Research On Religion » Little Sisters of the Poor

Michael Cromartie on Religion, the Media, and Think Tanks

tonygill — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 08:00:22 +0000

Jay Hein on the Invisible Revolution. How did the secular and religious media react to the recent visit of Pope Francis to the United States? And what does a think tank do to influence the national dialogue and policymakers on a variety of issues related to religion and faith? These area a few of the questions we explore with Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC. A former research assistant to Chuck Colson, member of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, and founder of The Faith Angle Forum, Mr. Cromartie has a unique perspective on the world of faith, the news media, and public policy.

We begin with a lesson on the Scottish pronunciation of names. Tony, being the football fan he is, mispronounces “Cromartie,” placing the emphasis on the wrong syllables, but Michael instructs him on the proper syllabic emphasis. And then it is off to a discussion on the pope’s recent trip to the United States. Instead of focusing on what the pontiff said, we look at how both the secular and religious media covered the event. Michael points out that the media is fascinated by Francis due to his lack of ostentation, but the coverage of what was said was skewed towards the economic and climate message, but avoided the cultural issues that were part of Francis’s message. We also talk about the liberal and secular nature of the national news media and the recent emphasis on “religious nones” and why a population that is seemingly becoming less religious would be so fascinated with this spiritual figure. Michael also tosses in some of his thoughts on how the Protestant media covered the pope and how this opens a door for evangelicals to reframe their image in the public square.

Tony follows this discussion by probing Mr. Cromartie’s background, wondering how he ended up in a Washington DC think tank. Michael reviews his high school and college experiences, including time living in a Christian commune, and how he surprisingly ended up working for Chuck Colson and getting mugged in Denver. It is from there that he eventually became linked to the Ethics & Public Policy Center (EPPC) in Washington DC. We then follow the conversation into the world of think tanks and discuss what the EPPC does and how it originated. Tony asks about how and whether such think tanks actually effect policy and Michael provides a number of examples of how EPPC attempts to slowly change the nation’s dialogue by bringing academics and policymakers together in a number of different forums. We discuss two of these programs that Mr. Cromartie helped shape — the Evangelicals in Civic Life Program and the Faith Angle Forum. As to the latter, Tony asks how the EPPC is trying to get journalists and academics to break out of the bubble they are in. Michael presents some of his thoughts on this.

We finish the interview with some of Mr. Cromartie’s personal reflections on his own life experience and how this might be useful for a younger generation. He notes that rather than trying to make a world-changing impact immediately when you are young, it is important to be “significant where you are right now,” which relates to being faithful in the ordinary tasks of life. Recorded: October 9, 2015.

Matthew Franck on Hobby Lobby & Religious Freedom Jurisprudence

tonygill — Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:00:34 +0000

Join us on our Facebook Fan Page for weekly updates and other tidbits.

Can the federal government require a private employer to provide a service or product to employees that violates the private owner’s freedom of conscience? This is the subject that is up for debate in an upcoming US Supreme Court case pitting Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties against the Health and Human Services contraception mandate that is part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Prof. Matthew Franck, director of the William E. and Carld G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute, provides us with the background to this case, the historical precedents that may influence how it is decided, and his review of what each side will be arguing in late March.

We begin with a review of how this court case percolated up to the Supreme Court, as well as a brief discussion who the primary plaintiffs — Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties — are and what issues are at stake. This discussion covers a bit of the history of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the HHS mandate that came out in the fall of 2011. The primary issue being contested concerns whether or not a business owner can be required to provide certain types of contraception, most notably abortifascients, that those owners consider to be in direct violation of their religious conscience. Tony asks a variety of questions regarding the nature of the litigants including why they were chosen amongst a number of other potential companies that were also suing, and whether or not the fact that both of these companies are privately held has any impact on their legal standing. Matt fills in all the details and notes how the case might have been different had this been the CEO of a publicly-held and traded corporation bringing suit. He also points out that under consideration is whether or not a corporation — in this case one that is privately held — can have the same rights of conscience that an individual possesses under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

We next consider the historical case law that may (or may not) inform the thinking of the Supreme Court justices. We take a quick tour of religious liberty cases over the past half century beginning with Sherbert v Verner and ending, most recently, with Hossana-Tabor, a case that Matt has discussed in greater detail on this show before (see link below). It is during this discussion that Prof. Franck brings up a judicial concept that Tony was unaware of — exemption-based jurisprudence. This style of jurisprudence allows for laws to be made and then exemptions appealed for based upon some special characteristic of an individual or group. Matt feels that this is not the best legal structure for a country to have, something that he has written about and will be available in a few weeks (see link below).

Following our historical discussion, Matt then lays out what he believes will be the arguments made on both sides of this case. A coin flip determined that he would start with the plaintiff’s side of things and he then brings up the defendant’s rebuttal to each of those points. Many of these arguments were hinted at throughout our earlier discussion, but the last 15 minutes of the interview provide a nice summary of what will probably be heard in oral arguments in late March of 2014 (assuming the snow in DC will melt by then). At the end of the conversation, Prof. Franck lays out what he thinks will be the implications for religious liberty should the government win the case and should Hobby Lobby and Conestoga win. Recorded: February 14, 2014.