GetReligion
Monday, March 31, 2025

culture wars

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

As Florida's DeSantis wages culture war, his Catholic faith isn't news -- unless it's used to attack him

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
As Florida's DeSantis wages culture war, his Catholic faith isn't news -- unless it's used to attack him

The two things that lots of people don’t want to read about these days is the coronavirus pandemic and Donald Trump, part of a larger trend regarding news fatigue in this country. Unfortunately, this post will mention both and only because it is about Ron DeSantis.

The Florida governor has been in the news the past few years because of his connection to the former president and a virus that paralyzed the planet for two years. A hero to the right and bogeyman to the left, DeSantis has received plenty of mainstream news coverage — much of it one-sided — because of his use of so-called culture war issues to push legislation.

DeSantis, who is running for re-election and among the favorites to run for the White House in 2024, has been a lightning rod for Democrats and a focus of criticism from the mainstream press for the last two years. His actions regarding COVID-19 were at odds with how blue states handled the virus, often catapulting him to national attention.

While the coverage has predictably focused on politics, the religion-news hooks in these stories have largely been ignored — unless they were highlighted to be used against him. The bottom line: DeSantis is not the kind of Catholic who draws cheers from journalists who admire progressive Catholics.

Those angles were once again set aside by the press coverage of the recent debate about the state’s sex-education bill.

As political conservatives and liberals battled it out over the merits of this bill, the press ignored DeSantis’ Catholic faith throughout the past few weeks of coverage.

The legislation — which the press insisted on calling the “Don’t Say Gay” bill — was, as the Associated Press recently noted, the following:

Since its inception, the measure has drawn intense opposition from LGBTQ advocates, students, national Democrats, the White House and the entertainment industry, amid increased attention on Florida as Republicans push culture war legislation and DeSantis ascends in the GOP as a potential 2024 presidential candidate.

There’s a lot to unpack in that paragraph, but mostly for what’s not mentioned.


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

'On Religion' flashback to 1998: Ten years of reporting on a church-state fault line

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
'On Religion' flashback to 1998: Ten years of reporting on a church-state fault line

Back in the 1980s, I began to experience deja vu while covering event after event on the religion beat in Charlotte, Denver and then at the national level.

I kept seeing a fascinating cast of characters at events centering on faith, politics and morality. A pro-life rally, for example, would feature a Baptist, a Catholic priest, an Orthodox rabbi and a cluster of conservative Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Lutherans. Then, the pro-choice counter-rally would feature a "moderate" Baptist, a Catholic activist or two, a Reform rabbi and mainline Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Lutherans.

Similar line-ups would appear at many rallies linked to gay rights, sex-education programs and controversies in media, the arts and even science. Along with other journalists, I kept reporting that today's social issues were creating bizarre coalitions that defied historic and doctrinal boundaries. After several years of writing about "strange bedfellows," it became obvious that what was once unique was now commonplace.

Then, in 1986, a sociologist of religion had an epiphany while serving as a witness in a church-state case in Mobile, Ala. The question was whether "secular humanism" had evolved into a state-mandated religion, leading to discrimination against traditional "Judeo-Christian" believers. Once more, two seemingly bizarre coalitions faced off in the public square.

"I realized something there in that courtroom. We were witnessing a fundamental realignment in American religious pluralism," said James Davison Hunter of the University of Virginia. "Divisions that were deeply rooted in our civilization were disappearing, divisions that had for generations caused religious animosity, prejudice and even warfare. It was mind- blowing. The ground was moving."

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.


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

Fights over First Amendment rights will likely top religion-beat agenda in 2021 and beyond

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

What's on the agenda for journalism about religion in the United States in 2021 and beyond?

Ongoing fights about the First Amendment and religious liberty are likely to prove the most newsworthy, but two other themes deserve attention.

A prior Religion Guy Memo here at GetReligion surveyed the competing partisan concepts of "religious freedom" that face the United States and the incoming Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, with potential for big conflicts if Democrats win both Senate runoffs in Georgia.

One aspect is religious groups' desire to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws so they can hire doctrinally like-minded employees, while qualifying for federal grants. Lame duck Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia (son of the late Supreme Court justice) wrapped up the Donald Trump years with an important "final rule" to nail down and clarify exemption rights. It goes into effect a dozen days before Biden's inauguration.

Understandably, much news like this was all but ignored by media focused on COVID-19developments and President Trump's remarkable, fruitless efforts to erase the 2020 election returns, supported at the U.S. Supreme Court by 60 percent of House Republicans and the GOP attorneys general of 18 states.

Labor's “final rule” policies could be re-examined in the Biden years. The huge text (.pdf here) provides journalists full documentation on religious employment disputes as seen from the conservative side of the culture wars, and summarizes 109,000 officially filed comments pro and con.

The rule clarifies that exempt groups need not be connected to specific house of worship (as with many schools and Protestant "parachurch" organizations) and that even for-profit companies can qualify if they have "a substantial religious purpose." It states that "religion" covers not only creedal beliefs but "all aspects of religious observance and practice." The rule allows exemptions of religious groups that provide "secular" help, relying on the 9th Circuit appeals ruling in Spencer v. World Vision (read text here).

Importantly, Labor's new rule says religious organizations cannot ignore anti-discrimination protections regarding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in situations where "there is no religious basis for the action."


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

USA Today: Americans are more divided than ever, but religion plays no role in this split

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

While lawyers and pundits (and Donald Trump) keep fighting, it has been pretty easy for news consumers to see the big picture after the 2020 elections: America is as divided in 2020 as it was in 2016.

After four years of apocalyptic rhetoric on both sides, a few thousand votes in several key zip codes could have swung the White House race. Republicans — strong in down-ballot races — gained ground in the U.S. House and held the high ground in most state races. The fact that control of the U.S. Senate will come down to a two-seat election in Georgia was a new wrinkle, but the divisions there there are oh so familiar.

How many op-ed words have a read, in the past week, trying to describe the nature of this divide? I’m scared to make a guess.

Most people can spot the blue urban coasts vs. red heartland divide. Then again, there are blotches of red in most blue states and bright-blue cities in the reddest of red states (hello friends in the People’s Republic of Austin, Texas). Location, location, location.

However, it’s easy to see evidence of America’s battles over religious liberty and sexual liberation, along with the many specific political battles linked to that divide. Joe Biden rode a surge of votes from the growing ranks of the religiously unaffiliated and urban singles, while Republicans (including Trump) were the choice of Americans (keep your eye on Hispanics) who most frequently attend worship services. The “pew gap” remains a reality in American politics.

Everyone can see that, right?

Maybe not. Out of all of the news coverage and analysis that I read, one specific USA Today feature stood out as a perfect summary of the tone-deaf state of far too many members of the American chattering classes. The headline on this news piece, which was not labeled “analysis,” stated: “A close presidential election deepens the nation's divide. How do we live together now?”

The word “soul” made it into the lede — #HURRAH) — but that was that, in terms of attention to the role that religious faith plays in American life. The divide, you seem, has something to do with “morality,” but not religion. Here’s the overture:

During the presidential campaign, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden referred to the 2020 election as a fight for the “soul” of America. If this week has showed anything, it's that the country is still painfully divided on what America is and what it should become.


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

Journalists should be gearing up for big 'culture war' cases at U.S. Supreme Court

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The COVID-19 emergency shouldn’t divert the media from getting prepared for an unusual pileup of big “culture war” news that will break at the U.S. Supreme Court during the weeks through early July.

Pending decisions the media will need to interpret involve abortion, religious conscience claims, gay and transgender rights, taxpayer aid for students at religious school and (yet again) religious objections to mandatory birth-control coverage under Obamacare. Next term, the court will take up the direct conflict between LGBTQ advocacy and religious conscience, an uber-important problem.

These cases will show us how the newest justices, Neil Gorsuch (age 52, seated 2017) and Brett Kavanaugh (age 55, seated 2018), will be reshaping court edicts on religio-cultural disputes.

Here are the imminent decisions to be ready for.

Espinoza v. Montana (docket #18-1195) — This regards the venerable “Blaine amendments” in many state constitutions that forbid religion-related aid by taxpayers. Does a state violate the U.S. Constitution’s “equal protection” clause if it denies generally available public scholarships to students who attend religious schools?

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, incorporating Trump v. Pennsylvania (19-431) — Last week, the court heard arguments in this case involving claims of religious rights vs. women’s rights. Did a Trump administration setup properly exempt religious objectors from the Obamacare mandate that requires employers to arrange birth-control coverage?

June Medical Services v. Russo (18-1323) — Louisiana requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, which pro-choice advocates say hobbles women’s access to abortion. In 2016, a Supreme Court with different membership threw out such a regulation in Texas

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, incorporating St. James School v. Biel (docket # 19-267) — The court heard the argument on this Monday via a COVID-era telephone conference. This Catholic school case from California poses whether under the Constitution’s religious freedom clause schools and agencies can discriminate in hiring workers who are not officially ordained “ministers” but may carry out some religious functions. In a similar Lutheran case in 2012, the high court said yes.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
,

Liberal professor enters a classroom in Appalachian mountains, and this is not a joke

,

Thank God for Evan Mandery and professors like him.

Mandery, the author of A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America, sought a better understanding of conservatives in America, and that led him to apply to teach somewhere other than the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, where he is a professor. He has written about the experience in “What Teaching Ethics in Appalachia Taught Me About Bridging America’s Partisan Divide,” published online Oct. 13 by Politico Magazine.

Other than a quick introduction to a classroom exercise of Mandery asking his students to sacrifice one of their classmates for a guaranteed A, he begins on a self-effacing note: “Finding a place to teach ethics in the South was more difficult than I had imagined. My initial idea was to go to the most remote school that would have me, but most don’t even offer an ethics course. … When I stumbled upon Appalachian State, the school immediately seemed like a good fit — open to me and the kind of conversation I wanted to foster.”

Mandery escalates the theoretical stakes with his students by presenting the trolley dilemma, which has elsewhere morphed into a lesson in Christian apologetics.

Mandery has not come to Appalachia to teach students what to think, but how to listen carefully and, as a result, how to think with greater empathy. This teacher wants to learn as well:

In the aftermath of the 2016 election, I read widely — and somewhat unsatisfyingly — to try and understand the root causes of polarization. J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy moved me, and it’s impossible to read George Packer’s The Unwinding, which takes place largely in North Carolina after the Great Recession, without being unsettled by the coming apart of bedrock American institutions. But nothing I read fully explains the mistrust — daresay hatred — that has evolved between liberals and conservatives.

Coming in, I assumed some of my students would reflect the conservatism of the surrounding region and others the liberalism generally prevalent among college students. What I didn’t know is whether my students — and young people generally — are predestined to sort themselves into those mutually loathing tribes, or if a shared conversation about foundational ethical beliefs could alter their views of people with whom they disagree.

I will leave most of the narrative to Mandery, largely because he tells the story so well.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Chick-fil-A culture war goes international: What's the real story in plans to close British location?

, , , , ,

Remember the furor stirred up by — to borrow the New Yorker’s description — ”Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City?”

Now the culture war over the fast-growing chicken-sandwich chain has gone international.

To England, to be precise.

The New York Times reports:

Just days after Chick-fil-A’s first restaurant in the United Kingdom opened and amid protests by activists about the company’s opposition to same-sex marriage, the chain said on Saturday it will close the site in six months.

The Oracle, the shopping mall where the restaurant leases space, told the BBC it would not allow Chick-fil-A to stay beyond its “initial six-month pilot period” and that it was the “right thing to do” after a call to boycott the chain by Reading Pride, a local lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender advocacy group.

Chick-fil-A said it had planned to stay for a limited time anyway.

“We have been very pleased with the lines since opening Oct. 10 and are grateful for customer response to our food and our approach to customer service,” the company said on Saturday. “We mutually agreed to a six-month lease with the Oracle Mall in Reading as part of a longer term strategy for us as we look to expand our international presence.”

What’s the big deal over Chick-fil-A anyway (besides the amazing chicken biscuits and sandwiches)?

The Times offers this background:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Friday Five: #RNA2019, pastor suicide, newspaper credibility, culture wars, hilarious sermons

, , , ,

It’s day two of the Religion News Association annual conference in Las Vegas.

That’s right — the nation’s religion journalists are discussing faith and spirituality in Sin City.

More on that as we dive into Friday Five:

1. Religion story of the week: I wrote about the RNA meeting in my post Thursday.

By all means, follow the conference in real time via the #RNA2019 hashtag on Twitter. Also, the RNA is live-streaming sessions on its Facebook page. …

2. Most popular GetReligion post: “Believers must face this: All kinds of people (pastors too) wrestle with depression and suicide,” Terry Mattingly wrote in this week’s No. 1 most-clicked post.

If you haven’t, make sure to read the post. In it, tmatt noted that this is one of the most personal topics that he has ever touched on here at GetReligion. Yes, all of this is linked to one of the major national religion-news stories of last week — the suicide of the Rev. Jarrid Wilson, the 30-year-old founder of a a nationally known ministry for people struggling with depression and suicide. Then again, the recent 9/11 anniversary played a role in this post. And double make sure to listen to the related podcast.


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

God, man, Trump, gender, YouTube, males, the Bible and the omnipresent Jordan Peterson

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
God, man, Trump, gender, YouTube, males, the Bible and the omnipresent Jordan Peterson

So who is that Jordan Peterson guy and why is he so popular with some people and so controversial for others?

Yes, after weeks of getting emails from people asking when I was going to write something about Peterson, the other day I took a look at a very God-haunted Washington Post Style piece that ran with this headline: "Jordan Peterson is on a crusade to toughen up young men. It’s landed him on our cultural divide." Now, readers can click here and check out the "Crossroads" podcast that digs into some of this.

The cultural divide is easy to spot and to explore. On one side you have people – millions of them – who follow Peterson's every move in the digital marketplace of ideas. Some see him as the next C.S. Lewis (or a perfect example of trends that Lewis opposed). Some see him as the new William F. Buckley.

Some like his calm, blunt take on political correctness – including issues related to free speech, gender wars, etc. It' this old logic: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

On the other side there are those who use similar logic, only they assume that when someone endorses one thing or the other that Peterson has said, that then links the University of Toronto clinical psychologist to that cause, whatever that may be. For example, see this take at The Forward:

Jordan Peterson is a public intellectual adored by neo-Nazis, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. The neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer called Peterson, a Canadian psychology professor-turned-self-help-guru, “The Savior of Western Civilization.” Paul Joseph Watson, a prominent conspiracy theorist for Infowars, has tweeted, “Jordan Peterson for Canadian Prime Minister.

Meanwhile, many who admire Peterson see him as a kind of anti-Donald Trump, a person who is making a case for a culturally conservative approach to life using logic, education and discipline as opposed to, well, America's Tweeter In Chief.


Please respect our Commenting Policy