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.”
Similarly, nine federal departments are set to post a joint final rule on Dec. 17 that is being attacked by liberals. It will guarantee and define equal participation of religious agencies in social service programs. The all-but-final text is available here. This will set policy for the departments of agriculture, education, health and human services, homeland security, housing and urban development, international development, justice, labor and veterans affairs.
Coverage could also note the separate final rule on religious freedom (.pdf here) announced Sept. 9 by the Trump Department of Education. It states, for instance, that colleges cannot deny religious student groups the rights that non-religious groups exercise, and defines what counts as a “religious” campus in seeking exemption from rules against sex discrimination.
A second look-ahead theme is how much the religious grass roots will favor ex-President Trump’s budding bid to control the Republican Party through 2024. A post-election PRRI poll finds predictably low favorability ratings for Trump among Hispanics (29%) and Blacks (13%). But white Christian voters are the key. Trump favorability with white evangelicals has slumped to 59% from PRRI’s September count of 71%, while there’s thin 51% favorability among white Catholics and only 34% with “mainline” Protestants.
A third topic is the delicate matter of how religions of longstanding “binary” heritage approach rising transgender assertions. Further debate over “bathroom bills” is likely. And a bill co-sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and retiring Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (a Hindu) seeks to bar genetic males who identify as female from women’s athletic competitions.
LGBTQ cultural influence is seen in attacks upon Abigail Shrier’s book “Irreversible Damage” (Regnery), which criticizes hormone treatments and surgery for teens, usually girls, whose claimed “gender identity” conflicts with their birth biology. (Adult conversions are another matter.) Target stores barred sales of the book, Amazon.com rejected an advertisement, major media declined review coverage, Spofity scrubbed an interview and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney said circulation should be banned.
Yet in Britain, both the London Times and The Economist magazine gave Shrier’s work “best book” accolades. On Dec. 1, the High Court there ruled against hormone treatments without judicial approval in the case of Keira Bell, who regrets her decision to undergo conversion treatment.
The Economist weighed in (behind paywall) with an editorial and a three-page news analysis about the ethical and medical problems with surgery and hormone treatments on those under age 18.
ybvdadminuser
