When you are dealing with a really talented report, one who really knows how to listen and tell the stories of real people, religion can show up in the most unusual and touching places.

Veteran Washington Post foreign correspondent Pamela Constable is one of the best and, clearly, she gets religion — in a wide variety of cultures. She has even written a book on that, “Fragments of Grace: My Search for Meaning in the Strife of South Asia.” I should be honest and admit that Constable has spoken to my students before on Capital Hill, when stateside, and I sure hope that she can do that again.

The other day, Constable served up an unusual, first person, non-snarky Style section piece that, on first glance, is the story of a dog. The headline: “Ahu & Me: A Dog Is Lost, Hope Is Found In Pakistan.”

The basic plot: Experienced foreign traveler meets dog. She adopts dog, then has to leave town on assignment. While gone, the dog vanishes. So she has to go looking for the dog. End the end, she finds Ahu, which, we are told, means “deer” in Afghan Dari.

That’s the story and you should read it.

But GetReligion readers will want to pay special attention to the fine details of the search. You see, this isn’t really a story about a dog. It’s the lost dog that opens doors into the heart of the real Islamabad and, once Constable is away from the streets that most foreigners see, she finds herself traveling deeper and deeper into unseen communities, including religious minorities.

She here is a sample:

Islamabad is a city of many pet owners but few animal lovers. Affluent families dote on imported Persian and Siamese cats and retired officers walk their German shepherds or stout yellow labs, but I have rarely seen anyone express concern or affection for a street dog. The snobbery of the elite is passed down to the servant class. Ahu looked like a hundred other homeless dogs, and the guards and sweepers and drivers we met in our search regarded her as having no value. If we were looking for a local stray, they told us with looks of faint distaste, we should try the nearby “Christian Colony.”

This turned out to be a warren of alleys and shacks, hidden behind a wall and inhabited by several hundred families of garbage scavengers. Christians are a small, mostly impoverished minority in Muslim Pakistan, popularly disparaged as thieves and drunks. The colony filled a designated economic niche, like a community of “untouchables” in India. In every alley, boys delivered bulging sacks and men weighed piles of glass and cardboard for resale.

The inhabitants were astonished and amused to see us, but they were neither rude nor threatening. Dirt-streaked boys surrounded us and eagerly took the fliers; shopkeepers listened politely to our story. “Madam, do not worry, we find your dog,” one old man selling a pile of eggplants promised gallantly.

There were indeed many dogs living in the colony. The community had a reputation for stealing them, but it seemed to me they were treated more as co-inhabitants at the margins of society, neither pampered nor shunned. After several visits, we recognized most of the regulars, and they trotted up wagging their tails. As we broadened our search, scouring parks and vacant lots and garbage pits, we came to know the dogs that lived there, too. After dark they huddled in groups of three or four near the Dumpsters, waiting their turn after the crows and scavenger boys.

Several looked like Ahu, and I kept thinking sadly that they were no less deserving of a better life.

You get the idea.

One contact leads to another. That leads to another set of people passing out fliers and then a journey into another neighborhood, then another. New contacts. New people to meet and new stories to hear.

By all means, please read it. This is a first-story, without a strong journalistic hook. I mean, it’s about a search for a dog. Kind of. In the end, it’s a story about how journalists learn one of the foundation truths of the craft. When you come into a new city, a new community, a new corner of the world — everyone you meet knows more stories than you do.

While it may surprise GetReligion readers who reside in some parts of the United States, there are thousands of evangelical Christians — millions, globally — who worship in United Methodist pews week after week. That is certainly true down in the Southeastern corner of the Sunbelt, where there seems to be a United Methodist congregation in every small town and in almost every zip code.

Now hold on to that thought.

I am sad to report that ABC News served up a story the other day that, once again, pinned the “evangelical” label on another GOP falling star without offering any practical details that would, or would not, justify that word. At best, this appears to be a story about a man who “voted” evangelical and then got caught with his pants down.

We simply don’t know. Here’s the top of the story, which includes all kinds of slimy details about a scandal that deserves to be called an “affair” in every sense of the word. The detail about the stolen disc of nude photos is especially choice.

What began as a government internship for a one-time honors student with a questionable past has become a full-blown sex scandal that ensnared a married Tennessee state senator and led him to resign.

Republican Sen. Paul Stanley had maintained a low profile until his announcement … that he was resigning from the state Senate effective Aug. 10, after his affair with a 22-year-old intern and a subsequent extortion attempt was revealed to the public.

Stanley, a 47-year-old evangelical Christian with two children, said in his resignation letter that he has “decided to focus my full attention on my family.”

“Whatever I stood for and advocated, I still believe to be true,” he told Memphis radio station WREC-AM Tuesday. “And just because I fell far short of what God’s standard was for me and my wife, doesn’t mean that that standard is reduced in the least bit.”

He had been engaged in a sexual relationship with intern McKensie Morrison when her boyfriend, Joel Watts, contacted him, according to an affidavit filed in Davidson County by prosecutor Douglas Long. Watts threatened April 8 to release nude photos of Morrison at the senator’s apartment unless Stanley paid him $10,000, the affidavit claimed.

So he is an “evangelical” and that’s that. Read on and you’ll see that there is nothing in the story that gives us any clue as to why Stanley fits that label — unless simply being a Republican is enough. Take it away, Jim Wallis.

Now, as a GetReligion reader quickly noted by email, it isn’t all that hard to Google this politician’s name and read the following on his personal website. At least, it was easy to do that before the contents were locked after his resignation announcement. Still, the direct link still works, so click here. That’s where we read that:

From 1997-1999 he was Vice Chairman of the Young Republican National Federation. Paul was Senior Field Representative to U.S. Senator Bill Frist from 1995-1997 and served on the Republican State Executive Committee from 1998-2002. He is a member of Christ United Methodist Church where he serves as a Sunday school teacher and board member of their day school.

So here is the question for the reporter. Why not simply say that the state senator is a Sunday school teacher in a United Methodist congregation? That would be specific and accurate.

But wait, I hear some of you thinking, “But that doesn’t offer any political content about this man who has sunk into this pit of shame. It makes his actions worse if he is one of those ‘evangelical’ people. After all, if you just said he was a United Methodist, then people might think that he’s, uh, well educated and sane.”

As it turns out, the state senator’s “about” page also offers more information, noting that:

He has sponsored and passed many pro-business and technology bills and has a 100% rating from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, NRA and Tennessee Right to Life.

There you go, Stanley had a sky-high voting record from his state’s Right to Life chapter — even higher than the rating by another pro-life evangelical from Tennessee years ago. You remember Sen. Al Gore, don’t you? But he was a Democrat, of course.

In conclusion, there may be all kinds of specific information — other than this one political statistic on life issues — that would justify pinning the stunningly vague term “evangelical” on this latest GOP falling star. However, that information is clearly not in the ABC News story, where all we get is a hollow label.

It was easy to learn that Stanley is a United Methodist. Why not simply be specific, for a change? Go ahead and give us a few details.

What is the biggest religion story in the news today? Why, that would be the tale of the seven-year-old boy who stole his parents car and drove off in an attempt to avoid church. I was going to rip on how overplayed this story was until I watched the video above. The ending is comedy gold. (And, to be clear, the headline above is in complete jest.)

The story brought back many memories of my childhood as a pastor’s kid, which involves quite a bit of churchgoing. There was the time my four-year-old brother (who was very smart and knew how to read) pulled the fire alarm during the middle of services (“Pull down,” it read. Later, he saw that it also said, “In case of fire.”). The fire-extinguishing sprinklers were launched and the power supply was shut off. Which turned off the organ. There was chaos all around. My parents were livid but my grandfather retold that story with pride for years. When I was baptized, he apparently broke loose and ran all around the altar, screaming. There was also the time he debuted his organ-playing skills during an evening worship service during Lent. He wasn’t asked to play ever again after he sped through “Stricken, Smitten and Afflicted” so quickly that it sounded like a jazz tune. The thing is that my brother is possibly the most faithful churchgoer I know. And he’s a leader in his congregation, too. Although they still don’t ask him to play the organ.

Anyway, it’s still worth looking at the media coverage. Perhaps it’s because this seven-year-old drives better than half the people on the Beltway here in DC, but this story is getting nothing but guffaws from the media. Fox13 Utah, which had the story first, now even has a story about how widespread the story has become. Commenter Kristy, discussing a separate post yesterday, wrote:

Just a heads up - The NBC news is on, and we just heard a story of a 7 year old boy in Utah who stole a car and drove around to avoid going to church. Maybe local news, but - national?? and there’s going to be more tomorrow morning on TODAY. I can’t wait to hear more about THAT. There’s a religious news story you can’t miss:)

Is this the way the media usually treat stories like this? I’m not sure, but it did bring to mind the very different treatment of another lawbreaking youngster. Last Christmas a Texas tyke busted out of his house and into a nearby toy store and was caught playing with toys after he set off the burglar alarm. I can’t find the particular video I’m looking for, but that also made national news. The talking heads that told viewers about that story, however, were horrified and emphasized the parental neglect. In the case above, it’s played somewhat differently. I wonder why that is.

At least the parents of the Utah kid seem to have a good perspective about it. From the Salt Lake City Tribune:

Parents of a 7-year-old boy who drove off in the family car to avoid going to church Sunday are avoiding media interviews because they don’t want to reward their son for his bad behavior… .

“[The family] does not want this attention to be perceived by their son as an incentive or reward for his actions of taking the family car for a joyride,” said Capt. Klint Anderson of the Weber County Sheriff’s Office. “Humorous as this event was, it could easily have been a tragic story instead.”

One of my big quibbles with any of the stories about the car chase were that they didn’t even mention what church the kid was avoiding. But at least this story explains why that key information is absent — the parents aren’t talking.

Either way, I like the suggestion my friend Vic Matus had for how to be certain to keep kids interested and well behaved at church — glass coffins. People interested in the topic of bringing children to worship services might be interested in this fantastic and funny essay on the matter by David Skinner.

There are some stories that you know are even more complicated than they seem. The so-called “Wafer-gate” controversy out of Canada assuredly falls into that category. It’s not only Byzantine, but mysterious. While the flap raises some very important issues about eucharistic fellowship, there’s also a delicious element of political skulduggery to it.

If you are the kind of person who reads ahead a story to find out what happens at the end, here’s the spoiler: media heads have rolled. And other mysterious figures loiter backstage — outraged clergy, members of the opposition who might have it in for Harper….enemies in the Vatican… Ooops, sorry, that was the plot of a Dan Brown novel.

First, the facts. As I wrote a few weeks ago Prime Minister Stephen Harper came under fire from various sources for taking communion in a Catholic church at a state funeral. It is helpful to know that Harper is both a member of Canada’s Conservative party — and a conservative Protestant Christian. Combine the political buzz around the Prime Minister with an action that would have been scandalizing to many of Canada’s Roman Catholics and what do you have — well, at least a few weeks employment for journalists.

But that wasn’t the whole story. Some media outlets, apparently feeding on each other, spread the rumor (which, given that Harper receives communion in his own church, I thought was ridiculous on its face), that Harper had pocketed the host.

Tuesday the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal apologized to the Prime Minister for suggesting that he placed the host in his suit pocket. Here are the relevant paragraphs:

There was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time this article was published, nor is the Telegraph-Journal aware of any credible support for these statements now. Our reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras, who wrote the story reporting on the funeral, did not include these statements in the version of the story that they wrote. In the editing process, these statements were added without the knowledge of the reporters and without any credible support for them.

The Telegraph-Journal sincerely apologizes to the Prime Minister for the harm that this inaccurate story has caused. We also apologize to reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras and to our readers for our failure to meet our own standards of responsible journalism and accuracy in reporting.

So what happened? Well, we don’t know — but as the Cbc.ca website and others are reporting, the editor was fired, and the publisher’s name is no longer on the masthead. So now we have a mystery. One commentator blames the Liberals — or some specific cads in the opposition Liberal Party. Another writer says “not so fast!” And then we have the “what was the big deal about putting the host in your pocket” point-of-view. Of course, it would have been a big deal to many Catholics and other Christian denominations — if it had been true.

Let’s face it — religion and politics have been strange bedfellows since the days of the ancient Greeks and Hebrews. From the deep south down here in Pennsylvania, it looks as though someone, or someones, were trying to score a double by offending Canadian Catholics, and causing trouble for the Prime Minister. But in the process, the doctrinal angle (why is a Protestant taking comunion in a Catholic church) has gotten buried under a mess of political intrigue — and problems afflicting this particular newspaper.

I have to admit, whoever plotted the “wafer in the pocket” element hooked me. Who done-it? Why did “they” do it? And for our purposes, a more problematic question — why did journalists fan the flames?

Canadians, or anyone else — now that there has been an apology and almost everyone is trying to move on — is it really over?

Did you hear the one about the Episcopal priest who decided she could be both a Muslim and a Christian?

Sure you did. You just may need to jog your memory a bit. It’s been a few years.

The story of Ann Holmes Redding emerged two years ago, and was an immediate fan favorite of news editor in need of a quirky story. Then Redding received a second dose of media attention when she was officially defrocked for her apostasy.

But that was so four months ago. So why in the world is ABC News revisiting this story?

Ann Holmes Redding was a prominent priest in the Episcopal Church for 25 years — until a radical test of faith shook her beliefs to the core.

A month after her mother passed away in 2006, Redding went to her mother’s apartment to pack up her belongings. Distressed and emotional, she began practicing an Islamic meditation technique that she’d learned in an interfaith class.

“The church where I was working invited in a speaker on Islam,” she said. “This particular class, the teacher introduced an Islamic prayer practice that I began that night when I went home, because it called to me as something that would be helpful in my spiritual practice.”

And that’s when it happened.

“I knew that Islam, the word itself, means surrender, self-surrender to God. So I surrendered to God and became a Muslim,” she said. “It came with such clarity and such power that I could understand it as nothing else but an invitation from God.”

Did you catch that opening sentence? The sixth word of the article — that’s the one that tells you this is really just a puff piece to fill some space on a slow summer day. (Every newsroom has them.)

Prominent … no knock on Redding, but she was the director of faith formation in the Olympia diocese, hardly a high-profile position. In fact, I’d lay favorable odds that before Redding announced her religious hybrid that even most Episcopalians in the Great Northwest didn’t know who held her job.

The story goes on to quote Redding saying “Jesus was the one who led me to Islam” and “I believe God’s salvation is bigger than Jesus.” What it doesn’t do is offer anything — anything — new about Redding’s “transformation.”

Futhermore, this article lacks anything resembling context, any discussion of what Muslims think of Jesus — he’s considered a prophet but not The Prophet — or, God forbid, any more of a challenge of Redding’s position than these three paragraphs:

Not everyone has welcomed Redding’s new identity. A year after she professed her Muslim faith, news articles brought her views into the public eye — and while many in her congregation supported her, others did not.

The bishop of Rhode Island, where Redding was ordained, demanded she renounce her Muslim faith or lose her right to be a priest. Redding refused, and was defrocked in April.

It was an incredibly painful experience, said Redding.

Please news media, it’s time to find something new in the Ann Holmes Redding story or retire it already.

The above clip from “South Park” seems fitting. Though humans fight over religion, it turns out that Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha et al are all Super Best Friends.

Several months ago, your Religionistas created a feature called “Got news?” Ever since, we have been trying to explain to people what this slugline does and does not mean.

For starters, we rarely if every write about op-ed page essays, unless they are specifically about topics of interest to religion-beat professionals. Also, we hardly ever write about articles published in religious-market publications or denominational wire services, even though many are essential reading for anyone on this beat.

But, but, but …

You see, sometimes there are real, live, important news stories hidden in those op-eds — stories that, for some strange reason, newsrooms have not addressed with ink and dead tree pulp (or even digital ink). And sometimes the denominational wire services cover very important stories that, once again, mainstream newsrooms have missed. It happens.

What are we supposed to do then? In a way, we’re talking about perfect examples of GetReligion “ghosts,” important religion-news stories that have been missed by the mainstream.

Thus, “Got news?” was born. But we do try to play by some strict rules.

Whenever possible, we try to write about op-eds and denominational reports that are built on newsworthy speeches, forums and public documents that certainly COULD have been covered by the mainstream. We also strive to point readers toward items that are directly related to some of the hottest subjects of the day. In other words, real words and events about real news that, somehow, are passed over.

Well, sports fans, here is a great example of this whole genre, an archetypal “God news?” item if I ever saw one. This one is taken from one of those “conservative news” outlets — ChristianPost.com — that focus their work on collisions between religion and politics. This happens on the left, too. But lots of time the blind spots are on the cultural right. Thus, we end up with “conservative,” openly advocacy journalism about topics that deserve mainstream coverage.

Ready? Here’s the top of the story. Read it all.

A Catholic nurse who was forced against her will to assist in a late-term abortion procedure has filed a lawsuit against New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital.

With the legal help of Alliance Defense Fund, Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo filed the complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. … Federal law states that hospitals that receive tax dollars cannot under any circumstances force employees to participate in abortion procedures.

“Pro-life nurses shouldn’t be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs,” said ADF legal counsel Matt Bowman. … “Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to participate in a late-term abortion in order to remain employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights of conscience.”

He added, “[T]his nurse’s objections fell on deaf ears.”

So let’s work through the list.

Document? Check. More than one of them, in fact, starting with the lawsuit itself.

Hot, newsworthy topic? Check. More than one of them, again, in this time of debate about conscience clauses and guidelines and advisory panels for regional health-care cooperatives and a possible national government network for health care.

Any mainstream coverage? Well, let’s see. Nope, not much that I can find.

Got news? Let us know if you found anything out there in the mainstream press, even references to this lawsuit in broader stories on conscience-clause issues.

If you thought R&B artist Chris Brown’s career would be hurt by viciously beating his girlfriend Rihanna and threatening to kill her, you would be wrong. His song “Forever” is one of the top 10 iTune downloads after being featured in the YouTube video that’s taking the world by storm. Now, when I think of everlasting love and romance, I can’t say I think of Chris Brown. Or autotune. But one young couple did just that — sending their bridal party that is seemingly larger than their guest list joyfully down the aisle of a church dancing to that hit for the ages.

Judging from the eleventy million (and counting!) views the video has gotten on YouTube, people love this so much that they can’t take it. It certainly is pleasant to see the happy couple, but I can’t say I’m totally on board. Then again, I am a misanthrope who loves little about the whole wedding industrial complex. Don’t get me wrong, I love nothing more than a good wedding and wedding party. I just can’t stand the waste of money, the materialist emphasis and the drama that seems to surround most of them. And as surely as we know that cleavage-baring strapless wedding gowns, fondant, and updos are here to stay, we know that Bridezillas are right now plotting to which song they will send their scared bridesmaids and groomsmen dancing down the aisle next summer. Pastors be forewarned!

All this to say that the Washington Post’s Sarah Kaufman has a cheerful and completely uncritical look at the significance of this YouTube phenomenon, headlined “Going to the Chapel & We’re Gonna Get Jiggy.” She begins by noting that gyrations, swivels and high steps of the sunglass-wearing bridesmaids:

We all know what we’re supposed to do at weddings: Look on politely as a matchy-matchy parade of friends makes its slooooow way down the aisle to Pachelbel’s Canon in D. Try not to giggle. Rise for the bride.

But, by dancing their entrances and sending that upbeat, physical energy right back out to their guests, the Peterson-Heinz wedding turns the rote behaviors into spontaneous reactions. Of course the guests watch attentively as the wedding party bobs in. You can bet not a single child had to be shushed at that point. This was no longer a display of bad posture and dyed-to-match pumps — it was an uplifting swell of celebration with a beat. The bride — unescorted, we note; so independent! — was and wasn’t the center of attention. The true focus was on the unified, wordless but palpable emotions of her whole support system.

So true. But what wasn’t the focus of the jig? Humans have been celebrating weddings and other rites of passages with dance forever. This is just one more example of that. But when you make the focus be on the dozen young attendants who are your current best friends, you’re making a decision to not have other things be the focus.

My husband and my wedding procession did not make it onto YouTube so you’ll have to trust me on this but for ours the entire wedding party followed a processional crucifix and the clergy. I’ve been to other services with different foci. Two of my dear friends had a state ceremony with readings from their favorite atheists, for instance. Another non-religious friend had vows that quoted, well, Flash Gordon. Here’s the original:

Zogi, the High Priest: Do you, Ming the Merciless, Ruler of the Universe, take this Earthling Dale Arden, to be your Empress of the Hour?
The Emperor Ming: Of the hour, yes.
Zogi, the High Priest: Do you promise to use her as you will?
The Emperor Ming: Certainly!
Zogi, the High Priest: Not to blast her into space?
[Ming glares at Zogi]
Zogi, the High Priest: Uh, until such time as you grow weary of her.
The Emperor Ming: I do.
Dale Arden: I do NOT!

The point being that frivolity and fun and playing around with convention did not originate with our fresh-faced Minnesota newlyweds. What intrigues me about this Washington Post piece is that the theological implications of putting Chris Brown in a place where others have Christ-centered music is not discussed. On that note, it really does appear that this takes place in a Protestant church but I have yet to see that church identified. It might help when understanding the implications of this new school of Chris Brown liturgical dance. Does the nameless church have any guidelines for worship services? How does this fit within their liturgical tradition?

Here’s the closest we get to any treatment of the matter:

This procession explodes a lot of assumptions: that church weddings are square and Minnesotans are squarer, that shaking booties and solemn vows don’t go together. (It also puts a new luster on Brown’s song, which must be appreciated by the pop star turned pariah, who pleaded guilty last month to assaulting his girlfriend in February.)

More important, this ceremony went deeper than behaviors. It elicited all the right feelings, in the way that good dancing transfers energy and emotion to its audience. In the way they moved — and were able to corral their friends and family into the act — the couple told us a lot about themselves, and about their bond.

This didn’t look like a reluctant groom being dragged to the altar, nor a micromanaging bridezilla who had locked down every detail. They were open to music and movement and untucked shirts and sweat, and they gave to their guests what had to be the best party favor of all. An actual party.

I just find it so interesting that God is literally not mentioned anywhere in this story. I mean, the couple presumably went to a Christian church for the wedding for a reason, right? Are we not allowed to discuss religion even when the whole reason this YouTube and this story have legs is precisely because it took place in a church? And yes, I’m glad that we all assume that church weddings are square. As a pastor’s kid, I have been to hundreds of church weddings. It honestly never occured to me to “assume” that they were square. I will admit that booty shaking in church was something I have generally frowned on. And I say that as a booty shaker and an avid churchgoer. Time and place, y’all.

I know that this article is really just an essay on dance. But there is no reason to ignore or give such short shrift to the religious ghosts lurking at the end of that aisle the bridal party sashayed down .

I came across an interesting quote over at Beliefnet editor Steven Waldman’s blog. It comes from an essay written by the founder of the Interfaith Alliance, C. Welton Gaddy, and published on the Huffington Post. In it, Gaddy shares memories of newsman Walter Cronkite, a former chairman of the Interfaith Alliance. The Alliance exists to fight groups that it believes are part of the omnipresent religious right:

An incredible breadth of interest and depth of conscience caused Walter Cronkite to want to challenge the movement called the religious right. One day after doing an interview together in his home, a reporter asked about his personal religion. “It’s none of your business,” Mr. Cronkite replied courteously but sternly, “That’s why I am a part of the Interfaith Alliance.” He no more wanted anyone judged by their religion than he wanted people to use their religion to advance their public status in the nation. Yet, privately, he sincerely spoke of the role of religion in his life.

Now, I firmly support the idea that someone should feel free to answer a question about their religious views as Cronkite did. What’s more, I worry about whether we can trust media interest in public figures’ religious views.

However, I highlight this quote because I think that Cronkite’s view on the public nature of religious views is shared by many in the journalism community. I think it might explain the less-than-sympathetic media treatment of religious adherents who believe differently. I think particularly of those Protestants and Catholics who believe their religious confession of faith should inform their public roles and views on public policy.

In all my years on the Godbeat, I have never covered a vague “religious festival.” All of the one’s that I have covered — especially when linked to ancient traditions in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other major faiths — have very precise titles, rituals and purposes.

So, if you are willing to ask a question or two, you usually hit a specific passage in scripture, a reference to the life of a holy person, a tie between the secular and religious calendars, or some other hook to the faith in question. At that point, it is usually a short jump to a symbol or two, often with ethnic roots, and the rites linking the festival and the faith of the people involved.

This brings me to a recent Associated Press report that had just about everything, from bull fighting to political activism, with a few injuries thrown in along the way. It also centered on a major — but, alas, vague — “religious festival” involving Portuguese Catholics. Here’s the top of the story:

THORNTON, Calif. — It was supposed to be a “bloodless bullfight,” a dangerous dance between a pirouetting matador and an enraged bull that would not end in death.

But this time-honored Portuguese tradition capping a religious festival was anything but bloodless.

As the matador raised a short festooned spear to stick to the bull’s neck, an animal welfare investigator charged into the ring, suspecting that the banderilla’s Velcro tip concealed an illegal steel barb that would pierce the animal’s hide. Spectators chased down the intruder, and a bloody melee ensued, sending a San Joaquin County Sheriff’s deputy to the hospital and two men to jail.

The episode in May reignited a battle that has endured for several decades between the bullfight aficionados and animal welfare advocates who contend the ritual is animal cruelty masquerading as religious theater.

As you can see, the legal issues involved are directly connected to a claim of religious freedom and expression. Thus, it would help to know something about the nature of this “religious festival” and, most of all, how that is linked to this ritual in the bullfighting ring. After all, as the story says:

When California lawmakers banned to-the-death bullfights in 1957, they created an exemption for Portuguese-style bloodless fights if they are part of religious celebrations, the only exemption in the U.S. …

Animal welfare advocates say there is nothing religious about a bullfight and they are lobbying for laws to at least require veterinarians on the scene.

“When it gets to the point where they create these bullfights, pretend they’re religious, then torture and slaughter the bulls, I have a big problem,” said attorney David Casselman of the nonprofit Animal Cruelty Investigators, whose agents are monitoring the fights.

Once again, the content of the festival and its rites is crucial to judging the claims made by leaders on both sides of this story. The reference to “torture,” by the way, appears to be a reference to the fact that the bulls are eventually slaughtered and the meat eaten as food. These Catholics are not vegetarians.

Again, what is the connection between these events and the Catholic faith?

Well, later in the story we do read:

Whether the bullfights are a religious exercise has been debated since 1981, when then-Attorney General George Deukmejian said the fights would have to be an integral part of a Mass, which must take place on consecrated ground, to comply with the law.

The story goes on to offer lots of other details about the fights themselves, including evidence that the banderillas used in the bullfights may, in fact, have barbs on the tips — as opposed to the lethal weapons used in traditional, full-tilt bullfighting. We are also told that prosecutors don’t like arguing with priests about these kinds of issues.

But what are they arguing about? We never find out.

I did a bit of searching and found a local story that, right up top, notes that the festivals are sponsored by a local chapter of the Our Lady of Fatima organization and that this was all part of the annual Holy Ghost Festa, which is one of the major events of the year for Portuguese Catholics. Another click or two yielded more information about that.

So, other than ethnic traditions, what is the link between between these Catholic rites and the actual bullfight? Perhaps someone needed to ask the members of the Our Lady of Fatima chapter? The reporter may have even tried talking to a priest or two. After that Mass, perhaps? The one that by law has to take place on sacred ground, presumably at the stadium containing the bullfight?

I’m curious about the answer to these question. How about you?

How many times do you really want to read the word “nuanced”? You better like it a lot if you intend to glance at recent press accounts of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan William’s recent statement in the wake of the Epspocpal Church’s decisions at General Convention. Denominational leaders removed canonical barriers to consecrating (more) gay bishops — and officially began the process of moving towards the creation of a gay-union liturgy. Some of the stories are a lot more detailed than others, some more balanced than others. And it’s safe to say that if anyone is happy with the Archbishop’s latest reflections, they aren’t quoted.

But all of the ones I’ve read, without exception, would have been broadened by some more diverse quotes.

The reporters elicit reaction from the usual suspects, reliable partisans geared to crank up the volume a bit in an already changeable situation. And while the articles attempt to interpret what Williams has said (admittedly, often a challenge), no one, outside of the parties most invested, is asked to analyze what it is the Archbishop hopes to achieve.

Here’s a sampling of some of the stories published and posted in the last few days.

Kudos to Julia Duin of the Washington Times for interviewing Archbishop Robert Duncan of the breakaway Anglican Church in North America, the Rev. Susan Russell of the Episcopal gay advocacy group Integrity and the Rev. Phil Ashey of the American Anglican Council, another separatist group. She gets some powerful quotes from them. Duin’s story also conveys well a sense of across-the-board impatience with Williams that certainly is reflected in many blogs and some of the British stories.

The Rev. Susan Russell, outgoing president of the gay Episcopal caucus Integrity said Archbishop Williams’ statement “falls sadly short of recognizing all the theological reflection that has both moved and motivated this church over the years.”

She added, “We are frankly tired of being told we ‘haven’t done the theology’ when the truth is that there are those in our wider Anglican family who do not agree with the theology we have done.”

The Rev. Phil Ashey, chief operating officer of the American Anglican Council, said the sentiment on the ground is: “Rowan has spoken. So what?”

Contrast Duin’s story with Cathy Lee Grossman’s thoughts at her Faith & Reason blog at the USAToday.com website. Russell and Duncan sound almost philosophical here, while in Duin’s article they both go after Williams. It’s possible that this is a difference in emphasis, or when the reporters interviewed them.

He (Williams) describes a “two-track” model that could put the U.S. branch, The Episcopal Church, at a sort of junior auxiliary table at family gatherings. And neither the traditionalists or the flag-bearers for changing views on sexuality and the Church seemed at all surprised.

Indeed, both Archbishop Robert Duncan of the newly formed Anglican Church in North America and Rev. Susan Russell, head of the gay Episcopal group Integrity, had similar reactions: They would keep in “being church,” exactly as they intended all along and see when the “structures” catch up to reality.

There’s really not much to say about the story in the Grey Lady. To my mind, New York Times writer Alan Cowell, while giving readers a useful contextual interpretation of the Williams statement, really should have done his own interviews instead of relying on Associated Press quotes for reaction. It’s possible that the reporter didn’t see much news here. Duke Helfand at the Los Angeles Times has an even scantier story.

While looking for reaction from conservatives within the church, I came across this point-by-point dissection from blogger Anglican Curmudgeon, in which he contrasts William’s message with statements from Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and House of Deputies head Bonnie Anderson. This kind of commentary from a conservative member of the denomination(in quote form, of course) was what I was looking for in the articles.

It is possible that in future stories reporters will widen their lens a bit and include more of the “common folk” and a few experts to give some context for what is happening in the Anglican Communion. Naturally enough, reporters on deadlines tend to go to people they know will give them good quotes.

In addition, the articles here featured no reaction from outside the United States — however, writers can’t cover everything in one article. This may be a case of “apres GC 2009, le deluge.” Such reaction will undoubtedly occur, and will make its way into future stories. But I hope that American reporters remember that there still are (a dwindling) number of conservative laypeople (c’mon, let’s hear from the people who pay the bills) and clergy inside the Episcopal Church, and think to ask them how they feel about both the Anglican Communion and the aftermath of General Convention. That would liven up the stories considerably.