GetReligion
Thursday, April 03, 2025

Texas

, , , , , , , ,

Plug-In: Five key story angles linked to Texas synagogue where hostages were taken

, , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Five key story angles linked to Texas synagogue where hostages were taken

When I first saw news on social media of a ranting man taking hostages at a Texas synagogue Saturday, I immediately clicked the link to an Associated Press report.

To my shock, I discovered that the standoff involved Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas.

I first wrote about that suburban congregation nearly two decades ago when I covered religion for AP in Dallas.

In 2004, I did a national feature on “frequent-flier rabbis” filling a need at then-fledgling Congregation Beth Israel and other small Jewish congregations across the nation. That same year, I wrote about Anna Salton Eisen, one of the congregation’s founders, and her Holocaust survivor father, George Lucius Salton.

Just this past October — 17 years later — Eisen trusted me to tell her family’s story again. I wrote a follow-up piece for AP on a surprising “reunion” between Eisen and the children of several Holocaust survivors who were in concentration camps together.

“I started this synagogue with two other families and am heartbroken and fearful,” Eisen wrote on Facebook on Saturday. “What has become of the world?”

I shared her status on my page and asked my friends to pray for a peaceful end. I was so relieved when Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker and two other hostages escaped unharmed Saturday night. A fourth hostage was released earlier. The FBI hostage rescue team shot the gunman.


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

Plug-In: Americans favor religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccine mandates — sort of

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Americans favor religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccine mandates — sort of

What a difference a year makes.

Or not.

Fifty-two weeks ago, this news topped Weekend Plug-in.

Sound familiar?

Trump calls COVID-19 vaccine ‘a medical miracle,’ but many religious people are skeptical

Guess what? Many religious people remain highly skeptical of the vaccines, despite their strong effectiveness at preventing serious illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

Which leads us to this week’s news: a new public opinion poll on religious exemptions to the vaccines.

Religion News Service’s Jack Jenkins reports:

WASHINGTON (RNS) — A new poll reveals most Americans are in favor of offering religious exemptions for the COVID-19 vaccines, yet express concern that too many people are seeking such exemptions. In the same survey, more than half of those who refuse to get vaccinated say getting the shot goes against their personal faith.

The poll, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and Interfaith Youth Core and released Thursday (Dec. 9), investigated ongoing debates about COVID-19 vaccines as well as emerging divisions over whether religious exemptions to the shots should even exist.

According to the survey, a small majority (51%) of Americans favor allowing individuals who would otherwise be required to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to opt out if it violates their religious beliefs, compared with 47% who oppose such religious exemptions.

See additional coverage of the poll by the Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner, a former contributor at GetReligion, and NPR’s Megan Myscofski.


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

Abortion-rights groups planning 'Hail Mary' efforts to block Texas law? #REALLY

, , , , , , ,
Abortion-rights groups planning 'Hail Mary' efforts to block Texas law? #REALLY

Faithful followers of this website know that many, many of the news reports we critique are based on tips from readers.

These emails are important to me because, frankly, there is no way for us to follow as many media sources as our readers do, combined. This is especially true now that our team, due to finances, is smaller than it was for the previous decade or so.

From time to time, readers will react to something as simple as a horrible headline or a single rage-inducing phrase in a news report. There’s no way that I can respond to all of these, but here is a recent case that I think deserves a mention.

Read the top of this CNN piece (“The Justice Department's uphill battle against Texas' abortion ban“) and try to spot the issue that ticked off a reader:

In its lawsuit challenging Texas six-week abortion ban, the Justice Department is throwing a Hail Mary pass to get over the procedural stumbling blocks that have thwarted other attempts to block the ban in court.

The lawsuit, filed … in a federal court in Austin, relies on a novel strategy in seeking to halt enforcement of the ban, which was designed specifically with the goal of evading review of federal courts.

The arguments that the Justice Department is presenting on the merits – that the law violates Supreme Court constitutional precedent on abortion rights – are on solid ground. But the question is whether its lawsuit can get around the same procedural issues that doomed the earlier federal lawsuit brought by abortion clinics.

What’s the problem?


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

Crucial question in all those newsworthy abortion debates: When does life begin?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Crucial question in all those newsworthy abortion debates: When does life begin?

THE QUESTION:

When does life begin?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

Those four words are regularly posed in the current abortion debate, so let's scan the lines in pregnancy that have been drawn by experts — religious and secular — in the past.

Pre-scientific cultures spoke of "quickening," typically between 16 and 18 weeks, when the mother first feels the unborn child moving in her womb. A famous example involves the unborn John the Baptist in biblical Luke 1:41. Some ancient Jewish authorities in the Talmud, and Roman and Greek philosophers, supposed that the unborn child "formed" earlier, at 40 days.

Then there's "viability," when a fetus can live on its own outside the womb, typically reached around 23 or 24 weeks, or somewhat earlier or later in individual cases. The U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion before that point in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and after viability when there are risks to the mother's health, broadly defined.

The high Court on December 1 hears a case from Mississippi, which defied the Roe ruling and bars abortions after 15 weeks on grounds that the fetus experiences pain by then. A Missouri law, also under court challenge, puts a ban at eight weeks when "everything that is present in an adult human is now present in your baby," according to the American Pregnancy Association. The Court temporarily left in place a ban in Texas (likewise in 13 other states) after six weeks, when pulsations can be diagnosed at what eventually becomes the fully formed heart.

Many modern Christians believe that life begins at conception (sperm first meets egg) or implantation (fertilized egg attaches to the mother's womb) while some put the line a bit later at twinning (after which multiple pregnancies do not occur).

Note the brief filed last month in the Mississippi case by pro-choice religions including "mainline" Protestant churches, non-Orthodox Judaism, Unitarian Universalists and others. It says "numerous religious traditions posit that life begins at some point during pregnancy or even after a child is born."


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

Thinking about prayers at executions: These stories offer glimpses of an old church-state unity

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about prayers at executions: These stories offer glimpses of an old church-state unity

This is a “feeling guilty” post. For quite some time now, I have been planning to examine the coverage of some important religious-liberty cases that have been unfolding in the death-row units of prisons.

The decisions are worthy of coverage, in and of themselves. At the same time, these cases have demonstrated that it is still possible, in this day and age, for church-state activists on the left and right to agree on something. Maybe I should have put a TRIGGER WARNING notice at the start of that sentence.

Like I said the other day in this podcast and post — “Covering a so-called 'religious liberty' story? Dig into religious liberty history” — this kind of unity in defending religious freedom has become tragically rare (from my point of view as an old-guard First Amendment liberal). Indeed, to repeat myself, “America has come a long way since that 97-3 U.S. Senate vote to approve the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.”

The problem is that you rarely, if ever, see reporters catch this church-state angle in these decisions. The key is to look at who filed legal briefs in support of the religious liberty rights of the prisoners.

This brings me to an important Elizabeth Bruenig essay that ran the other day at The Atlantic, under this dramatic double-decker headline:

The State of Texas v. Jesus Christ

Texas’s refusal to allow a pastor to pray while holding a dying man’s hand is an offense to basic Christian values.

Here is the meaty overture:

Devotees to the cause of religious liberty may be startled to discover during the Supreme Court’s upcoming term that the latest legal-theological dispute finds the state of Texas locked in conflict with traditional Christian practice, where rites for the sick, condemned, and dying disrupt the preferences of executioners.


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

Plug-In: At 20th anniversary of 9/11, faith remains big part of this world-shaking story

, , , , , , ,
Plug-In: At 20th anniversary of 9/11, faith remains big part of this world-shaking story

Like everybody alive then, I remember what I was doing the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

At the time, I was religion editor for The Oklahoman, the metro daily in Oklahoma City. I was running a few minutes late that Tuesday because I stopped at Walmart to buy a new pair of cleats for a company softball team starting the fall season that night. As it turned out, we didn't play.

As I flashed my company ID at the security guard outside the newspaper building, he asked if I'd heard about a plane crashing into the World Trade Center in New York. I had not. Minutes later, after I arrived in the ninth-floor newsroom, my colleagues and I watched on television as a second plane hit the twin towers. Almost immediately, ABC anchor Peter Jennings likened the attack to Pearl Harbor.

That's when I grasped the significance.

The rest of that day is a blur. Like my reporter colleagues all over the nation, I immediately put aside any personal feelings and operated on journalistic adrenaline. I wrote four bylined stories for the next day's paper: one on the religious community's response, one on Muslim fears of a backlash, one on Oklahoma City bombing victims' reactions and one on an eyewitness account by an Oklahoma professor's daughter.

Like many (most?) Americans, I tossed and turned that night.

In the days and weeks after 9/11, I recall interviewing religious leaders and ordinary congregants as they looked to God and sought to explain the seemingly unexplainable.

Twenty years later, faith remains a big part of the story. Here is some of the must-read coverage:

• Eastern Orthodox shrine to replace church destroyed on 9/11 nears completion (by Peter Smith, Associated Press)

• Generation 9/11 (by Emily Belz, World)

• Young Sikhs still struggle with post-Sept. 11 discrimination (by Anita Snow and Noreen Nasir, AP)


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

Mexico's high court backs abortion rights: Who did the Washington Post choose to interview?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Mexico's high court backs abortion rights: Who did the Washington Post choose to interview?

The trend started a decade ago, or even earlier, about the time when social media took over and many elite newsrooms began caring less about seeking out qualified, informed voices on both sides of hot stories.

The result was a kind of fail-safe method for spotting media bias, especially with stories located at the intersection of politics, religion and the cultural changes, especially those linked to the Sexual Revolution.

First, readers can print a copy of the story in question and then, with a highlighter pen, mark quotes from people who appear to have been interviewed by the reporters — the sources whose voices provide the framing anecdotes and quotations that provide crucial facts and material that interpret the facts.

Then, with a second highlighter, mark the quotes from experts, activists and citizens on the other side of the issue. The key question: How many of these quotes came from actual interviews and how many were taken from online press releases and statements?

Compare and contrast. The big question: What sources were shown respect — with personal interviews — and which sources were demoted to PR release status? (Personal comment: As a columnist, I have found that quoting personal weblogs — Twitter as well — can offer a kind of neutral ground, with more information and authentic “voices” than mere press releases.)

In my experience, 99% of the time the people who are quoted from interviews represent the viewpoints that are favored and respected by the journalists who produced the story. With that in mind, let’s look at the sourcing in an international-desk story that ran in The Washington Post with this headline: “Mexico decriminalizes abortion, a dramatic step in world’s second-biggest Catholic country.”

The Catholic angle is crucial, of course. Who would be interviewed? Activists in ministries to pregnant women? Canon lawyers? Perhaps a Catholic priest or historian who knows why “life” issues are so crucial in the church’s theology? I will also ask: Was anyone from the religion-desk allowed input into the sourcing?

Let’s start with the overture:

MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s supreme court voted Tuesday to decriminalize abortion, a striking step in a country with one of the world’s largest Catholic populations and a decision that contrasts with tighter restrictions introduced across the border in Texas.


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

Why are Latinos veering into GOP? It's all about money, money, money (and zero faith)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Why are Latinos veering into GOP? It's all about money, money, money (and zero faith)

I know, I know. If you have read GetReligion for the past four-plus years, you know that we’re convinced that the rise of the Latino evangelical voter (often paired with traditional Catholic Latino voters) is an emerging story in American public life.

Part of this story is the rise of Pentecostalism in the Spanish-speaking world (classic Pew Research Center study here) and another part is linked to the defense of Latino family values (to use a loaded phrase).

There’s much more to this story than the role these voters played in Donald Trump’s surprising (to some) showings in some Florida and Texas zip codes. Click here (“New York Times listens to Latino evangelicals: 'Politically homeless' voters pushed toward Trump”) and then here (“Concerning Hispanic evangelicals, secret Trump voters and white evangelical women in Georgia”).

To be blunt about it, it appears that political-desk reporters are struggling with this issue, in part because it undercuts some themes in long-predicted demographic trends backing Democrats. You can see that in the recent, oh-so-predictable New York Times story that ran with this massive double-decker headline:

A Vexing Question for Democrats: What Drives Latino Men to Republicans?

Several voters said values like individual responsibility and providing for one’s family, and a desire for lower taxes and financial stability, led them to reject a party embraced by their parents.

The story is getting some Twitter attention because of this magisterial statement of woke Times doctrine:

Some of the frustrations voiced by Hispanic Republican men are stoked by misinformation, including conspiracy theories claiming that the “deep state” took over during the Trump administration and a belief that Black Lives Matter protests caused widespread violence.

But it’s more important to focus on the bigger picture, which is that this trend is all about Latino men wanting to get rich by being part of the American dream. The overture is long, but essential:


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

Behind the headlines: As winter storm cripples Texas power grid, people of faith rally to help

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Behind the headlines: As winter storm cripples Texas power grid, people of faith rally to help

Texans like to brag that they live in “a whole other country.”

I don’t suppose, though, that whoever came up with that slogan had Siberia in mind.

As a severe winter storm crippled the state’s energy grid this week, my parents were among 4 million residents who lost electricity. Mom and Dad endured a really chilly night before going to stay at my sister’s house for a few days.

Heroes (think “Mattress Mack”) and villains (#FlyingTed) have emerged, while people of faith — as they tend to do during disasters — rally to help.

Here at Religion Unplugged, Jillian Cheney tells the inspiring story of a church that partnered with a Jeep club to rescue snowed-in families.

Houses of worship losing power themselves hampered some efforts to provide reliable sanctuary, but “leaders are doing all they can to connect and comfort their communities,” Christianity Today’s Kate Shellnutt reports.

Churches and other faith groups teamed up to help open an emergency warming center for the homeless at a Dallas convention center, Religion News Service’s Bob Smietana notes.

Catholic churches in San Antonio and Fort Worth opened their doors, according to the Catholic News Agency’s Jonah McKeown.

Among others mobilizing to help: Southern Baptists, Churches of Christ and Episcopalians.

Power Up: The Week’s Best Reads

1. A congregation of avatars: A few pastors minister “to the wild universe of virtual reality, or VR for short,” this fascinating feature by World magazine’s Juliana Chan Erikson explains.


Please respect our Commenting Policy