Excuse me if I head deep into the tmatt guilt folder and make a point or two about a story that I’ve been mulling over for more than a week.

Your GetReligionistas frequently criticize the mainstream press for its simplistic coverage of issues linked to Islamic tradition, doctrine and law. The problem, of course, is that journalists keep writing as if there is only one approach to Islam. Journalists say, “Islam teaches this” and “Islam teaches that” without pausing to admit that, repeat after me, “There is no one Islam.”

This amazes me because journalists frequently write about “moderate” Muslims and (excuse me for typing the following words) “fundamentalist” Muslims, yet rarely offer any practical details that tell us the beliefs that define the lives of people in these camps.

Well, in this case I want to compliment a recent story in the Los Angeles Times, sort of, for a story in which the newspaper did a fabulous job showing the complexity of recent events in Afghanistan that pivot on clashing approaches to Sharia law. At the same time, let me note that the reporter and editors that produced this story never noted or explained the facts about Sharia that are demonstrated in this story.

In other words, it’s a good story, even if they didn’t realize why it is such a good story.

Here’s the context, at the top of the story.

The young lovers didn’t stand a chance.

In a desolate field on the edge of their village in northern Afghanistan, hundreds of men, stones in hand, closed in to carry out the mullah’s death sentence, handed down after the pair eloped against the wishes of their families.

“It was an act of great cruelty,” said Mutasem Khan, an uncle of Abdul Qayuum, the 28-year-old man who was stoned to death this month in Kunduz province along with the village woman he had wooed, identified only as 19-year-old Siddiqa.

The couple’s gruesome deaths came just one week after another public execution, also in a remote northern village. There, a widow in her 40s was flogged and then shot for conceiving a child out of wedlock with a man she intended to marry, according to accounts by villagers and local officials.

Human rights groups, which verified the killings, say such draconian punishments are becoming more commonplace as conservative religious and tribal leaders become emboldened by the Taliban’s growing influence and by the weakening grip of the central government. But the reemergence of the rough justice that was a hallmark of the Taliban’s five-year rule could also signal a split within the movement’s ranks.

As you would expect, this theoretical division among the Taliban leaders center on Islamic law. Thus, we read:

Even as hard-line village mullahs loosely aligned with the Taliban seek a return to the harshest forms of physical punishment permitted under Sharia, or Islamic law, the Taliban leadership has been trying to rally public support by painting itself as a defender of civilian lives.

So these punishments are permitted under Sharia, but are not mandatory. What is the nature of the religious authority that makes these calls? Just a few phrases later, we are told that the “insurgents” had actually issued a “code of conduct” that “discouraged” — not banned — these killings of civilians. What does this “code” have to do with the first reference to Sharia?

By the way, all of this represents a high hurdle in Taliban talks with the U.S.-supported Afghan government. But doesn’t this government already have its own system of courts that includes a special role for Islamic law and, thus, represents another approach to Sharia? After all, we are told:

For countries contributing troops to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization force, such a settlement could set the stage for an exit from what has become an increasingly unpopular war. But the West says, echoed by the government of President Hamid Karzai, that negotiations can take place only with insurgents who promise to renounce violence and respect Afghanistan’s Constitution and legal system, which call at least in theory for due process under the law.

What does “at least in theory” mean in this context? That the “due process under the law” has to yield, on some issues, to the reality of Islamic tradition?

A few lines later, we see another level of complexity:

Summary justice, governing everything from land disputes to adultery, was a feature of daily life long before the Taliban rose to power in the 1990s and will probably remain part of the landscape regardless of how long the Western military presence lasts. Even religious leaders who do not consider themselves affiliated with the Taliban often call for a more traditional Islamic system of justice, often with the tacit support of elected officials.

A gathering of senior religious scholars, the Ulema Council, this month called for wider use of Sharia-style penalties for transgressions such as theft and adultery.

In cases of impromptu capital punishment, such as the stonings in Kunduz, those carrying out the violence are almost never tracked down or prosecuted, even if their identities are widely known.

So, this “summary justice” approach does not go as far with applying Sharia as the Taliban, but it includes many of the same kinds of punishments. What is the difference? And the Ulema Council? Does its approach to Sharia represent a stance that is somewhere in between that of the government and the more radical elements of the Taliban?

By all means, keep reading and try to keep all of this straight in your mind. Remember that all of the advocates of these various approaches to crime and punishment would almost certainly argue that they are being faithful to Sharia law and to Islam. It would be hard to imagine a more vivid demonstration of this reality — that there is no one approach to Islam and to Islamic law.

It’s a devastating story that vividly demonstrates this reality, even if the Los Angeles Times editors did not realize that.

The strippers are back. Back at church. And back in the news.

Three weeks ago, I gave a mostly negative review to a Page A1 story in The Columbus Dispatch on strippers demonstrating outside an Ohio church that, for years, has protested their livelihood.

I liked parts of the Dispatch story but felt that it relied on cliches, presented the main characters as cardboard figures and failed miserably to explore the religion angles in any meaningful way.

Now comes a follow-up story on the same topic from The Associated Press:

WARSAW, Ohio — Strippers dressed in bikinis sunbathe in lawn chairs, their backs turned toward the gray clapboard church where men in ties and women in full-length skirts flock to Sunday morning services.

The strippers, fueled by Cheetos and nicotine, are protesting a fundamentalist Christian church whose Bible-brandishing congregants have picketed the club where they work. The dancers roll up with signs carrying messages adapted from Scripture, such as “Do unto others as you would have done unto you,” to counter church members who for four years have photographed license plates of patrons and asked them if their mothers and wives know their whereabouts.

The dueling demonstrations play out in central Ohio, where nine miles of cornfields and Amish-buggy crossing signs separate The Fox Hole strip club from New Beginnings Ministries.

Immediately, the AP description of how the church members were dressed impressed me as better than the way the Dispatch put it. For one thing, the AP’s “men in ties and women in full-length skirts” just sounds less pejorative than the Dispatch’s “polyester and pearls.” It also struck me as more accurate based on the video and photos I have seen of church members.

In general, the AP also eschews the cliche-ridden nature of the Dispatch piece, although not entirely. We do still get “Bible-brandishing congregants” and “a higher power” tasking the minister with shutting down the strip club. And a reference is made to churchgoers greeting the strippers with “both scorn and compassion,” although the story provides no evidence to back up the “scorn” assertion.

But in general, the AP story uses fresh language to show, not tell, the story — from the “nine miles of cornfields and Amish-buggy crossing signs” that separate the strip club from the church to the “mashed potatoes with gravy and Salisbury steak” served at the only sit-down restaurant in the small town. (Suddenly, I’m hungry!)

Basically, the AP reporter steps back and lets the story tell itself.

We get dialogue and description that help us better understand the figures on both sides. They are not cardboard characters. They are real people with nuanced and sometimes conflicting beliefs and positions.

You’ve got a pastor protesting but also offering to pay for food, rent, utilities and gas if the strippers will give up their lifestyle. You’ve got a stripper who says she made only $30 — instead of a normal couple hundred — on the last Friday that the church protested outside the club. These are not cliches. These are real, important details.

Consider this compelling section:

Laura Meske — known as Lola, stage age 36 but really 42 — hid behind a sign proclaiming, “Jesus loves the children of the world!” as the preacher extended his hand for a shake.

Two nights earlier, Dunfee and more than a dozen churchgoers stood outside the club, one of them calling out Meske’s stripper name.

“He who casts the first stone … ,” Meske said Sunday.

The pastor cut her off and repeated, “Lola, Lord bless you.”

“Everybody has sinned, and that doesn’t mean I’m not gonna get into heaven,” she said, the stud piercing in her chin shimmering in the sunlight. “I believe in Jesus. I don’t believe what they preach. They preach hate.”

Debi Durr, who attends the church, disagreed. “You don’t stand up there for four years for hate. That’s not hate. That’s love,” she said. Durr left Meske with a copy of Jeremiah 3:13 — a Bible passage that urges sinners to acknowledge their guilt.

AP also goes outside the two protesting groups and provides input from outside observers.

We hear from a former stripper who ministers to dancers, prostitutes and porn stars but doesn’t see protests outside the strip club as the right approach. A community values advocate, meanwhile, supports the protests but says the strip club has the legal right to operate. Finally, a leader of a church closer to the strip club explains why it takes a different approach than the one featured.

Context, it’s called. Thankfully, the AP story provides it. All in all, it’s an excellent 925-word report.

That’s not to say that it answered all my questions. Like the Dispatch, the AP failed to engage the religious issues to my satisfaction.

The church is labeled as “fundamentalist,” but no real insight into the theology or beliefs is provided. The reporter ventures inside the worship assembly as congregants sing “lyrics projected on a screen.” But no mention is made of the contents of those lyrics. Are they old-style hymns or contemporary Christian praise songs with seven-word choruses?

As with the Dispatch story, we hear vague pronouncements of belief in Jesus from the strippers but never really learn about their faith or the role it plays in their lives.

The strippers are back.

And once again, they brought a few religion ghosts with them.

It’s not uncommon to hear people claim that all religions are roughly the same when it comes to acts of violence. And when folks make this claim in the context of terrorism in the United States, it’s not uncommon that they will cite Timothy McVeigh as an example of a “Christian” terrorist.

President Bush said as much in an interview a few years ago. Nobody in the media corrected him. And outgoing Newsweek editor Jon Meacham did the moral equivalency on the flip side. He said that Nidal Hasan, a Muslim who killed 13 soldiers and wounded 30 others, was no more a Muslim terrorist than Timothy McVeigh was a Christian terrorist.

And now we have a similar statement from NPR’s Michel Martin. Appearing on CNN’s Reliable Sources this week, she was part of an exchange with Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson about the mosque proposed to be built two blocks from ground zero:

MARTIN: In 10 years from now we won’t be talking about this, but it’s an issue for right now.

CARLSON: Right. And wouldn’t it be a great thing if they moved it a few blocks, and Muslims and Americans who still worry would be talking to each other? Let’s compromise. Well, why don’t we compromise?

MARTIN: Should anybody move a Catholic church? Did anybody move a Christian church after Timothy McVeigh, who adhered to a cultic — white supremacist cultic version of Christianity, bombed —

Whatever one might think of the strengths or weaknesses of the moral equivalency argument, McVeigh is simply not a good example to use. People in the media need to find a better example.

Everyone who paid even surface-level attention to the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City would know that McVeigh was motivated by extreme hatred of the federal government, not Christianity. McVeigh rarely discussed religion. When he did, he did not indicate any motivation at all coming from religion. This is not something that could be said about the 9/11 bombers or Nidal Hasan.

For those curious about McVeigh’s views, I recommend “American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing.” Written by two journalists who corresponded with and covered McVeigh’s trial and execution, the book describes McVeigh as having somewhat complicated views, but the takeaway is probably best summarized by his quote “Science is my religion.” He was raised and even confirmed Catholic. But the book also describes him as avoiding worship while in the military, once visiting a Seventh Day Adventist congregation and finding it boring, and claiming that he lost touch with religion. Again, this does not sound like the Christian equivalent of Major Hasan or the 9/11 bombers.

Time magazine interviewed McVeigh about his religious views and he said he wasn’t terribly religious but did believe in a God. Shortly before he was executed, he accepted an offer to receive last rites from a priest. But he also sent a letter to the Buffalo News where he described himself as an agnostic but said he would adapt if it turned out there was an afterlife. Here’s how Dan Herbeck, one of the Buffalo News reporters, explained it it in an interview with ABC’s Sam Donaldson:

Well, he is an agnostic. He doesn’t believe in God, but he has told us he doesn’t not believe in God. Death is part of his adventure, as he describes it to us. And he told us that when he finds out if there is an afterlife, he will improvise, adapt and overcome just like they taught him in the Army.

There’s a reason why nobody even thought to suggest that a Catholic or other Christian church should not be built near the Murrah building or that any religious structures near the site should be moved. I’m not suggesting that people in the media should be in the business of suggesting that all religions have the same problem with terrorism. But if they are going to do that, they simply need to get a better handle on history.

I’ve basically lived in every corner or Southern California not within the 789 square miles that constitute Orange County. (Though for a time in college I had developed enough of a social web around Newport Beach that my roommates joked that I had attended Newport Harbor High School with them.) But even I find this New York Times headline to be a bit off:

“Orange County Is No Longer Nixon Country”

Technically, I don’t think any part of this country, whether royal blue or blood red, has been Nixon country in, well, a long time — long before The OC’s iconic orange groves went the way of the buffalo.

Indeed, that headline hints at a major deficiency in this story. The article was written by the new head of the NYT’s SoCal operation. And no offense to Adam Nagourney — the NYT’s former chief political correspondent is an ace reporter — but this is a classic I-just-got-here-from-NY-and-now-I’m-LA-bureau-chief piece. (Nagourney’s first dispatch from Los Angeles was about — wait for it — traffic.)

An excerpt from this one:

But this iconic county of 3.1 million people passed something of a milestone in June. The percentage of registered Republican voters dropped to 43 percent, the lowest level in 70 years.

It was the latest sign of the demographic, ethnic and political changes that are transforming the county and challenging long-held views of a region whose colorful — its detractors might suggest zany — reputation extends well beyond the borders of this state.

At the end of 2009, nearly 45 percent of the county’s residents spoke a language other than English at home, according to county officials. Whites now make up only 45 percent of the population; this county is teeming with Hispanics, as well as Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese families. Its percentage of foreign-born residents jumped to 30 percent in 2008 from 6 percent in 1970, and visits to some of its corners can feel like a trip to a foreign land.

The story goes on and on — really, the repetitiveness was a bit surprising — with mostly good examples of the demographic shifts that have changed Orange County.

Ethnic diversity. Cultural diversity. Political diversity.

Religious diversity?

Uh … that’s actually missing. Only the Crystal Cathedral gets a mention, in the same breath as other “world-famous attractions” like Disneyland.

What an omission. Christianity, no doubt, has a lot more flavors since the influx of Vietnamese immigrants in the 1970s and the continually growing Latino population. And OC has a healthy Jewish community that may or may not have been there a generation ago. (I really don’t know.) But related to the Jewish community has been the blooming Muslim community of Orange County. The two groups have clashed repeatedly over the past decade at Orange County’s premiere university: University of California, Irvine.

Maybe most glaring of all: Not a single reference to “Gleaming the Cube.”

If you haven’t heard yet, President Obama will make a speech from the Oval Office to announce the end of combat operations in Iraq. To evaluate the quality of conditions in Iraq, reporters often look at factors like violence, education, elections, and social services.

Recently, Tarek El-Tablawy from the Associated Press considered porn as a evaluative measure for how the country is fairing.

The porn, in an odd way, has told the story of Iraq’s security and political situation since Saddam Hussein’s ouster in 2003. It emerged in the anything-goes atmosphere that erupted in the vacuum immediately following the U.S. invasion—then went back into hiding amid the anarchy when armed militias roamed the capital through 2008, targeting those they saw as immoral.

Its reemergence since then reflects how security has improved but also how the fragile government is busy with more pressing issues than spicy videos.

So there you have it: the presence of porn “reflects how security has improved.” Spicy is defined in part as “lively, spirited,” so since when do reporters call porn “spicy” and get away with it as an objective descriptor? Also, is the trend an indication of how Islam in Iraq has changed over the years? How does this trend impact the women in the country?

Overall, though, it’s a good idea for a story, pretty interesting when you consider how porn was illegal just a few years ago. The reporter offers some interesting context, reporting that porn is illegal in every country in the region except Lebanon, Israel and Turkey (though it does exist through satellite and the Internet).

Towards the end of the story, the reporters offers an odd example of a porn video with a connection the violence Iraqis have faced.

The titles alone—many along the lines of “The Rape of the Coeds”—offer disturbing insight into the possible psychological effects the years of indiscriminate violence have had on Iraqis.

Many have seen, if not first hand, then certainly on video and TV, children blown up, people kidnapped and beheaded and prisoners abused by U.S. forces.

The films don’t show actual rapes—they’re just titles tacked onto mainstream porn films downloaded from the Internet as well as homemade movies of amateur Arab couples.

In a nod to the politically elusive dream of Arab unity, Hanoun carries a collection entitled “Cheap Meat.”

“It’s got Syrian, Egyptian, Lebanese girls,” he says. “All the Arabs.”

But, in an ironic symbol of the difficulty with which Arabs have had coming together, the DVD gets stuck in a loop in the first five minutes.

Does that conclusion seem pretty flippant to anyone else? The story quotes two people selling porn, but what the reporter is missing are some voices for considering how porn might impact a society, for better or for worse. I would think that some scholars have considered the impact of factors like alcohol, porn, etc. in their research of Islamic countries. My guess is that there is some diversity in opinion over whether reporters can mark this as a positive sign for the country.

One of the hardest things to explain to people who have never worked in a real newsroom is why some events are news at one moment in time and in one location, but a similar story is not news at some other time in some other location.

So you are a reporter. Your desk phone rings and a caller wants you to write a story about the new fellowship hall that is being built at her suburban evangelical church. You ask, “Why is this a story?”

Well, says the caller, last week you wrote a big story about a church that was simply changing a window. Isn’t a fellowship hall a bigger story than a window?

But, you explain, that was an original window in the downtown Episcopal parish that is the city’s oldest church. There were question about its status as part of a historic site. The affair ended up being highly emotional and it provoked a fiery public meeting that revealed divisions in the congregation.

Silence. The caller says the newspaper simply doesn’t like evangelicals, but will cover anything that happens in an Episcopal church. She hangs up.

So with that in mind, let me acknowledge that I have received quite a few notes in recent weeks asking why GetReligion hasn’t commented on the sudden burst of coverage of the standoff between the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and the officials guiding the Ground Zero work in New York City. The standoff focuses on the rebuilding of St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, a tiny, but highly symbolic, sanctuary was — literally — crushed by the collapse of the World Trade Center. The congregation is named in honor of St. Nicholas of Myra, the 4th century saint whose story eventually evolved in the West into St. Nicholas, as in “St. Nick.”

This story has received a mini-wave of ink, with stories running everywhere from Fox News to the New York Times. I have also received copies and extra copies of the press releases from the Greek archdiocese, offering its side of the story. One byline was especially interesting — atop the following column that ran in the Albuquerque Journal. The writer, Harry Moskos, is the retired editor of the Knoxville News Sentinel and he one of the editors whose interest in religion news led to the birth of my weekly national column with the Scripps Howard News Service.

I wrote back to one GetReligion reader noting that the coverage has all been rather perfunctory and that I didn’t see any real issues — for better or for worse — to note in a post. But, replied the reader, isn’t the story itself interesting and the fact that its being covered now and it wasn’t covered in the past?

In other words, “Why is this a news story at this moment in time and it wasn’t before?” That’s a variation on that old, old question: How do journalists define “news”?

First of all, I have always thought that this story is newsworthy — as you can tell from the column I wrote about it, which I called “Saints at Ground Zero.”

Please note the date on that column, as in Sept. 26, 2001.

In this case I was talking about “saints” as in the relics of the saints of this parish, relics lost when the sanctuary disappeared under the firefall of the Twin Towers. Here’s a piece of that column, built around an interview with the still grieving priest, Father John Romas:

The members of St. Nicholas do not think that any parishioners died when the towers, a mere 250 feet away, fell onto their small sanctuary in an avalanche of concrete, glass, steel and fire. Nevertheless, the Orthodox believers want to search in the two-story mound of debris for the remains of three loved ones who died long ago — the relics of St. Nicholas, St. Katherine and St. Sava. Small pieces of their skeletons were kept in a gold-plated box marked with an image of Christ. This ossuary was stored in a 700-pound, fireproof safe. …

It’s hard for outsiders to understand what this loss would mean to a parish, said Father Robert Stephanopoulos, dean of the city’s Cathedral of the Holy Trinity. These ties with the saints are more than symbolic. This mystery is rooted in centuries of tradition.

“We believe the Communion of the Saints is real and that we worship and pray with all the saints in heaven,” he said. “But these particular saints are also a part of that parish family, in a unique way. They have been a part of that parish for many years and, of course, the people want to see these relics recovered. Yes, this is a family matter.”

So why is the story of this church’s attempts to rebuild news RIGHT NOW? Why does it matter that Orthodox leaders are struggling in negotiations, while, well, efforts to build another sanctuary nearby are receiving so much positive and negative attention?

You see, that question simply answered itself, didn’t it?

You can see the context in this passage from one of the best stories written about the plight of St. Nicholas, which was produced by reporter Nicole Neroulias and the Religion News Service team.

Construction has begun on the 9/11 memorial and several of the major buildings planned for the 16-acre site, with estimated completion dates between 2011 and 2014. Little St. Nicholas, however, remains in limbo.

Negotiations with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for a land swap and public funding reached an impasse more than a year ago. The stalemate is only now generating public attention due to heated protests over Park51, a proposed Islamic community center several blocks away that’s been dubbed the “Ground Zero mosque” by critics.

“St. Nicholas has nothing to do with this mosque controversy. We believe in religious freedom, and whether the mosque should or shouldn’t be there, that’s a whole different dialogue,” said the Rev. Mark Arey, archdiocese spokesman. “But it’s a rising tide that lifts all boats. People say the mosque has been greenlighted, but why not this church?”

The details of the standoff about the rebuilding process are quite complex and you can read them for yourself. Both sides are speaking out — rather loudly.

But the key to the whole affair is that St. Nicholas is suddenly a story because journalists have linked it to a “bigger” and more “important” story. This tiny parish was not news at one point in time. It became news at another point in time and we all know why. That’s the news business. You see?

I’ve mumbled to myself how interesting it is that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, not known for his strong defense of property rights, has been so good on the issue when it comes to the proposed Cordoba mosque project. This Wall Street Journal story attempts to show a similar discrepancy on Bloomberg’s religious views. I think it fails because it confuses personal religious views with civic duty. Here’s how it begins:

In a speech at Gracie Mansion this week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg heralded New York City as the ultimate symbol of religious tolerance. “We in New York are Jews and Christians and Muslims, and we always have been,” he declared.

But the role of religion in the Jewish mayor’s life has been marked mostly by detachment during his nearly nine years as chief executive of the nation’s most populous city.

Now, the story goes on to explain that Bloomberg is a member of a synagogue, that he attends that synagogue on high holy days, that he attends his sister’s Passover seders, had a bar mitzvah, and contributes to Jewish charity projects. It also explains that he’s most likely to visit a house of worship for a political reason than a religious one. While I understand he may not be the most devout of adherents, I’m not sure if “detachment” is the best word to describe his religious practice.

But even if Bloomberg was much less religious, these two paragraphs aren’t fair. I mean, he’s making a political point about religious diversity, not about his own views.

The story itself is full of people discussing Bloomberg’s religiosity. And I think that it’s certainly a fine topic to discuss. Despite what some people say, religion is not exclusively private. The simple act of affiliating with one religion over another or worshiping at a mosque, synagogue or church is extremely public.

The article has some strong points. It shows that Bloomberg’s ideas about religious tolerance are derived from his religious views. It is nice to see the media discuss the idea that tolerance is an outgrowth of particular religious views. Of course, it’s also true that you don’t have to be religious to support the idea of tolerance — which is my beef with the hook at the top of the story.

Former City Council member Simcha Felder, an Orthodox Jew who joined the mayor on that trip, said, “The only one that should judge people’s religiosity or level of observance is God.” He noted that a basic tenet of all religions is charity—and Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire, is one of the nation’s most generous philanthropists.

But the mayor has never worn his Judaism on his sleeve, Mr. Felder said. Case in point, at the beginning of Mr. Bloomberg’s first term, the mayor had no interest in a rabbinical blessing to help him steer the city out of a massive budget crisis.

“A friend of mine who is a rabbi asked the mayor if he would like a blessing,” Mr. Felder recalled. “And the mayor said, ‘I’d rather have $6 billion to fix the budget.’”

It’s nice to see a story that gives readers a bit of insight into the particular religious practices of Mayor Bloomberg. But sometimes I think that the media have a particular idea about religion being more meaningful to someone based on how much they talk about it in public speeches. It’s hard to know how much Bloomberg’s funny response to the rabbi indicates his particular religious views.

There was an interesting Associated Press story out of London the other day about end-of-life issues that has really been making the rounds — for perfectly valid reasons.

Most of all, the story left me wondering if anyone on this side of the Atlantic has done similar research. Here’s the top of the story, as it appeared in the Washington Post:

LONDON — Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to make decisions that could end the lives of their terminally ill patients, compared to doctors who are very religious, according to a new study in Britain.

Dr. Clive Seale, a professor at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, conducted a random mail survey of more than 3,700 doctors across Britain, of whom 2,923 reported on how they took care of their last terminal patient. Many of the doctors surveyed were neurologists, doctors specializing in the care of the elderly, and palliative care, though other specialists like family doctors, were also included.

Doctors who described themselves as “extremely” or “very nonreligious” were nearly twice as likely to report having made decisions like providing continuous deep sedation, which could accelerate a patient’s death.

That’s powerful stuff.

However, veteran religion-beat Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today had a perfectly logical reaction to the angle taken in this wire-service report. She wondered, in effect, if anyone had thought to flip the story backwards. Here’s the passage that caught her attention:

To ensure doctors are acting in accordance with their patients’ wishes, Seale wrote that “nonreligious doctors should confess their predilections to their patients.” Seale also found that doctors who were religious were much less likely to have talked about end of life treatment decisions with their patients.

According to guidelines from the British Medical Association, doctors must not allow their religious beliefs to interfere with their treatment of patients.

Thus, Grossman asked the following in a post at her Faith & Reason weblog:

Which is the grabber headline here?

Nonreligious British physicians let — or lead - their severely ill patients die earlier than religious docs do.

Or …

Religious British physicians may prolong dying patients pain.

Associated Press led with the first concept, but is the real story the second one?

That’s a great question and Grossman asked several more. For example, did the study contain any information about whether these irreligious doctors were or were not following the expressed wishes of their patients? Here’s another one: Is there any way to know how many religious doctors were acting without discussing with their patients the relevant end-of-life-care issues? What percentage?

Now, I realize this was a short news story about a hellishly complex topic and, frankly, it raised more questions than it answered.

However, I couldn’t help but ponder another question. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the hospice-care moment knows that religious groups — especially Catholic groups — have played major roles in the development of this kind of compassionate care, which stresses the relief of pain as patients proceed towards natural death. (Here’s a recent Scripps Howard column of mine on a topic related to that.)

When it comes to leadership by religious groups, Catholics are not alone in their concern about patients and clergy working with doctors in the preparation of these kinds of end-of-life directives.

So, who are these “very religious” doctors who are less likely to discuss these kinds of questions with patients (and one would assume their families and clergy)? What traditions do they represent? What churches? This is a case in which you just know that there are subgroups inside that terribly vague umbrella term, just as there are sure to be complex clusters of doctors under the “atheist” and “agnostic” terms.

But one thing is for sure. This study is fascinating and disturbing and points toward important news topics (plural), especially in the United States in which (here’s an understatement) there are probably more doctors in pews every weekend than there are in the UK.

More information, please. Pronto.

Tmatt already looked at some early coverage of the “Restoring Honor” rally held in Washington this weekend. I went down to the Lincoln Memorial to catch part of it but couldn’t even come close to hearing, much less seeing, what was going on. But I did meet a ton of people. It was a completely different event than the tea parties I’ve seen. Last September, there was a huge gathering in D.C. of people upset at the size and scope of the federal governemnt. This was even before health care legislation was signed into law. The protesters carried thousands upon thousands of creative and witty signs and it was really something to see. I was pretty sure I’d never seen a protest with so many employed people, or so many people who had children. And grandchildren.

This past weekend’s event was just dramatically different. It also had more post-college attendees than a typical protest. But there were literally no signs. And there were no politics, if by politics we mean discussion of the current administration or Congress, pending or passed legislation, and what not. So it was just tons of people coming together to talk about faith and values. It was the biggest civil religion event I’d seen since the 2008 Obama campaign.

I’m highly sensitive to civil religion, seeing as how I am working on a book about it. So my ears pricked up when I heard (in the only snippet I heard and, so help me, I may have gotten this wrong) Glenn Beck say something about how the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are “sacred texts.” Now, depending on how strictly or loosely you define “sacred,” that may hit you differently. But that’s pure American civil religion. When I watched this Reason video, I heard much more civil religion. About how “our faith has driven us to become the greatest people the world has ever known” … “Faith is in short supply. To restore America, we must restore ourselves. We must rediscover the values and principles that the Founders established. We must restore the faith that once guided us.” It’s faith language, but without any doctrinal specificity, a lowest-common denominator deity (if such a thing is possible).

Now, while I’m no fan of civil religion myself, this language parallels a lot of the language you hear from any successful American politician. President Obama’s campaign rhetoric and some of his speeches as president have been full of civil religion references. As I visited the Lincoln Memorial yesterday, I was reminded of how our 16th President was the master of the civil religion rhetoric. As I walked home, I heard part of a Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., speech that was a powerful mixture of Christian sermon and American politics.

So I was curious to see how well the media “got” the civil religion angle. And in some cases, they did great. I thought Jon Ward at the Daily Caller understood it with his article headlined “In front of historic crowd on the Mall, Beck makes plea for spiritual renewal and self-government.” Here’s a portion:

Beck’s presupposition was that America is at a crisis point and its citizens are in danger of losing their power for self-government because they have grown lazy and apathetic and allowed it to atrophy.

“America is great because America is good … America is only what we choose her to be, we as individuals must be good so America can be great,” he said. “We’ve grown tired. We’ve grown weak. We’re dividing ourselves. There is growing hatred in the country. We must be better than what we’ve allowed ourselves to become. We must get the poison of hatred out of us. No matter what anyone might say or do, no matter what anyone smears or lies or throws our way … we must look to God and look to love.”

Beck made clear that he was not advocating for any one religion. He brought a group of clergy onto the stage and encouraged those at the rally and watching online or on TV to “go to your churches, your synagogues, your mosques, anyone who is not preaching hate and division, anyone who is not teaching to kill another man.”

“These men and women don’t agree on fundamentals. They don’t agree on everything that every church teaches,” Beck said of the clergy behind him on stage. “What they do agree on is God is the answer.”

Ward got very detailed, explaining Beck’s Mormonism and the particular religious views of many of the speakers. Other media outlets completely missed the subtext and details that could help clarify just what, exactly, was happening in Washington this weekend. A GetReligion reader sent in this Associated Press story that failed to mention or even allude to civil religion once. And it also never mentioned anything about Glenn Beck’s faith. It’s headlined “Beck rally signals election trouble for Dems” and, you will not be surprised, it interprets the day’s events through the typical political prism:

Neither Democrats nor Republicans can afford to ignore the antiestablishment fervor displayed Saturday during Beck’s rally that took on the tone of an evangelical revival.

And then there was this attempt to explain:

The tea party is essentially a loosely organized band of anti-tax, libertarian-leaning political newcomers who are fed up with Washington and take some of their cues from Beck. While the movement drew early skepticism from establishment Republicans, these same GOP powerbrokers now watch it with a wary eye as activists have mounted successful primary campaigns against incumbents.

The Beck rally further demonstrated the tea party activists’ growing political clout.

If the GOP is able to contain and cooperate with the tea party, and recharge its evangelical wing with Beck-style talk of faith, it spells the kind of change Ratliff and others like him are searching for.

See, the thing that was so interesting about Saturday’s event is that it felt like a different set of people who are fed up with Washington than the group that had been protesting previously. It is true that the earlier tea party protests were libertarian-leaning. (And I can spot libertarians in their natural environment up to one mile away.) This was not a libertarian event. I am unclear as to how much overlap there is between this group and the other groups. I remember last year people kept wanting me to write about the religious angle to the 9/12 rally and I kept explaining that there wasn’t one. Well, there was a huge (civil) religion angle at this event.

Anyway, it’s hard to trust a reporter to get the political nuance when he doesn’t even note that Beck is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Needless to say, the term “evangelical” isn’t usually used in close proximity to that church. And it wasn’t just an oversight since later the reporter writes:

Beck, who speaks openly about his Christian faith on his radio and cable news shows, relied heavily on religion during his speech, perhaps offering up a playbook for tea party activists and Republicans this November.

Now, if you want to have a fun comment war, open up the question of whether Mormons are Christian. We will not be doing that here so if you’re inclined to debate the issue, find another venue! In any case, Mormons call themselves Christian. Most Christian church bodies, whether progressive or traditional, would not. I’ve thought a lot about this issue, having family members who are Mormon or have converted from Mormonism. It’s a contentious topic which requires a good deal of understanding of theology, history, the importance or unimportance of creedal confessions, etc. Obviously reporters aren’t going to get into all of that. I think that the best option when writing stories is to explain the debate in the briefest of terms or to simply describe people as members of whatever church or group they are. Mormon, evangelical, Presbyterian, charismatic, etc.

But this AP story managed to treat the hot topic like it wasn’t an issue at all. Perhaps that’s because the reporter, Phil Elliott, is a political reporter unaware of all of these nuances. But any further treatment of this topic could use the help of a religion reporter to navigate these tricky areas.

In my 20-year reporting career, I’ve covered wildfires, floods and tornadoes. In 1995, I heard the explosion at the bombed federal building in Oklahoma City and raced that direction. Never, though, had I seen the kind of devastation that followed Hurricane Katrina five years ago.

I first viewed the disaster scene from the air as I joined a church relief group assessing damages days after Katrina struck. I didn’t make it into New Orleans city limits until a few months later, and even then, I was overwhelmed by what I saw.

In one column, I described the scene this way:

The view on the ground revealed miles and miles of debris — miniature mountains of tree limbs, mattresses, broken chairs, smashed toy robots and mildewed stuffed animals piled high outside thousands of homes.

Equally striking were the bright red X’s painted on each front door, showing the date inspected by search teams and the number of bodies, if any, found inside.

Since 2005, I have returned to New Orleans a handful of times, most recently to work on a five-year anniversary package for The Christian Chronicle. Each time I go back, I am struck by the progress — remarkable progress, in many ways — the Crescent City has made. Still, and you already know this if you caught any of the media coverage this weekend, the Big Easy has not made it all the way back.

Given my personal connection to New Orleans (and really, you can’t experience the spirit of the people there without feeling a personal connection), I was interested in reading the coverage of the “faith angle” as that city reached another milestone anniversary of Aug. 29, 2005. In advance of President Barack Obama’s visit to mark the anniversary Sunday, a bit of controversy emerged over an abortion-rights president speaking at a Catholic university (see reports by Fox and Time), but nothing rising to the level of a full-scale Notre Dame furor.

More interesting to me are the stories of how the city’s faithful have weathered the storm. Unfortunately, the main Associated Press story on Sunday’s anniversary gave short shrift to religion, except for this small section:

Members of First Grace United Methodist Church in mid-city New Orleans celebrated the city’s renewal. Church membership, once down to 50 people, now stands at 180, Pastor Shawn Moses Anglim said.

“After every flood, there is going to be a rainbow,” he said.

Church member Martha Ward, a 69-year-old anthropologist at the University of New Orleans, told the congregation that Katrina and the ensuing evacuation are the reason she married her longtime boyfriend.

“This church is a miracle. It’s the face of New Orleans,” she said, referring to the multicultural congregation that attends the church.

There’s one big number missing from that first paragraph. Where did church membership start? Were there 500 members before Katrina? 300? That’s important information. Moreover, the description of the church as “a miracle” certainly seems to lend itself to more elaborate exploration.

Later in the story, there’s this:

Since Katrina struck on Aug. 29, 2005, the Lower 9th Ward has seen thousands of volunteers help gut homes, clean up yards and rebuild homes and businesses. It also has become the focal point in an effort since Katrina to make the city more eco-friendly. Groups like Global Green USA, the Sierra Club and movie star Brad Pitt have helped make the Lower 9th Ward into a greener neighborhood. A new eco-friendly village is sprouting near the Industrial Canal floodwall that broke and there are several groups making the Lower 9th Ward the focus of environmental plans. Recently, a plan was announced to build a community center, using U.S. Department of Energy funds, in the neighborhood where people can also learn about climate change.

OK, we’ve got thousands of volunteers gutting homes, cleaning up yards and rebuilding homes and businesses. But why? Could their faith have anything to do with it? I know from my own reporting that people of faith played a tremendous role in New Orleans’ recovery (which is not to imply that every volunteer was motivated by a belief in God). But unlike Global Green USA and the Sierra Club, churches and faith-based organizations merit no specific mention in the AP roundup. That’s a shame.

I did come across a couple of Katrina-related stories that I would encourage GetReligion readers to check out. I’ll save the best for last.

First, The Times Picayune, New Orleans’ Pulitzer Prize-winning hometown newspaper, featured a compelling piece on some of the city’s cultural touchstones swept away by Katrina:

Whatever the reason, New Orleanians seem to have an almost sacred attachment to clubs, bars, po-boy shops, churches, schools and playgrounds.

“Tradition is a cultural heirloom that people in this community will pass from one generation to the next,” said Xavier University sociologist Silas Lee. “And they can be very aggressive about protecting some aspects of tradition.”

I chuckled at the sacred attachment to churches (who woulda thunk it?), but the piece contains a revealing look at what happened to some of New Orleans’ historic Catholic churches as a result of the storm:

Some New Orleans institutions survived Katrina just fine, only to become collateral damage in the aftershocks that followed.

Take St. Henry’s Catholic Church, padlocked by the Archdiocese of New Orleans in 2008 as part of a vast reorganization after Katrina. Defiant parishioners, already coping with the painful loss of homes and family members, drew a line in the sand.

“It was sad because so many people had such deep roots there,” said Alden Hagardorn, a leader of the resistance movement, which staged a lengthy sit-in to keep the 153-year-old church open. “So many of our older parishioners who had been baptized at St. Henry wanted to be buried there.

“A lot of us felt offended and some drifted away from their faith. After the shock and anger wore off, there were feelings of embarrassment that the church hierarchy had turned its back on them.”

Finally, The New York Times paints a marvelous portrait of the long, slow return of New Orleans’ black churches. It’s a 1,000-word feature that seems to use every word to disclose important, insightful detail:

NEW ORLEANS — Five minutes past 9:30 a.m. on a Sunday this month, which is to say five minutes past the time the worship service was supposed to start, Shantell Henley pushed open the front door of her pastor’s house in the Lower Ninth Ward. She entered the living room to find a gospel song playing on the stereo, two ceiling fans stirring the sticky air and 25 folding chairs for the congregants waiting empty.

“Am I late?” she asked the pastor, the Rev. Charles W. Duplessis.

“No,” he replied, smiling. “We’re Baptists.”

His joke, though, could not dispel the truth. The problem at Mount Nebo Bible Baptist Church had nothing to do with any Baptist indifference to punctuality and everything to do with Hurricane Katrina, even as its fifth anniversary on Aug. 29 approached.

This was my favorite paragraph:

As every level of government has failed to restore more than a fraction of former residents to habitable homes, the black churches have tried desperately to return through a combination of sacrifice, insurance and charity. And anyone with an even cursory understanding of African-American life knows that without vibrant churches, the Lower Ninth can never truly rise again.

Ordinarily, I’d ask for a source to back up such a sweeping claim. In this case, I think I’ll just shake my head and agree.

Once upon a time, I had one of the best seats at the famous “Stand in the Gap” rally held on the National Mall in 1997 by the Promise Keepers organization, since I served as a kind of religion-news color commentator for MSNBC — the only network that covered that massive event from dawn to dusk.

At the end of the day, several things intrigued me.

First of all, it was obvious to me that hardly any of the journalists present gave a flip what anyone on the stage was saying. Everybody was there to cover the interactions that they hoped took place between the counter-demonstrators and the men, young and old, for what I called the “Woodstock of the charismatic renewal movement.”

Alas, all the men wanted to do was sing and pray. Bummer.

Since hardly anyone in the press was listening, few people noticed that (a) many of the speakers were Democrats of color and (b) that hardly anyone was taking potshots at President Bill Clinton. In fact, most of the rhetoric that day stressed that the nation’s problems most pressing problems were moral in nature and, thus, couldn’t be solved with legislation. There was a profound sense of disappointment in the air that day with politics in general. If anyone needed to be worried, I said on the air, it was Newt Gingrich and the GOP leadership since many of the keepers sounded like they were upset with Beltway politicians — period.

So what does this have to do with the Glenn Beck rally yesterday at the Lincoln Memorial?

Probably very little, since (a) I know next to nothing about Beck (I have never seen his show) and (b) I don’t know much about what happened at his big show since the main story in the Washington Post about this event offers next to nothing in terms of content from any of the presentations. Honest. Please read the thing for yourself.

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck on Saturday drew a sea of activists to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, where he championed a religious brand of patriotism and called on the nation to recommit itself to traditional values he said were hallmarks of its exceptional past.

On the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, steps away from where it was delivered, Beck and fellow “tea party” icon Sarah Palin staked a claim to King’s legacy and to that of the Founding Fathers. They urged a crowd that stretched to the Washington Monument to concentrate on the nation’s accomplishments rather than on its psychological scars.

“Something that is beyond man is happening,” Beck said. “America today begins to turn back to God.”

Boy howdy, I can really sink my teeth into that. Later on, we get this chunk of content:

Beck, a Fox News host, has developed a national following by assailing President Obama and Democrats, and he warned Saturday that “our children could be slaves to debt.” But he insisted that the rally “has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with God, turning our faith back to the values and principles that made us great.”

King’s niece Alveda King, an anti-abortion activist, addressed Beck’s rally with a plea for prayer “in the public squares of America and in our schools.” Referencing her “Uncle Martin,” King called for national unity by repeatedly declaring “I have a dream.”

So Alveda King spoke (video here)? That’s interesting, although I think it is a bit narrow to call her an anti-abortion activist — period. I am sure that she considers herself both an ordained minister — so this reference should, under Associated Press style, refer to her as the Rev. Alveda King — and a human-rights activist. She is a former legislator in Georgia, too, elected as a Democrat. (Here is a piece that she wrote before the rally.)

By the way, if African-Americans are conservative on life issues, does that cancel out everything else that they do? Curious.

The key for journalists, once again, is not what anyone actually said at the Beck rally or at the counterpoint rally led by the Rev. Al Sharpton — who is allowed, unlike King, to retain his ordination. What really matters, you see, is the political implications of these events. Quoting lots of religion talk might warp the template prepared in advance for the coverage.

One more detail struck me.

The simultaneous rallies rendered the country’s political and racial divisions in stark relief.

Sharpton drew a mostly black crowd of union members, church-goers, college students and civil rights activists. …

The Beck crowd, meanwhile, was overwhelmingly white, and many in the crowd described themselves as conservatives with deep concern about the country’s political leadership and its direction.

OK, I like the attempt to give us a bit of insight into the composition of the Sharpton crowd. But where is the similar information about the faithful in the Beck congregation? Any church-goers? College students? Any Catholics? Conservative Jews? Human rights activists on issues such as international slavery, sexual trafficking, hunger, the right to life, etc.? Were the folks in one crowd worried about politics and the folks in the other crowd unconcerned about that subject?

Enough. Once again, I wish I knew more about what people on both sides actually said. I’d like to make up my own mind, if possible, about the content of both events.

It also sounds, to me, that if anyone should be concerned after the Beck event, it should be the whole Vice President Dick Cheney wing of moral libertarians who are not all that interested in social and religious issues. Right? Also, does this mean that the Tea Party Movement’s leadership is slightly out of touch with its own base, in terms of thinking that economic issues are all that matters?

Just asking.

I always find it curious how the media cover the Episcopal Church so differently than other denominations in America. Remember all of the stories in recent years about dioceses and parishes leaving, the property disputes and realignments? Well, another church group is facing something similar, and for related reasons. Last year the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to roster gay clergy who are in committed sexual relationships. Not just the vote but the reasoning behind it — which more traditional Lutherans viewed as an unacceptable rejection of Scripture as the source and norm of doctrine — led a similar exodus of parishioners and congregations. At least I think it was similar, but the coverage is making me wonder if it was wildly different.

Just for example, the Minneapolis Star Tribune downplayed the departures. Here’s the headline:

Gay clergy debate: Lutherans bowed but not broken

A major fracture in the nation’s largest Lutheran denomination over gay clergy hasn’t materialized, though painful spiritual wounds remain.

So I guess I’m curious why the Episcopal Church story was such a big deal and this isn’t. Maybe it’s the numbers.

The ELCA is a much larger denomination than the Episcopal Church, even if it gets only a tiny fraction of the news coverage. The ECUSA has just over 2 million members while the ELCA has over 4.6 million. The Episcopal Church has 110 dioceses and 7100 parishes. The ELCA has only 65 synods (subdivisions) but around 10,300 congregations.

Most media reports tell the story that only 200 congregations had left by the beginning of this month with a hundred or so other congregations int he process. That does not include congregations like this 1,700-member congregation in Iowa that just this week fell two votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed on the second vote (held 90 days after the first vote, mind you). So the congregation will remain ELCA but I wonder if the majority of the congregation that wishes not to be a part of the ELCA will simply form a new congregation or decide that everything’s cool now. I have no idea.

Okay, now when the Episcopal Church went through its unpleasantness, I think four dioceses left (San Joaquin, Quincy, Pittsburgh and Fort Worth). Or didn’t leave, depending on your interpretation of exactly what happened. But the two denominations are organized very differently. How many Episcopal parishes left? I’m not entirely sure. This U.S. News & World Report story from 2009 says that the official count from the Episcopal Church is 83 out of 7,100. That strikes me as a low number, though. Anyone know if that count is accurate?

But let’s say U.S. News is right. That means that, as a percentage of the total number of congregations, more Lutheran congregations left in less than a year since the big gay vote than Episcopal congregations left in six years after that church body consecrated a gay bishop. So that doesn’t explain the disparity.

Now, I’m not saying that the departure of 200 congregations in under a year is huge, although it would be the news of the year in my church body, which has around 6,500 congregations. But the disparity in coverage does seem odd to me. Let me know if you have any thoughts about why the coverage might differ. I’m still thinking that 83 count must be too low. Maybe the “official” count doesn’t include the many dozens of congregations included in those diocesan departures.

Anyway, since we’re on the topic, this gives me a chance to look at a story a reader sent in weeks ago from the Lehigh Valley Express Times. It’s kind of weird.

St. John’s Lutheran Church of Easton may become the first Christian church in the city to offer the equivalent of a marriage ceremony for same-gendered couples.

Pastor Susan Ruggles said she would like to discuss with the congregation the possibility of offering “blessing services,” which is essentially the same as a marriage ceremony, but without the legal recognition.

The reader who submitted the story thought it a bid odd that the reporter would quote the pastor talking about her proposal without actually interviewing any congregational members about their reaction.

Then we get this bit:

Last year, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ruled it would leave it up to individual churches whether to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

I’m not entirely sure that’s true. In fact, I think it’s not true.

The piece then goes on to get the perspective of a sectarian gay advocacy group before “balancing” the piece out with comments from a secular gay advocacy group with no connection to the church. That person suggests that the Lutherans should make sure they call their commitment ceremony — the one that hasn’t been discussed with the congregation itself, apparently — marriage even if the law doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

And there are no quotes from the opposition. But other than that, it’s a very accurate and balanced story.

There will be many more stories about these larger issues as a new Lutheran denomination — the North American Lutheran Church — was born on Friday. Let us know if you see any particularly good or bad coverage, please.

Most controversy in Green Bay revolves around the Packers, so it was a little surprising to see some tension after a group sought approval to develop a mosque in a shuttered bait and tackle shop just down the road from my house.

It probably would not be merited with front-page coverage before the proposed mosque in New York City exploded in national media. Of course, a little aldermen shouting match helped drum up some drama. But Green Bay serves as one example of many around the country where people are watching the specific case in New York City and applying it to their local communities. The debate in NYC includes its 9/11 history, a discussion over what is “sacred ground,” and generally a more diverse community, things that don’t tend to factor into these local debates.

Like the debate in Green Bay, similar ones are taking place around the country, as Laurie Goodstein wrote for The New York Times (and as Mollie discussed here). Earlier this week, Annie Gowen of the Washington Post filed a lengthy story from Murfreesboro, Tennessee, on the vitriol she’s seeing.

In Tennessee, three plans for new Islamic centers in the Nashville area—one of which was ultimately withdrawn—have provoked controversy and outbursts of ugliness. Members of one mosque discovered a delicately rendered Jerusalem cross spray-painted on the side of their building with the words “Muslims go home.”

The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro became a hot-button political issue during this month’s primary election, prompting failed Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron Ramsey to ask whether Islam was a “cult.”

Another candidate paid for a billboard high above Interstate 24 near Nashville that read: “Defeat Universal Jihad Now.”

Evangelist Pat Robertson weighed in Thursday, wondering on his television program whether a Muslim takeover of America was imminent and whether local officials could be bribed. (The mayor of the county where the Islamic Center is proposed called that idea “ridiculous.”)

This is creating a picture of the oppositions Muslims have faced, which is good, though quoting anonymous spray-painters, politicians, and someone (not in Tennessee) on television won’t get to the heart of how the locals really feel. Here, the reporter tries to explain to her Beltway readers what this town looks like.

Murfreesboro, about 30 miles southeast of Nashville, is a quiet town of 100,000 people, largely white conservative Christians. Residents take pride in the historic town square skirting an antebellum courthouse, the site of a famous Confederate raid during the Civil War. Patriotic banners line the lampposts. On the highway, there’s a Sonic drive-in every few miles. Gospel music radio stations are as numerous as those playing country music.

The 250 or so families — about 1,000 people — who worship at the existing Islamic Center come from around the globe and include doctors, car salesmen and students from nearby Middle Tennessee State University. Members of the mosque have raised about $600,000 to buy land and prepare the site for a 10,000-square-foot gathering place.
Plans for a school, pool and cemetery are expected to take years to complete.

That first paragraph seems so different compared to the second paragraph. If you’re reading this in Washington, D.C., the first group seems a bit wacko while the second group seems respectable. If the town is really full of white conservative Christians, it would have been appropriate to quote one of the local Christians ministers, right? What do they think about how a mosque might shape the community? How are they telling their congregants to respond?

Most of the quotes in the piece portray people opposing the mosque, including Kevin Fisher, an African American man who is leading the fight against the mosque.

Fisher said the protest was a “a beautiful example of our democracy at work.” But Lema Sbenaty, Saleh’s 19-year-old daughter and an MTSU student, didn’t see it that way.

“I don’t think I’ve ever experienced anything like that,” she said later. “You could see the hatred in their eyes.”

On Friday night, Lema and her mother, Fetoun, 47, a preschool teacher, gathered with about 200 others at the existing Islamic Center for iftar, the feasts held during the holy month of Ramadan to break the daily sunrise-to-sunset fasting.

Sbenaty’s quotes make it seem as though hatred is the only reason why people might have concerns. The Tennessean posted a story on how the mosque is under FBI radar, and it appears that Fisher’s concerns aren’t coming out of thin air, as he is portrayed earlier in the story.

Fisher spent his formative years in Buffalo, where a homegrown terrorist cell of Yemeni Americans was uncovered in 2002. Its presence in a place so familiar haunts Fisher to this day, he said. He is well aware that clerics at U.S. mosques have been accused of espousing radical views in the years before and after Sept. 11.

And he pointed out that one of the Murfreesboro mosque’s board members was suspended after the discovery of a MySpace page where he had posted Arabic poetry and a photo of the founder of the Islamic militant group Hamas. Leaders of the mosque said their internal investigation showed no wrongdoing, and they are cooperating with federal authorities looking into the matter.

The question the reporter is getting at here is: why are people concerned about the mosque. Then readers can discern whether the evidence allows for concern. Reporters should make extra efforts to look at both sides, why there are efforts to build a mosque and why there might be opposition.

For other reporters considering local coverage, it’s worth looking at the religious population in the local community and then finding the major religious leaders. How are religious leaders dealing with Muslim relations? In Murfreesboro, for instance, do the pastors make any mention in the sermons? In a town that hosts some big churches, surely one of those white conservative Christians believes in freedom of religion for everyone.

The first image is the Memphis Al-Rasool Mosque in Tennessee via Wikimedia Commons. The second image of one of those big churches in Murfreesboro is courtesy of Wiki.

A frequent and, in my opinion often logical, criticism of this website is that we tend to stretch logic while seeking out the religion “ghosts” that we believe are hidden between the lines in important stories in the mainstream press.

Stop and think about this for a minute.

Sometimes we have to do a bit of stretching, a bit of creative connecting of the dots, in order to see the religion-news angles. After all, we are trying to point out connections that other people are not seeing. We see them. That’s why we do what we do. In particular, that’s why I’ve been pounding my head on the newsroom wall for 30-plus years, talking about the need for improved coverage on this beat.

So, here I go again. However, let me state right up front that I am talking about a ghost that I have seen talented professionals miss several times in newsrooms in which I have worked.

The Washington Post ran an A1 news story today that has absolutely no religion in it whatsoever. The headline on this report — a local story, but with national implications — was depressing, in part because it could have been written last year, or the previous decade, or the decade before that. It proclaimed: “Progress slows in closing achievement gaps in D.C. schools.” Here’s the top of this story, which focuses on a major issue of social justice in this nation:

After two years of progress, Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee’s effort to narrow the vast achievement gap separating white and African American students in D.C. public schools has stalled, an analysis of 2010 test score data shows. …

Data that Rhee released this week show that the difference in the percentages of white and black students who score at proficiency levels on the annual D.C. Comprehensive Assessment System tests had narrowed from 2007 to this year. The most significant improvement was in secondary schools, where the spread in math achievement dropped more than more 18 percentage points, from 70 to 51.4 percent. But year-to-year results show that progress has slowed markedly. After narrowing from 2007 to last year, the gap in secondary math proficiency widened by slightly less than 2 percentage points. Secondary reading scores show the same flattening trajectory.

The District’s struggle to close academic divides based on race and ethnicity is playing out in school systems across the country, where progress has also stagnated.

A key element of the story is its relentless attempt to frame this story completely in elements of race and, between the lines, political clout. That is understandable. In addition to look at the gap between black and white, the study also included statistics about trends among Hispanic students. The numbers were depressing there, too.

So you read and you read and the story gets more and more frustrating. I cannot imagine how painful this must be for people who have devoted their lives to fighting for this cause.

At the very end of the report, another theme makes a brief appearance:

Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, said that although good schools and good teachers can make a difference in the lives of poor children, the persistence of the achievement gaps may also suggest that there is a limit to their reach.

“Part of this hitting the wall may be the troubling fact that we may need to somehow attack family poverty before we see greater progress in closing achievement,” Fuller said.

Without a doubt, poverty plays a hellish role in this drama. Thus, it may help to ask, “What has been the most consistent cause of urban poverty in recent generations?”

So here is my leap of logic. On two different occasions I have been in newsrooms that attempted to research large news projects linked to the welfare of young people and, in particular, discovering what makes them successful in the classroom and in life. Both times, I learned about these project after work had already begun to frame the issues, develop the survey materials and even lay out the day-to-day flow of the coverage.

After all, I was the religion reporter. The key elements were sure to be race, politics and money. Correct?

In both cases, I noted that — when the survey numbers came in — they would find that, at the very top of the list of factors predicting success (and, thus, factors that in their absence would help predict failure) would be (a) whether the students came from intact homes, especially homes containing a father, and (b) whether the students were active in positive, constructive activities outside the home — especially if those activities were rooted in religious congregations or organizations.

Why did I make these observations?

During my studies in American history I had been exposed to the writings of that great leader in the Democratic Party, Daniel Patrick Moynihan — especially his controversial 1965 report “The Negro Family: The Case For National Action (text here),” for the United States Department of Labor.

As it turned out, family structure turned out to be directly linked to poverty — a fact that is so obvious now that people hardly argue about the subject these days. Yes, I know that discussing this topic raises troubling moral and even religious questions. That’s the point.

Still, in these studies of the Washington, D.C., schools, has anyone factored family structure into the equation alongside the race factor? How do African-American and Hispanic students fare when they are from intact homes, in contrast to the numbers seen in homes that are broken or in homes in which marriages never formed in the first place?

In the studies I have seen in the past, students have fared better when they are reared in homes strong in religious faith (and, of course, reading). Were researchers allowed to ask about this?

In Denver, I once asked an editor if anyone thought to compare the success of Hispanic students in public schools with those in religious private schools, when taking into account issues of family structure and income. In other words, how did a child from a single-parent, low-income home fare in a public school in comparison with a child from the exact same background who was attending a Catholic school in the same neighborhood.

The editor’s response was a classic. That would not be a fair comparison, he stressed, because the mothers (since most single parents are female) who sacrificed and worked and scrapped to enable their children to attend the parish school would almost certainly be much more committed to the welfare of their children than the other mothers. They would also might have the advantage of having their religious faith as a motivation, helping them promote more discipline in the home. This would help them work in cooperation with their teachers and school administrators, too. They might have been educated in Catholic schools, themselves.

Precisely. As it turned out, the overwhelming majority of the region’s most successful Hispanic leaders (from single-parent homes, as well as homes with two parents) in a variety of fields came from Catholic schools. This factor received little coverage in the package, since no one had thought to include it. The religion factor did not fit into a news template that was based on, yes, race, politics and money.

Can you see the ghosts?

Like the Berkeley professor said, good schools and good teachers are important. But there are other factors at play in the classrooms of many American schools. However, to look for these factors one must be willing to admit that they might exist in the first place.

Imagine if this had been an episode of “Taxicab Confessions.”

A young man hops into a cab and begins asking his driver where he’s from and whether he is Muslim. After a little small talk over Ramadan — it’s that time — the fare starts making odd references to a “checkpoint,” then pulls a knife and slashes and stabs the cab driver.

By now, you’ve no doubt heard about the attempted murder and hate crime allegedly committed by Michael Enright. What I only learned yesterday though when reading this New York Times article is Enright’s own religious beliefs:

Mr. Enright is also a volunteer with Intersections International, an initiative of the Collegiate Churches of New York that promotes justice and faith across religions and cultures. The organization, which covered part of Mr. Enright’s travel expenses to Afghanistan, has been a staunch supporter of the Islamic center near ground zero. Mr. Enright volunteered with the group’s veteran-civilian dialogue project.

Joseph Ward III, the director of communications for Intersections, said that if Mr. Enright had been involved in a hate crime, it ran “counter to everything Intersections stands for” and was shocking.

This is a surprising revelation. And I hate to say that. But the narrative out there has been that it’s those wacky right-wingers who hate Islam and do crazy things to show it. Here, though, we have allegations against a guy who doesn’t really sound like a liberal but was affiliated with a liberal Christian organization.

Oddly, a search Google search using these limits — enright liberal christian — returns nothing from the MSM except a few comments at Salon and Politico. Interesting.

But neither does N.R. Kleinfield use the term “liberal” in this NYT story, so maybe this angle has gotten some attention that I’ve missed.

Also of note, this story included an eloquent quote from my favorite Jewish conservative politician, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg:

“This attack runs counter to everything that New Yorkers believe, no matter what God we may pray to.”

But this had been preceded by a quote, also from a prepared statement, from the national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Nihad Awad, that seemed totally out of line:

“As other American minorities have experienced, hate speech often leads to hate crimes. Sadly, we’ve seen how the deliberate public vilification of Islam can lead some individuals to violence against innocent people.”

It seems a lot of people want to tie every event involving Muslims these days to sentiments towards the Near Ground Zero Mosque. I went over this the other day in the post about the end of Ramadan. But there is no — absolutely ZERO — support for the proposition that Enright’s alleged attack was motivated, or even psychologically encouraged, by opposition to the lower Manhattan Islamic center.

Awad’s comment is straight spin and it deserved at least some exploration.