It is very ironic that one of the only mainstream news-media reports I have read about the plight of Coptic believers in Egypt was in the Baltimore Sun and it centered on the insights of people in — wait for it — Baltimore.

So it seems that the Copts are news in Baltimore, but not in Cairo. Go figure.

Yes, I know that all news is local. However, we are talking about a highly symbolic group in the history and life of Egypt — that’s what Muslim reformers were saying only a few weeks ago when they served as “human shields” at the Coptic Christmas rites. Remember that? So where are the sidebars in the daily coverage out of Egypt?

Meanwhile, the Sun report has a few problems, all linked to a lack of understanding of just how ancient the Coptic Orthodox Church (yes, and other branches from those historic roots) really is. Consider one quick detail in the opening of the story:

As they have done for nearly 20 years, members of the close-knit and expanding community of Coptic Christians in Maryland prayed Sunday morning at a church in Savage, the red-brick building thick with incense and echoing with the sound of religious recitations sung in Arabic and English.

On this particular Sunday, as massive protests aimed at unseating President Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian regime gripped Egypt, the congregation at St. Mary’s Coptic Orthodox Church prayed not just for the safety of family members there but also for a resolution to the unrest — one that would put in power a moderate government friendly to religious diversity.

Now, it is possible that the service was in Arabic and English — alone.

However, it’s more likely that the liturgy and the hymns were offered in three of four languages, including Greek and, most symbolically, the truly ancient Coptic language. This is a tongue that is linked directly into the life of Egypt before Islam and, thus, before the common use of Arabic in the land of the pharaohs.

In other words, the Coptic people — when possible — strive to keep alive their own language. It is likely that the Sun reporter heard passages in Coptic and did not know it.

Later in the story, there is this passage:

While they fret from hour to hour about family members’ safety and stay alert for any bit of news from their home country, Copts here also worry about who will eventually take up the reins of power after the dust from the protests settles.

The Christian denomination makes up about 10 percent of Egypt’s 80 million or so people, and in recent years their churches have been the targets of suicide bombers and gunmen — attacks the minority group sees as attempts by extremists to make Egypt a universally Islamic state.

A “denomination”?

Now wait a minute. This is something like saying that the Catholic Church is a “denomination” and that the pope of Rome is the leader of another mere “denomination.” Instead, it must be stressed that this is a truly ancient “church” and that no other term can accurately be fixed to it. It’s another subtle sign of not knowing the true significance of the Coptic people.

Toward the end of the piece, this report does offer a glimpse behind the scenes in Egypt, through the eyes of family members here in Maryland. I am sure that there are similar stories in newspapers elsewhere.

“They say it’s horrible there, a mess everywhere,” said George Mekhail, a Columbia resident with family in Cairo, Egypt’s capital city and the site of the largest and most violent demonstrations against Mubarak’s government. “The men are coming out to protect” their neighborhoods against looters who are taking advantage of the chaos in the country, Mekhail said. …

Their families, they said, have largely barricaded themselves in their homes, with doormen staying on guard around the clock inside apartment buildings. Mona Gobrial, whose husband, the Rev. Guirguis Gobrial, has served as the Savage congregation’s priest since 1995, said Saturday was the first time since the large-scale protests began on Jan. 25 that her sisters in Cairo could go out to get food for their families.

“Nobody’s sleeping,” she said. “They don’t know how it went from peaceful to that chaotic.”

The Copts in Maryland are fasting and praying — for Egypt and for their loved ones. I cannot imagine that this is not happening in Cairo and across Egypt. Prayers and gunshots often go together.

Ted Haggard might be the story that never dies. Every few months, it seems, the family does something to capture reporters’ attention, whether it’s a media appearance or building their ministry. Julia Duin captured this idea on the Washington Post’s Under God blog with the headline “How ‘scandalous’ is Ted Haggard now?”

It used to be when pastors were disgraced, they simply left town, changed occupations and otherwise made sure they were never heard from again.

These days, they get a reality show; specifically Ted Haggard: Scandalous, which aired Sunday.

…Just when you hope that this poor family is going to settle down and lead a happy life and ministry, they come out with another book or TV appearance. Why are they doing this? Is it the money? The need for acceptance? Fame? You tell me.

These questions come up again as we read a new profile of Haggard from Kevin Roose at GQ magazine, complete with the family in a hot tub. It’s been four years since the former pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs resigned from the National Association of Evangelicals after a male escort alleged that Haggard paid him for sex and methamphetamine. Before we get into the piece, we have to get past the childish deck to the article, which Roose hopefully did not write (this often falls to an editor).

When the reverend Ted Haggard was outed four years ago, it was in a ball of biblical hellfire—crystal meth! Gay sex! Unholy massages! Banished from the church he founded, he was forced to wander the Arizona desert selling insurance. Now Pastor Ted returns with his wife by his side, a new church, and a more open theology. Is he chastened? Somewhat. Straight? Hmm. Ready for a second coming? Absolutely

The challenge of a 5,000-word piece is getting people excited enough to read newsworthy bits. Most of the headlines picked up on the part where he says, “I think that probably, if I were 21 in this society, I would identify myself as a bisexual.” The piece itself does not carry a sensational tone and instead offers a very quote and picture-driven story. Roose leads the story with the issue of whether Haggard should have returned to ministry by starting a church last summer.

The question of whether Ted is in a position to help others—whether he should be helping others—isn’t an easy one, even for some of his friends and advisers. “What happened four years ago was a violation,” Glenn Packiam, a New Life executive pastor, said when we spoke on the phone last fall. Packiam still considers the Haggards friends, but when I asked if he thought Ted should be back in the ministry, he was careful. “Every person has to discern for themselves whether they can trust him again,” he said.

In Ted’s mind, though, he’s never been more capable, more called, than he is now. He has walked through the fire and emerged with family and faith restored. He’s “less broken now,” he says, more whole, spiritually and psychologically. This may be true. But “less broken” doesn’t necessarily equal “redeemed.” And what he’s working to repair may not be the sort of thing that can be fixed.

Contrasting these examples, Roose raises these lingering questions that show different ways of thinking about Haggard’s ministry efforts. Further down, of course, Roose has to ask about the Mike Jones, the man who made the allegations back in 2006.

“We never had sex sex,” he says, glancing at the car to make sure that Elliott and Jonathan are asleep. “I bought drugs and a massage from him, and he masturbated me at the end of it. That’s it.”

But Ted’s true sore spot, the thing that drains the life from his voice, is the way he and Gayle were treated by their church in the wake of the scandal….

… “I used to think the church was the light of the world,” Ted says. “But I’ve completely lost my faith in it.”

Ted’s complaints about New Life are old news to anyone who’s been following his saga, but tonight, when I ask him if he really means to say completely, he stops and looks at the sky already starting to lighten.

“You’ve got to understand, Kevin, people are, at their cores, hateful,” he says, rising to stamp out the fire’s embers and go to bed. “I don’t want to believe that, but the facts have prevailed over my idealism.”

You can see how Roose uses quotes and scene-setting to let Haggard tell the story and help us understand the kinds of questions he was asking. Roose does some first-hand reporting where he visits Haggard’s 200-some St. James Church, offering a picture of his preaching and the kinds of people who are attracted to the church.

Part of what these guys love about St. James is that it helps struggling people in real, tangible ways. During the offering, when most churches pass the plate, Ted instead has his saints give money to one another. Today the gifts included a $500 donation to fix one man’s car and money for another man to pay his electricity bill.

“I’d rather have that conversation with a handful of people,” Ted says to me after the service, “than have a worldwide TV audience and everyone think I’m a hotshot.”

His voice trembles, “That $500? That’s Jesus to me now.”

I’ve seen Ted move himself to tears more than once, but this time it seems less melodramatic, more like he’s plucking at some deeper internal tension. He’s admitted that he went through a period of spiritual disillusionment after his scandal, and maybe this is how he’s resolving it—with a church that’s more like group therapy and with a gospel centered on a new golden rule: Do unto others as nobody did unto me.

This gives a snapshot of how Haggard is tailoring his style to a different congregation than he might have in the past. Finally, though, the section that most people are zeroing in on is the part about his sexuality. Roose asks Haggard about drugs and porn, showing us how he asked some specific questions to get into his sexuality.

For the first time since we’ve met, Ted isn’t looking directly at me. “Here’s where I really am on this issue,” he half whispers. “I think that probably, if I were 21 in this society, I would identify myself as a bisexual.” After a weekend of Ted trying to convince me of his unambiguous devotion to his wife and kids, I’m at first too surprised to say anything.

“So why not now?” I ask finally.

“Because, Kevin, I’m 54, with children, with a belief system, and I can have enforced boundaries in my life. Just like you’re a heterosexual but you don’t have sex with every woman that you’re attracted to, so I can be who I am and exclusively have sex with my wife and be perfectly satisfied.”

“But what does it have to do with being 54?”

“Life!” he says. “We live an ordinary life.”

It’s the most intimate exchange we’ve had, and the confession strikes me first as sad, then as nakedly honest, the kind of thing I kept wishing he would say to Oprah or Larry King or any of the other people who have demanded explanations of his muddled sexuality.

The piece really is worth a full read, but I’ve tried to offer a taste of the different aspects the article raises. We’ve seen the Haggards in the media cycle over and over again through Gayle Haggard’s book and media appearances on Oprah, “The Divorce Court,” the HBO documentary, and a recent program on TLC. On one hand, it’s nice to see a reporter go back and try to clear up some confusing details about what exactly happened. On the other, we could ask questions about why we’re still covering the details when Haggard no longer leads a large church or organization. So part of me is wondering why we’re still talking about something that happened four years ago, but if we have to, this feature is a pretty nice way to do it.

No, we’re not breaking news here. The Alabama governor and the vision from God referenced in the title are separate items. Smile.

In the latest Crossroads podcast, I discuss two recent posts.

The first post concerned media coverage of newly inaugurated Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley’s eyebrow-raising remarks at a church:

Bentley, who for years has been a deacon at First Baptist Church in Tuscaloosa, later in the speech gave what sounded like an altar call. “There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit,” Bentley said.

“But if you have been adopted in God’s family like I have, and like you have if you’re a Christian and if you’re saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.” Bentley added,

“‘Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”

On the podcast, I share my concerns about the lack of context on Bentley’s religious beliefs that accompanied most initial media reports. However, I note that we saw improvement in some of the later coverage, as my fellow GetReligionistas highlighted here and here.

The second post related to a Chicago Tribune story on a pastor who says God told him in a vision to buy a large church building:

Steve Robledo was a newly ordained minister in search of a flock when he had what he calls a vision from God: He was to start his congregation in a grand church building for sale on the west side of Elgin, a brick and stone edifice with soaring stained-glass windows and dark wood pews.

He had no money but plenty of faith, and sure enough, his vision came to pass. Two businessmen and Robledo’s pastor agreed to provide the financing, and soon his fledgling Lighthouse Community Church had its home.

Five years later, though, this mission of divine inspiration has run into earthly trouble.

Robledo’s nondenominational congregation is a fraction of its 200-member peak, diminished by the recession and an internal schism. With contributions down sharply, the church can’t afford to pay its $3,100 rent or fix maintenance problems that have drawn a lawsuit from the city.

On the podcast, I talk about what worked about the story and what didn’t and even opinionate a bit on shrinking news holes.

You can click here and listen to the podcast or head over to iTunes and subscribe to the feed that will put it right in your computer, iPod or smartphone. The podcast is free, and so is the Oklahoma accent.

CNN’s Reliable Sources from Sunday details some of the general problems or opportunities with media coverage in Egypt. Host Howard Kurtz and his guests discuss everything from Al Jazeera being shut down in Egypt to how reporters are dodging bullets with protesters being felled all around. The closure of foreign bureaus means that those hungry for news have been tuning into Al Jazeera English, which focuses on Middle East coverage. Tmatt already looked at one ghost in the coverage — the fate of Egypt’s Christian community.

The story that grew in importance over the weekend is the opposition role of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamist group took a more public stance and that worried those who hope for a budding democracy. Anthony Shadid and David Kirkpatrick had a helpful piece in the New York Times. Aren’t you glad Kirkpatrick went over to Egypt some months back? I was hoping to see his byline on some of these stories. Here’s how the reporters explained the significance of what’s going on:

CAIRO — Egypt’s powerful Muslim Brotherhood and the secular opposition banded together Sunday around a prominent government critic to negotiate for forces seeking the fall of President Hosni Mubarak, as the army struggled to hold a capital seized by fears of chaos and buoyed by euphoria that three decades of Mr. Mubarak’s rule may be coming to an end.

This “prominent government critic” is none other than Mohamed ElBaradei, someone who inspires dramatically different feelings among Egyptians. I was somewhat surprised to see his name bandied about considering that I know he has a bit of a “carpetbagger” image among various Egyptian groups. This article did a great job of quickly explaining why he was in the mix:

Though lacking deep support on his own, Dr. ElBaradei, a Nobel laureate and diplomat, could serve as a consensus figure for a movement that has struggled to articulate a program for a potential transition. It suggested, too, that the opposition was aware of the uprising’s image abroad, putting forth a candidate who might be more acceptable to the West than beloved in Egypt.

And not just that, but the article got the perspective of the Muslim Brotherhood:

“We’re supporting ElBaradei to lead the path to change,” Mr. Beltagui said as he joined him in Liberation Square. “The Brotherhood realizes the sensitivities, especially in the West, towards the Islamists, and we’re not keen to be at the forefront.”

For his part, ElBaradei told Christiane Amanpour on ABCNews’ This Week program:

“The Muslim Brotherhood is in no way extremist.”

More from that interview here. Now, there’s no question that the Brotherhood — though working overtime in recent years to improve its image — is a powerful Islamist force. And yes, it would have been nice to see Amanpour press him on this point. (On that note, my favorite part about Al Jazeera English is the way they press all their guests. It’s a refreshing change from watching the deference U.S. media shows to many government guests.) But is El Baradei wrong? Many Egyptians — particularly the ones not trying to work with the Muslim Brotherhood to gain power — would say he is. But I was thinking of one statistic from that Pew Global report from last year:

When asked about the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion, at least three-quarters of Muslims in Jordan (86%), Egypt (84%) and Pakistan (76%) say they would favor making it the law …

It’s just a helpful reminder that extremism is a word defined in context.

Up to this point, though, I think the U.S. outlets’ lack of substantive previous coverage of the Brotherhood is showing. The video embedded above has the host being incredibly deferential to the Brotherhood in a way that makes it seem like opposition to this group must be crazy:

“I’m asking about the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that has tirelessly, and in many cases quite courageously, campaigned in elections, it has campaigned against the government, it has campaigned on behalf of the poor in Egypt. It has a long, long history in that country. What role should it have now?”

That’s really what the host said. It’s so ironic to see CNN behaving this why while Al Jazeera English is asking tough questions of its guests. But if the Muslim Brotherhood is ascendant, we’re going to need to see much more critical, thorough and balanced coverage of same. This is the movement that Osama bin Laden credits as formational, the one best known for its arguments in favor of imposing Sharia. It’s tough to cover well without a knowledgeable history of the group, which is probably why Reuters and Al Jazeera are doing such a better job with Egypt coverage than their peers.

A few other links — Time’s look at why the U.S. is nervous about the Muslim Brotherhood, Guardian story about a mosque being turned into a hospital for protesters, Los Angeles Times on how funerals are becoming protests, Jerusalem Post on how anger is being directed at U.S. and Israel, Agence France-Presse on how Israelis are worried about an Islamist takeover of Egypt, Wall Street Journal’s piece on the Muslim Brotherhood/ElBaradei coalition,

Craig Gross, the founder of XXXChurch, has never been one to shy away from the tongue-in-cheek media attention that comes from running the the Internet’s “#1 Christian porn site.”

Unfortunately, too few media outlets have been willing to treat XXXChurch — an advocacy and outreach org that passes out Bibles at porn conventions, debates porn stars big and small and helps Christian brothers and sisters struggling with porn addiction — as more than just a kooky Christian group.

If I can be so immodest, I think I remain one of a handful of reporters who has honestly and sincerely explored and reported on XXXChurch, having spent three days with Gross and Co at the Adult Entertainment Expo in 2007 for a feature that carried one of the Daily News’ five or six days of in-depth series on the porn industry.

Before I get to the recent story that prompted this post, here’s a snippet from “Make Love, Not War, on Porn.”

XXXChurch, which runs a Web site where people confess their struggles and offers free anti-porn software, has made the biggest splash, using gimmicks at adult conventions — like Wally the Wiener, a 25-foot inflatable penis — to lure eyes, and hopefully minds, away from depictions of depravity.

The message is simple: porn separates husbands and wives, defiles teenagers’ minds and breeds lies. A tool of the devil, it can only be cured by God.

My stories are never as good when I read them again, and you can see that sometimes you just can’t avoid the gimmicks. But any story about XXXChurch should begin with the fact that this is a real Christian ministry not just some hipster excuse to hang out with porn stars. As people have come to accept this, the organization’s success has moved beyond just get media attention for being unusual.

All that brings me to a story about XXXChurch’s National Porn Sunday, an annual event that has been growing steadily and this year will be telecast live from Dallas on Super Bowl Sunday and will include former and current NFL players like Matt Hasselbeck and, coincidentally, Carrie Prejean’s pastor Miles McPherson.

This Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story caught my eye. It begins with a character dear to Cheeseheads’ hearts: Packers defensive lineman Ryan Pickett, who along with his wife happens to be on the XXXChurch board of directors and appears in a video promoting Porn Sunday.

The Journal Sentinel mentions that Pickett would like to be part of the “religious service” but has a scheduling conflict — i.e. playing in the Super Bowl — and also talks about the other NFL players involved with the event, speculating about whether they “struggled personally with pornography.” The paper also refers to Gross as “the founder of Triple X Church, as they call it,” though I think they are confusing XXXChurch with Triple H the professional wrestler.

Most of this story focuses on the problem of porn in America, the involvement of athletes in this event and practical steps for dealing with addiction. It’s not until the final four paragraphs that the Journal Sentinel gets to the religion in all of this:

Faith communities almost universally condemn pornography. But it’s rarely a subject for the pulpit, Gross says.

Just this week, he said, he had 40 cancellations for Porn Sunday, including apparently two of the four Wisconsin churches that had signed up.

The issue, says Gross, is just too controversial for some congregations to speak about publicly - though pastors themselves also struggle: A 2001 survey by Christianity Today found that 33% of pastors had visited porn sites; 18% of them did so regularly.

“It remains the elephant in the pew. The stats are overwhelming, nobody is immune to this,” Gross says. “But there’s still a huge obstacle to talking about porn. And a lot of pastors just aren’t willing to do it.”

So many questions, so little time. Here’s a few: Why, as Christians, is XXXChurch fighting porn? What does Christianity have to say about it? Why aren’t pastors willing to talk about it? Is that statement even true?

I can guess, with reasonable certainty, as to the answers. But, as I’ve written before, readers shouldn’t have to.

It goes without saying that — as an Eastern Orthodox Christian — I have been trying to keep up with the news coverage of the rapidly unfolding events in Egypt.

I fear, I think, what many people fear — a three-way conflict, in Cairo and the rest of the country, between (a) the current government of President Hosni Mubarak, (b) the surging tide of “reformers,” vaguely defined (can it be said they are those who seek to defend human rights, period?) and (c) the well organized ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood loyalists.

But there is a problem. To be blunt about it, what is happening with the 10 percent of Egypt that is part of the ancient Coptic Church, the church that has suffered so much in recent weeks and months and for ages and ages before that? Is there some chance that various camps of Islamists could find unity in opposition to a common enemy? Yes, I am well aware that many Muslims in Egypt understand the importance of the Copts to their land and want to protect them, at least in some kind of subservient cultural niche.

If you do a search in Google News, you find once again that most of the articles about the dangers facing the Copts are in “conservative” or even “Christian” media. Click here for an example from the Daily Caller.

But the article that disturbed me the most was the New York Times think piece that ran under the headline, “Egyptians’ Fury Has Smoldered Beneath the Surface for Decades.” How can one deal with the violence and the tensions in Egypt over recent decades without mentioning the plight of the Coptic Church?

Instead, here is a typical chunk of this article:

The litany of complaints against Mr. Mubarak is well known to anyone who has spent time in any coffee shop or on any corner chatting in any city in Egypt. The police are brutal. Elections are rigged. Corruption is rampant. Life gets harder for the masses as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. Even as Egypt’s economy enjoyed record growth in recent years, the number of people living in poverty actually grew. …

That is Mr. Mubarak’s Egypt, a place where about half the population lives on $2 a day or less, and walled compounds spring up outside cities with green lawns and swimming pools and names like Swan Lake. It is a place where those with money have built a parallel world of private schools and exclusive clubs, leaving the rundown cities to the poor.

“The whole system is seen as being his fault,” said Anne Mariel Peters, an assistant professor at Wesleyan University, who closely follows events in Egypt. “People do believe that Mubarak is the absolute dictator.”

But would things be worse for religious minorities and others if the force at the top fell (think about current conditions in Iraq)? Who would step into the void?

Once again, read the Times article and try to find even the slightest hint that the large Coptic minority even exists. Did I miss a separate article on this angle of the conflicts?

Meanwhile, consider this option for what lies ahead, published at the website of The New Republic. The headline fits the events of Friday, when the wider waves of protests began right after the Friday morning prayers in mosques across the city: “The first round of Egyptian protests was liberal. The second will be Islamist”. Here’s a key passage that rings true to me:

The actual involvement of Islamists … make the regime’s case more convincing to international and domestic audiences that fear Egypt becoming “another Iran.” Islamist groups seem to be aware of this. While expressing their support for the protests, they have insisted that their followers will be participating as citizens, rather than as members of specific Islamist organizations. “Muslim Brothers are among the people,” said Brotherhood official Mohamed Morsi. “They will move with others to the mosque and make demonstrations with the others.”

Whatever happens, the linkage of prayer and protest — and the fact that the protests will originate from such a wide variety of locations — promises to make this the most consequential day of the current standoff. And if the regime prevents people from praying or interferes too overtly in their day of worship, the gloves will surely be off.

As a Muslim scholar once told me: When dramatic events unfold in a Muslim culture, Allah will always have the right to vote.

That’s true, but which body of Muslims will carry the day in Egypt? As you follow the drama, please help me watch for coverage of the Copts, Catholics, Protestants and other religious minorities, including Muslims who have backed reforms to protect minorities.

UPDATE: This Times sidebar this morning (“Egyptians Wonder What’s Next”) takes the same approach as yesterday’s story, with the same missing elements. However, the newspaper’s main story offers this quote that is ominous, to say the least.

… (Among) more affluent Egyptians, some said the country needed stability more than upheaval. After night when men took to the streets armed with broom sticks and kitchen knives to defend their home against looters in Heliopolis, one resident, Sarah Elyashy, 33, said: “It has been the longest night of my life.”

“I wish we could be like the United States with our own democracy, but we can’t,” she said. “We have to have a ruler with an iron hand.”

A reader alerted your friendly neighborhood GetReligionistas to a Tulsa World story on two legislators in my home state of Oklahoma introducing bills related to the teaching of evolution in public schools. (Click these links to download House Bill 1551 and Senate Bill 554.)

The reader complained:

“This report from the Tulsa World apparently couldn’t help but include loaded commentary in this supposedly straight news story.”

Loaded commentary, huh?

How about we take yours truly off the hook (just this once, please?) and let GR readers be the judge of that?

Here’s the top of the story (with the alleged loaded language italicized by me):

A freshman state senator from southeastern Oklahoma and a four-term state representative from Oklahoma City are taking another run at Charles Darwin.

Sen. Josh Brecheen, R-Coalgate, and Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, have filed legislation designed to undermine the teaching of a fundamental of modern science, the theory of evolution.

Later, there’s this:

Brecheen’s Senate Bill 554 actually encourages the teaching of evolution - but in a way his critics say is designed to tear it down rather than reinforce it.

“It’s very slickly written,” said Victor Hutchison, a retired University of Oklahoma zoology professor who tracks such legislation. “But it includes comments from the creationism crowd that you recognize if you’re familiar with these things.”

(Just FYI: This is the spot in the post where I would have linked to the response from the creationism crowd, had this straight news story included such a response. It did not.)

At the end of the story, the World turns to Hutchison — the retired zoology professor — for religious insight. (Yes, that loaded language is intentional.) The final paragraphs:

But Kern’s and Brecheen’s bills state that they are not intended to promote a religious viewpoint.

“That’s ridiculous,” Hutchison said. “These bills come primarily from people who are biblical literalists.”

He pointed out that most mainstream Christian denominations accept evolution.

“It comes down to the definition of science,” Hutchison said. “Religion has no place in a science course. It can, however, be taught in courses on religion.”

(More FYI: This is the spot in the post where I would have linked to the details on what constitutes a mainstream Christian denomination and the specific denominations that accept evolution, had this straight news story included such details. It did not.)

Your turn, GR readers: Does this piece suffer from loaded commentary? Or does this report fit under the heading of straight news story?

Comment away, but please, please, please stick to the journalistic issues.

Do you remember that post more than a week ago about the issue of Catholics (and other believers in ancient communions) praying “with,” and not “to,” the saints? This issue came up in the context of the rapid movement of the late Pope John Paul II toward sainthood in the Catholic Church. Click here the original post on that.

Several things have come up in the past week or so that make me want to offer an update on the subject.

First of all, I used the subjects raised in the earlier post for a Scripps Howard News Service column on the topic. Here is a key chunk of that:

Simply stated, what does it mean to say believers can ask saints to pray on their behalf during the trials of daily life or in times of crisis? Father Arne Panula has faced this kind of question many times, especially as director of the Catholic Information Center a few blocks from the White House.

In press reports, this mystery is reduced to an equation that looks like this — needy people pray to their chosen saints and then miracles happen. It’s that simple. The problem, stressed Panula, is that this is an inadequate description of what Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians and some other Christians believe.

“What must be stressed is that we pray for a saint to intercede for us with God. Actually, it’s more accurate to say that we ask the saint to pray ‘with’ us, rather than to say that we pray ‘to’ a saint,” he said. “You see, all grace comes from the Trinity, from the Godhead. These kinds of supernatural interventions always come from God. The saint plays a role, but God performs the miracle. That may sound like a trivial distinction to some people, but it is not.”

After this column ran I was hit with a small wave of strongly worded posts from Protestants who — no surprise — fiercely disagreed with the beliefs of ancient Christians on this subject. Some, of course, argued that the early Christians could not possibly have believed in asking for the intercessions of the saints and added that this (a) means that Catholics, the Orthodox and some others “worship” the saints and that these same traditions argue that Christians cannot pray directly to God and the Jesus Christ. Both claims are inaccurate, in terms of doctrine and traditions (although it does appear that some believers IN THOSE CHURCHES are confused on the proper ways to express these ancient beliefs).

It doesn’t help anyone when mainstream media reports get these doctrines wrong, as well. That is simply more fuel for the fire.

Thus, the following Associated Press correction caught the attention of several readers:

By The Associated Press (CP) …

VATICAN CITY — In stories Jan. 14 and Jan. 15, The Associated Press reported that Pope John Paul II could be publicly venerated, or worshiped, once he is beatified. The story should have made clear that such veneration of saints in the Roman Catholic church is different from the worship owed to God alone.

Thus, later AP stories that offered updates on the John Paul ceremonies offered the following conclusion:

Once he is beatified, John Paul will be given the title “blessed” and can be publicly venerated. Veneration is the word commonly used to refer to that worship given to saints, either directly or through images or relics, which is different in kind from the divine worship given to God only, according to reference work, the Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary.

John Paul’s entombed remains, currently in the grotto underneath St. Peter’s Basilica, will be moved upstairs to a chapel just inside a main entrance for easier access by throngs of admirers.

OK, that’s better. But note this confusion statement in that passage: “Veneration is the word commonly used to refer to that worship given to saints … which is different in kind from the divine worship given to God only. …”

What? Now, the reference is tied to a Catholic reference book. That’s good. But the double use of the word “worship” is still confusion and it is not the way that I have, through the years, heard Catholic authorities state this doctrine. Frankly, the language in the correction noted earlier is shorter, clearer and more accurate.

Catholic readers (and journalists who are Catholic), what think ye on this issue? Personally, the Orthodox would say that “veneration” is veneration and that “worship” is worship. Attempting to have a double definition of “worship” is too much for an ordinary reader to follow, methinks.

Before clicking, “comment,” please remember that the goal here is to discuss how mainstream media cover this issue. The journalistic goal is to accurately report the content of the traditions in these churches. The goal is NOT to argue about the doctrines themselves, unless one was writing an actual story about debates on that topic — perhaps in an ecumenical gathering on that topic.

The situation in Egypt is moving very quickly.

We’ve had many days of protests and the conditions are dramatically different now than even yesterday. Protesters, police and military are on the streets of cities throughout Egypt, despite a curfew and unbelievable crackdown on communications. News outlets are reporting that their staff are being beaten up, arrested, or thwarted in their attempts to get the news published and broadcast. There was a surreal moment when Al Jazeera was broadcasting while police were trying to shut them down. Reuters reports that more than 400 have been wounded, some with bullets.

I’m not sure Hosni Mubarak will even be in power by the time I finish writing this post but let’s look at the religious angles of what appears to be happening in Egypt.

The picture above, which I found here, shows people being hosed down by police as they pray. The New York Times ran a piece addressing some of the religious angles here, noting that the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest organized opposition group in the country and a wildcard in how these protests will turn out. At this point, the protests involve a wide variety of people who simply want Mubarak out — should he leave, there will be a power vacuum. The reporters note that demonstrators have protested against rising prices, stagnant incomes and police brutality. Religion has not played a major role:

That may be about to change.

With organizers calling for demonstrations after Friday prayer, the political movement will literally be taken to the doorsteps of the nation’s mosques. And as the Egyptian government and security services brace for the expected wave of mass demonstrations, Islamic groups seem poised to emerge as wildcards in the growing political movement. …

Heightening the tension, the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest organized opposition group in the country, announced Thursday that it would take part in the protest. The support of the Brotherhood could well change the calculus on the streets, tipping the numbers in favor of the protesters and away from the police, lending new strength to the demonstrations and further imperiling President Hosni Mubarak’s reign of nearly three decades.

“Tomorrow is going to be the day of the intifada,” said a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood here in Egypt’s second largest city, who declined to give his name because he said he would be arrested if he did. The spokesman said that the group was encouraging members of its youth organization — roughly those 15 to 30 years old — to take part in protests.

But Islam is hardly homogeneous, and many religious leaders here said Thursday that they would not support the protests, for reasons including scriptural prohibitions on defying rulers and a belief that democratic change would not benefit them. “We Salafists are not going to participate in any of the demonstrations tomorrow,” said Sheik Yasir Burhami, a leading figure among the fundamentalist Salafists in Alexandria.

It’s nice to have it explained why Sheik Burhami opposes the protests but it’s also a bit confusing since the Muslim Brotherhood has also self-identified as Salafist and the term can be used broadly. And the other big thing I wish we knew more about is whether Copts have also joined the protests. AsiaNews has an interview with a Coptic Christian priest that conveys that Christians are joining with Muslims in the protests

Christians and Muslims are united in the demonstrations in Cairo and other Egyptian cities. Churches and mosques are places of congregation for demonstrators. However, people are not moved by religion but by the absence of social justice, by the corruption, the high cost of living, the lack of democracy… . These problems touch everyone, Christians and Muslims alike. …

Right now, the demonstrations are not against Christians. Patriarch Shenouda has called for calm. But many Christians and non-Christians told him, that this is not the time for calm, because Christians are also affected by the crisis. In fact, for Christians the crisis is even worse because they suffer discrimination and have a hard time finding jobs. In case of promotions, they are passed over in favour younger Muslim employees. If a Christian opens a shop, fewer people buy from him.

The interview has much more interesting context about the role of religion in the protests that are rolling through the region. It’s not just Egypt. There’s Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen, Algeria where we’re seeing unrest.

At this point, media coverage will focus more on the fallout to these protests. It’s a bit old but this Atlantic Monthly piece about who is waiting in the wings to succeed Mubarak is helpful. It suggests that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists are poised to make gains because of significant advances they’ve made in recent decades.

It’s good to see that heavy hitters such as the New York Times are paying particular attention to the role of religion in these protests. Hopefully other outlets will continue in the same vein.

Over the years, I have made a number of trips south of the U.S. border with short-term mission groups, both with my church and as a reporter for The Associated Press and The Christian Chronicle.

Two years ago, while visiting San Diego, I spent an afternoon in Tijuana, Mexico, interviewing church leaders about drug-gang violence curtailing mission trips by many U.S. groups. (For some reason, my wife was not particularly pleased that I brought my middle child, then 11, with me on that assignment.)

Given my personal experiences in Mexico, news coverage of an American missionary’s slaying in northern Mexico this week captured my attention. The tragic death of Nancy Davis has generated quite a bit of media attention, particularly here in the Southwest. The first-day reports that I read Thursday were pretty straightforward (see stories from CNN, Reuters, the San Antonio Express-News and the McAllen Monitor).

The top of CNN’s initial report:

(CNN) — An American missionary was fatally shot in Mexico on Wednesday, police said.

The preliminary investigation indicated that Nancy Davis, 59, and her husband were traveling on a Mexican highway near the city of San Fernando, Mexico, when they were confronted by gunmen in a black pickup, the Pharr Police Department in Texas said in a statement. San Fernando is south of the border city of Reynosa in Tamaulipas state.

“The gunmen were attempting to stop them and the victims accelerated in efforts of getting away from them,” the police statement said. “At a certain point the gunmen discharged a weapon at the victim’s vehicle and a bullet struck the victim Nancy Shuman Davis on the head.”

Davis’ husband, identified as Sam Davis by family friends, drove their truck “at high rate of speed” to the Pharr International Bridge, which crosses the Rio Grande. Nancy Davis was taken to a hospital in nearby McAllen, where she was pronounced dead about 90 minutes later.

I did not expect the breaking-news coverage to reflect a key issue for many churches in this part of the country: the safety of sending short-term mission groups south of the border over spring break — which is about six weeks away. But I wondered if follow-up stories might explore that angle.

In Googling for such reports, I noticed that The Dallas Morning News’ Texas Faith blog asked its panelists on Tuesday — a day before the missionary’s slaying — how religious groups might make a difference along the border if it’s too dangerous to send volunteers there. Godbeat pro Sam Hodges noted:

Suncreek United Methodist Church of Allen was one of the few local congregations still sending mission teams to the violence-torn border area of Mexico. But even Suncreek recently called off a trip to Ciudad Juarez, due to killings in the area where Suncreek volunteers build cinder block homes for poor families.

My own church has a 2o-plus-year relationship with small congregations in remote mountain villages in the state of Taumaulipas. Before the drug war escalated, we’d send a long line of white rental vans through the border crossing in McAllen and drive to our church’s tent city in the mountains to conduct vacation Bible schools, build concrete floors and feed entire villages. At its height, the trip drew 150-plus students and families who’d make the pilgrimage each spring break. Two years ago, the border violence prompted my church to cancel this trip. Last year, a smaller group returned. This year, the trip is still planned — although headlines and reports from border-area Christians prompt constant reassessment of the threats and opportunities.

One question for my church — and for others — is whether Christian groups are a target. In the case of the slain missionary, it appears that the gunmen may have targeted the couple because of their pickup truck. The Associated Press reported:

Pharr police said the couple’s 2008 Chevrolet pickup is the kind of heavy-duty, high-profile truck prized by cartels, and that it’s likely the reason the Davises were targeted. Damage to the truck’s quarter-paneling suggests the gunmen tried to ram them, Pharr police Chief Ruben Villescas said.

AP did not tackle the mission-trip angle but did delve into the faith-related question of why Davis and her husband risked their lives despite knowing the dangers:

Joseph Davis said his mother loved music, and could compose songs and lyrics in minutes. But he said she loved the work she did most of all.

“Time after time, what made her the happiest was seeing somebody hit their knees and come up forgiven for whatever they’ve done — murder, rape, the smallest sin,” Joseph Davis said. “She’d come home so happy. She’d say, ‘Well, we stole another one from the devil today.’”

I was pleased to see that the San Antonio Express-News recognized the significance of the mission-trip issue and tackled it in its second-day story, as did the local paper, the McAllen Monitor. The Express-News even quoted Rick Owens, a missionary with whom I spent a week in Mexico in 2008:

Rick Owens, a missionary who lives in New Mexico, spent 23 years working in Mexico, much of it near Monterrey, like the Davises. Owens said he stopped accompanying volunteers into Mexico after a trip to Monterrey last spring when masked gunmen raided a hotel near where the group was staying.

Owens said he still travels to Mexico and helps build churches, but said most of the volunteers he would take aren’t aware enough of their surroundings to be safe in the country. Missionaries — and visitors from the U.S. in general — used to be off limits, Owens said. But the chaos caused by unchecked cartel violence has changed that.

One line in the San Antonio story did give me pause:

The couple labored for 30 years planning churches in northeastern Mexico, and while touring the U.S. churches that supported them last year they talked about the dangers of working in a country torn by cartel violence.

Planting churches would be the more common description of those starting churches. I wonder if the reporter was not familiar with the term planting and thought his sources said planning. In either case, it’s an excellent report that does a nice job of scaring away potential religion ghosts.