GetReligion
Monday, March 31, 2025

The Atlantic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

About Southern Baptist wars and the Merritt family: Here's some inside baseball worth covering

, , , , , , , ,
About Southern Baptist wars and the Merritt family: Here's some inside baseball worth covering

I rarely write about Southern Baptist affairs unless one of their annual conventions is at hand, but I can’t resist commenting on a fascinating sideshow happening between the highly symbolic Merritt family and their fellow conservatives.

Jonathan Merritt is the openly gay (and I assume celibate, based on previous comments) son of the Rev. James Merritt, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. It’s been a tough ride for the past 10 years as the younger Merritt has tried to reconcile his sexuality with his faith, while working as a news- columnist. His father has been under immense pressure as well.

The latest fracas, with a hat tip to JulieRoys.com, has to do with the elder Merritt walking away from his position as a visiting professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C. The whole affair has gone unnoticed by many newsrooms, even though this is a topic that is newsworthy for a variety of reasons. Here is what Roys wrote:

Former Southern Baptist Convention President James Merritt resigned last week as a visiting professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary over controversy sparked by Merritt’s decision to share a sermon online by his son who’s gay. …

The decision came after Merritt, who’s also pastor of Cross Pointe Church in Duluth, Georgia, tweeted a link to a sermon by his son, Jonathan Merritt. The younger Merritt is a graduate of Southeastern Baptist and an author, journalist, and popular speaker. In August, Jonathan Merritt announced on Instagram that he’s gay.

“I don’t agree with my loved son @JonathanMerritt on everything to be sure,” James Merritt tweeted November 22. “But I encourage you to listen to his message on Mark 13. It is both brilliant and faithful to the gospel and the coming of Jesus!”

After that, things got really interesting. Here is the chronology:

Nov. 22 — James Merritt publishes his tweet.

Nov. 23 — The Conservative Baptist Network, a group of some 6,000 members based in Memphis, issues a statement with the headline: “Promoting homosexual preachers is not loving, biblical or Baptist.” The elder Merritt responds that same day.


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

Is this statement accurate? All true evangelicals wanted to vote for Donald Trump -- period

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Is this statement accurate? All true evangelicals wanted to vote for Donald Trump -- period

As a rule, your GetReligionistas strive to avoid writing about analysis features that are published in magazines such as The Atlantic.

However, when I keep hearing people asking questions about one of these “think pieces,” it’s hard not to want to add a comment or two to the discussion.

So first, let’s start with something that GetReligion team members have been saying for nearly two decades, as a reminder to readers who have never worked in mainstream newsrooms: Reporters/writers rarely write the headlines that dominate the layouts at the top of their pieces.

Case in point: The double-decker headline on that buzz-worthy Peter Wehner commentary piece at The Atlantic:

The Evangelical Church is Breaking Apart

Christians must reclaim Jesus from his church.

Yes, I know. There is no such thing as “the evangelical church.”

Do basic facts matter? There are, of course, denominations that are predominantly evangelical. Some of them disagree on all kinds of things — such as baptism or the ordination of women. There are Pentecostal denominations that share many, but not all, doctrines with flocks that are connected with the evangelical movement. There are lots of evangelicals who still sit — though many are quite unhappy — in liberal Protestant pews.

We won’t even talk about that second line: “Christians must reclaim Jesus from his church.”

You can get to the heart of this confusion by — if you are reading the Wehner piece online — glancing at the tagline that appears in the subject line in your computer browser. That semi-headline reads: “Trump is Tearing Apart the Evangelical Church.”

Ah, that’s the heart of this matter.


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

Don't neglect the Supreme Court's potentially weighty case on religious schools funding

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Don't neglect the Supreme Court's potentially weighty case on religious schools funding

Media eyes are trained on the U.S. Supreme Court's December 1 argument on Mississippi's abortion restrictions, preceded by a fast-tracked November 1 hearing about the stricter law in Texas. But don't neglect the Court's December 8 hearing and subsequent decision on tax funding of religious schools in the potentially weighty Carson v. Makin case (docket #20-1088).

University of Baltimore law Professor Kimberly Wehle certainly wants us to pay heed, warning October 14 via TheAtlantic.com that this is a "sleeper" appeal that "threatens the separation of church and state." In her view, the high court faces not just the perennial problem of public funding for religious campuses. She believes the justices could decide "religious freedom supersedes the public good" by aiding conservative Christian schools that, based on centuries of doctrine, discriminate against non-Christian and LGBTQ students and teachers.

Journalistic backgrounding: Thinly-populated Maine provides an unusual context for this story because the majority of its 260 school districts do not operate full K-12 systems and instead pay tuition for public or private schools that families choose for upper grades. Religiously-affiliated schools are included, but not if Maine deems them "sectarian."

Notably, the parents' plea for tuition is backed by major institutions of the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and other evangelical Protestants, the Church of God in Christ (the nation's largest African-American denomination), Latter-day Saints (formerly called "Mormons") and Orthodox Judaism, alongside the 63-campus Council of Islamic Schools. A reporter's question: Has such a religious coalition ever formed in any prior Supreme Court case?

Of further interest, the case engages a major religious-liberty theorist, Michael W. McConnell, director of Stanford University's Constitutional Law Center and former federal judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. He wrote that circuit's 2008 opinion in Colorado Christian University v Weaver (.pdf here), which tossed out a law that barred "pervasively sectarian" colleges from a state scholarship program.

In Carson, McConnell filed a personal brief September 8 that hands the Supreme Court a history lesson (.pdf here) on religious freedom as conceived when the Constitution's First Amendment was framed. He has explored this ground since a significant Harvard Law Review article in 1989.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Finding voices on both sides of Texas abortion debate? The Atlantic comes out on top

, , , ,
Finding voices on both sides of Texas abortion debate? The Atlantic comes out on top

In recent weeks, Texas has swung back and forth between prohibiting abortions after six weeks, then being forced bu judges to allow them, then managing to forbid them once again.

Currently, once the fetal heartbeat is detected, abortions are forbidden in the Lone Star state.

Meanwhile, journalists have gone full court press on the matter. There’s no surprise there. But did anyone strive to talk to women and men on both sides of this hot-button issue? Hold that thought.

Now, I don’t expect Hollywood ever to be balanced on the topic but a recent offering in The Hollywood Reporter on 12 abortion-positive movies was over the top, even for them.

It’s been 49 years since the two-part “Maude’s Dilemma” — written by future Golden Girls and Soap creator Susan Harris — premiered, but the choice faced by Bea Arthur’s title character, finding herself pregnant at 47, and the determination of Norman Lear’s show to discuss that choice in depth, and engage in a nuanced debate, would be provocative in an American broadcast sitcom today.

It’s still incredibly rare to find TV comedies dealing with actual abortions, though shows like Girls and Sex and the City used it as a conversation piece. Frequently, American television falls back on abortion being a thing characters talk about on-camera, do off-camera and then never speak of again..

Then comes the list:

“Dirty Dancing” a clear and unapologetic argument for reproductive choice.” “Grandma,” which is “abortion as a regrettable but necessary option in many young women’s lives.” Or “Never Rarely Sometimes Always” about “a candid and clear-eyed contemplation of abortion as a choice arrived at not with hand-wringing but with sobering pragmatism.” Or “One Sings, the Other Doesn’t” about “love, whimsy, joyful bohemia and tenderness no less than healthy anger over injustice.”

You get the picture.


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
, , , , , , ,

In the news media storm about the Texas abortion bill: Outrage -- 1, objectivity -- 0

, , , , , , ,
In the news media storm about the Texas abortion bill: Outrage -- 1, objectivity -- 0

If I had to sum up last week’s media maelstrom on Texas’ new abortion regulations, it’s this: 95 percent of the quotes was from those who opposed it. Maybe 5 percent was from those who favored it. And of that 5 percent, how many of them were inserted near the top of the piece rather than strung together near the end?

We’re talking about the Texas Heartbeat Act, aka S.B. 8, which bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected (usually around six weeks). Individuals who learn of violations can sue the clinics involved and anyone who helps women get abortions.

Which could your friendly Uber or Lyft driver, which is why both companies, according to CNBC, have offered to cover legal fees for any driver caught transporting a woman to a clinic.

Probably the most thoughtful dispatch was Emma Green’s piece in The Atlantic. It was a Q&A more than an essay, but at least it was an interview with the Other Side, which has been lambasted everywhere else for introducing a real-life Handmaid’s Tale situation into the Lone Star state. The lead sentence began:

Sometimes, the Supreme Court does the most when it does nothing. Last night, the justices denied an emergency petition by abortion providers in Texas seeking to block S.B. 8, a law banning pregnancy terminations after roughly six weeks’ gestation.

A 5–4 majority of the justices argued that they had no power to stop the law from going into effect, since none of the citizens who are now empowered under the law to sue abortion clinics for providing the procedure has yet attempted to do so.

Hold that thought. What’s new in Texas is something called “private enforcement,” by which any citizen -– and I mean anyone –- can report -– or sue -– someone trying to sneak an abortion past them. It’s a stunning legal strategy that evades the lawsuits that groups like Planned Parenthood use to quash their opponents.

Some on the pro-life side, like conservative pundit David French, aren’t happy with it at all, feeling that it’s bad law that will end up biting pro-lifers in the end. He is not the only abortion opponent who feels this way but there was zero reporting out there on the mixed feelings in his camp. Back to The Atlantic:

Legal challenges likely lie ahead. But abortion opponents see this as a victory, however temporary. For now, at least, abortion clinics in Texas are largely suspending their work and abiding by the ban.

The article continues as an interview with John Seago, the legislative director of Texas Right to Life who, more than anyone, contributed to the success of this law. Right away, Green jumped to the crux of the law; people reporting on other people. His answer:

There are two main motivations. The first one is lawless district attorneys that the pro-life movement has dealt with for years. In October, district attorneys from around the country publicly signed a letter saying they will not enforce pro-life laws. They said that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, they are not going to use resources holding the abortion industry to account. That shows that the best way to get a pro-life policy into effect is not by imposing criminal penalties, but civil liability.

The second is that the pro-life movement is extremely frustrated with activist judges at the district level who are not doing their job to adjudicate conflicts between parties, but who in fact go out of their way to score ideological points—blocking pro-life laws because they think they violate the Constitution or pose undue burdens.

For anyone wishing to understand why Texans went to this “private enforcement” stratagem is because they’ve tried everything else for the 48 years that Roe v. Wade has been in effect. And with a legal system set against them no matter what they do, it was time to come up with something else. And they did.


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

With the Taliban takeover, world Islam -- and the press -- have much at stake in the future

, , , , , , , , , , ,
With the Taliban takeover, world Islam -- and the press -- have much at stake in the future

The return of Taliban rule after 20 years will likely produce the typical mayhem and murder when a regime suddenly collapses. Longer-term, immense challenges face the people of Afghanistan under the "Islamic Emirate" and, externally, the takeover will intensify a host of international military, security, political and humanitarian problems.

But much is also at stake for world Islam, a crucial aspect that the media have tended to slight thus far, as tmatt has already observed here at GetReligion. Journalists may be witnessing a new phase in what Georgetown University expert John Esposito has called a long-running "struggle for the soul of Islam."

The fallout could last for years, or even a generation, because it will be highly difficult to again dislodge Taliban control — from within or without. Though plans are unknown, Afghanistan’s rulers may well reimpose harsh practices that had provoked widespread condemnation (without, however, losing religiously freighted diplomatic recognition by Saudi Arabia). And they could again provide a strategic national sanctuary from which terrorists could target innocent civilians in the despised West.

The key, of course, is that all this would be proclaimed as God's will, enacted in the name of Islam and for its benefit. The Taliban announce religious zeal for a strict construction of Islam's dominant Sunni branch in their very name, which derives from "student" in the Pashto language.

Militant movements that include the Taliban have achieved special appeal for youthful Muslim devotees and some government backing. They have variously claimed religious sanction for destruction of historic artifacts, torture, mutilation, beheading and stoning to death, execution without trial, kidnaping for ransom, forced marriages and sexual slavery, drug trafficking and thievery, killing of envoys and charity workers, and persecution not only of Christians and Jews and Yazidis but even moreso of fellow Muslims who dissent (see scholar Paul Marshall’s book “Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide“). Not to mention banning music and movies, kites and dolls.

The most severe consequences have fallen upon Muslim girls and women, not merely put under strict clothing mandates, but denied human rights, education beyond age 10 or careers outside the home.


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

For media exploration: Does church decline underlie what's depressing many Americans? 

, , , , , , , , , ,
For media exploration: Does church decline underlie what's depressing many Americans? 

Here's an off-the headlines theme for media to explore: To what extent does the slide toward a Great Depression for churches since 2000 underlie America's ills?

Think about it. Surveys and pundits underscore the rampant pessimism and dissatisfaction among many citizens, the toxic political divide and the way anything from calls for COVID vaccinations to Simone Biles's Olympics withdrawal will now stir partisan furies.

Consider ills that occurred simultaneously with weakened churches, bemoaned last week by New York Times columnist David Brooks. Major depression among teens jumped 63% from 2013 to 2016. Suicides increased 33% in the two decades ending in 2019. Estrangement from a family member is reported by 27% of Americans. Since 1990, those saying they lack even one close friend have quadrupled.

Such concerns evoke the classic book "Bowling Alone" by Harvard Professor Robert Putnam, a much-mulled 2000 tome now available in an updated 2020 edition. Not just bowling leagues but hyper-individualism, minus personal fellowship, is shrinking local lodges, civic groups and charities as well as churches. This seems to be an old problem (see the video with this post) that is only growing more intense.

The 2012 National Council of Churches yearbook (the 80th and last edition before publication ceased) reported that groups representing 330,222 local congregations claiming 159.8 million members filed data (a big undercount that omitted scads of independent churches). That was well over 20 times the current U.S. outlets for McDonald's or Starbucks. Big numbers, high stakes.

Local churches' centrality in community decline and prospects for recovery was asserted by Matt Lewis, a Daily Beast conservative, in an Eastertime piece (“America’s Losing Faith, and That Makes the Next Trump All But Inevitable“) and a follow-up last week (“How Trumpists Prey on Loneliness, and Loneliness Preys on Trumpists: Frankly, We Did Join a Cult“).

Lewis describes himself as a churchgoer (no specifics revealed) and "a (very flawed) Christian" who constantly needs God's forgiveness.


Please respect our Commenting Policy