Supreme Court

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

Christian web designer at the Supreme Court: How reporters covered 303 Creative case

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Christian web designer at the Supreme Court: How reporters covered 303 Creative case

On the face of it, 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, sounded unimpressive.

A Christian web designer living near Denver was suing her state civil rights commission for the right to create wedding web sites without having to include creative content about same-sex weddings in the mix. She hadn’t been approached by any gay couples yet — but because she might be, she launched a pre-emptive lawsuit with the aid of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm with an impressive track record of 11 wins at the Supreme Court level.

Yet, the more I read about the case and the issues it was trying to raise, the more intrigued I got. And the hearing on Monday didn’t disappoint. It lasted some two and one-half hours, which is long by Court standards. Covering hour-long hearings at the high court is difficult at best; I can only imagine how tough it was for reporters to sift through 150 minutes of speech — and all the tangents that were involved — to sum up how the hearing went.

Which is why I am merely critiquing the first drafts of what I hope will be more in-depth articles as time goes on. I’ll start with how CBS covered the story:

The Supreme Court's conservative bloc appeared sympathetic Monday to a Colorado graphic designer who argues a state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates her free speech rights by forcing her to express a message that conflicts with her closely held religious beliefs.

During oral arguments in the case known as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court seemed to move closer to resolving a question it has left unanswered since 2018, when it narrowly ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding: whether states like Colorado can, in applying their anti-discrimination laws, compel an artist to express a message they disagree with.

An editorial comment: It's a minor annoyance that the plural “they” is used for a singular “artist.” Just write “he or she” for heaven’s sake.

One issue with reporting on this case is that it takes a ton of backstory to explain that this case isn’t just about a web designer, but also a cake designer-baker in a previous Supreme Court case.


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

NPR offers a faithful Mike Pence interview: But readers will need the transcript to know that

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
NPR offers a faithful Mike Pence interview: But readers will need the transcript to know that

National Public Radio posted a story the other day with a totally predictable headline: “Mike Pence, pondering a presidential run, condemns Trump's rhetoric on Jan. 6.”

What we have here is a perfect chance to meditate on that concept that readers see all the time here at GetReligion, when dealing with the political lens through which most (#IMHO) elite-market journalists view the world. That would be: “Politics is real. Religion? Not so much.”

Things are a bit more nuanced with this particular NPR feature. To be blunt: The Steve Inskeep interview is way, way better than the feature that someone — an intern, perhaps — wrote about the contents of the interview.

The text version is — I am sure this will shock many — all about Donald Trump, Donald Trump and Donald Trump, with a near-laser focus on the events of January 6th at the U.S. Capitol.

Now, that’s a crucial subject, since Vice President Mike Pence was the man that many Trump-inspired rioters wanted to hang (or they chanted words to that effect). That’s a topic that cannot be avoided, and I get that. This is an interview that will infuriate Trump disciples and, at the same time, will leave the progressive left just as mad.

The bottom line: The interview is about Pence’s memoir “So Help Me God,” and that’s a book that has a much broader focus than recent partisan politics. I would argue — based on the interview itself — that the book’s most important contents are not linked to Trump, Trump, Trump. The most provocative parts of the interview are about federalism and (#triggerwarning) the First Amendment. But, first, here is the highlighted Trump material:

Pence faces an extraordinary challenge as a political leader whose national reputation is closely tied to the record of the Trump administration but who says the Constitution and his conscience would not allow him to follow Trump's ultimate demand. …

When a mob disrupted the proceedings, Pence retreated with family members to an office within the U.S. Capitol and then to an underground parking garage, but refused to flee the building.


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

Podcast: Is Colorado Springs covered by a 'fundamentalist' blanket of hate?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Is Colorado Springs covered by a 'fundamentalist' blanket of hate?

At this point, there are many, many crucial facts that journalists do not know about the horrible Club Q massacre in Colorado Springs.

This lack of facts has done little to shape the coverage. We do not, for example, know if Mx. Anderson Aldrich is sincere when claiming, in case documents, to be nonbinary. It will, in the meantime, be interesting to see if many mainstream newsrooms choose to deadname Aldrich in their coverage, perhaps by striving to avoid pronouns altogether.

We do know that the alleged shooter was raised in a broken home with multiple mental-health and violence issues. Consider, for example, the father — an ex-con MMA fighter turned porn star (and a Republican, of one form or another).

At this point, it does appear that some journalists — while searching for the “why” in the “who, what, when, where, why and how” formula — have decided to place the city of Colorado Springs on trial and, perhaps, the whole state of Colorado. This was the primary topic discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

The key: A return of that dreaded journalism F-word — “fundamentalist.” For more background on this religion-beat disease, please see this GetReligion post by Richard Ostling (“What is 'Fundamentalism'? Name 666 or so examples from recent news coverage”) and this On Religion column (“Define ‘fundamentalist,’ please”) that I wrote in 2011.

Here is the key material from a USA Today story that, in my opinion, goes completely over the top while claiming that, to be blunt, a kind of hate cloud covers Colorado Springs. The headline: “Colorado Springs worked to change its anti-gay image — then its sole LGBTQ nightclub was targeted.”

Most notably, in 1992, religious fundamentalists from Colorado Springs wrote Amendment 2, a measure seeking to amend Colorado's constitution by making it illegal to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. The measure was approved by Colorado voters that November, earning Colorado the nickname of the "Hate State," according to the Colorado Springs Pioneer Museum. Amendment 2 was ultimately struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.

The city is also the headquarters of Focus on the Family, a fundamentalist Protestant organization whose founder James Dobson is known for his stances against gay and trans rights.


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

Thinking about Olasky's 2016 blast at Donald Trump, as journalists prepare for 2024

, , , , , , , ,
Thinking about Olasky's 2016 blast at Donald Trump, as journalists prepare for 2024

So, I heard that former President Donald Trump made some kind of announcement the other day. That means (#SIGH) that we have to think, again, about that whole elite-media thing with 81% of White evangelicals adoring Orange. Man. Bad.

But readers who scan this Google file on that subject will find plenty of reminders that — when White evangelicals had a GOP choice in the 2016 primaries — many provided core support for Trump while just as many voted for other candidates.

With that in mind, consider this National Review headline: “Can DeSantis Win the Evangelical Vote?” That leads to this summary:

… (I)fDeSantis does intend to challenge Trump, he must convince conservative Christians — particularly white Evangelical Protestants, who made up almost half of the GOP electorate in the 2012 and 2016 primaries — to support his cause.

DeSantis would seem well-suited to the task. He has taken a strong stance on many of the social issues that matter most to Evangelicals: This year alone, he stood up against LGBTQ indoctrination in schools and signed a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks of gestation (in a state where 56 percent of adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases); most recently, at his urging, state medical boards banned puberty blockers and transgender surgery for minors. …

And all of this ignores character. Between his three marriages, his lewd comments about groping women, and his friendship with Hugh Hefner, Trump was always an odd champion for the Moral Majority. DeSantis, on the other hand, has avoided scandal so far and cultivated a family-man public image that Evangelicals might find appealing.

OK, it would be good to take a flashback to a crucial moment in this drama.

As candidate Trump ramped up in 2016, one of America’s most consistent voices on religious, moral and cultural issues — Marvin Olasky — wrote and published a World magazine essay with this headline: “Unfit for power — It’s time for Donald Trump to step aside and make room for another candidate.”

Any journalist who wants to cover the next two years of American politics needs to read this essay, which Olasky recently re-upped on Twitter.


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

Overlooked voting trend: Atheists and agnostics are a growing force for Democrats

, , , , , , ,
Overlooked voting trend: Atheists and agnostics are a growing force for Democrats

It’s hard to remember now, given the attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, but the day after votes were cast, one theme stood out — voter turnout.

Every state in the nation saw higher turnout in 2020 than 2016, according to an analysis from the Pew Research Center. Overall, there were more than 158 million votes cast, according to the Federal Election Commission — nearly 22 million more than just four years prior.

Turnout will likely play an outsize role in the 2022 midterms, too, as voters determine what political party will have control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate in January 2023.

As a political scientist who studies the intersection of religion and politics, I am interested in which groups may have a strong impact on the balance of power. And if the data is any guide, there are two key communities political analysts often overlook — atheists and agnostics. Journalists need to be paying attention to these trends, as well.

In 2008, almost 8% of the entire U.S. population claimed to be atheist or agnostic, according to my analysis of data from the Cooperative Election Study, or CES — an annual survey coordinated by a team at Harvard University. Atheists believe that there is no higher power in the universe, while agnostics contend that a higher power may exist but it’s impossible to know for certain.

By 2021, that share had risen to just about 12%. But atheists and agnostics are often left-leaning in their political persuasion, and their rapid ascendance in the American religious landscape is proving much more consequential to the Democratic Party than the GOP.


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

U.S. bishops preach pro-life Catholic doctrine to Biden: Isn't that a story during midterms?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
U.S. bishops preach pro-life Catholic doctrine to Biden: Isn't that a story during midterms?

The looming midterm elections have the Republicans giddy over the potential that they may take control of the House and Senate. Democrats, on the other hand, are hoping to stem the loses knowing that they still have President Joe Biden in the White House.

Amid all this midterm mania are the talking points politicians are pushing in order to appeal to their core voters. Republicans are campaigning on inflation and crime and Democrats on diversity and, of course, abortion following the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

Polls show that voters care more about inflation, but Democrats are hoping that talking up abortion will get out their base. Abortion, however, isn’t just a political issue. As Biden, a practicing Catholic, promises to make abortion a federal right by codifying Roe v. Wade into law should Democrats keep a majority, tension among him and several prominent U.S. bishops has heated up once again.

Some of these bishops have been in the news in the past regarding Biden’s support of abortion, threatening to deny him the sacrament of Holy Communion. It was last week that the issue came to the forefront again.

At least, it come to the forefront in Catholic news publications. In the elite press that GetReligion studies? Not so much or not at all.

This is how Catholic News Agency reported it on Oct. 25:

President Joe Biden, a professed Catholic, must end his “single-minded” abortion extremism and see the humanity in unborn children, the U.S. bishops have said. They said abortion’s impact is “tragic” and urged the president to support mothers.

“The president is gravely wrong to continue to seek every possible avenue to facilitate abortion, instead of using his power to increase support and care to mothers in challenging situations,” Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said Oct. 25.

“This single-minded extremism must end, and we implore President Biden to recognize the humanity in preborn children and the genuine life-giving care needed by women in this country,” he said.

The U.S. bishops’ statement noted that last week Biden declared that his top legislative priority after the November elections is to codify a national right to abortion.

This is a major story that was covered by the Catholic press, but big secular newsrooms ignored it.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Catholic voters and the midterm elections: Mainstream news blitz ignores major voter bloc

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Catholic voters and the midterm elections: Mainstream news blitz ignores major voter bloc

We are in the middle of another election season and in full mud-slinging mode.

Elections are an annual occurrence, to one degree or another, but the vote that will dominate this Nov. 8 are known as the midterms. It’s when a majority of seats in both the House and Senate are up for grabs, allowing for the party in the minority (in this case the Republicans in both chambers) to potentially becoming the majority. Midterm elections are also traditionally viewed as referendums on presidents.

This takes us to the Catholic vote and its impact on the outcome. This is a topic that is receiving little or no mainstream press coverage. As we say here at GetReligion: “Hold that thought.”

While inflation and crime will certainly be on the minds of most as they cast ballots, “culture war” issues are very much alive and well. Abortion, especially after this June’s Supreme Court decision that once again made it a state issue after Roe v. Wade was rolled back, will certainly be an issue.

There have been many, many news stories about how the abortion issue will motivate those on the political left to come out and vote following the Dobbs decision. The Washington Post, on Oct. 8, reported on the issue in a news feature that appeared under the headline, “Women powered Democrats in the 2018 midterms. Will they again in 2022?”

After opening with two Colorado women, Robin Kupernik and Elizabeta Stacishin, who had joined forces in 2016 to combat Donald Trump, who was elected to the presidency that year. This is the feature’s thesis:

In the 2018 midterm elections, women like Kupernik and Stacishin were part of a women-led army that changed politics. Women who had never been particularly active politically worked phone banks, wrote postcards and sent text messages to voters. They were repulsed by Trump and determined to do something about it.

They met in small groups, marched in the streets and went door-to-door to encourage people to vote for Democrats. Their passions were palpable. Many of the congressional candidates they were supporting flipped Republican-held seats, all part of a political tide strong enough to flush the GOP from control of the House, dealing Trump a major defeat. The Pew Research Center has estimated that 62 percent of White women with college degrees backed Democrats for the House four years ago.

That has become the major press-coverage storyline of the midterms.


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

Journalism question for these times: When are death threats 'real' death threats?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Journalism question for these times: When are death threats 'real' death threats?

Here is a journalism question for you: When is a death threat an actual “death threat”?

Let me state that another way: When do words that clearly communicate a death threat represent a “real” or legitimate death threat in the eyes of journalists, local police and (wait for it) the Department of Justice?

We can add another question I received via email from a religion-beat veteran: In what sense is a death threat “pro-choice”?

Yes, once again we are looking at a story that is linked to abortion, a topic that mixes politics, religion, law and science. In this case the event that made news (barely) was the vandalism of yet another Catholic church in a blue zip code. Here is the entire report from a local CBS newsroom and note the headline, which inspired that email question: “Catholic Church in Lansing vandalized with pro-choice graffiti.”

(CBS DETROIT) - The Diocese of Lansing released video footage of three people vandalizing the Church of the Resurrection with spray-painted pro-choice graffiti.

The incident happened on Saturday, Oct. 8, between 11:52 p.m. and 11:56 p.m. Video footage shows the three suspects walking up to the church from the area of Jerome and Custer, spay-painting the church, and then leaving the area.

The suspects spray-painted on the doors, signage, and sidewalk of the church, and the messages included: "Restore Roe" and "Is overturning Roe worth your life or democracy?"

Police are reviewing the security footage and searching for the suspects. According to the Diocese of Lansing, the graffiti has been power-washed.

If anyone has any information about this crime, they are urged to contact the Lansing Police Department at 517-483-4600.

The key language: “Is overturning Roe worth your life or democracy?" What are the logical implications of the words “worth your life”?

I realize that some anti-abortion demonstrators use chants claiming (thinking “mortal sin” consequences) that those taking part in abortions are risking their souls. Is that the same thing as saying that the U.S. Supreme Court voting to overturn Roe v. Wade is, addressing Catholic worshippers, “worth your life”?


Please respect our Commenting Policy