When I first heard that the U.S. military’s report into the Fort Hood shootings made no mention of the role religion played, I didn’t have high hopes for the media coverage. Perhaps this is unfair to both groups but I expect the media to be more politically correct than the military.

So I was surprised to see this Time magazine story take on the issue so directly. Reporter Mark Thompson explains the situation, noting that lawmakers and others aren’t exactly pleased with how religion was handled in the report:

John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan’s view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military’s activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military. The Pentagon report’s silence on Islamic extremism “shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,” he told TIME on Tuesday. “It’s definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens.”

The apparent lack of curiosity into what allegedly drove Hasan to kill isn’t in keeping with the military’s ethos; it’s a remarkable omission for the U.S. armed forces, whose young officers are often ordered to read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War with its command to know your enemy. In midcareer, they study the contrast between capabilities and intentions, which is why they aren’t afraid of a British nuclear weapon but do fear the prospect of Iran getting one.

The story is brief, so perhaps that’s why it doesn’t include the mention of what the Army’s top officer, Gen. George Casey, said following the attack: “As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

The reporter does note that the leaders of the review say they weren’t interested in looking at motivations and they were worried of running afoul of the criminal probe of Hasan. Here’s what’s next:

But without a motive, there would have been no murder. Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform. He allegedly proselytized within the ranks, spoke out against the wars his Army was waging in Muslim countries and shouted “Allahu akbar” (God is great) as he gunned down his fellow soldiers. Those who served alongside Hasan find the Pentagon review wanting. “The report demonstrates that we are unwilling to identify and confront the real enemy of political Islam,” says a former military colleague of Hasan, speaking privately because he was ordered not to talk about the case. “Political correctness has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer understand our heritage and cannot admit who, or what, the enemy stands for.”

This paragraph is interesting. I actually don’t disagree that Hasan was open about his radical views. But is “proselytizing” a demonstration of radicalism? Is all evangelism or sharing of the faith a sign of being a radical extremist? Even if it’s not appropriate behavior for active military on the job, is the simple sharing of religious views now considered proof of radicalism? Perhaps this claim would be better supported by other evidence, of which there is much.

The last paragraph speaks to the military report, but I think there’s a journalistic point as well:

The report lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, saying that “religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor” and that “religious-based violence is not confined to members of fundamentalist groups.” But to some, that sounds as if the lessons of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, where jihadist extremism has driven deadly violence against Americans, are being not merely overlooked but studiously ignored.

One of the main reasons why I wish that reporters would do a better job of digging into the story of radical Islam is because, by avoiding it, they further the idea that all Muslims are suspect. Not all Muslims are Muslim terrorists or seek to be Muslim terrorists. Percentage-wise, we’re talking about a small group of people. The public is highly aware of at least some link between Islam and terror. But if we can’t have real discussions about religious differences for fear of being politically incorrect, the danger is that it will tarnish all of Islam instead of just that subset affiliated with terror. Perhaps it’s not surprising that the military would be reticent to look at the role of religion in this attack. Thankfully the media can hold them at least somewhat accountable.

Sound the alarm!

ABC News has found “Secret ‘Jesus’ Bible Codes” in soldiers’ weapons. By codes, they mean Bible references.

In all seriousness, an ABC News investigation found that a Michigan company that supplies rifle sights to the U.S. military and engraves Bible references on the base of its sights. The story is very interesting and well worth reporting, so kudos to the reporters who looked into this story.

Mistakes were made when someone wrote the headline: “U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret ‘Jesus’ Bible Codes”

Since when are abbreviated Bible references “codes”? It reminds me of when someone thinks ‘kids these days’ use LOL or BRB to hide what they’re really trying to say. I know it’s hard to wrap your head around this, but even non-teenagers often use abbreviations to fit a reference or phrase in a small space. Someone has been reading too much Dan Brown lately.

And here’s the deck to the article: “Pentagon Supplier for Rifle Sights Says It Has ‘Always’ Added New Testament References.” Why the need to put “quotes” around “always”? This admission, though, suggests that there’s no secret code being issued.

And if we’re going with the “code” wording, how can they proselytize if it’s “secret.” This is one of my favorite comments on the article:

Way to compromise the “secret Jesus Bible code,” ABC. Cryptologic insiders refer to these by the cover name “verses.” Thanks to your utter disregard for Christian security, everybody is going to be able to decipher JN3:16. This could be devastating.

Overall, the story could be a good hook for a few angles. For example, I’m guessing that some Christians who could be horrified and consider it a misuse of Bible references. Instead, the story suggests the company could violate church/state laws. Here’s what we know.

The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.

U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious “Crusade” in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.

Okay, but could Bible references be considered proselytizing? Proselytizing means to induce someone to convert to one’s faith. Does referencing a religion’s text count? Perhaps it does, but what are the specifics of the military’s rules?

“It’s wrong, it violates the Constitution, it violates a number of federal laws,” said Michael “Mikey” Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the military.

“But how?” should be the reporter’s follow-up question.

“It allows the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, al Qaeda and the insurrectionists and jihadists to claim they’re being shot by Jesus rifles,” he said.

Weinstein, an attorney and former Air Force officer, said many members of his group who currently serve in the military have complained about the markings on the sights. He also claims they’ve told him that commanders have referred to weapons with the sights as “spiritually transformed firearm[s] of Jesus Christ.”

He said coded biblical inscriptions play into the hands of “those who are calling this a Crusade.”

Okay, but it still doesn’t address the church/state issues he raised earlier. This is how the article ends:

“This is probably the best example of violation of the separation of church and state in this country,” said Weinstein. “It’s literally pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun against the people that we’re fighting. We’re emboldening an enemy.”

Literally, huh? The reporters needed to challenge Weinstein to explain how it’s a violation of church and state. Surely there are other church/state experts who can address this. Are there any who might consider them okay? Or perhaps a symbol like an ichthus be acceptable but a Bible reference would cross the line? Reporters need to move beyond soundbites for specifics.

In case your memory is as poor as mine, back in November Sarah Pulliam Bailey discussed an Atlantic profile of Dave Ramsey, a Christian financial advisor who abhors the modern-day trend of buying everything on credit. This was the companion piece to the cover story for the magazine’s December issue, and Sarah remarked that a colleague was going to tackle the bigger story. I was that colleague. Whoops.

The article by Hanna Rosin, an ace of evangelical newswriting, teased with a photo of foreclosure and for sale signs hanging from a wooden cross. It asked “Did Christianity Cause the Crash?” and then, in the subhead, explained that preachers have been pushing a gospel of debt.

The latter is certainly true. Some preachers, proponents of the prosperity gospel, folks whose sincerity I am deeply suspicious of, have been preaching such a gospel. But the former doesn’t necessarily follow, and in this case the facts simply don’t support the connection between the prosperity gospel, Christianity and the economic crash.

As usual, Rosin’s reporting is fascinating and well-written and thoughtful and full of theologically perplexing scenes like this one from Joel Osteen’s bestselling Christian self-help book, “Your Best Life Now”:

Osteen and his wife, Victoria, are walking around their neighborhood in Houston when they pass a beautiful house being built. “Most of the other homes around us were one-story, ranch-style homes that were forty to fifty years old, but this house was a large two-story home, with high ceilings and oversized windows,” he writes. “It was a lovely, inspiring place.” Victoria desperately wanted a house “just like it,” but Joel was worried about how stretched they already were. “Thinking of our bank account and my income at the time, it seemed impossible to me,” he writes. But this, of course, is an example of ungodly, negative thinking. With her unwavering faith, Victoria wouldn’t let it drop. Soon she convinced Joel and then he, too, started to believe that “God could bring it to pass.” There is no explanation of how they came to own such a house — whether Osteen worked hard to grow his ministry or got rich from his TV show or received an inheritance from his father’s estate. In this story they are standing in for an average middle-class couple who set their sights on a bigger house and believed, despite all the financial evidence, that God would bestow it upon them, like a gift. And he did.

This transitions right into the meat of the story:

THEOLOGICALLY, THE PROSPERITY GOSPEL has always infuriated many mainstream evangelical pastors. Rick Warren, whose book The Purpose Driven Life outsold Osteen’s, told Time, “This idea that God wants everybody to be wealthy? There is a word for that: baloney. It’s creating a false idol. You don’t measure your self-worth by your net worth. I can show you millions of faithful followers of Christ who live in poverty. Why isn’t everyone in the church a millionaire?” In 2005, a group of African American pastors met to denounce prosperity megapreachers for promoting a Jesus who is more like a “cosmic bellhop,” as one pastor put it, than the engaged Jesus of the civil-rights era who looked after the poor.

More recently, critics have begun to argue that the prosperity gospel, echoed in churches across the country, might have played a part in the economic collapse. In 2008, in the online magazine Religion Dispatches, Jonathan Walton, a professor of religious studies at the University of California at Riverside, warned:

Narratives of how “God blessed me with my first house despite my credit” were common … Sermons declaring “It’s your season of overflow” supplanted messages of economic sobriety and disinterested sacrifice. Yet as folks were testifying about “what God can do,” little attention was paid to a predatory subprime-mortgage industry, relaxed credit standards, or the dangers of using one’s home equity as an ATM.

In 2004, Walton was researching a book about black televangelists. “I would hear consistent testimonies about how ‘once I was renting and now God let me own my own home,’ or ‘I was afraid of the loan officer, but God directed him to ignore my bad credit and blessed me with my first home,’” he says. “This trope was so common in these churches that I just became immune to it. Only later did I connect it to this disaster.”

Infuriated many mainstream … yeah, like me. But this commentary isn’t as fresh as Rosin makes it seem. Preaches have been exploiting the gospel for their own gain for two millennium — and religion in general even before that. This is a particular problem not necessarily in minorities communities as it is in working-class and previously working-class communities.

Whenever I see a prosperity gospel story, which is often, and certainly in the past few years it has become even more common to see the gospel of wealth go bad, I am reminded of one of the first memorable stories I read as a religion reporter. It was an investigation by John Blake of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution into the peculiar spending habits of Bishop Eddie Long, who said Jesus wasn’t poor — this is a common prosperity belief, though I don’t know where it comes from — and offered this money quote:

“We’re not just a church, we’re an international corporation,” Long said. “We’re not just a bumbling bunch of preachers who can’t talk and all we’re doing is baptizing babies. I deal with the White House. I deal with Tony Blair. I deal with presidents around this world. I pastor a multimillion-dollar congregation.

“You’ve got to put me on a different scale than the little black preacher sitting over there that’s supposed to be just getting by because the people are suffering.”

Such stories, of course, hinge on colorful characters. Rosin, for whom I often have high praise, did not miss the mark. (She did, however, fall into the same trap reporters often do when dealing with how Christians spend their money and seemed to miss the point of why Christian tithe; she also did a good deal of evangelical stereotyping when referring to Sarah Palin’s “messy family life.”) Rosin opened the article with Fernando Garay, whose reflection can be seen on the first page in the hood of his midnight blue Mercedes-Benz. From 2001 to 2007, while building his church, Garay was a mortgage loan officer; he favors sharing of his rags to riches story from the pulpit.

Garay tried many churches, but they all felt alien and “dead” to him. “That’s not me, sitting quietly and saying ‘Thank you, God.’” Finally he came upon a Pentecostal prosperity church, much like the one he leads now. The church was full of miracles and real emotion, which drew him in, but it also offered practical benefits. The pastor pointed out Bible passages that referred to finances in specific terms, giving him images of wealth he could almost reach out and touch: “Give, and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over” — a passage that’s now often read at Garay’s church during tithing time.

“Then it started happening. It started happening!”

Rosin didn’t really question this claim but gave Garay enough rope to hang himself — in no place more poignantly than the closing of the article:

Garay’s is a faith that, for all its seeming confidence, hints at desperation, at circumstances gone so far wrong that they can only be made right by a sudden, unexpected jackpot.

Once, I asked Garay how you would know for certain if God had told you to buy a house, and he answered like a roulette dealer. “Ten Christians will say that God told them to buy a house. In nine of the cases, it will go bad. The 10th one is the real Christian.” And the other nine? “For them, there’s always another house.”

Wow. I feel ill.

But the primary premise of the story, or at least the theory that The Atlantic wanted readers to think would be proved within its pages, is never really supported. It’s possibility is just suggested.

Additionally, this is, indeed, a very old story, even in relation to the roaring oughts, though it predated the downfall God hath wrought. Back in late 2006, Time ran a lengthy cover story by the very able David Van Biema that asked newsstand passers-by — four years ago we still had newsstands — “Does God Want You to Be Rich?” That’s a much less loaded way of teasing the prosperity gospel.

The issue, though, is not as much with what’s in and what’s out of this article. It’s about why anyone thought that headline was apt. As another GetReligionista wisely remarked:

How I wish Michael Kelly were still alive and editing The Atlantic. If he published Hanna Rosin’s decades-late Gray Line tour of prosperity theology, he would not have approved such a moronic headline as “Did Christianity Cause the Crash?” I think that’s on the order of writing about the late Meir Kahane and asking, “Did Judaism Destroy All Hope of Middle East Peace?”

If you’re not familar with Kahane, he was a Jewish radical loved by some MOT because of his vision for militant Jewish defense (he founded the Jewish Defense League and was an influential voice among some Israeli communities) and loathed by other Jews as Kahanazi. In short, he was not a representative of the broader Jewish community and certainly was not a spokesman for Judaism in general. In fact, no one speaks for all Jews — two Jews, three opinions; one Jew, two synagogues — but the comparison was apt regardless.

As I mentioned, I am no fan of the prosperity gospel. In fact, I regularly rag on it as sort of religiously-lacquered fraud. But I’m not ready to believe that this little-followed gospel — how many adherents are there really? the subhead claims “tens of millions” — caused the crash. Rosin’s article just didn’t convince me. In fact, there has been some evidence that the prosperity gospel has grown stronger during the recession, which, if Rosin’s premise was support, would suggest we were plunging deeper into depression.

But even if it had caused the crash, that still wouldn’t warrant blaming Christianity on the whole.

OK, doesn’t anyone in the mainstream national press understand how evangelical Christians talk?

Honestly, head right on over to Google News and do a search for “Palin” and, of course, the hotter than hot political soundbite of the day — “God’s plan.”

You’re going to end up reading all kinds of things, including a lot of junk, but here is the basic Associated Press report on this non-story of the day, which ran under the totally predictable headline, “McCain aide: Palin believed candidacy ‘God’s plan.’ “

Sarah Palin believed that Sen. John McCain chose her to be his running mate in 2008 because of “God’s plan,” according to a top political strategist in the Arizona Republican’s campaign.

In an interview with the CBS news magazine “60 Minutes,” Steve Schmidt described Palin as “very calm — nonplussed” after McCain met with her at his Arizona ranch just before putting her on the Republican ticket. McCain had planned to name Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., as his vice presidential choice until word leaked, sparking what Schmidt called political blowback over picking the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee.

Schmidt said he asked Palin about her serenity in the face of becoming “one of the most famous people in the world.” He quoted her as saying, “It’s God’s plan.”

Palin has not ruled out a run for the presidency.

Now, so far, I have not been able to find any information that provides the information that the reader needs in order to make any sense out of this short quotation. We do not know the context for this quote and we do not know if this is the whole quote, or if it is the only part of the quote that (a) Schmidt remembers or (b) thinks will cause headlines that will make Palin and/or her faith look stupid (yet again).

But if you know anything about the lingo of mainstream evangelicals and/or if you have managed to trudge through Palin’s book “Going Rogue” (my take: it’s a pretty interesting book about her love for her family and the state of Alaska, which is kind of ironic if you stop and think about it), you know that the odds are about 100-1 that what Palin said is that her nomination was part of God’s “plan for her life.”

This is, after all, precisely the approach she takes in her book when discussing the various twists and turns that her life has taken. She believes in a God who works through the choices that people make and also, mysteriously, through the events — both painful and joyful — that take place in their lives.

If you listen to evangelicals talk, you know that a typical statement of this belief might sound something like this: “Looking back, I could see that flunking out of dental school in Dallas was part of God’s plan for my life as a medical missionary in India.”

In other words, “God’s plan” may have had something to do with India, but that is not the point. The point is that the individual believer can only strive to discern God’s plan for her or her own life. Palin was probably saying that the nomination was part of God’s plan to broaden her horizons beyond Alaska. But, honestly, we don’t know.

We. Do. Not. Know.

Meanwhile, like it or not, this kind of reference to “God’s plan” is how most evangelicals think and talk and, truth be told, many other believers use very similar language when talking about issues of Divine Providence.

Now, if it turns out that Palin really did say that her nomination was part of God’s plan for the United States as a whole since, as the AP story quickly notes, she has not ruled out running for the presidency (which is the shocking connection implied in most of these stories), then headline writers can loosen up their fingers yet again and pound out some more really wild headlines — with good cause.

Until then, someone needs to produce some kind of “How Evangelicals Talk” phrase book — much like the one reporters needed when Jimmy “born again” Carter ran for the presidency — and hand it out in some elite newsrooms.

Oh, by the way, it goes without saying that the goal here is to discuss the journalism issues in this post, not what people think about Palin or the content of her faith. This is a journalism blog, folks. Stay on topic.

Fox News analyst Brit Hume has taken some major hits over his advice to Tiger Woods that he embrace Christianity if he wants redemption. I’ve embedded the clip here. In a society that is deeply uncomfortable with any substantive discussion of religious differences, that Hume favorably compared Christianity to Buddhism is downright shocking. Now, I’m sure that there are readers here who think Hume admirably showed concern for Woods’ soul and readers who think he’s an anti-Buddhist bigot (and many other views). But I think the whole brouhaha is most interesting for the media freak out over response to his words.

The Washington Post’s “On Faith” section featured an essay from someone outraged that a hard news reporter would “engage in proselytization.” Apparently they didn’t get the memo from 2008 that Brit Hume had stepped down as anchor in order to do punditry and analysis. Indeed, he was quite open about the role faith played in his decision to stop doing the news. The Los Angeles Times profile from that time had a line from him saying that family, Christ and golf were his big reasons for the switch. And this:

As he prepares to anchor his last presidential campaign, Hume said he’s eager to immerse himself in a more spiritual life after dwelling for so long in the secular. The anchor described himself as a “nominal Christian” until 10 years ago, when his son Sandy committed suicide at age 28.

“I feel like I was really kind of saved when my son died by faith and by the grace of God, and that’s very much on my consciousness,” said Hume, who plans to get more involved in his wife’s Bible study group.

I think the phrase “when my son died” should have commas or dashes around it, but you get the point. Or here’s The Hollywood Reporter from the same time:

THR: What other things would you like to do in retirement?
Hume: I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done. I’m not claiming it’s impossible to do when you work in this business. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died, I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what you say you believe, it’s a pretty big thing. If you do it part time, you’re not really living it.

Anyway, as you can imagine, the Tiger Woods statement has lit up the internet and gotten all sorts of people talking. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann apparently said Fox News and Brit Hume were trying to force conversions and were “just like Islamic extremists.” So, you know, there’s that.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post’s Tom Shales — we’ve looked at his defense of David Letterman’s sleeping with employees and he’s also recently defended Roman Polanski raping a 13-year-old — has finally found someone to criticize. He says Hume must apologize and that he’s the laughingstock of the industry. I’ll defend the right of anyone to criticize Brit Hume and what he said, but this Shales piece is remarkably petty. He says Hume is full of “something” and comes forth with a new commandment from on high: Thou shalt never share religious beliefs of any substance. Well, actually, I can’t recall him criticizing any MSNBC pundits for condemning, say, traditional Christians, so I guess this commandment just applies to certain pundits. Here’s a sample:

First off, apologize. You gotta. Just say you are a man who is comfortable with his faith, so comfortable that sometimes he gets a wee bit carried away with it. If Hume wants to do the satellite-age equivalent of going door-to-door and spreading what he considers the gospel, he should do it on his own time, not try to cross-pollinate religion and journalism and use Fox facilities to do it.

At the same Republican convention where Hume bemoaned his advancing years, he spoke of knowing when to leave the party and go home. “I’d like to walk away while I’m still doing okay,” he said, “and not have people say, ‘He was fading.’ ” It’s easy to understand the sentiment, but Hume ought to know that what people are saying right now is a whole lot worse than that he’s fading.

Shales seems to think that he is some kind of voice of media orthodoxy. So it means something for him to issue a rule — complete with a condescending warning of ostracism — against pundits saying what they believe about the Christian faith.

But what about journalism? I loved how USA Today’s Cathy Grossman handled the controversy, looking at the spiritual advice that others have also offered Woods. It sparked quite the conversation.

And this other blog item, in which Grossman quotes a Buddhist journalist simultaneously criticizing Hume and conceding that he’s right about the differences between Buddhism and Christianity vis-a-vis forgiveness:

However, Mr. Hume is right, in a sense, that Buddhism doesn’t offer redemption and forgiveness in the same way Christianity does. Buddhism has no concept of sin; therefore, redemption and forgiveness in the Christian sense is meaningless in Buddhism. Forgiveness is important, but it is approached differently in Buddhism…

I would love more discussions of the substantive differences between religions. The religious literacy in most newsrooms and, indeed, throughout the country, means that many people are unable to articulate the differences between major world religions. People who are religious or even simply religiously literate probably don’t have a problem acknowledging that each religion has different teachings.

The Politico also offered some coverage, with liberal use of the word “proselytize.” GetReligion reader Will Linden said something here many years ago that has stayed with me. It’s something like, “We share, you preach, they proselytize.” I sort of think you can judge stories about the Hume comments by how much they use that word.

Anyway, the piece that I found most interesting was from Manya Brachear at the Chicago Tribune. It certainly has the best headline, with “Can a leap of faith save Tiger Woods?” Here’s how it ends:

If Woods heeded Hume’s call, he wouldn’t be the only fallen athlete to seek Christian redemption. Remember Michael Vick, the Philadelphia Eagles football player? He allegedly accepted Jesus before pleading guilty to an illegal dog-fighting operation. Jury is still out on whether the strategy worked.

But Christianity isn’t always the answer. Remember the Revs. Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart?

Now, I haven’t followed the Vick story at all. I wasn’t really aware he’d “allegedly” “accepted” Jesus, much less that this was part of some “strategy” that may or may not have “worked.” I’m not sure that it’s really our place to judge such conversions anyway.

But I really find the following paragraph fascinating. In what way is Christianity not the answer for the Revs. Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart?

I mean, I’ve always had this suspicion that the mainstream media thinks Christianity is basically a set of rules, mostly about sex, that are imperfectly followed by hypocrites such as Haggard and Swaggart. And in the media’s defense, I think this view could be based in part on what some of the more media-friendly Christian figures teach.

But what if the central teaching of Christianity is forgiveness? To say that “Christianity isn’t always the answer” because some prominent Christian mega-tele-preachers have sinned sexually in violation of their church’s teachings denies the view that Christianity is a “great answer” for sinners such as myself who are in desperate need of forgiveness.

People interested in a mainstream media blog post from someone who does understand the importance of forgiveness to the Christian faith, check out this item from Julia Duin at the Washington Times.

Now, I think there are some excellent journalistic avenues to explore with this controversy, should media outlets choose to do so. Let’s hear more from some Buddhists and Christians and others about doctrinal tenets at play. I mean, if people don’t even know the role of forgiveness in Christianity, I’m not hoping that general Buddhist literacy is better. This is a great hook for deeper exploration of both religions.

But there are other interesting issues to explore, too. Why is it socially acceptable to advise Woods on what he should or shouldn’t do to manage his public relations problem, but not what he should do to repair his family or spiritual health? Or why is it that we have such trouble engaging religion in the public square? Is there a double standard between public discussion of religious views? Is it OK for pundits to talk about religious views so long as they don’t actually believe their views are true?

If there is anything that I truly enjoy, as a reporter, it’s talking with articulate, sharp people who are totally comfortable in their own skins and open about what they think and believe.

This goes for secularists and religious liberals too, I must emphasize. The folks I have trouble working with, as a journalist, are the people — left or right — who are trying to hide what they believe and think. Take, for example, liberal bishops who have to hide the fine details of their beliefs, so that there isn’t too much fallout in the offering plates in centrist and traditionalist parishes. But that’s another story.

Anyway, I really enjoyed getting to interview Washington Post reporter Hank Stuever, the author of a somewhat snarky, but at all times well-reported and heartfelt, book about Christmas entitled “Tinsel.” Stuever is an openly gay entertainment reporter who calls himself a “cultural Catholic,” which, in his case, seems to mean that he has rejected all of the central doctrines of the faith, but he is also skeptical about his own unbelief. He’s just plan skeptical, period, which means that he is a reporter’s reporter.

To catch a glimpse of his style, check out his recent visit to the “Late, Late Show.” And here’s the top of a lengthy excerpt that ran the other day in the Style section (naturally) that gives you the basics about what Stuever set out to do, which was to embed himself on the front lines of a suburbanized Christmas in the Bible Belt.

I set out to tell a story about Christmas, but also about everything else: our weird economy, our modern sense of home, our oft-broken hearts, and our notions of God. The biggies. To tell it, I turned to a world made possible by chain stores, in an American economy mainly powered by the magical thinking of retail.

Where novelists and the makers of romantic holiday comedy movies exaggerate and fictionalize the Christmas past (cozy Dickens villages, snowy mornings, Cameron Diaz and Jude Law in turtleneck sweaters), I desired something more true, to see the nation’s half-trillion-dollar holiday in the high-definition light of the early 21st century, the real Christmas present, starting at the butt-crack of dawn in front of the big-box stores. I wanted to be there with hundreds of rabid consumers who’d waited all night for the melee of Black Friday to begin. I went looking for a country living not only on borrowed time, but also on borrowed grace. Which is how I wound up in Frisco, a former farm town turned Dallas mega burb, north of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Freeway, north of the President George Bush Turnpike; a place that grew in 15 years from 6,000 people to 100,000 people and, in the past decade, opened 7 million square feet of chain retail and restaurants.

I went toward the starter mansions. I went for the Sunday mornings at the giant churches, rockin’ to those ring-tone power ballads for Christ. I longed to see neighbors compete to have the best holiday light displays. I wanted to bask in all that bless-your-heart. The hottie moms in pink feather boas and Ugg boots waiting in line at Starbucks; the hottie dads in camouflage hunting gear examining flat-screen upgrades at the Best Buy. I wanted all that. Lord, I wanted to borrow some grace, too.

Stuever and I talked for more than two hours and it seemed like 20 minutes. I am, of course, a prodigal Texan who gets sweaty palms in shopping malls and, frankly, Stuever was much more patient and kind than I would have been trying to write about the material that he covered. He takes the people totally serious, even while lacing his work with large does of sarcasm and even cynicism when he deals with the culture in which they live.

I would have jumped straight to anger, which would have sent me to my priest for confession over and over and over.

Why? Here is the opening of my Christmas column about “Tinsel” for the Scripps Howard News Service:

As the Christmas pageant dress rehearsal rolled to its bold finale, reporter Hank Stuever found his mind drifting away to an unlikely artistic destination — a masterpiece from the Cubist movement.

The cast of “It’s a Wonderful Life 2” reassembled onstage at Celebration Covenant Church, a suburban mega church north of Dallas. There were characters from a Victorian tableau, along with Frosty the Snowman, young ballerinas and children dressed as penguins. Mary, Joseph and the baby Jesus were there, too.

Then, entering from stage right, came “an adult Christ stripped down to his loincloth and smeared with Dracula blood, dragging a cross to center stage while being whipped by two centurion guards,” writes Stuever, in “Tinsel,” his open-a-vein study of Christmas in the American marketplace. “Here is where the Nativity, Dickens and Burl Ives collide head-on with Good Friday, as Jesus is crucified while everyone sings ‘Hark the Herald Angels Sing,’ ending on a long, noisy note: ‘newborn kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.’

“Then they freeze.

“Hold it for applause.”

The scene was achingly sincere and painfully bizarre, with holy images jammed into a pop framework next to crass materialism. For millions of Americans, this is the real Christmas.

“I wrote it in my notes, right there in that church,” Stuever said. “I wrote, ‘It’s Picasso. … I just couldn’t believe it.”

The key is that Stuever, who is not a Christian believer, openly sought the true meaning of Christmas in the material world. He pretty much proves that this is what most Americans do, whether they want to admit it or not. As I put it in the column, “Most Americans say they want Bethlehem and the North Pole, but the truth is that they invest more time, energy and money at the North Pole.”

You really need to read the book, if you have the stomach for it. I am not alone in thinking this. I mean, click on over and check out this take on “Tinsel” by Rod “Crunchy Cons” Dreher.

Stuever asked three Frisco families to let him hang out with them constantly — even on Christmas morning — to see the season through their eyes, from before Black Friday right on to the trashing of mountains of ripped wrapping paper.

This is the end of my column. Once again, note that Stuever is being absolutely candid about what he does and does not believe. You have to salute him for that.

Stuever argues that the binges of shopping and feasting are as ancient — and more significant today — than the rites of praying and believing.

For Stuever, Christmas is fake, but that’s fine because fake is all there is. He argues that millions of Americans struggle to find the “total moments” of nostalgia and joy that they seek at Christmas because they are not being honest about why they do what they do during the all-consuming dash to Dec. 25.

“It’s so easy to see all of the craziness on TV and say, ‘Oh, those poor, stupid people,’” he said. “But when you get down there in the middle of it with them and listen to what people are saying and try to feel what they are feeling, you realize that all of that wildness is not just about buying the new Wii at Best Buy. … It’s a religious experience for them, even though it couldn’t be more secular. They’re out there searching for transcendence, trying to find what they think is the magic of Christmas.”

That’s hard to hear. Has anyone else read the book?

Christians can do funny, goofy things. That’s why reaction to a Christian rap group’s video seemingly advocating the sexually chaste “Christian side hug” was so interesting. Apparently, the group was kidding. But that didn’t stop critics and bloggers for missing the joke and getting snarky about it.

As Steve Johnson of the Chicago Tribune reported in “Christian side hugs: The joke’s not on fundamentalist Christians”:

The joke, it turns out, is on the people who thought the joke was on fundamentalist Christians…

“Because you will definitely go to Hell if your genitals get anywhere near other peoples’ genitals,” the New York Web site Buzzfeed said in putting up the video. Bloggers for alternative newspapers in Washington, D.C., and Denver also posted the video, along with commentary bordering on the derisive.

“I think Christianity just jumped the shark,” wrote a commenter about the video when it was put up on The Huffington Post.

But Ryan Pann, the 23-year-old Californian who wrote and was lead performer of the tune, the chorus of which commands, rather catchily, “gimme that Christian side hug,” said he wrote the song as self-deprecating humor.

The line, “When I hug people, I leave room for the Holy Spirit,” may have been the giveaway.

Pann and his group may joke about the side hug, but as one Pentecostal pastor told The Roanoke Times last year in an article entitled, “The pastor’s holy hug: Divine but demure”:

“I have my politically correct hugs,” he said. He demonstrates by bending into a pronounced stoop to grasp the parishioner’s shoulders while pulling back at the waist. That way, the huggers’ midsections don’t touch.

Time for a short quiz for our readers.

Based on what you know about religion, news and religion in the news, do you think that, when meditating on Adam Lambert’s performance on the American Music Awards, cultural conservatives in this great nation of ours are upset about:

(1) The “spontaneous” smooch that the American Idol star deposited on his male keyboard player.

(2) The “spontaneous” moment when Lambert grabbed one of his male dancers and had him simulate an act of oral sex on the singer.

(3) The fact that the openly gay Adam Lambert exists in the first place and is poised to become a superstar, in part due to his ability to generate headlines.

(4) All of the above.

I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking that the most truthful answer is No. 4.

If that is the case, then I think this Los Angeles Times story about the controversy is rather interesting, in terms of what it discusses and what it chooses not to discuss. Here’s the headline: “Controversy surrounds Adam Lambert’s canceled appearances — A conservative group says his AMA performance was ‘indecent and inappropriate.’ “

And is religion involved in this story by reporter Maria Elena Fernandez? Of course it is.

Let’s take it from the top:

The decision by ABC to cancel Adam Lambert’s upcoming appearance on the late night show “Jimmy Kimmel Live” and to remove him from the potential roster of New Year’s Rockin’ Eve performers continued to create controversy Thursday, as a conservative Christian group defended its decision to protest Lambert’s sexually suggestive performance last month at the American Music Awards.

The Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit public interest law firm closely tied to the late Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Virginia and provides legal assistance in defense of what it calls “Christian religious liberty, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family,” filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission over Lambert’s controversial performance at the AMAs. In it, the group called on the FCC to fine ABC for “airing such an outrageously lewd and filthy performance during a show and time period that is targeted
for family audiences.”

Kimmel’s show airs well after the 10 p.m. cutoff for FCC regulation of indecent material. But Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel’s director of cultural affairs, noted that Lambert’s AMA performance aired at 9:55 p.m. Central Standard Time and may have been seen by children and teenagers.

So what did these conservative Christians find so objectionable in this televised performance? What content did they find objectionable in family-viewing hours?

On Nov. 24, Liberty Counsel filed a complaint with the FCC against ABC contending that Lambert’s American Music Awards performance two days earlier was “obscene” and “indecent.” Although ABC did receive about 1,500 complaints from viewers about Lambert’s sexually suggestive performance, which featured the singer kissing another man, Lambert fans have in turn complained about ABC’s decision to cancel “GMA” and now Kimmel.

Many of Lambert’s supporters, including the Advocate, celebrity blogger Perez Hilton and AfterElton.com, believe he is being targeted because he is a gay male. They note that Janet Jackson, who opened the AMAs, grabbed the crotch of a male dancer but that was not subjected to the same kind of scrutiny.

Now, a Liberty Counsel representative said that the “over-the-top homoeroticism,” including “public hyper-sexualized acts,” in Lambert’s performance led to their FCC complaint.

This is where things get interesting, in terms of the content, and lack thereof, in the Times story:

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation issued a statement … saying that, after discussions with ABC executives, the organization was convinced there were no homophobic motives behind the cancellation of Lambert’s appearances.

“It would appear that the kiss between Adam Lambert and his keyboardist did not factor into ABC’s decision,” said Jarrett Barrios, president of GLAAD. “ABC has a history of positive gay and transgender inclusion that includes featuring kisses between gay and lesbian couples on-air.”

So male-on-male kisses are now old hat. But wait, that isn’t all that GLAAD had to say. Let’s look at the statement, as paraphrased in another source, as in Gawker.com:

Didn’t see this coming: GLAAD has released a statement approving ABC’s decision to cancel two Adam Lambert appearances in the wake of his controversial AMA performance. Glambert was not cut for kissing a man and simulating oral sex on stage, they explain, but because he did so without telling anyone he was going to do it. It means he can’t stay on script, which is a fate that perhaps befalls stars who get their start in quasi-reality show settings. GLAAD buys ABC’s excuse, noting that the network lets gays, lesbians, and trannies kiss on air from time to time (Go, Ugly Betty, go).

Here is my main question: It seems that the Times doesn’t want to print the details of just how far Lambert went, while the live, family-time cameras were turned on (so to speak). Those Christian fundies are just upset about that male-on-male kiss, not the kiss and simulated oral sex.

Is the Times copy desk almost as squeamish as the folks at the Liberty Counsel office? Wouldn’t it be better if readers — in Los Angeles, of all places — knew that there was more to this complaint than the kiss? Or would that make the complaint sound less, well, crazy and fundamentalist? I mean, it does not appear that the newspaper is afraid of printing references to this kind of sexual activity, including in coverage of Lambert.

So why not provide the facts about the Liberty Counsel complaint?

Just asking. …

PHOTO: Adam Lambert in action on the American Music Awards, taken from Gawker.

Dear Mr. Bill Keller:

Each semester, in the very first class session at the Washington Journalism Center, I have my students read the New York Times self-study document from 2005 entitled “Preserving Our Readers’ Trust (.pdf).” Then I require them to carefully read your response, “Assuring Our Credibility (.pdf).”

The passage that always hits home for me, as a professor who works with young journalists from a wide variety of Christian campuses, is this one:

First and foremost we hire the best reporters, editors, photographers and artists in the business. But we will make an extra effort to focus on diversity of religious upbringing and military experience, of region and class.

Of course, diversifying the range of viewpoints reported — and understood — in our pages is not mainly a matter of hiring a more diverse work force. It calls for a concerted effort by all of us to stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation. …

I also endorse the committee’s recommendation that we cover religion more extensively, but I think the key to that is not to add more reporters who will write about religion as a beat. I think the key is to be more alert to the role religion plays in many stories we cover, stories of politics and policy, national and local, stories of social trends and family life, stories of how we live. This is important to us not because we want to appease believers or pander to conservatives, but because good journalism entails understanding more than just the neighborhood you grew up in.

My students find this commitment encouraging, coming from the leader of the most powerful newsroom in America. It helps them understand that if they achieve journalistic excellence, they can help provide intellectual and cultural diversity in a news industry that seriously needs to convince readers — on the left and right — that it is committed to accuracy, fairness and balance.

This commitment is especially important if, during the current crisis in American journalism, the Times seeks to find more readers by reaching a broader, more diverse, national audience — even in, dare I say, pews in the American heartland.

It is in that spirit that I want to point you toward a recent story in your newspaper that, frankly, doesn’t even grasp the role that religion plays in the lives of many people in the state of New York and, perhaps, in some shadowy corners of New York City. The story focuses on that 38-to-24 vote in the New York State Senate rejecting a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.

The defeat shocked supporters, of course, because many legislators clearly were afraid to confess beforehand that they supported a traditional definition of marriage. What was going on? What happened during the debate? We are told this:

The state’s Roman Catholic bishops had consistently lobbied for its defeat, however, and after the vote released a statement applauding the move.

“Advocates for same-sex marriage have attempted to portray their cause as inevitable,” Richard E. Barnes, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said in the statement. “However, it has become clear that Americans continue to understand marriage the way it has always been understood, and New York is not different in that regard. This is a victory for the basic building block of our society.”

Several supporters said they felt they had been betrayed by senators who promised to vote yes but then, reluctant to support an issue as politically freighted as same-sex marriage if they could avoid it, switched their votes on the floor when it became evident the bill would lose.

When I read this report, I thought to myself: I wonder if the religious issues that surround this issue surfaced in any meaningful way during the debate in the legislature? It’s obvious that Catholic Church would have been involved, behind the scenes. But what about other groups?

As it turns out, 17 senators rose to speak in favor of the legislation — with only one speaking against it. That’s an amazing ratio.

Then again, that one rebel voice turned out to represent the winning side. It was a Democrat from the Bronx, a Pentecostal minister named Ruben Diaz Sr. He was the subject of a recent Times mini-profile, so I know that his viewpoints are well known to some of your editors.

As it turns out, a Baptist Press report on the debate in the New York Senate contained some interesting material about the debate. I realize that this is a conservative news service for a niche market. However, it certainly appears that religion played a major role in the debate.

Does anyone in your newsroom get Baptist Press? Just asking. It’s free, so it wouldn’t stretch the budget in these tight times. Here’s a piece of that report:

A Pentecostal minister from the Bronx, Diaz has been the most vocal opponent from the start. When he learned … the vote was set to take place, he went to his office to pray. …

Diaz, the second speaker during the debate, set the tone early for the discussion about religion. “Gay marriage,” he said, “is not only opposed by us evangelicals.

“All the major religions in the world also oppose it,” Diaz, who grew up in Puerto Rico, said. “The Jewish religion opposes it. The Muslim religion opposes it. The Catholic religion opposes it.”

No one else, though, defended a traditional view of the Bible. Senate President Malcolm Smith said “the Bible does not say same-sex marriage is wrong.” Sen. Velmanette Montgomery told her colleagues that because her faith tradition believes that living together before marriage is sin, the chamber should legalize relationships for homosexuals because “we do not want them to live in sin.” Sen. Eric Adams said religion was important to him but that “when I enter these [Senate] doors, my Bible stays out.” Smith, Montgomery and Adams are all Democrats.

Diaz got in the last word on religion, telling Adams, “The Bible should never be left out. You should carry your Bible all the time.”

That sounds like a rather tense and important exchange, especially since it appears that Diaz had more support in the chamber than anyone expected. What role did religion, ethnicity and culture play in some of those votes?

Here’s my point: I know that it’s important for journalists to wrestle with realities far from from their own neighborhood. However, in this case, may I suggest that the Times try exploring some corners of its own city?

You see, there are Pentecostal Democrats from Puerto Rico who live in the Bronx. There are booming evangelical and charismatic churches in Brooklyn. The Korean Presbyterians are interesting people, too. There are Latino and African-American Catholics, as well. I suggest visiting a Haitian parish.

I could go on. My point is that I think the Times must continue to wrestle with the cultural and intellectual diversity in its city, its state and, yes, its nation, if it is going to reach a broad, strong, growing audience. You will find that there are new readers out there and faith plays a major role in their lives, even if the ancient details of this faith clash with the editorial policies of your newspaper.

I read your newspaper and sincerely wish you well. I urge you to read your own words again and then carry on. To understand how the world really works, journalists must try to understand the often messy details of religion. Please keep trying. Don’t settle for producing journalism catering to the views of readers who share — as you said — your own “predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation.”

Amen.

Gaurdian reporter Chris McGreal has written a subtle and finely nuanced piece headlined “Religious right launches fresh assault on US abortion rights.”

OK, maybe it’s not so subtle. Here is how it begins:

Catholic bishops and Protestant evangelists in the US have unleashed an intense lobbying campaign to force fresh limitations on access to abortion into healthcare legislation under debate in the Senate this week.

You know the reporter is going to have a great command of the facts when he confuses evangelicals with evangelists. Or maybe he’s trying to come up with an equivalent for Protestant leaders and landed on “evangelist.” Anyway, while the proposed increase of federal involvement in the insurance marketplace does require reporters to deftly explain how it and the ban on taxpayer funding of abortion will play out, check out how McGreal butchers the explanation here:

Pro-choice groups have described the attack on proposed health reforms mounted by the religious right — which last month pressured the House of Representatives to effectively block women from using medical insurance to pay for abortions — as one of the most serious threats to abortion rights in recent years.

What does “religious right” even mean in this context? Any religious adherent who opposes abortion? But if you’re the Washington correspondent for a newspaper and you don’t even understand anything about the legislation being discussed, you should pick another beat. Here the Associated Press explains the significance of the Stupak Amendment, that bars taxpayer funding of abortions:

The measure would prohibit the proposed new government-run insurance plan from covering abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life, and bars any health plan receiving federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage. If women wanted to purchase abortion coverage through such plans, they’d have to buy it separately, as a so-called rider on their policy.

So, contrary to what the Guardian says, women would not be blocked from using insurance to pay for abortions. However, pro-choice groups are right when they say it’s a serious threat. There’s a way to convey that without inventing facts.

Anyway, the rest of the story is a train wreck, too. It portrays all religious leaders as a single group that (a) opposes President Barack Obama and (b) believe he is part of a “culture of death.” It’s in quotes, so I guess that all religious leaders said it in unison one day (as opposed to it being a reference from the late Pope John Paul II). I think the reporter may just have trouble composing sentences, though:

Ten days ago more than 150 bishops and other religious leaders issued a declaration denouncing Obama’s position on abortion and threatening civil disobedience against new laws affecting that and other social issues, such as gay marriage.

It’s technically permissible to write it this way but it makes it sound like there were 150 bishops and an untold number of other religious leaders. In fact, the original signatures numbered around 150 total — it was up to over 220,000 last time I checked.

The reporter also says that everyone thought that abortion had lost its political potency with the election of Obama … until the amendment passed the House last month. Of course, if this were, as he writes, “widely regarded” as true, it wouldn’t explain (for instance) the huge March for Life last January following his election. Or the May Gallup showing more Americans identify as pro-life as opposed to pro-choice — for the first time since the question was asked. Instead the reporter quotes a Naral employee referring to “America’s pro-choice majority” without mentioning any other perspectives.

Hopefully readers of the Guardian are able to get some more fact-based stories from other outlets.

Every now and then, the box-office prophets in Hollywood are shocked, shocked to discover that large numbers of Americans like to buy tickets to movies that are funny, clean, well-crafted and capable of tugging at a heart-string or two. There’s another tricky little subject hiding in there that many media people just don’t get, but we’ll look at that a bit later.

Unless you have been hiding on another planet, you know that the hot movie out there in multiplex land is “The Twilight Saga: New Moon,” which, as expected, is drawing armies of tissue-clutching young females (and their moms, hiding in the back rows) with its mixture of chaste romance and vampire family values.

However, another movie shocked the experts by jumping into the Thanksgiving mix. Here’s the top of the New York Times box-office update:

As expected, “The Twilight Saga: New Moon” led at the movie box office for the second weekend in a row, with $42.5 million in domestic ticket sales for a 10-day total of $230.7 million. But the week’s surprise came from “The Blind Side,” a sports and family drama that was close behind with an estimated $40.1 million in sales, making it poised to become Sandra Bullock’s highest-grossing film to date. …

“It’s going to do over $200 million,” Dan Fellman, Warner’s theatrical distribution president, predicted of the film, which was directed by John Lee Hancock. Ms. Bullock’s best-selling film so far has been “The Proposal,” another surprise hit that has taken in $164 million since it was released by Walt Disney in June.

So what, precisely, is helping “The Blind Side” shock Hollywood?

So far, I haven’t seen a mainstream story that has taken on that topic. The label “family” does offer a hint, since that is often MSM code for “religious” or, at the very least, “clean.”

However, we are dealing with a very mainstream star and a director who has a mixed financial track record, yet he has mainstream skills that allow him to turn his own Christian convictions into solid films. Think back to that earlier shocking hit, “The Rookie.” That was another “family” film, rooted in a true-life sports story, that contained just a hint of faith.

Yes, faith. That seems to be the factor in this film that many don’t seem to be able to get. Thus, we get hints. Take this passage from a USA Today box-office report, quoting Gregg Kilday, film editor for The Hollywood Reporter:

Sandra Bullock’s The Blind Side kept the No. 2 spot and actually saw its gross rise 17% to $40.1 million. … Kilday said The Blind Side is “kind of outside expectations, which probably suggests it’s a movie that connected with the heartland when the two coasts weren’t paying too much attention to it.”

So the two coasts are, well, blue zones and the “heartland” is a, well, red zone that Hollywood struggles the understand? Something like that.

Last week, my Scripps Howard News Service column focused on “The Blind Side” and I’ve read the excellent book by Michael Lewis that inspired the film (by all means, check it out).

While I interviewed Leigh Anne Tuohy, I was not surprised that the woman at the heart of the real story understood the role that faith played in life of Michael Oher and the series of events that brought him into their family (photo: Sean Tuohy, Oher, Leigh Anne Tuohy). However, I did find it interesting that Bullock — who had to be talked into taking this role — clearly knew what was going on.

“We’re convinced that faith guided and controlled this whole thing,” said Leigh Anne Tuohy, the steel-magnolia matriarch of the rich, white, evangelical family that finally embraced Oher as a son, after providing food, shelter and clothing. “We absolutely believe that none of this was a fluke. … This was God-driven from the start.” …

The key is that expressions of faith were a natural part of this true story, said actress Sandra Bullock, who plays Leigh Anne. No one was faking anything.

“This family, they were themselves for no other benefit other than because they wanted to reach out, lend a hand, and had no idea that they would get a son in return,” she told reporters, after a press screening of “The Blind Side.” Bullock said that, while making the movie, she regained a little “faith in those who say they represent a faith. … I’ve finally met people that walk the walk.”

If this movie does hit $200 million and keeps going, do you think anyone in the mainstream press will put two and two together? I mean, people write about little tiny Christian niche movies with no budget that are easy to criticize. “The Blind Side” looks like an interesting entertainment news story, to me.

Just saying….

The Washington Post has a feature headlined “A muscular, die-hard spirituality: Self-sufficient Christians prepare for Second Coming or for life after global disaster.” So you can imagine that I expected the story to be about that.

It begins promisingly enough, with an anecdote of a 74-year-old computer professional Ken Uptegrove. He has a garden, tries to live simply, studies the lives of early Christians, launched a ministry and an unnamed Web site, and hopes someday to move to a remote area with other self-sufficient Christians.

But then the story just goes in a completely different direction. No other survivalists are quoted, much less Christian survivalists, although we hear that business is booming at one online store that sells emergency supplies. In fact, it sounds like any trend toward survivalism, if there is one, could very well be secular:

Sustainability and self-sufficiency appear downright mainstream, exemplified by first lady Michelle Obama’s White House vegetable garden… .

In the popular imagination, survivalists are Rambo types, [Richard Mitchell Jr., a professor emeritus at Oregon State University,] said. But survivalists often are urbanites or suburbanites who distrust the government or think the government is flawed. For the less hard-core, survivalism might offer a measure of control that seemed lost to natural disasters or terrorism, [emergency supply store owner Joe] Branin said.

“This is one way people feel like they’re taking control of their own situations again,” he said. “We’ve had so much drama. It’s like getting your oil changed in your car. You’ve done something that feels good. It’s the same way with somebody going down and getting a survival kit and having extra food or water. It gives them that level of a little bit of security.”

And then this:

Yet being prepared isn’t all bad, Mitchell said. If survivalists are gardening because they think the United States should be less dependent on foreign countries for food or energy, maybe they’re on to something. And if survivalists distrust government and economic systems they don’t completely understand, perhaps the recession has proved that they have a point.

The story says that “some Christians see signs of the end times and Jesus’s Second Coming.” Well, sure. “Some Christians” have seen signs of the end times since shortly after Jesus walked the earth. There’s nothing wrong with writing a story about survivalists motivated by religious beliefs, but this was not that story. And a story about those Christians who believe the end times are nigh might also be insightful. And a story about gardeners being “on to something” would be interesting — although I would hope we’d learn what that something might be. (Ditto for those of who distrust government or economic systems “having a point.”)

But this is a story that desperately needs either more religion or less religion in it. Otherwise it just seems confusing.

It’s not every day you read a story where the reporter describes the same person as a Jehovah’s Witness, a fundamentalist and an evangelical.

Read through these first few paragraphs the short Lexington Herald-Leader story and see if you can help me sort this out.

When Monica Marks was growing up a Jehovah’s Witness in Eastern Kentucky, she dreamed one day of getting an education.

Now that dream will take her from the University of Louisville to the University of Oxford in England as a Rhodes Scholar.

“Where I grew up, it was never which college are you going to, it was if college was possible,” Marks said Saturday, just hours after learning in Indianapolis that she had been awarded the prestigious scholarship. “For me, it was just so rebellious to even consider that.”

Marks, 23, grew up in Rush, Ky., in a fundamentalist evangelical family, but her parents respected her hunger for education.

I’m so confused. Was she a Jehovah’s Witness but her parents were evangelicals or fundamentalist?

First, take a look at GetReligion’s previous exegeses of the Associated Press’ style on the word fundamentalist.

fundamentalist The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians. In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.

What’s unclear in the story is whether Monica Marks describes her upbringing as fundamentalist or whether the reporter Janet Patton assumed that it was fundamentalist. Also, does she call herself an evangelical? In my experience, most people do not consider themselves both an evangelical and a fundamentalist. Here’s what the 2007 AP guide says about evangelicals:

evangelical Historically, evangelical was used as an adjective describing dedication to conveying the message of Christ. Today it also is used as a noun, referring to a category of doctrinally conservative Christians. They emphasize the need for a definite, adult commitment or conversion to faith in Christ and the duty of call believers to persuade others to accept Christ.

Also, how could she be an evangelical and Jehovah’s Witness when their core beliefs about Jesus and the Trinity are completely different?

Let’s look at one of the reporter’s descriptions above once more:

When Monica Marks was growing up a Jehovah’s Witness in Eastern Kentucky, she dreamed one day of getting an education.

The reporter assumes that it’s inconceivable that a Jehovah’s Witness would get an education. Would she have used the same phrase if she were describing a Catholic or Jew? Her religious background may have been a roadblock from getting an education, but the reporter doesn’t explain how. It comes up again here:

Marks, 23, grew up in Rush, Ky., in a fundamentalist evangelical family, but her parents respected her hunger for education.

Why the but? Are her religion and education mutually exclusive for some reason? How did her parents respect her hunger for education? What did they do to make that happen? Was she homeschooled? Did she attend a religious private school? The student then compares her upbringing to Islam.

Her background shaped her choice of what to study as well: Marks is presently researching Islamic law in Turkey as a Fulbright Scholar and plans to continue those studies at Oxford, where she will research comparative human rights and Sharia law.

Winning the Rhodes scholarship, “really resonates with me on a deep personal level,” Marks said. “It’s a vote of confidence in your future.”

She said she is often struck by the patriarchal similarities between Islam and her fundamentalist Christian upbringing.

This reporter assumes that we know what Monica Marks is talking about. What are the patriarchal similarities that she’s referring to?

There are several questions left unanswered in this story. Writing a short, localized article doesn’t mean that you should spend less time checking your facts. Monica Marks may very well feel that her religious background shapes her study of Islamic law, but I want to know how.

On Sunday, I looked a bit at a Newsweek article by religion editor Lisa Miller. Her piece took a position I largely agree with — that there’s no need to say that accused Ft. Hood gunman Hasan is either mentally unstable or an Islamic terrorist. (Although, as I pointed out yesterday, there hasn’t been much evidence of diagnosable mental illness compared to the evidence mounting regarding terrorism.) But I had some issues with how well she made her case.

There were other oddities about Miller’s article. Here, for instance:

Why do we insist on framing religious issues dualistically, when anyone with a shred of experience of religion knows religion doesn’t work that way? In our personal lives, we know how malleable creeds are. We know Jews who follow the laws of kashrut—except on the occasions when they order a cheeseburger for dinner. We know evangelical Christians who believe strongly in the rightness of evolution and Roman Catholics who believe in a woman’s right to choose. But we can also point to passages in Scripture that command us to do things we would never dream of doing. In America, we don’t stone adulterers.

Well, I don’t know. All the Jews I know either do or don’t keep kosher rather than skip back and forth so I guess I’m not on board with what she’s getting at from the get go. But let’s just look at that part about why we don’t stone adulterers.

Now, Miller’s tried to do exegesis before and it hasn’t gone so well. But how can you be a religion reporter or religion editor in the United States and not know the story of Jesus and the woman charged with adultery? As a service to Miller and her editors at Newsweek, here’s the first part of the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John:

Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

Normally I think this very well known passage is interesting because people forget that Jesus told the woman to stop sinning. But apparently Miller forgot that this famous passage even existed, much less had a tremendous impact on those portions of the world where Christianity exerts significant influence. (Jews have different reasons for no longer stoning for adultery.) The point is, there’s a difference between self-identifying as a Catholic while rejecting some of the church’s teachings and, say, Jesus’ life and ministry changing the way people viewed human rights. And I’m not entirely sure what either of those things have to do with Hasan being a terrorist and/or mentally unstable.

Miller’s larger point is that religion is not definitive and she goes on to say that there are narrow-minded and broad-minded interpreters of every religion. Islam’s biggest problems are its narrow-minded interpreters, she writes. That may be true and many more stories looking at the different interpretations of Islam would be fascinating and a tremendous service to readers. And God bless Miller for not resorting to the trope of Islam being, unilaterally, a religion of peace or a religion of violence. But let’s not reduce those “narrow-minded interpreters” to a caricature of selective Scripture-quoters either. Their interpretive view is much more complex and historical than that.

Anyone who has paid even the slightest attention to the “Twilight” explosion in pop culture knows that author Stephenie Meyer is a somewhat unorthodox Mormon believer who isn’t exactly shy about letting symbols and themes from her faith, uh, bleed over into her vampire kingdom.

The Rev. EEE took on the topic a time or two here at GetReligion, since the subject has received some mainstream media attention. But the topic is now everywhere. I mean, click here and surf around a bit.

Meanwhile, my dear friend John “HogwartsProfessor.com” Granger is focusing his considerable talents in fantasy analysis on this pop-culture tsunami, as well. You may want to check out the new Forks High School Professor website (especially to keep tabs on his theories until his new book comes out).

Are the books worth all of this heavy intellectual breathing? I have avoided them like the plague, quite frankly. And so have lots of other people, according to one of those snarky, navel-gazing Washington Post features that draw so much attention when they run back in the edgy confines of the newspaper’s famous Style section.

But, wait! This sprawling piece on the “Twilight” craze didn’t run in the Style section, where the lines between news and analysis are blurred more often than not. This story ran on page A1, right there in the sacred territory dedicated to politics. The double-decker headline just about says it all:

‘Twilight,’ the love that dare not speak its shame

Good, smart, literary women tried to resist the romantic-vampire phenomenon. And then, alas, they bit.

You see, this article is for smart women, the kind who still read the Post and not popular novels that are, well, more on that later.

Apparently, it was easy to write off Meyer and her shiny heroes when only the, you know, shallow and stupid women were reading them, the kinds of women who yearn for full-blooded romances and even — shocking — men who are willing to make sacrifices and be faithful to them, well, forever.

Here’s a sample of this buffet line of elitist guilt, at the very top of this journalistic sermon by Monica Hesse:

We know. You hate “Twilight.” You don’t want to hear anything more about “Twilight.” That’s why this is not another story about the “Twilight” or “New Moon” mania, nor will it rhapsodize on the vampire craze, nor does it contain any interviews with Robert Pattinson.

This is a story about shame.

All across the country, there were women who managed to avoid Stephenie Meyer’s series about a star-crossed human/vampire teen couple. (Vampire Edward lusts for mortal Bella, but also for her blood; the books are less plot than endless yearning). They resisted the first three books — refused to read them, didn’t know they existed — and the lunacy that was “Breaking Dawn.”

“Twilight” came for the tweens, then for the moms of tweens, then for the co-workers who started wearing those ridiculous Team Jacob shirts, and the resisters said nothing, because they thought “Twilight” could not come for them. They were too literary. They didn’t do vampires. They were feminists.

So, why is this a GetReligion subject? Precisely because the story never goes there, it never gets into Meyer’s connection with her main audience and never, ever, connects the dots to the franchise’s unique take on love, sexuality, marriage, family and, literally, tribe. We are told that these feminist readers are all offended by the fact that the books are for stupid, shallow women, but the beliefs and tastes of those women are simply painted in negative, in a reverse image.

There is very little religion in the story. That’s kind of my point.

Instead, the story gets busy and stays busy describing, detailing and dissecting the exquisite guilt that liberal, secular, feminist women feel because they are falling head over heals in love with these books and movies that are supposed to only sell to, well, you know — those other women (you know who they are).

Guilt. Shame. It’s a sad scene.

However, there is a kind of political/religious angle that appears briefly down in the body of the report. Yes, the Post briefly mentions the A-word:

Witness the downfall of Sarah Seltzer, a freelance literary critic who also writes for a reproductive rights Web site:

“I wanted to write about the abstinence subtext,” Seltzer says, which is why she read the books to begin with. She planned on questioning the allegorical “abstinence only” theme that runs through the series. “But the books are kind of hypnotic, so it’s very much that while you’re reading them you’re sucked in, and then you take a step back and you think, this is kind of troubling. She jumps off a cliff because she misses her boyfriend?” What?!

“New Moon” shows Bella at her most pathetic, and so the grown women who love “Twilight” have methodically come up with rebuttals to the accusations that the character is anti-feminist. Perhaps her single-minded desire for a relationship is actually a Third Wave feminist expression? Maybe it doesn’t matter that she’s choosing Edward over everything else, as long as it’s her choice? Maybe her wish to become a vampire is really a metaphor for asserting her rights over her own body?

Keep reminding yourself that this outpouring of guilt is taking place on A1, in one of America’s most important newspapers.

I freely admit that there is something of substance here. So you read the story. Do you sense a ghost? Do you see the reflection in the mirror, the women that these smart, informed, liberal, secular, feminist women fear? I think I do.