Believers in an angry age of 'fake news,' conspiracy chatter and the QAnon heresy

A majority of evangelicals are worried about "fake news" and they also think mainstream journalists are part of the problem.

The question, as pandemic-weary Americans stagger into the 2020 elections, is how many believers in this voting bloc have allowed their anger about "fake news" to push them toward fringe conspiracy theories about the future of their nation.

Some of these theories involve billionaire Bill Gates and global coronavirus vaccine projects, the Antichrist's plans for 5G towers, Democrats in pedophile rings or all those mysterious "QAnon" messages. "Q" is an anonymous scribe whose disciples think is a retired U.S. intelligence leader or maybe even President Donald Trump.

The bitter online arguments sound like this: Are these conspiracies mere "fake news" or is an increasingly politicized American press -- especially on politics and religion -- hiding dangerous truths behind its own brand of "fake news"?

"A reflexive disregard of what are legitimate news sources can feed a penchant for conspiracy theories," said Ed Stetzer, executive director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College.

Many mainstream journalists do a fine job of covering the complex world of evangelicalism, stressed Stetzer, reached by email.

Nevertheless, he added: "I think that the bias of much of mainstream news has to be considered in this conversation. Many evangelicals have seen, over and over, news sources report on them irresponsibly, with bias, and -- at times -- with malice. When you see that enough, about people you know, there is a consequence. Regrettably, I don't think many in the mainstream news world are thinking, 'We should have done better.' "

It doesn't help that Americans disagree about the meaning of "fake news."

Will Democrats veer into a religious freedom minefield on churches and taxes?

When preparing the 2016 Democratic Party platform, the drafting committee promised: "We will do everything we can to protect religious minorities and the fundamental right of freedom to worship and believe.”

But in the final text, Democrats substituted a broader term -- "freedom of religion." After all, critics of Hillary Rodham Clinton were attacking her occasional references to "freedom of worship," as opposed to the First Amendment's defense of the "free exercise" of religion.

"Freedom of worship" suggested that religious doctrines and traditions were acceptable, as long as believers remained inside their sanctuaries. "Freedom of religion" language would have implications for evangelists, educators, artists, doctors, soldiers, business leaders, social activists, counselors and other citizens in public life.

Thus, gadfly candidate Beto O'Rourke stepped into a minefield when he answered this question during a CNN "town hall" on LGBTQ issues: "Do you think religious institutions -- like colleges, churches, charities -- should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?"

O'Rourke drew cheers and applause with his quick response: "Yes. There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us." As president, he added, he would "stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans."

This stance would draw a different response from many other Democrats.

"Journalists should ask O'Rourke and every other Democratic candidate how this policy position would affect conservative black churches, mosques and other Islamic organizations, and orthodox Jewish communities, among others," argued law professor John Inazu of Washington University in St. Louis, writing for The Atlantic. "It is difficult to understand how Democratic candidates can be 'for' these communities -- advocating tolerance along the way -- if they are actively lobbying to put them out of business."

Meanwhile, this O'Rourke statement will remind religious leaders of the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision affirming same-sex marriage.