My first brush with Unitarian Universalists came 15-plus years ago when I covered Edmond, Okla., a fast-growing bedroom community north of Oklahoma City, for The Oklahoman.

That was a few years before I became a Godbeat writer per se. But on my suburban beat, the Rev. Wayne Robinson was the gift that kept on giving — as far as helping me fill news holes both in the daily paper and a three-days-a-week zoned edition. Robinson was the local Unitarian Universalist pastor and had a different view of the world than most other religious leaders in the conservative, Republican-dominated town.

I drew a scathing review (and looking back, probably deserved it) from the left-leaning Oklahoma Observer when I opened a front-page story in 1995 like this:

EDMOND - No one in Edmond ever accused the Rev. Wayne Robinson of trying to save souls.

It was his other crusades - suing to remove a cross from the city seal, protesting public prayer at high school football games, rallying for abortion rights - that brought him so much disdain.

“I haven’t had any problem whatsoever with the resentment and reaction my actions have caused,” Robinson told The Oklahoman.

If I recall (the rest of the story is behind a pay wall), the piece was a profile of Robinson as he moved to a new state. The story gave Robinson ample space to talk about his beliefs and motivations and quoted critics as well, but in retrospect, the lede certainly sounds like editorializing.

All of the above (unfortunately for you, kind reader) really has nothing to do with this post, except to say that I didn’t really understand Unitarian Universalists back then and didn’t take the time I should have to study their theology.

Which leads (finally) to the subject of this post: An excellent feature on the 50th anniversary of the Unitarian Universalist Association by Daniel Burke of Religion News Service:

BALTIMORE (RNS) A recent Sunday service at the First Unitarian Church of Baltimore ended with an apology.

Laurel Mendes explained that religious doctrine had been duly scrubbed from the hymns in the congregation’s Sunday program.

But Mendes, a neo-pagan lay member who led the service, feared that a reference to God in “Once to Every Soul and Nation” might still upset the humanists in the pews.

“I didn’t want to make anyone uncomfortable by reciting something that might be considered a profession of faith,” said Mendes, 52, after the service. “We did say `God,’ which you don’t often hear in our most politically correct hymns.”

Welcome to a typical Sunday in the anything-but-typical Unitarian Universalist Association, a liberal religious movement with a proud history of welcoming all seekers of truth—as long as it’s spelled with a lowercase “t.”

After opening with a telling anecdote from a visit to a Unitarian Universalist church (read: reporter actually left the office, which generally improves any story), Burke gets to the news peg, which is a good one:

For 50 years the UUA has conducted a virtually unprecedented experiment: advancing a religion without doctrine, hoping that welcoming communities and shared political causes, not creeds, will draw people to their pews.

Leaders say its no-religious-questions-asked style positions the UUA to capitalize on liberalizing trends in American religion.

But as the UUA turns 50 this year, some members argue that a “midlife” identity crisis is hampering outreach and hindering growth. In trying to be all things to everyone, they say, the association risks becoming nothing to anybody.

The story is full of specific details, quotes sources on both sides of the debate and provides important context on where the Unitarian Universalists fit into the bigger picture of American religion:

Like the UUA, one in four Americans sample from a variety of faith traditions, according to a 2009 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. A separate Pew survey found that 65 percent believe multiple religious paths can lead to eternal life.

“There has certainly been an increase in the amount of people who are open to the kind of ideas the Unitarian Universalists have championed,” said John C. Green, a political scientist who worked on the Pew studies and has studied the UUA.

(Interestingly enough, a Scripps Howard News Service columnist whose name you may recognize touched on some of the same themes in his column this week and also quoted Green.)

I did feel like one line in the story needed more concrete sourcing and explanation (i.e., what age is a “younger” member?):

But a lack of defined beliefs has led the UUA to lose 85 percent of its young members, according to several reports, said Scott, an active member of his Unitarian Universalist congregation in Rochester, N.Y.

Alas, that’s a minor quibble.

You won’t find many more enlightening or helpful pieces of religion writing in under 1,000 words. Be sure to read the whole thing and tell me what I missed.

Here’s a fun one. A few days before Easter, the Surfing Madonna mysteriously appeared in a seaside city north of San Diego. The mural attracted a lot of attention, and, when it was ordered removed, the Los Angeles Times wrote this story:

She arrived seemingly out of thin air — beautifully rendered in a 10-foot-square mosaic of stained glass and stone that had been attached to a concrete railroad bridge without anyone noticing.

Mother Mary’s stance in the tube of a Tahitian-sized wave indicated she was no amateur. Her right foot forward on the board made her a goofy foot. Who knew?

“Save the Ocean” was spelled out down the artwork’s left side. Locals in this funky San Diego County beach town called her the Surfing Madonna. Pilgrims paid tribute, taking photos and leaving flowers and the occasional votive candle.

It’s a fun, quirky story, filled with religious language and references. But, unlike the LAT’s story about Ron Artest’s name change, this story about surfing and art and the Virgin Mary was written by a news reporter.

It also asked some good questions.

Turns out, Patterson is mild-mannered non-Catholic “free-ranging spiritual thinker” with a love for the ocean who left his corporate job to follow an artistic vision.

He had long carried a sketchbook in which he doodled. The Surfing Madonna first appeared in its pages in 2005. Why? Patterson doesn’t know. The inspiration returned in 2009 in a much more refined image.

To be sure, this article does not go into depth about the Virgin Mary has inspired artists; or about why the Virgin Maryis the favored apparition of choice. It’s a bit more efficient in its all-inclusive reporter of these news story.

The article also never explains why Patterson chose the Virgin Mary or why he settled on the title “Surfing Madonna.” But that’s because, as the reader is told, the reporter doesn’t know why — and apparently neither does Patterson.

Sure, saying that Patterson is a “free-ranging spiritual thinker” (a quote) is more opaque than saying he isn’t Catholic. We don’t really know what that means.

But I like that reporter Mike Anton didn’t just settle for clever turns of phrase that open the article ora the trivial treatment that troubles stories like this one. Anton asked the main question that I wanted to know: Why the Virgin Mary?

And that’s something.

The Associated Press ran a religion story about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ restatement and clarification on political neutrality toward candidates and parties. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, is Mormon. So are former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, both candidates for the Republican nomination for president.

The write-up seems pretty good at the beginning:

In a letter sent June 16, church president Thomas S. Monson and his senior counselors said lay leaders with full-time church responsibilities and their spouses should not participate in political campaigns, including “promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking on behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates and making financial contributions.”

The letter was sent to the highest officers of the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including general authorities, general auxiliary leaders, mission presidents and temple presidents — those whose positions are visible highly visible both in and out of the church and who could be seen as acting on behalf of the church.

Full-time church employees and part-time leaders, such as those who hold local or regional congregational duties are exempt from the policy.

The article mentions that the church does get involved in political activism on moral issues:

That would include the faith’s involvement in the 2006 ballot initiative Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California and its efforts to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s.

This is your first clue that attention to detail may not be this reporter or her editor’s strong suit. Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, passed in 2008, not 2006.

Which brings us to the concluding paragraphs:

But some political experts say no one should read too much into the church statement — although it may not have previously publicly stated in this way.

“I do not think there is anything new about this statement in terms of its substance. It is consistent with an LDS understanding of politics and the common good as well as the limitations of engaging in partisan politics placed on religious organizations by (Internal Revenue Service) regulations,” said Francis J. Beckwith, a Mormon who is also a professor of philosophy and church-state studies at Baylor University. “What I think the LDS church is doing here is articulating in greater specificity what it’s always held in more general terms.”

What? Francis Beckwith became a Mormon? Talk about burying the lede!

Beckwith, author of Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft; Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic and To Every One An Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, became Mormon? After all of those books he also wrote critical of Mormon teachings and how they differ from traditional Christianity?

The same Beckwith who made national news when, as president of the Evangelical Theological Society, he converted to Catholicism?

This is certainly news.

Oh wait, nope. Not at all.

Beckwith is not “a Mormon.” He’s still Catholic.

It’s one thing for a religion reporter to not know who Beckwith is or what his claims to fame are. But this reporter, Jennifer Dobner, is on the Mormon beat (On that note, I should mention that this story is significantly better than some of the other ones we’ve looked at in years past). Beyond all that, though, this has to be one of the most easily Googlable facts about Beckwith out there.

Right up front, let me confess that I really had my hopes up when I started reading the Washington Post story that ran under the following headline: “Justices who will shape Supreme Court’s future are matching pairs.”

The matching pairs, of course, are the most recent ideological duos to read the high court. The story sets this up quite nicely:

The Supreme Court term that ended Monday lacked the blockbuster decisions of years past, but it appeared to make one thing clear: George W. Bush and Barack Obama got what they hoped for when they nominated the justices who will shape the court’s future.

It can be treacherous to predict a justice’s path based on early service, and presidents have been disappointed by the positions their nominees take when they reach the bench. But this year, the four youngest justices separated neatly into the court’s ideological wings and then presented a unified front.

Obama’s choices, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, agreed 94 percent of the time this term, according to statisticians at SCOTUSblog.com. The only pair that agreed more were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Bush’s picks, who parted ways in only 4 percent of the court’s decisions.

Roberts joined the court in 2005, Alito the next year, Sotomayor in 2009 and Kagan last August — and this term presented opportunities in which the four divided into debate partners.

So the big idea of the story is to look at the intellectual frameworks that have created the legal perspectives of these four judges.

That’s fair game for serious news coverage. Do doubt about it.

Thus, I was hopeful that the story would at some point discuss, well, you know, some of the crucial characteristics that united and divide some of these judges. There are, of course, three more Catholics in these duos and another person of Jewish heritage. Still, their religious traditions seem to have played radically different roles in their lives and intellectual development — especially on subjects related to free speech, religious liberty, etc., etc.

This is particularly true with the three new Catholic members of the court. Is it possible to even discuss the Supreme Court these days without discussing divisions inside American Catholicism?

My hopes for this story rose even higher when the Post team had to mention the inevitable:

… (Some) things don’t change. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy remains the most influential member of the court when ideological divides prevail. In the 16 cases decided by a vote of 5 to 4, he was in the majority in all but two.

In the handful of cases in which liberals prevailed — including a ruling that California must reduce the number of prison inmates or that children must be treated differently when given Miranda warnings — it was because Kennedy sided with them. Twice as often, the Ronald Reagan appointee voted with the court’s consistent conservatives.

Well, there is another crucial voice in the Catholic wing of the court — the voice that often is the defining voice. Oh, and just a few months down the legal road there are hot cases looming that will offer more insights into this alleged Catholic voting majority on the court that rules America. What kinds of issues?

Waiting in the wings are Arizona’s immigration law, same-sex marriage, affirmative action in higher education and, depending on how quickly lower courts move, the Affordable Care Act.

Oh my. This is why I have this religion bee in my journalistic headgear, especially as it concerns the Catholic wing of the court. If you wish, click here for a refresher course on that subject. Then again, you could also click here because some of these religious questions about this court have been spotted — for better and for worse — by reporters in the past.

Why bring this up? Go back and consider the actual subject of the story. We have two pairs of new justices. They are very different in their legal approaches. What makes them so different? Perhaps, just perhaps, the roots of some of their differences can be found in their relationships to the religious traditions that, to one degree or another, helped form them.

In other words, is this news subject totally secular? If so, I think that says more about the journalists than the justices.

A couple weeks ago, I went to the liturgy at a Greek Orthodox church in Brooklyn. One of my best friends goes there and her fiance is taking instruction there at Sts. Constantine and Helen Cathedral. My daughters will be in their wedding and they thought it might be good for them to have a refresher on what Greek services are like before the big wedding day.

It turns out that my friends’ congregation has welcomed those worshipers displaced by the destruction of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. That happened on September 11, 2001, when Muslim terrorists hijacked commercial aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, causing them to come crashing down.

St. Nicholas was the only house of worship destroyed in those terrorist attacks that day.

And it still isn’t rebuilt. That’s part of a longer and frustrating story involving bureaucratic bungling and fighting. And while it does get coverage here and there, it’s nothing compared to, say, media interest in the mosque and Islamic Center being built near Ground Zero at the site of a building that suffered damage from the attack.

When I was visiting Sts. Constantine and Helen, the St. Nicholas priest gave a presentation at the end of the service that had something to do with a rally to resolve these problems. He was, of course, speaking completely in Greek and so I’m going based on the translation my friend provided and the visuals he was pointing to. The congregation also passed a plate around specifically for funds for St. Nicholas. I thought of how odd it was that this poor congregation, the only one displaced by that day’s events, would suffer in such silence.

All that to say, Religion News Service did publish a story on the rally. And while it’s a pretty basic story, it’s noteworthy for its mere existence. I do find it curious that this story is so unimportant to broadcast networks and other larger outlets. Here’s a chunk:

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have been at odds for several years over the cost and exact location of the rebuilt church.

“Shame on the Port Authority to take this long to rebuild our church,” Nicholas A. Karacostas, supreme president of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, a national Greek-American group, at a rally that drew about 100 people to the site of the former World Trade Center.

“It’s a crime, it’s a crime for us to beg them to rebuild the church in its rightful place.”

Less than three months before the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the church’s pastor, the Rev. John Romas, said he and his flock are frustrated that negotiations have been stalled for almost a year.

“Let us hope our prayers will be answered,” Romas said.

The story explains why the Port Authority is involved in this dispute and gives details about the small parish that was displaced in the attacks.

We also learn that speakers are frustrated by how much support the New York City government and its officials — including Mayor Michael Bloomberg — have given to the mosque near Ground Zero considering what St. Nicholas has endured.

Can you imagine being displaced from your parish home for 10 years? The uncertainty, more than anything, would be my greatest difficulty. In any case, this is an interesting story and nice to see one news service view it as one worth highlighting.

Photo of St. Nicholas from St. Nicholas web site.

I wanted to follow up on two recent GetReligion posts where I cast doubt on media reports. The first was a widely transmitted report about a Jewish court in Israel condemning a dog to death by stoning. I have a pretty good bovine excrement detector and something just smelled with the story. Of course, even people who are much less skeptical and cynical than I am probably could have figured out something was weird about the story. But you never know — crazy things happen all the time that I can’t believe. I’ve lost many a wager with my own husband about whether something actually happened (Reports of Mel Gibson’s initial rant against a police officer is one such example.).

Anyway, I want to just report that in this case the dog stoning story was just completely false. You can read more about it at the link and consider why the story spread like wildfire.

The other problematic story that I highlighted recently was the Religion News Service account of Delta not flying Jews and non-Muslim artifacts to Saudi Arabia. I already gave a pretty thorough run-down of how that story spread through media outlets last week.

But since we discussed the story and had some heated commentary on it, I wanted to be sure to update folks that RNS ended up pulling the story. I was a bit surprised the story wasn’t pulled earlier but the whole kerfuffle did happen on a weekend and that may have delayed everyone’s ability to make a quick decision. Here’s the note they sent out:

The RNS story on Delta Air Lines’ pending partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines that was distributed on June 23 contained incomplete information about Saudi visa policies and U.S. Jews’ ability to fly Delta flights to Saudi Arabia. The story was not fully edited according to RNS standards:

- While Saudi Arabia does not issue visas to citizens carrying Israeli passports, Saudi officials say an Israeli stamp in a U.S. passport is not a barrier to entry, even for a stop in transit.

- While Saudi Arabia does not allow non-Islamic religious articles within its borders, religious identity and a passenger’s religious articles are not barriers to flights on either Delta or Saudi Arabian Airlines flights.

- Airline alliance programs typically allow passengers on one airline to book tickets on another, or redeem frequent flyer points on partner airlines. On Friday, Delta said such “code-sharing” agreements will not be part of its alliance with Saudi Arabian Airlines, nor will Delta passengers be able to redeem Delta frequent flyer miles on the Saudi airline.

RNS takes very seriously its commitment to accuracy, balance and thorough reporting, and the June 23 story failed to meet those expectations. Steps are being taken to correct and improve our internal editing process. We regret that the story was transmitted with incomplete information, as well as any unintended implication that Delta would be adopting policies of the Saudi government.

A couple of thoughts on this. It’s unfortunate the story overstated what is already a very dramatic and difficult situation for Jews and other non-Muslims. I worry that we see too little coverage of what it’s like to be a non-Muslim visiting or living in Saudi Arabia as it is. But I do think the story had so many problems that it should have been pulled.

Having said that, it’s also worth noting how rare this situation is. I don’t know what the statistics are in terms of how many reporters RNS works with or how many stories they publish, but they consistently do a great job of covering religion news around the U.S. and globe. Sometimes it takes an exception to reflect on that, but it’s worth remembering.

We all make mistakes in terms of reporting, editing and the like. And I suppose you shouldn’t heap loads of credit on people for doing what they’re supposed to be doing. But reporting is very difficult work and writing engaging and thoughtful stories on hot topics under deadline is not easy.

On that note, I’ll just leave you with this Onion story Bobby sent around yesterday. It’s part of their campaign to win a Pulitzer:

Tireless, Hardworking Reporter Has Already Won Greatest Prize Of All
‘The Love And Respect Of My Family And Community,’ Esteemed Journalist Says

No one covers the fact that thousands of planes land safely each day. But the few major plane crashes each year get wall-to-wall coverage. Likewise, we’re most likely going to cover the problems we see in reportage. If we cover good stories, it’s usually the exceptionally good ones. But there are also thousands upon thousands of other stories written well and providing a valuable service to readers. So let’s not forget to give journalists our love and respect in addition to our occasional criticism.

Photo via Goose.

Holy 2012, Batman!

A Godbeat pro who shall remain nameless (unless he chooses to identify himself) posted this news story on his Facebook page with a tongue-in-cheek analysis:

CBS discovers that a Christian politician prays.

Another religion writer chimed in:

Always amazed at how some media just don’t get it.

Preaching to the choir, guys. But thank you for the GetReligion fodder.

The story concerns a politician you may have heard about: Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., the Republican presidential candidate. (Sarah tackled a different Bachmann story Monday.)

Here’s the CBS headline:

Bachmann: Got “sense” from God to run for office

(Somebody cue the dramatic music, please.)

The top of the story, based on Bachmann’s interview with “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer on Sunday:

(CBS News) Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., says that she prayed to God about whether or not to run for political office and that those prayers provided her with a “sense from God” of “assurance about the direction” she was taking.

In a Sunday morning appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Bachmann - who will formally announce her presidential campaign in Iowa on Monday - responded to questions about statements she has made in the past that God “called me to run for the United States Congress.”

The story doesn’t actually include the questions that Schieffer asked (in a remarkably awkward way), but here’s how he broached the subject:

Schieffer: “You are a proud Christian, and my feeling had always been that people in public life, if they want to talk about their religion and what it means to them, fine. If they don’t, that’s their business. And you can say, ‘None of your business.’ But I would like to ask you this question. You can answer it or not answer it. You said you had no idea of going into politics, but God called you to go into politics. If you’d like to answer that question, I’d like to know the circumstances of that.”

Bachmann: “Sure, I’d be happy to.”

My first reaction: If someone aspires to be president of the United States, and claims that God told her to run, why wouldn’t that be a legitimate question? I mean, don’t the voters have a right to know? (Whether or not that’s what she claims is an entirely different issue.) But I digress …

More from the story:

“I am a Christian, as is my husband. I became a Christian when I was 16 years old. I gave my heart to Jesus Christ,” Bachmann told CBS’ Bob Schieffer. “Since that time, I’ve been a person of prayer. And so when I pray, I pray believing that God will speak to me and give me an answer to that prayer.

“That’s what a calling is,” continued the Tea Party favorite. “If I pray, a calling means that I feel like I have a sense from God.”

Bachmann says she asked God about running for political office.

“Did God tell you He wanted you to run for the Minnesota State Senate, or something like that?” Schieffer asked.

“I prayed about that, as well,” Bachmann said. “And that’s really what that means. It means that I have a sense of assurance about the direction I think that God is speaking into my heart that I should go.”

After that exchange, Schieffer quickly detoured to political issues.

The CBS report is actually pretty straightforward about what Bachmann said, allowing her to express her faith and God’s role in her decision in her own words. I guess what’s either frustrating or amusing — take your pick — is that the report provides no insight or analysis into Bachmann’s response. As Sarah put it so well in her Bachmann post:

Let’s clear this up once and for all. It’s not unusual for Christians to say they believe God intended them to do something. They might cite certain circumstances, advice from other people, say they “felt called,” etc. etc. to different degrees, but this is not strange. There’s a big difference between someone who thinks that they are “called by God” to public service and someone who believes God ordained their specific votes.

Your turn, GetReligion readers: Was Schieffer right or wrong to be so timid in asking about Bachmann’s faith?

What follow-up questions, if any, should he have asked about her Christianity?

Once upon a time, it appeared that most mainstream journalists had rallied around the use of the word “Islamist” to describe the brand of Islam that has been linked to violence and terror around the world.

The key was that this was a version of Islam that was framed almost exclusively in terms of political power and the crushing of religious minorities, including, often, minorities and dissenters within Islam.

Alas, other journalists preferred to adapt the f-word from American Protestant history — that would be “fundamentalist” — to conflicts on the other side of the world involving believers who would never identify themselves with this term (while speaking languages that rarely if ever include a comparable term).

Some journalists liked the word “militant,” yet when using it they often fail to offer any hints whatsoever what these militants are choosing to be militant about. Ditto for the word “extremist.”

Now, it appears that “radical” Islam is on the rise. Here is the top of a typical Washington Post use of this new and, to my mind, unimproved label:

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan said … that it had arrested a high-ranking army officer on suspicion of connections to a radical group, a rare public acknowledgment of possible ties between members of the country’s military and the extremist organizations it is battling.

The arrest comes amid rising concern that Pakistan’s military is penetrated by Islamists who are sympathetic to insurgent groups that have declared war on the state. Last month, heavily armed fighters stormed a naval base in Karachi, an attack widely suspected to have required inside help.

Actually, that reference contains more than one of these common and almost always meaningless buzz words.

So what content can readers cling to? The key is that the arrested radical insurgent Islamist extremist — one Brig. Ali Khan — is committed part of another organization with a specific political goal:

Khan allegedly was working with Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical group that calls for the overthrow of governments in Muslim lands and the installation of an Islamic caliphate. The group claims to be nonviolent but has been tied to militant organizations and is banned in Pakistan.

That’s all the reader is going to get, when it comes to attaching any factual content to this cloud of vague terms.

So here is my question: How many ordinary newspaper readers understand the meaning and the significance of the pivotal term “Islamic caliphate”? I mean, other than Glenn Beck listeners? A little dose of laugh-to-keep-from-crying irony there.

This is a term with precise content. Period.

At this point, all the Post team really needs is a tiny dose of history and one or two sentences of content about practical issues in daily life — treatment of women, blasphemy laws, status of religious minorities — to do the brave, rare thing, which is printing content and not mere labels.

So here is my question: In the context of Pakistan, what issues are key (other than the life-and-death debates over blasphemy)? In other words, if you were going to use the word “radical” in this way, what small doses of factual material would you use to define that term?

Yesterday we looked at the bizarrely-limited-but-not-otherwise-bad coverage of the religion angles in recent debates over whether to change marriage law. I suggested in the comments to that post that some reporters were neither curious nor terribly thoughtful in how they approached the topic.

What follows is an example that so thoroughly validates my point that you may be forgiven for suspecting an elaborate hoax on my part. But I promise that this really appeared on WIBV-TV in Buffalo, New York:

New York’s new law allowing same-sex marriage is drawing mixed reaction from the State’s religious community.

The Bible teaches that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. But human and civil rights philosophies teach us that all people are equal, and should enjoy equal freedoms.

Those diametrically-opposed ways of thinking have ignited debate about same-sex marriage within some congregations.

While it would probably be best to respond to this excerpt by dropping the mike and walking away, let’s go ahead and parse it.

What in the world does it mean to say “the Bible” teaches that marriage is as described? Certainly Jesus was quite clear about this, and he’s the “author and perfecter” of the Christian faith, but it’s also true that “the Bible” details unions of “a” man and more than “a woman.” I’m not sure it would be accurate to say they’re “taught” but certainly these Scriptures aren’t so easily described as we see above.

So the description of the “religious” position is bizarre. But how about that sentence that follows? I mean, I have no idea what reporter Rachel Kingston was trying to say. Human philosophies? As opposed to non-human philosophies? Do tell me more. And it’s even more offensive to suggest that “civil rights philosophies” uniform ideas on marriage policy than that religious adherents do. Within the libertarian community alone, there are people who argue that marriage is an institution that predates government and, as such, should not be redefined by the government. There are people who support opening marriage up to same-sex couples or other family units such as polyamorous or polygamous families. And there are people who argue that the state should not provide benefits or penalties to any family unit, no matter its composition.

I hope that no one out of college would characterize any of these arguments as the same argument, much less as “all people are equal and should enjoy equal freedoms.” It may be an effective talking point or something, but it’s an amateur description of any philosophical argument surrounding marriage law.

Certainly some religious adherents care so much about marriage because of how strongly Jesus Christ talked about the importance of marriage as a one-man, one-woman arrangement (shhh — don’t tell Lisa Miller!). And certainly some religious adherents are worried about how they might be treated should their religious views come in conflict with regulations.

But it’s also true that many religious adherents base their arguments against same-sex marriage at the governmental level not on the words of Jesus but, rather, on secular arguments. You will not be surprised that this brilliant report failed to get that nuance.

And, then again, it’s also true that those religious adherents who favor changing marriage law aren’t claiming to do so without guidance from their religious texts.

So calling these two horribly-characterized positions above “diametrically opposed” is also ridiculous.

Anyway, we learn about the views of an Episcopal Church leader in New York and the Catholic Conference of Bishops in New York. If you recall our “liberals discuss, conservatives rail” discussion, you may appreciate how these two views were presented:

Some, including the Episcopal Church, are embracing that debate, and looking for ways to evolve their faith. …

Others are choosing to adhere to more traditional views.

Anyway, there’s no question that this is a particularly bad example of the genre “mainstream media looks at same-sex marriage debate” but only in terms of degree. I’m glad that you don’t need credentials to be a journalist. I sure don’t have them.

But we would be served by having reporters who have a tad more knowledge about the arguments for and against changing marriage law, including the arguments made by human philosophers.

The following post is not really about Franklin Graham and his upcoming festival targeting Latinos in the greater Los Angeles area.

I mean, in a way it is. That’s kind of the subject. But it’s not really the journalistic subject that interests me in this here Los Angeles Times report, which almost certainly was butchered by an editor somewhere (at least, I hope that is what happened).

So what’s up? Let’s start by checking the sprawling double-decker headline:

Franklin Graham hopes to launch Latino religious revival

After speaking across Central and South America, he kicks off a Festival de Esperanza in the Los Angeles area Saturday. Experts say the Latino audience may not embrace his across-the-board conservatism.

Crucial journalism word in there? That would be “experts” — plural.

To cut to the chase, anyone who knows any Billy Graham history knows that the evangelist’s tent-revival meetings 60-something years in Los Angeles were pivotal events in his career, almost as important as his first trip to England and the great New York City crusades. This story does a pretty good job of setting that scene.

However, things get more interesting when Graham the younger’s blunt style and some of his political comments are woven into the story. Thus, here’s the key chunk of the report:

Graham, who doesn’t speak Spanish, said he has preached with a translator’s help in all but one of the Spanish-speaking countries in Central and South America, the exception being Guatemala, and would offer a similar experience to those attending this weekend’s festivals.

“We’re treating this festival the same as if I was in Argentina, or if I was in Lima or Guayaquil,” he said. If it is successful, he added, he hopes to hold Latino revivals in other places, such as Houston, San Antonio, Fresno and Miami.

“Graham is really acknowledging that the face of evangelicalism is changing,” said Helene Slessarev-Jamir, a professor of urban ministries and ethics at the Claremont School of Theology.

She wondered, though, if a Latino audience would accept some of his conservative political positions. “Latino evangelicals are conservative on many social issues,” she said, but not on other matters, especially immigration. “Franklin Graham tends to be conservative all the way around,” she added.

The story moves on to a very blunt summary of a few of Graham’s beliefs and actions, all tweaked to fit the narrative that he more closely resembles the late Jerry Falwell than is own respected father.

While her comments are rather mundane, what truly fascinates me is that Slessarev-Jamir is, apparently, a scholar with multiple-personality syndrome. This singular woman is, it seems, the plural “critics” referenced in the headline. Were there others experts who were cut out of this story somewhere between keyboard and printing press?

That’s one issue. The other issue is that the only voice evaluating Franklin Graham, in this story, is this singular scholar from a campus that would make anyone’s A list of America’s most liberal or progressive theological centers. Remember the stories about this school going multifaith and risking it’s United Methodist ties and support?

How to put this? Allowing a professor from Claremont to be the only expert quoted in a hard-news story covering Franklin Graham is something like writing a story about Elton John and citing, as your only expert, a cultural critic from Focus on the Family or Regent University.

I mean, quoting Slessarev-Jamir is a great start on a balanced debate about this controversial man. It would also be easy to find evangelical intellectuals who would offer informed criticism of some of his views. It would be even easier to find Latino evangelicals and Pentecostals — in greater LA — who would praise him, but then critique some of his past actions and statements. This is not hard work.

But one pluriform “experts” from Claremont and that’s it? That’s the best the Los Angeles Times can do on a non-deadline story?