result of a rape. In 1987, she recanted, saying that she had become pregnant “through what I thought was love.” Although the details of her account were legally unimportant, abortion foes pointed to the lie to discredit Ms. McCorvey and her case.According to the most sympathetic tellings of her story, she was a victim of abuse, financial hardship, drug and alcohol addiction, and personal frailty. For much of her life, she subsisted at the margins of society, making ends meet, according to various accounts, as a bartender, a maid, a roller-skating carhop and a house painter. She found a measure of stability with a lesbian partner, Connie Gonzalez, but even that relationship reportedly ended in bitterness after 35 years.Harsher judgments presented Ms. McCorvey as a user who trolled for attention and cash. Abortion rights activists questioned her motives when she decamped in 1995, after years on their side, and was baptized in a swimming pool by the evangelical minister at the helm of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue.The minister, Flip Benham, told Prager, who profiled Ms. McCorvey in Vanity Fair magazine in 2013, that he had come to see her as someone who “just fishes for money.”
Other than the "reportedly" reference mentioned above, the Post never deals with McCorvey's adult conversion into the church of Rome. Why leave this massive hole in her story?
The New York Times obituary includes an early mention of this Catholic conversion as a key fact in her life and, later, briefly documents the role that her Catholic faith played in some of her work as an activist.... She attended rallies and protest marches in support of abortion rights, worked in women’s clinics, spoke to crowds, wrote two autobiographies and was the subject of a documentary and an avalanche of newspaper and magazine articles. She became a national celebrity of sorts.She also switched sides, from abortion rights advocate to anti-abortion campaigner. She underwent two religious conversions, as a born-again Christian and as a Roman Catholic, and became in her last decades a staunch foe of abortion, vowing to undo Roe v. Wade, testifying in Congress and bitterly attacking Barack Obama when he ran for president and then re-election.
This is a complicated and very messy story. It contains many issues that are worthy of debate, with voices speaking out on both sides.
I really appreciated this final paragraph in the Times coverage, with its reference to the famous lawyer who pushed and pushed to bring the Roe case to the U.S. Supreme Court:In 2016, “Roe,” a play by Lisa Loomer, featuring Ms. McCorvey and Ms. Weddington as protagonists, opened at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. The playwright told The Times: “Sarah Weddington, when she approaches the subject of Roe v. Wade, it’s about the law. It’s about choice. It’s about doing something to impact the lives of all women. For Norma McCorvey, Roe is about her. It’s utterly personal.”
In conclusion, here is the central journalism question: Why leave McCorvey's own voice out of these debates about her life?
Contrast the material contained in the AP obit with the coverage in the Washington Post. What is the "big idea" in these two radically different pieces? Which one allows McCorvey to help tell her own story?
In another example of the Catholic-beat team at Crux offering some timely media criticism, the omnipresent John L. Allen, Jr., has produced a follow-up analysis about that the highly symbolic media storm surrounding White House mastermind Stephen "Darth" Bannon and his alleged campaign to undercut Pope Francis.
My original piece on this controversy -- "Looking for on-the-record Vatican voices in the New York Times shocker about Darth Bannon" -- focused on journalism issues in this case, in particular the lack of actual inside-the-Vatican voices about this giant inside-the-Vatican political conspiracy. Here is the thesis statement from the Times piece, followed by a quick replay of my concerns:Just as Mr. Bannon has connected with far-right parties threatening to topple governments throughout Western Europe, he has also made common cause with elements in the Roman Catholic Church who oppose the direction Francis is taking them. Many share Mr. Bannon’s suspicion of Pope Francis as a dangerously misguided, and probably socialist, pontiff.
I noted:The key word is "many," as in "many" sources inside the structures of the Catholic Church.
Later, the Times team adds, making that "many" claim once again:For many of the pope’s ideological opponents in and around the Vatican, who are fearful of a pontiff they consider outwardly avuncular but internally a ruthless wielder of absolute political power, this angry moment in history is an opportunity to derail what they see as a disastrous papal agenda.
Obviously, Trump is a strange hero for Catholics who really sweat the details in moral theology. Now -- other than one think-tank voice with ties to Cardinal Raymond Burke -- one searches in vain for concrete sources for the information on this story, let alone "many" sources inside the halls of Vatican power.
In his analysis essay, Allen is reacting to the waves of media commentary about the Times piece, very few of which did anything in the way of adding factual information about this alleged drama. It was enough that the Times printed what it printed. That means it's all true. Carry on!
Allen makes a number of points, some of which are linked to the journalism mechanics (and ethics) issues that drove my post. Let's start with this:First, so far as we know, there has only been one face-to-face encounter between Bannon and Burke, which came before Trump’s election and even before the release of Pope Francis’s controversial document Amoris Laetitia … in other words, before the raw material of any potential alliance was actually in place.
Amen. As I noted in my piece, the timeline for this conspiracy was flawed from the start. Have Times editors a correction on that error?
Let's read one more very interesting point. I confess that I know next to nothing about inside-baseball Vatican affairs. Allen, however, has the experience necessary to make this rather complicated point:Second, there’s no clear evidence Bannon and Burke have become BFFs, beyond a suggestion from Ben Harnwell, the Rome-based head of a conservative group called the Dignitatis Humanae Institute, that they’ve kept in contact.Even if the two men do occasionally swap emails, in itself there would be nothing extraordinary about it. I’ve covered the Vatican for twenty years, watching scores of American politicians wash through Rome, all hoping to establish contacts - either because they see the Vatican as an important global player, or because they think there could be domestic political value to being seen as having Catholic friends in high places, or both.American politicians tend to seek out the Vatican’s fellow Americans, first because many don’t speak other languages, and second, because those are the people they’re likely to know about. Generally they gravitate first to Americans they believe might share at least some of their views, which makes Bannon reaching out to Burke, whose combative rhetoric on Islam is well known, completely natural.From a very different point of departure, Bernie Sanders did the same thing when he came to Rome, as have John Kerry, John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, and any number of others I’ve watched in action.
There's much more to read and ponder in this piece. By all means, check it out.
In the end, Allen notes that there doesn't seem to any significant evidence of an earthshaking conspiracy here. More than anything else, this media storm centered on people in Rome doing what people do when they are in Rome.Bottom line: We don’t need a new “axis of evil” to account for what’s happening, simply the usual clash of competing ideologies and worldviews. That may not make anyone feel better, but it at least has the virtue of being closer to reality.
However, the Times piece was a massive hit in the community defined, in large part, by the worldview of the Times. Thus, several people sent your GetReligionistas links to this very interesting letter to the editor that the Times team decided to publish.To the Editor:Re “Vatican Traditionalists See Hero in Trump Aide” (front page, Feb. 7):Stephen K. Bannon’s rendezvous with Cardinal Raymond Burke, Pope Francis’ harshest critic, and other Vatican conservatives may come as a surprise to many American Catholics. To those who have tracked Cardinal Burke’s attacks on Pope Francis, the collaboration makes perfect sense.Since his election, Francis has worked to make the church more relevant: to refugees and immigrants, lapsed Catholics, the L.G.B.T. community, Muslims and other marginalized groups. Cardinal Burke and others have attacked the pope, publicly questioning his letter on the family, “Amoris Laetitia,” his warnings against unadulterated capitalism and his hope for the protection of the environment in “Laudato Si’.”Mr. Bannon’s collaboration with these papal antagonists will only widen the disdain the Trump administration holds for the pope’s expansive views on embracing the poor, welcoming the refugee and building bridges, not walls, derived from the pope’s relationship with a higher authority.THOMAS L. GALLAGHERWashingtonThe writer is chief executive and publisher of the Religion News Service.
Oh, and there was this, too:Correction: February 16, 2017 A letter on Wednesday about the Trump adviser Stephen Bannon and the Vatican misstated a word in the name of the letter writer’s organization. It is the Religion News Service (not Religious).
Worried about issues of Times sourcing, logic and even plausibility?
Not so much.
If Henry VIII founded the Anglican Church, does that mean today’s head of the Episcopal Church is the reigning monarch of England?
THE RELIGION GUY ANSWERS:
No. After the American colonies won independence, Anglican leaders in the new nation met in 1789 to form the “Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America” as a totally separate, self-governing denomination, though with shared heritage, sentiment, and liturgy with the mother church.
The current distinction between these two bodies was dramatized when the Church of England bishops issued a new consensus report upholding “the existing doctrinal position on marriage and sexual relationships” (meaning the tradition that disallows same-sex partners) and supported it by 43-1 at a February 15 General Synod session. In separate votes, lay delegates favored the proposed “take note” motion by 58 percent but clergy delegates killed it with 52 percent opposed (click here for more info).
By contrast, the U.S. Episcopal Church has turned solidly liberal. It endorsed consecration of the first openly gay bishop in 2003, affirmed ordination of priests living in same-sex relationships in 2009, and rewrote the definition of marriage in 2015 to authorize same-sex weddings.
Since King Henry broke from Roman Catholicism in 1534, yes, the reigning monarch has been the head of the Church of England (odd as that seems from the U.S. standpoint). Upon coronation, the king or queen becomes the church’s “supreme governor” and takes a public oath to “maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England.”
Nonetheless, modern-day monarchs are figureheads without any of the religious leverage exercised by Henry and his royal successors. The official explanation of the crown’s status: www.royal.uk/queens-relationship-churches-england-and-scotland-and-other-faiths.
Queen Elizabeth II gives pro forma approval to Parliament’s endorsement of General Synod policies, and she nominally appoints all bishops including the church’s actual leader, the archbishop of Canterbury. In reality she has no power. Bishop candidates are assessed privately by a 16-member Crown Nominations Commission that includes church delegates and the prime minister’s appointments secretary. The commission sends two nominees in order of preference to the prime minister — a politician not necessarily a Church of England member or even a devout Christian — who picks which bishop the queen appoints.
In the U.S. church, bishop candidates are openly named, with elections held by democratic ballot at conventions of a diocese’s clergy and lay delegates.
The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment of 1791 outlaws an “establishment of religion” by the federal government, but would that forbid a president’s personal leadership of a religious body as in England? James Garfield had been an important U.S. House member and a Disciples of Christ preacher, but not a top church leader, when elected president. Utah’s Reed Smoot was one of the 12 reigning apostles of the Mormon church throughout his three decades in the U.S. Senate. But no president has headed a denomination and as a matter of practical politics none ever will.
Ecclesiastical geography: The U.S. church and the four separate Anglican entities in the United Kingdom (covering England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) are among 44 independent branches of the Anglican Communion, a loose world network of churches with British roots that together claim 85 million adherents. The archbishop of Canterbury is its honorary leader, but has no pope-like authority over the national branches. While the branches in England, Ireland, and Wales bar same-sex marriage, the Scots may give it final approval this year.
Both the English and American branches have experienced serious membership declines even as Anglicanism elsewhere is growing. ...
Continue reading "What’s the deal between America’s Episcopal Church and the Church of England?", by Richard Ostling.
There’s a solid local angle for every U.S. media outlet in 2016 polling that Gallup applies to ranking all 50 states in order of religiosity. Beyond collecting hometown reactions, reporters can factor in Pew Forum’s 2015 survey on religious identifications in each state’s population. Both data sets benefit from huge random samples.
Gallup counts as “very religious” the 38 percent of respondents who said they attend worship nearly every week and that religion is important to them. The “moderately religious” (30 percent) met only one of those two criteria, and the “nonreligious” (32 percent) met neither. Gallup’s “nonreligious” are similar to, but not identical with, Pew’s “nones” who lack religious identity.
Also, a rough political scenario can be developed by comparing Gallup rankings with the 2016 vote. President Trump won 23 of the 25 most religious states, the exceptions being No. 19 Virginia, whose pious Senator Tim Kaine was on the Democratic ticket, and heavily Hispanic New Mexico at No. 21. Mr. Trump romped in the eight states where half or more of respondents were “very religious” -- Mississippi, followed by Alabama, Utah, South Dakota, South Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton carried nine of the 10 most “nonreligious” states. Tops was Bernie Sanders’ Vermont (at 58 percent ), followed by Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Nevada, Alaska (the oddity with a big Trump win), Oregon, Connecticut, Hawaii and Washington state. Next on the nonreligious scale were closely fought New Hampshire, then the two states that accounted for Clinton’s popular vote margin, New York and California (each with 40 percent nonreligious).
Where and how might the troubled Democrats improve their prospects?
One proposal: Forget the popular vote, build the right Electoral College lineup among 50 separate state elections plus D.C., and recognize the significance of religious dynamics.
Last year, The Religion Guy kept lamenting press inattention to non-Hispanics who identify as Catholic, a swing vote up for grabs that shifted Republican. There’s no hard evidence this stemmed from clergy influence, but whatever is happening the Democrats need to figure it out.
Ponder Gallup and Pew numbers for three states where Trump managed shocking victories, though by less than a percent:
Wisconsin: The citizenry identifies as 25 percent Catholic (and 22 percent evangelical Protestant) but is a modest No. 27 on Gallup’s state religiosity ranking, which by conventional rule of thumb should help Democrats.
Pennsylvania: Similarly, the population identifies as 24 percent Catholic (and only 19 percent evangelical), with a middling No. 25 on religiosity.
Michigan: Its population is only 18 percent Catholic but 25 percent evangelical, with a rather weak No. 29 on religiosity.
Then there’s Minnesota: Trump came within 1.5 percent of stealing this supposedly “blue” state, ranked No. 28 on religiosity. Unusually, “mainline” Protestants (29 percent) outnumber Catholics (22 percent) and evangelicals (19 percent).
Also, New Hampshire: Clinton won but by less than a percent in a state that’s a low No. 40 in religiosity and has few evangelicals, which should help Democrats, but 26 percent identify as Catholic.
Turn to staunchly Republican white evangelical Protestants (Democrats automatically sweep African-American Protestants, while white “mainline” Protestants are split and also declining): As with Catholics, voters who identify culturally as evangelicals are distinct from the smaller number who are active churchgoers holding evangelical beliefs (the former were notably fonder toward Mr. Trump than the latter).
North Carolina (Trump-Pence won by 3.7 percent): Democrats face a population that’s 47 percent “very religious” and 35 percent evangelical in identification. Except for this piety factor, it might be solidly “blue.” Republicans have regularly prevailed except in 2008.
Georgia (Trump-Pence won by 5.2 percent): Democrats must do better with a citizenry that’s likewise 47 percent “very religious,” and fully 38 percent evangelical. In recent elections Democrats have only won by nominating southerners, and Southern Baptists, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
Virginia (Clinton-Kaine won by 5.3 percent): The populace is 42 percent “very religious,” and 30 percent evangelical, yet has been trending Democratic.
Florida (Trump-Pence won by 1.2 percent): This complex swing state, a perpetual Democratic target, is only 24 percent evangelical and a mere No. 32 in religiosity.
The data indicate that except for those four, Democrats will waste their time and money in southern states with strong religiosity and large evangelical numbers. Ditto for heavily Mormon Utah.
When you stop and think about religion, politics and the tone of American public life over the past year or two, are the words "warm" and "fuzzy" the first things that come to mind?
Let's make that question more specific, which is what host Todd Wilken and I did in this week's "Crossroads" podcast (click here to tune that in). When you think about the tone of American debates about issues linked to religious faith -- think LGBTQ rights and religious liberty clashes, or the refugee crisis and terrorism threats linked to the Islamic State -- do you have warm, fuzzy, cheerful feelings about what has been going on and the future?
Well, in that context you can understand why a blast of new numbers from the Pew Research Center made a few headlines this past week. Click here to see the previous GetReligion post on this topic, including links to the study and some of the coverage.
Once again, the content of that study was summarized in this rather warm and fuzzy double-decker headline at the Pew website:Americans Express Increasingly Warm Feelings Toward Religious GroupsJews, Catholics continue to receive warmest ratings, atheists and Muslims move from cool to neutral
The lede at The New York Times took that basic idea and, of course, framed it -- logically enough -- in the context of the bitter 2016 race for the White House.After an election year that stirred up animosity across racial and religious lines, a new survey has found that Americans are actually feeling warmer toward people in nearly every religious group -- including Muslims -- than they did three years ago.
Now think about this one more time. Go back to the questions at the top of this post. Isn't it logical to ask WHY Americans are feeling warmer and fuzzier feelings about various religious groups right now, when most of the evidence in public discourse -- certainly at the level of headlines and social media -- is suggesting the opposite?
To its credit, the Times team raised that issue in its straightforward and newsy report. Thus:... Jen’nan Ghazal Read, an associate professor of sociology and global health at Duke University, questioned the value of measuring “warmth” toward religious groups and the study’s conclusions.“To me, this makes it seem like all’s well in America, and I think that’s not accurately depicting the reality,” said Ms. Read, who has studied American attitudes toward Muslims. “What does ‘warm’ mean?”The responses varied depending on who was asked. Younger Americans, aged 18 to 29, rated Muslims and atheists more warmly, and Jews far more coolly, than Americans 50 and older. Black Americans felt more warmly than white or Hispanic Americans toward Muslims. But in every case, people felt more warmly toward religious groups when they personally knew someone in that group.
So what is the source of the bitter divide that keeps showing up in American public discourse whenever a topic is attached to truth claims linked to religion?
As I stressed in my earlier piece, and in the podcast, it really helps to read the Christianity Today piece about this Pew study. As you would expect, CT focused right in on the somewhat muted findings linked to the status of evangelical Protestantism. (This "location, location, location" focus is totally logical, as you can see in this other Pew study coverage from The National Catholic Register and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.)
The CT online team jumped one layer deeper and noticed that evangelical Protestants where the key American religious group that was left out of this warming trend. Thus:Overall, 44 percent of Americans feel positively about evangelicals, while 38 percent feel neutral and 18 percent feel negatively. The ratings fall when responses from fellow evangelicals, who made up more than 1 in 4 of respondents, are removed: Just under a third of non-evangelicals (32%) have warm feelings towards the group.
As I noted, if you flip that final number around you get this interesting fact: More than two-thirds of non-evangelical Americans have cool or cold feelings about America's largest non-Catholic Christian flock.
Please consider digging even deeper. There is evidence that African Americans -- at least in studies at the end of the 20th Century -- tend to be less prejudiced against evangelicals and fundamentalists than white Americans. So what would happen to that cool or colder number it you looked at white non-evangelicals, alone?
More questions? What would happen if you could look at the feelings of white non-evangelicals in, let's say, the all-important Acela zone that connects Washington, D.C., to New York City and then Boston? How about the feelings -- toward evangelicals -- in non-white evangelicals in major newsrooms? How about those same feelings among leaders in the Democratic Party and the country-club or Libertarian wing of the Republican Party? How about those feelings among the leaders of oldline Protestant flocks? Would the cool to colder factor top two-thirds?
Clearly, there is some kind of divide out there and, as always, the deeper implications of the new Pew numbers caused me to think about the book that has influenced my thinking more than any other over the past quarter century or more. That would be the bestseller by sociologist James Davison Hunter called, "Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America."
Long, long ago -- when I was marking the 10th anniversary of my syndicated "On Religion" column -- I summed up Hunter's key point this way, in the context of the tensions at the heart of American public discourse about religion:The old dividing lines centered on issues such as the person of Jesus Christ, church tradition and the Protestant Reformation. But these new interfaith coalitions were fighting about something even more basic -- the nature of truth and moral authority.Two years later , Hunter began writing "Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America," in which he declared that America now contains two basic world views, which he called "orthodox" and "progressive." The orthodox believe it's possible to follow transcendent, revealed truths. Progressives disagree and put their trust in personal experience, even if that requires them to "resymbolize historic faiths according to the prevailing assumptions of contemporary life."
Now, there are plenty of small-o orthodox Roman Catholics in American life, as well as orthodox Orthodox Jews, orthodox Anglicans, orthodox Eastern Orthodox Christians and other religious traditionalists in postmodern America. However, it's safe to say that in terms of press coverage and American entertainment, the truly dangerous conservatives in American public life -- think Religious Right -- are evangelical Protestants. Correct?
There is another irony here, one that is even harder to discuss in news reports. That is, the faith of many born-again, evangelical Christians is built primarily on feelings linked to personal experience, as opposed to ancient doctrines.
To no one’s huge surprise, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled against Baronelle Stutzman for refusing to provide flowers for a gay friend’s wedding. Also to no one’s surprise, she (that is, her lawyers) immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which may get a new justice soon.
So what is the key question in this story for journalists striving to cover the actual arguments in the case? Once again, the small print in this story is that that Stutzman wasn’t refusing to serve gay people in all instances, like the Woolworth's lunch counter sit-ins during the Civil Rights era. Instead, she was claiming the right to refuse to provide flowers in one doctrinally defined situation -- a marriage rite.
But did mainstream news reporters make that crucial distinction?
In almost all cases the answer is "no." We’ll start with what the Seattle Times said:A Richland florist who refused to provide flowers to a gay couple for their wedding violated anti-discrimination law, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.The court ruled unanimously that Barronelle Stutzman discriminated against longtime customers Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed when she refused to do the flowers for their 2013 wedding because of her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. Instead, Stutzman suggested several other florists in the area who would help them.“We’re thrilled that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled in our favor. The court affirmed that we are on the right side of the law and the right side of history,” Ingersoll and Freed said in a statement.Stutzman and her attorneys said they would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. They also held out hope that President Donald Trump would issue an executive order protecting religious freedom, which was a campaign pledge.
The article went on to rehearse the facts of the case and then quote several people (the state attorney general and the American Civil Liberties Union attorney for the gay couple) who were at a Seattle news conference. This went on for a number of paragraphs.
The Seattle Times gave two paragraphs to a press release from Stutzman’s attorneys.
Once again we see a familiar pattern: People are allowed to argue their case on one side, while the other side is reduced to words on paper. Why not talk to authoritative voices on both sides?
Perhaps the relevant word here is "Kellerism."
Note to the Times: You’ve been covering this case for some time. By now, you should have Stutzman’s home phone number as well as the cell phones of her lawyers. At least try to get some fresh quotes from her. Why not let readers hear her voice? It the Stutzman team will not talk, then say so.
The Tri-City Herald, Stutzman’s home newspaper, got a quote out of her. There’s no reason why the Times couldn’t have done the same.
The Seattle paper also said this:A Benton County Superior Court judge last February ruled that Stutzman’s religious beliefs did not allow her to discriminate against the couple and that she must provide flowers for same-sex weddings, or stop doing weddings at all. The trial court also imposed a fine of $1,000 and legal fees of just $1.
The Times left out the fact that Stutzman is also being hit up for all the legal fees that the ACLU is incurring for the case, which could easily go over $1 million. That will take care of her retirement, house and her savings. That does not faze the Ingersoll and Freed team, which had a statement on the ACLU-Washington’s web site.
At least the Associated Press account mentioned the crucial fact that Stutzman had previously served this couple. In fact, she has no history of discrimination against LGBTQ people as customers or as workers.She had previously sold the couple flowers and knew they were gay. However, Stutzman told them that she couldn't provide flowers for their wedding because same-sex marriage was incompatible with her Christian beliefs.
I wish some of the news accounts would ask the right questions. If certain dress designers are allowed to refuse to design dresses for Melania Trump because their art is protected under the First Amendment, why aren’t Stutzman’s floral arrangements classed under the same category?
The Stranger, an alternative Seattle newspaper, posted a copy of the tweet from Alliance Defending Freedom imploring President Donald Trump’s help in this case. Then again, look at the Stranger’s lead sentence:The Washington State Supreme Court dealt bigots a loss today, ruling that the Richland florist who in 2013 refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding violated the state's anti-discrimination law.
I know this is blue-state Seattle, but that’s disgusting, even in an alternative paper.
There hasn’t been much original reporting on this case ever since Stutzman’s case was heard by the Washington state supreme court in November except for this Federalist essay that talked about the longtime friendship between Stutzman and Robert Ingersoll, one of the plaintiffs.
But when Stutzman turned Ingersoll down, it was Freed, his partner, who told the world about it on Facebook. That one action brought the media, the ACLU and State Attorney General Bob Ferguson (the same lawyer who’s defying Trump’s travel ban, by the way) on her head.
Freed was never criticized for revealing all on Facebook. Why was that OK, but when the owner of a Gresham, Ore., bakery (Sweet Cakes by Melissa) revealed –- also on Facebook -- that a lesbian couple had complained against them, that was considered harassment? Too often, reporters follow their own biases and don't ask the unpopular questions.
I hope this goes to the Supreme Court, because there’s been a bunch of wedding-related cases concerning aggrieved gay couples and the bakeries, photographers, florists, etc., who say they’re not discriminating against the people on a consistent basis, but they are refusing to celebrate a specific kind of event because of centuries of established doctrines in several major world religions. Up until now, the court has dodged taking any such case on.
Until they do, read this Christian Science Monitor account of the Washington state case, because it’s by far the best account out there about a complex case that most reporters reduce to clichés and leave it at that.
If the conventional analysis is to be believed, a key reason so many white evangelical Christians voted for Donald Trump last November 8 was concern over who'd get the ninth seat on the Supreme Court. And, any other seats opening up over the next four (or even eight) years.
For many, if not most, of these voters, the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver would appear to have been cause for celebration. He takes an "originalist" view of the Constitution, just like the late jurist he would replace, Justice Antonin Scalia.
My co-GetReligionista Julia Duin has written about the dearth of coverage of Judge Gorsuch's faith, but, much like a bad meal of gas-station sushi, the problem keeps coming up. And who better to belch forward another glaring omission than The New York Times, where the top editor breezily admits "we don't get the role of religion in people's lives," and moves on to the next thing?
This time, the "we-don't-get-the-role-of-religion" thing becomes glaringly obvious.
The Times is taking a look at one of the most contentious faith-based issues of the 21st century, that of the definition of marriage and how that definition will fare with Judge Gorsuch on the high court. "Gorsuch Not Easy to Pigeonhole on Gay Rights, Friends Say," reads the headline. From the story:Democrats and their progressive allies are marching in lock step to oppose Judge Gorsuch, whose record they find deeply troubling, and gay pundits are painting him as a homophobe. But interviews with his friends -- both gay and straight -- and legal experts across the political spectrum suggest that on gay issues, at least, he is not so easy to pigeonhole.In nominating Judge Gorsuch, Mr. Trump has picked a man with impeccable legal credentials and cast him in the mold of the justice he would succeed, the late Antonin Scalia, who once accused the court of being swayed by a “homosexual agenda” and voted against legalizing same-sex marriage. Judge Gorsuch has said he cried when he learned of Justice Scalia’s death.Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch regards himself as an originalist, meaning he tries to interpret the Constitution based on the text as written by the founding fathers. But he is three decades younger than Justice Scalia was when he died. He has had two openly gay clerks, and he lives with his wife, Louise, and their two daughters in liberal Boulder, Colo., where his church, St. John’s Episcopal, welcomes gay members.That leads some friends to wonder if his jurisprudence might be closer to that of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has carved out a name for himself as the court’s conservative defender of gay rights. Justice Kennedy wrote the landmark 2015 opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage -- a decision some analysts trace to his upbringing in tolerant California.
Did you catch that? The Gorsuch family attends an Episcopal congregation that "welcomes gay members."
That is the only reference to religion and gay rights you'll find in the entire story. No discussion of how or whether St. John's position influenced the judge. No quote from any member of St. John's, let alone from the head cleric there.
That cleric, described by The Christian Post as "a very liberal, pro-LGBT female rector named Rev. Susan Springer," would surely have something to say. Or, perhaps, the Rev. Springer would not have something to say, opting for pastoral discretion. But the only way to find out would be to ask the Rev. Springer, and there's no indication the Times picked up the phone. Or sent an email or tweeted or whatever.
Now, Christian Post reporter Samuel Smith apparently didn't call the Rev. Springer either, but he did offer some well-researched insights into whether or not the homilies delivered at St. John's might have an impact on the "originalist" nominee, thanks to comments from Episcopal analyst Jeff Walton of the doctrinally conservative Institute for Religion & Democracy:"There is no question that it is a Lefty parish," Walton explained. "Out of curiosity, I looked on their webpage. They have some anti-gun rights stuff. The pastor there, she was at the Women's March in Denver. There were all kinds of red flags. But just because she has those views as the rector, doesn't mean that everybody who participates there has those views.""At IRD, we have supporters who are very conservative but go to churches that have more liberal clergy," Walton added. "The liberal clergy will occasionally spout off about something and these congregants will roll their eyes at it and let it wash over and it is not that big of a deal. That may be the situation [at St. John's]."
Smith also quotes Walton's observation that St. John's is Boulder's "social parish," where the elite meet to greet. (The family of the late Jon Benet Ramsey attended, albeit years ago.)"This is where the professional class goes to church. In those sorts of parishes, the political sentiments of the rector don't carry as far as they might in another parish because people are not going there primarily for political organizing purposes," Walton explained. "They are there because it is basically sort of a class thing."
Now, I'm guessing it didn't take all that long for the Christian Post to find the very accessible Walton and arrange a chat. I'd imagine Walton would be equally happy to speak with The New York Times, should they call him. (Disclosure: Walton was a source of mine at the Deseret News.)
But instead of probing the judge's feelings about St. James, the Times ignores what might seem a hyper-obvious angle on a complex, emotion-laden story. The faith angle. The angle its top editor says they "don't get."
Do not be at all surprised if this, er, comes up again in the coming weeks as Judge Gorsuch faces hearings and a Senate confirmation vote. The New York Times has the chance, still, to try to get it right.
Several times a year, the Pew Research Center hits reporters with another newsy study -- full of numbers and public-square trends -- that is almost impossible not to cover.
The latest report was topped with this sprawling double-decker headline: "Americans Express Increasingly Warm Feelings Toward Religious Groups -- Jews, Catholics continue to receive warmest ratings, atheists and Muslims move from cool to neutral."
That's a rather warm and fuzzy way to put it and that's precisely how The New York Times -- in a very straightforward and newsy report -- decided to cover this material. Of course, this survey was also framed with references (#DUH) to the 2016 presidential race. Never forget that politics is what is really real.After an election year that stirred up animosity across racial and religious lines, a new survey has found that Americans are actually feeling warmer toward people in nearly every religious group -- including Muslims -- than they did three years ago.Muslims and atheists still rank at the bottom of the poll, which asked respondents to rate their attitudes toward religious groups on a “feeling thermometer.” However, Muslims and atheists -- who have long been targets of prejudice in the United States -- received substantially warmer ratings on the scale than they did in a survey in 2014: Muslims rose to 48 percent from 40, and atheists to 50 percent from 41.The religious groups that ranked highest, as they did three years ago, were Jews (67 percent) and Catholics (66 percent). Mainline Protestants, including Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians, who were measured for the first time, came in at 65 percent. Buddhists rose on the scale to 60 percent from 53, Hindus to 58 from 50, and Mormons to 54 from 48.
There was, however, one exception to this civility trend.Evangelical Christians were the only group that did not improve their standing from three years ago, plateauing at 61 percent.
As you would imagine -- remember the journalism commandment that "all news is local" -- scribes at Christianity Today jumped on that trend right at the top of their report on the survey. The headline, and check out the killer second line: "Americans Warm Up to Every Religious Group Except Evangelicals -- Pew finds fewer people personally know an evangelical anymore."
Thus, the lede for this piece notes:Evangelicals are the only religious group in the United States that has not developed a better reputation over the past few years. And Americans have become less likely to know an evangelical -- more so than any other faith tradition.
Now, the numbers show that large numbers of Americans still have "warm feelings" for evangelicals. But there is a dark side to that trend.
You see, there are lots and lots of evangelicals in America -- compared with the size of other religious niches -- and evangelicals tend to like themselves. Subtract the evangelicals who have warm feelings toward evangelicals and another trend emerges:Overall, 44 percent of Americans feel positively about evangelicals, while 38 percent feel neutral and 18 percent feel negatively. The ratings fall when responses from fellow evangelicals, who made up more than 1 in 4 of respondents, are removed: Just under a third of non-evangelicals (32%) have warm feelings towards the group.
This raises a question (#DUH) that your GetReligionistas have been asking since we opened our cyber-doors in 2004: What does the word "evangelical" mean? The bottom line: Whatever this label means, it has increasingly turned into a mild curse (a lukewarm version of "fundamentalist") that is now being avoided by many white evangelicals.
So if there are fewer people who are calling themselves "evangelicals," and the term "evangelical" is primarily being used as a political curse, then that would affect a survey such as this one. Right?
Thus, the CT team noted:Though a majority of Americans still know at least one evangelical, the group experienced the most significant decline in familiarity. Among non-evangelicals, millennials (45%) and African Americans (33%) were least likely to know someone who identifies as evangelical.One factor behind the drop-off may be a growing reluctance to use the label over the baggage it carries, especially for those outside the church. A CT Pastors survey conducted late last year found that pastors were more likely to call themselves evangelical around other Christians (70%) than non-Christians (52%).
My take: It would also appear that African Americans evangelicals -- faced with waves of media signals assuming that "evangelical" equals white Republican -- have stopped calling themselves evangelicals.
But the key number in all of that, for reporters seeking an edgier story, was this one: "Just under a third of non-evangelicals (32%) have warm feelings towards the group."
Now, turn that around and that would mean that more than two-thirds of non-evangelicals have cool or cold feelings about America's largest non-Catholic Christian flock. Did I get that right?
Thinking through the implications of the Pew survey reminded me of a report released more than a decade ago by political scientists Gerald De Maio and Louis Bolce of Baruch College in the City University of New York. The key to their study was the identification of what they called "anti-fundamentalist voters" -- a growing army of secular and religiously liberal Americans who were united by their "animus" against traditional forms of religion, especially Christianity.
Note that they spotted this coalition of atheists, agnostics, religious liberals and "those who answer 'none' when asked to pick a faith" long before this same trend emerged as one implication of the headline-producing "'Nones' on the Rise" survey by Pew in 2012.
Here is some crucial material from these two scholars, drawn from an "On Religion" column I wrote in 2004. Yes, some of these numbers are old, but that's what makes them so striking. Does anyone doubt that they have not risen in the past two decades?Bolce, an Episcopalian, and De Maio, a Roman Catholic, have focused much of their work on the "thermometer scale" used in the 2000 American National Election Study and those that preceded it. Low temperatures indicate distrust or hatred while high numbers show trust and respect. Thus, "anti-fundamentalist voters" are those who gave fundamentalists a rating of 25 degrees or colder. By contrast, the rating "strong liberals" gave to "strong conservatives" was a moderate 47 degrees.Yet 89 percent of white delegates to the 1992 Democratic National Convention qualified as "anti-fundamentalist voters," along with 57 percent of Jewish voters, 51 percent of "moral liberals," 48 percent of school-prayer opponents, 44 percent of secularists and 31 percent of "pro-choice" voters. In 1992, 53 percent of those white Democratic delegates gave Christian fundamentalists a thermometer rating of zero.
By the way, they found that this "anti-fundamentalist voter" pattern was very rare among African Americans.
Oh, what about the evangelicals and "fundies"? Who did they reject in those same surveys? Their average "thermometer rating" toward Catholics was a friendly 62 degrees, toward blacks 66 degrees and Jews 68 degrees.
There is a good reason that few Americans know about this trend, said De Maio and Bolce.Between 1990 and 2000, Bolce and De Maio found that the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post published 929 stories about the political clout of conservative Christians and 59 about that of secularists. Only 18 stories addressed the religious disconnect between the major parties. They searched abstracts at the Vanderbilt University television news archive for similar stories in 2003 and 2004 and found zero."What we have found is a prejudice that is not taboo in our educational, political and media elites," said Bolce. "Anti-fundamentalist attitudes are sanctioned at the highest levels of American life."
Thus, it is significant that the Times story on the new Pew survey never returned to the implications of its numbers about evangelical Christians.
I guess that is to be expected, since everyone knows there are few, if any, evangelicals in greater New York City. Yes, I am joking.
The Times team focused on the survey's larger trend, which was the rise in positive numbers. That's a valid approach to this news story.
Christianity Today dug deeper and, as a key voice among evangelical Protestants, probed the implications of this survey for its readers. That's a valid approach, too, especially if you are looking for an edgier headline that fits these tense times in the public square of American life.
However, once again I am reminded of something that Stephen Bates -- author of the very mainstream and still relevant "Battleground: One Mother's Crusade, the Religious Right, and the Struggle for Control of our Classrooms" -- once told me:It is getting harder and harder for postmodern liberals to tolerate people that they believe are intolerant. ... Some progressives have found themselves saying, "There are people in the world who just don't love everybody the way that they should and I hate people like that."
So, are the moral and cultural walls that divide Americans getting higher or lower? Are things getting warmer or colder, when it comes to Americans willing to tolerate the beliefs of others? Are you seeing this issue in the mainstream news that you consume?
Hopeful sign? Brazil's Christian right and secular left want Carnaval to cover up and tweak its tunes
These are not happy days in Brazil, the South American colossus that's home to more Roman Catholics than any other nation. Political, economic, social, and health problems abound, as does crime.
Plus there's this: Brazil's famed and raucous carnival season, Carnaval, as it's called in Portuguese -- the pre-Lenten blow out that begins this weekend and ends the first week of March (exact dates vary by city) -- has been caught up in the nation's very own culture war.
Interestingly, both Brazil's conservative evangelical and Pentecostal Christian communities and the nation's progressive left are both upset at what until now have been hallowed carnival traditions.
Conservative Christians are upset by the striking, to put it mildly, amount of female flesh on display during Carnaval. (Unfortunately, the terms evangelical and Pentecostal are often incorrectly used interchangeably in news reports about conservative Brazilian Christians in the American press, so we'll go with conservative Christians as an umbrella.)
Meanwhile, the progressive left says it's time to do away with long-popular carnival songs featuring racist, sexist and homophobic lyrics.
The Washington Post ran this solid overview of the situation. Here's a taste of the Post story that notes how the right-left criticism has already impacted carnival traditions.Brazil’s increasingly powerful evangelical church and its progressive movements are both pushing to refine Carnaval to match their often opposing priorities. As a sign of the times, the Brazilian city of Olinda, famous for its street festival, has two new additions this Carnaval: a “Gospel zone” and an “LGBT zone.”
I guess it's up to visitors to make sure they don't stumble into the wrong zone. (I'm jesting, folks.)
A bit deeper in the story came this, an example of one changed, high-profile carnival tradition that critics from both sides found distasteful.For decades, the telltale sign that Carnaval season had begun was the appearance of the “Globeleza” dancer during commercial breaks on Brazil’s major TV network, Globo. (“Globeleza” is a portmanteau of Globo and the Portuguese word for beauty). Clothed only in sparkly glitter and body paint, this performer -- always a mixed-race woman -- samba-dances for about 30 seconds with a broad smile while her body parts jiggle and the camera zooms.The idea is to get Brazilians excited for Carnaval, but an increasing number of Brazilians see the Globeleza as a symbol of the objectification of women -- women of color in particular.“This is an old colonial symbol that doesn’t represent the multiplicity of Brazilian culture -- or Brazilian blackness -- at all,” said Juliana Luna, a writer for the Brazilian magazine AzMina. She sees the Globeleza as an example of using black women as a form of entertainment, “a body displayed in a window.”This year things are different. For the first time since 1991, the Globeleza danced across TV screens in actual clothing -- a crop top. Luna was admittedly shocked but thrilled by the change. “You don’t need a black woman with her [butt] out covered in glitter to sell Carnaval.”
The story also included this conservative Christian background info.When it comes to the sinful extremity of Carnaval, some evangelical leaders encourage their followers to simply sit out the party. One of Brazil’s most famous evangelical pastors, Silas Malafaia, warned on his website that “this festival of the flesh brings degrading physical, moral and spiritual consequences,” adding, “It is therefore not appropriate for Christians to participate.”But some evangelicals know Carnaval can be impossible to avoid. So, like the social progressives, they are attempting to transform the festival into one they can endorse. In the city of Salvador, for example, a group called Salt of the Earth will parade to Brazilian funk tunes -- one of Brazil’s most salacious music genres -- adapted to include lyrics referencing the Bible. Another group, called Christafari, will parade to gospel reggae music.“The beat is the same, the lyrics are different,” a performer name Tonzão told a local paper. He justified Christians’ participation in this adapted Carnaval by saying, “Dance is a way of evangelizing.”
Doesn't that last quote remind you of the whole Jerry Lee Lewis-Jimmy Swaggart cousins' thing (I know, Mickey Gilley's in there, too)?
(For purposes of journalistic contrast only, and if you feel the need for another tangent, read this substandard piece on the carnival controversy from The Economist. It missed entirely the story's pertinent religion angle, an omission we at GetReligion refer to as a "religion ghost.")
GetReligion writers have long noted the social and political rise of Brazil's conservative Protestants. Back in 2012, we even ran a piece on how women's clothing fashions were being impacted by this. I, myself, posted a piece in 2015 about how Brazil's stew of evangelical and Pentecostal Christians are influenced by various African faith traditions that, after being carried across the Atlantic by the slave trade, survived by adopting Catholic veneers.
Both the mainstream press, click here for one example, and Christian media have also long been on the story. Here's a piece from the liberal The Christian Century that does not look all that kindly at the rise of Brazil's Christian right.
I don't mean to make light of conservative religion's newfound role in Brazilian national politics. It's a profound shift, the full impact of which will not be clear for years.
Yet it seems to me that the growing dust up surrounding the carnival season is of a different cultural order. Perhaps because, while political control shifts continually from right to left and then back to the right, changes in cultural mores are more glacial. And carnival is certainly deeply imbedded in Brazilian culture,
It's the nation's largest festival and it helps drive the nation's tourist trade. Carnival's tropical sensuality is almost synonymous with Rio de Janeiro's steamy image -- the city's skyline-dominating Christ the Redeemer statue not withstanding.
Despite all that, you have voices on both sides of the conservative-liberal divide arguing that what was once acceptable, no longer is.
As such, the Carnaval story is a measure of how swiftly once cherished identity markers can -- and do -- change in today's interconnected world.
I'd also like to think it's a sign that religious conservatives and the progressive (presumably non-religious or at least doctrinally more liberal) left can work together on more than what initially meets the eye, even when approaching a concern from different angles.
We call it click-bait; these come-hither headlines that make you want to read whatever’s below them, even if it’s about a topic that doesn’t interest you.
Who can turn away from this headline: Basketball revolt: Make the girls quit or forfeit, N.J. archdiocese told grade schoolers. They forfeited.
Unfortunately, the piece was highly aggregated, meaning the newsroom team apparently did no original work, but mashed together various accounts from other online sources. And then there were the snide comments to what ran in the Washington Post’s Morning Mix:The Catholic Church, in its roughly 2,000 years of existence, often has felt the pressures of social change.Same-sex couples want to get married. Divorcées want to take communion. Girls wanted to be altar servers. Women want to be priests. And in New Jersey this year, elementary schoolers -- particularly the female ones -- want to play basketball.The cause has mobilized people in two towns in northern New Jersey who feel that, in the year 2017, gender discrimination has no place in athletics.
No mystery here as to what the reporter thinks about the matter. Who is being quoted? Where is this material coming from? These are basic journalism questions.In Kenilworth, a 12-year-old girl at St. Theresa’s Catholic school was expelled, then re-enrolled, after her parents sued the institution for not allowing her to play basketball with the boys. There wasn’t enough interest to field a girls-only team.And just a few miles away, in Clark, a Catholic Youth Organization team of nine fifth grade boys and two girls from St. John’s school was forced to cut short its season and forego the playoffs last week when league officials learned of their co-ed status and offered an ultimatum. Make the girls quit, they said, or forfeit.The rowdy band of 10-year-olds, who had been teammates nearly half their lives, said no. Instead of a scheduled game against another school, their season ended Friday with an inter-squad scrimmage, “unity” T-shirts, a pizza party and prayer, reported N.J. Advance Media.
The next few paragraphs all crib from the Advance’s account. Finally:Comprehensive coverage by N.J. Advance Media has propelled both stories into the state and national spotlight and portrayed the Catholic Church, once again, as a roadblock to equal opportunity, even as other institutions, like the Boy Scouts of America, have moved in recent years to shed traditional gender norms and accept both gay and transgender scouts.The cases also show the disconnect between the Church’s stance on social issues and the way its future potential congregants and priests and deacons and nuns see the world. An Innovation Group survey released last year found that 38 percent of Gen Z respondents (aged 13-20) agreed strongly that gender defines a person less than it used to, and 40 percent said they somewhat agree.
How about inserting the word “purported” before the word “disconnect” so this story doesn’t sound so much like an editorial?
The story goes on, still quoting Advance Media, then switches to quoting from CatholicPhilly.com. Then it throws in a paragraph from the Associated Press, a local TV station and finally “Good Morning America.”
Hey, I know it’s tough to get your own sources when the story occurs several states away and it’s easier to take material from the folks who already have boots on the ground. But if I’d wanted aggregated news, I would have gone to the Huffington Post, which is famous for it.
People turn to the larger, elite newspapers because they want original reporting. If the newspaper doesn’t have the time or staff to do its own stuff, use a wire service. But no, the Washington Post leadership doesn’t want to go there, so they aggregated. There’s already been one public embarrassment about one Post blogger/aggregator named Elizabeth Flock who said the pressures at the office made her resign. That was in 2012. Five years later, little seems to have changed.
As I finish reading the story, it feels like I’ve been handed one huge advocacy piece for mixed-gender sports teams. There’s not one original quote from the Archdiocese of Newark here nor anything about some of the secular research out there that shows that girls often do better in single-gender environments.
What are the archdiocese’s theological reasons behind this? There have to be some; why else would many Catholic churches not allow girls to be acolytes? But all we hear are their fears of a lawsuit and then “safety” reasons for girl and boy athletes not to mix.
Then at the end, we get four paragraphs of commentary from a University of Connecticut coach who has nothing to do with the New Jersey fracas but happens to have an opinion that agrees with the direction of the story.
To get any sense of balance, I had to dig into the comment section where several people with some knowledge of the events voiced alternative views about what was really happening. For instance, is it true that the girl on the St. Theresa’s team had the opportunity to play with an all-girl team at another school? Why wasn’t that in the story?
How about looking at the topic from different angles? As one person asked, what if it had been two boys wanting to play on a girls’ team?
But no, the appetite is for more and more click-bait and so these types of pieces are rolled out. It doesn’t have to be this way. One newspaper that stands against the tide is the London-based Guardian. Being overseas with deadlines some five or six hours earlier than Eastern Standard, a European outlet can be excused for aggregating stories to speed things up. But no, the Guardian does a ton of original reporting.
So can journalists on this side of the pond. They just have to want to.
Do both sides agree it's stupid to require a father's approval for an abortion? Media don't bother to ask
Anti-abortion legislation in my home state of Oklahoma is making national headlines. Not for the first time.
The latest bill proposes to give fathers the power to block abortions.
The Oklahoman reports on today's front page:An Oklahoma House committee approved a bill allowing fathers to veto an abortion, despite objections that it would be found unconstitutional.The measure requires women seeking an abortion to provide the father’s written, informed consent. A woman would also have to reveal the father’s name.House Bill 1441 now moves on to the full House. It must still get Senate approval before heading to the governor.The bill’s author, state Rep. Justin Humphrey, said he just wants to add the father into the abortion process.“My bill would stop an abortion if a father does not agree to the abortion,” Humphrey told the committee, which eventually voted 5-2 in favor of the legislation.
It's clear that one side — the pro-choice side — is in an uproar over the Oklahoma bill.
But neither The Oklahoman nor the Post bother to seek comment from pro-life advocates. Yes, pro-life forces obviously oppose abortion. But what do they think about this particular approach? Do they believe it advances their movement? Or would they argue against it?
Moreover, how do organizations such as the National Center for Fathering and the National Fatherhood Initiative respond to the proposal? Do they believe that fathers should have any rights concerning an unborn child?
An interesting correction at the bottom of the Post report notes that it originally linked to a parody account of Dr. Jill Biden. I'm guessing this was the tweet erroneously embedded:
Oklahoma Rep Justin Humphrey believes pregnant women are "hosts" whose bodies don't belong to them. He can be reached at (405) 557-7382— Jill Biden (@JillBidenVeep) February 13, 2017
If you somehow missed it previously, check out the classic 1990 Los Angeles Times series — written by the late David Shaw — that exposed rampant news media bias against abortion opponents. Go ahead and bookmark that, because it remains painfully relevant for people who run newsrooms.
Honestly, I have no idea what pro-life or fatherhood organizations would say about the Oklahoma bill. But I'd love to know.
Perhaps some enterprising reporter — with an eye toward impartiality and fairness — will decide to pick up the telephone and ask.
Welcome to another edition of what could become a regular feature in these confused times for mainstream journalism. The problem is that I don't know what we would call it.
We could call this feature "Got News?" However, we tried that already here at GetReligion and the concept never caught on. The whole idea was that there is often valid news -- often highly important news -- reported in alternative news publications (think denominational press services), yet these stories rarely seem to get covered in the mainstream press.
Then again, the "Got News?" concept doesn't really work when journalists in mainstream newsrooms spot a story, then cover that story, but then fail to offer follow-up reports that let news consumers know about important developments that same ongoing story.
As any experienced journalist knows, it is very rare for major story to break then just freeze. If there is a big news earthquake, there tend to be aftershocks. What would we call this concept -- Got Aftershocks?
This brings me to the Boy Scouts of America. Again.
The other day, I wrote a post about a New York Times report about the decision to begin allowing transgender boys to join the Boy Scouts. This was an interesting report in that -- rare for the Gray Lady -- it focused almost totally on the views of conservative critics of the change and contained next to zero material from voices on the winning side of the debate.
I called that post: "Boy Scouts push trans button: So in which pulpits and pews are people celebrating?" In other words, for reporters covering religion, there were big questions that needed to be answered as the aftershocks of this decision spread into the religious groups that host Scout troops. While some conservatives would head to the exit doors, I wondered how people would respond on the religious left and in the often muddled middle. Thus, I wrote:If you know anything about Scouting, you know that -- in addition to the Baptists -- the key players are Catholics, Mormons, United Methodists and, to a lesser degree, Episcopalians. So if the goal is to figure out what happens next with this story, readers really needed to hear from leaders in those flocks, especially from progressives who actively supported the changes.In other words, we need to hear from the winners who now get to put these policies into action.
Soon after this, there was an important reaction from a major religious group -- as in the Roman Catholic committee that works with Scouting programs. This would be important news, right?
Apparently not, if you look for this development by searching major news sources. What you find -- scan this online search -- is that this development isn't news, it appears that this aftershock was merely "conservative" news.
So what happened? Here is the top of a Catholic News Service story that was posted by the Crux team:IRVING -- The Boy Scouts of America’s new policy to accept members based on their gender identity will have no impact on Scouting units sponsored by the Catholic Church, said the National Catholic Committee on Scouting.The Boy Scouts announced on January 30 that effective immediately, the Texas-based organization will determine membership eligibility for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts on a youth’s gender identity as indicated on the membership application. Previously, the policy based eligibility on the gender indicated on a youth’s birth certificate.The change in policy “has no impact on the operation and program delivery of Scouting program(s) in Catholic-chartered units,” said a February 4 statement issued by the Catholic Scouting committee.“Scouting serves the Catholic Church through the charter concept, which is similar to a franchise,” it said. “The units chartered to a Catholic institution are owned by that organization. The BSA has stipulated that religious partners will continue to have the right to make decisions for their units based on their religious beliefs.”
This is rather important news. The key is in the last sentence of that passage, the line that states: "The BSA has stipulated that religious partners will continue to have the right to make decisions for their units based on their religious beliefs."
If that is true, the implication is that there would -- nationwide -- be what amounts to two different Boy Scout networks, those with liberal religious doctrines on sexuality and those defending centuries of doctrines among Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. There would be gender groups and DNA troops.
Does this matter? Well, as the CNS reported noted: "About 70 percent of Boy Scout troops are run by faith-based groups."
So this claim by the Catholic Scouting committee is rather important. However, if Scouting leadership had left that loophole in their headline-grabbing decision, surely that would show up in major news reports? Is this claim by Catholic leaders accurate?
To its credit, the CNS report does note that Scouting leaders are saying that their trans-friendly policy is now expected to be the norm:In a separate statement emailed February 7 to Catholic News Service, Effie Delimarkos, the Boy Scouts’ director of communications, reiterated that “we will accept and register youth in the Cub and Boy Scout programs based on the gender identity indicated on the application. Our organization’s local councils will help find units that can provide for the best interest of the child.”
Now, that last sentence seems to imply that there will be trans-friendly units and those that have not accepted this policy and that Scouting leaders will help families find a troop that fits the beliefs of individual Scouts and their parents.
But does this mean that all Catholic parishes would have to accept the church's doctrines? What are Catholics on the left saying?
The story notes, quoting a statement released by George S. Sparks, national chairman of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting, and Father Kevin M. Smith, the national chaplain of Catholic Scouting:“Scouting’s chartered organizations have the right to uphold their own moral standards within the units they charter. The teachings of the Catholic Church are upheld.”
This is a pretty important story. Right? Has there been a similar statement from leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
What about churches in the middle and on the left? Is there a national charter for United Methodists (who previously offered to accept Southern Baptist units that were willing to accept the LGBTQ policy changes) involved in Scouting? Or will there be doctrinally conservative United Methodist troops in parts of America and liberal troops in others? How about Episcopalians in Texas vs. those in California?
There will be aftershocks. Is this a real news story or merely "conservative" news, even when this aftershock story will affect believers in moderate and liberal pews?