Let’s just get right to it. This Los Angeles Times piece about the religious views of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is pretty much worthless.
Considering that I am a journalist, I’m somewhat sad to report that I believe nothing I read or watch when it comes to coverage of Palin. I have seen way too high an error rate, way too much in the way of unsourced allegations presented as fact, way too much seething anger, even about issues that have nothing to do with religion.
But let’s look at this Los Angeles Times piece, one of the many recent examples of this phenomenon. Here’s the headline:
Palin treads carefully between fundamentalist beliefs and public policy
Which would be a fine headline. If PALIN WERE A FUNDAMENTALIST. She’s not. Here’s what the Associated Press Stylebook says about using 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.
We get it. You hate her. She makes you kuh-razy. But don’t stop following basic journalism practices just because you’re enraged by a popular conservative female in power.
I wrote before that the headline would be fine if Palin were a fundamentalist. But even if she were (which, again for the slow readers at the LA Times, she is not) the term is not to be used because it has become pejorative. For how long has it been pejorative? Many, many decades. Get with the times. In the 1910s and 1920s, the term referred to a Christian who believed in the “fundamentals” of the faith — the Virgin Birth of Christ, his sinless life, his atoning death, his bodily resurrection and his second coming in the clouds of glory. But since that time, the term has become an insult. Everyone knows this. And just because you want to insult the governor of Alaska doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate to do so on the news pages.
Sigh.
So should we even go past the headline? It doesn’t exactly get better. The story begins with a claim (from a political opponent who runs a blog called Progressive Alaska) about Palin that isn’t backed up by any independent source. Needless to say, there’s no context. It’s hard to even see how the claim is relevant. The claim is that Palin is, no, no, no, everyone shield their eyes, a particularly unacceptable creationist. I know. Can you believe it? The horror. You know, it’s clear that the mainstream media is biased against the views held by a strong plurality of Americans, but telling readers that 48 percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form (compared with the 13 percent who believe in strict evolution and 30 percent who believe in theistic evolution) wouldn’t scare people as much, would it.
Reporter Steve Braun then repeats a number of discredited claims about Palin, such as this:
Though in her race for governor she called for faith-based “intelligent design” to be taught along with evolution in Alaska’s schools, Gov. Palin has not sought to require it, state educators say.
Actually, she said that if the topic came up, teachers shouldn’t be afraid to discuss it. She further clarified her remarks to make sure her views were known. But why bother including that? Incidentally, more than twice as many Americans think that creationism should be taught alongside evolution as Americans who think it should just be evolution. Not, again, that you’d know that from mainstream media coverage. Braun concedes that she has governed in a manner completely different than his lede would imply, neither pushing for special legislative sessions to change abortion laws nor challenging a court ruling permitting health insurance for same-sex partners of state workers.
But … but … what do you make of this:
Her aides say Palin’s caution at the intersection of religion and governance is a studied effort to share her beliefs without forcing them on Alaska.
“She’s obviously an intensively religious person,” said Bill McAllister, Palin’s chief spokesman as governor. “She understands that she’s the governor and not preacher in chief. Religion informs her decisions, but she is not out to impose her views on Alaska.”
Isn’t it funny how the quote from Bill McAllister in no way supports the claim Braun makes in the set-up paragraph? I’ve noticed a lot of that in Palin stories.
And then here we go again:
[John] Stein said Palin displayed only hints of her fundamentalist Assembly of God upbringing when he first backed her for a nonpartisan run for Wasilla City Council in the early 1990s.
Again, “fundamentalist” doesn’t actually mean “church whose religious views stray from the Book of Common Prayer.” It doesn’t mean “rubes who actually believe the Bible.”
Considering that Palin is the most popular governor in America, it’s funny how every story I read about her predominantly quotes her political opponents. It’s like that 80 percent of Alaskans who favor her are just more or less invisible. To that end, Braun quotes more from Stein, who, again, she defeated.
There’s this:
But since taking office in December 2006, Palin has made no moves to impose the teaching of creationism or “intelligent design,” the modern version of creationist thought, in Alaska schools.
Yes, the vociferous opponents of intelligent design call it “the modern version of creationist thought.” But proponents of intelligent design, such as agnostic David Berlinski, have explained why such a caricature is inaccurate. And should the Los Angeles Times be taking a side on this issue in a news story? No, of course not.
Okay, Braun, did you say “fundamentalist” enough? Did you marginalize Palin enough? Do you have anything else to say?
Although she now worships in traditional fundamentalist churches in Wasilla and Juneau, Palin’s formative years in Pentecostal churches have been a target for some bloggers and Democratic opponents.
Feel better now? The thing I don’t get about stories like this is that they aren’t really informative. Sure, they tell us what people who don’t like Palin think about her. But what about some thoughtful and fair discussions of Palin’s religious views? They are certainly newsworthy. Have we ever had a member of a Bible church on a national ticket? Have we ever had someone with a Pentecostal background?
If you’re looking for a thoughtful analysis of Palin’s religious views and how they affect public policy, you should read Terry Eastland’s piece in the most recent The Weekly Standard. Even though Eastland and the Standard are conservative, most of the piece is just descriptive, such as this:
Of these four churches, two—Wasilla Assembly of God and Juneau Christian Center—are members of the Assemblies of God. Founded in 1914, the Assemblies of God is the largest Pentecostal denomination in the country. Pentecostalism—which takes its name from the day of Pentecost when, according to the Book of Acts, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles—is a movement that began in 1901 and is best known for its emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit, including speaking in tongues. The other two churches are freestanding congregations. The Church on the Rock is “charismatic,” a term usually applied to more recent forms of Pentecostalism, while Wasilla Bible, the Palins’ present church, is neither Pentecostal nor charismatic.
Reporters ask whether Palin has ever spoken in tongues. Her spokeswoman has said that Palin doesn’t consider herself a Pentecostal. A friend of Palin’s told the New York Times that her family left Wasilla Assembly of God for Wasilla Bible in part because the latter’s ministry was “less extreme.” Exactly what Palin may have found “extreme” at Wasilla Assembly of God is unclear. In any case, Palin retains an evident affection for Wasilla Assembly of God, as does the church for her.
It’s so odd that the mainstream media piece on Palin used scare words and unsourced allegations while the ostensibly biased piece just explains basic facts in a straightforward manner and notes when information on a topic isn’t known. The piece goes through various religious angles in Palin’s political life and looks at what’s potentially disconcerting and what’s not. After noting the much discussed prayer about Iraq, Eastland writes:
Palin wasn’t telling the students that the Iraq war is “God’s plan.” Instead she was asking them to pray that the war would in fact be a “task from God.” Beliefnet’s Steve Waldman, defending Palin, wrote that such a prayer is “a totally appropriate desire for a Christian—and for a Christian politician… . Where it gets problematic is when [Christian politicians] feel God is directing them to take particular steps or claim divine endorsement for their actions.”
Palin may have entered that problematic area when she asked the students to pray for the building of the Alaska natural gas pipeline: “God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gasline built. So pray for that.” Did Palin mean here to say that “unifying people and companies to get that gasline built” was indeed God’s will? Or was this simply a case of misspeaking?
Amazingly, Eastland didn’t use the word “fundamentalist” once.
Note: Please keep comments limited to media coverage. Not your personal views of people who believe in creation. Not your personal views of creation. Not your personal views of Palin. Discussion media coverage.
Here’s a second note, from tmatt:
Let’s be clear what MZ is saying. She is talking about the AP Stylebook and what these words actually mean. This has been a major theme here at GetReligion since day one. Click here to see some of that.
The best evidence is that Palin is an “evangelical” in the context of US religious history, not a “fundamentalist” as that movement defined itself. That is why the AP Stylebook says that the F-word should not be used in this kind of context, as an unsupported slur. To say that some one believes the Bible or believes that it is “literally true,” whatever that means, is not enough to label that person a “fundamentalist.” If the person is a Protestant, it probably is safe to say they are an “evangelical.”
Now, historically speaking, you can’t be a Pentecostal Christian — some of whom are not Trinitarian believers — and a fundamentalist. These movements actually clash on a regular basis. Ask any reporter currently covering some battles within the Southern Baptist Convention.
It is true that many newspapers have, even AP reporters have, misused the F-word in violation of their own stylebook. That’s the point of MZ’s post.
The stylebook does not address the blurring of definitions between creationism and evolution, but it should. Historically, the word Creationism referred to people who accepted a seven-, 24-hour day version of the biblical creation story.
Now, the word seems to apply to anyone who believes that God played any discernible role in creation — even through a gradual, change-over-time, common descent method of creation. The key is whether this person rejects the philosophical view that the process was random and without purpose. You would think that this position would be called “theistic evolution,” but it is not. The Materialist interpretations of the Darwinian mechanism are what the late Pope John Paul II spoke out against, while noting that there are multiple interpretations of Darwinian theory.
What MZ is calling for is a better use, by journalists, of these important words — which have historical meanings. Use neutral language. Describe people’s actions, without speculating on what they mean. Allow them to label themselves, the way you do other religious believers.
MZ is taking a side on the JOURNALISTIC issue, based on history and journalistic principles. When newspapers — such as the Los Angeles Times in this case — violate basic journalistic principles, it begins to feel like an editorial attack on a certain group or class of people.
The bottom line: It’s bad, inaccurate, journalism. And, as an agnostic Jewish friend of mine once said, any industry that spends a lot of its time mocking, or at best ignoring, the most cherished beliefs of roughly 30 to 40 percent of its potential audience is not an industry that is serious about its own survival. Is the goal to produce smaller and smaller niche publications after killing mainstream journalism?
Thus, please discuss the journalism issues. Period.
 | Posted at 12:46 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (71) |
September 29, 2008, at 1:08 am
Wow, within moments of posting, and I’ve already had to delete inappropriate comments.
Keep on topic.
The topic we discuss here is mainstream media coverage of religious news.
And be civil and nice.
September 29, 2008, at 2:15 am
Not true. “Christian fundamentalism” is acceptable AP style, always has been, as you should know. A Lexis search returns over 200 instances of the term in US newspapers in the 12 months before Palin was selected for veep. You can argue that the term shouldn’t be AP style, but to imply the LA Times is hitting below the belt by using it is deceptive.
September 29, 2008, at 3:00 am
Mollie, I don’t think this section of your post is very fair: “We get it. You hate her. She makes you kuh-razy. But don’t stop following basic journalism practices just because you’re enraged by a popular conservative female in power.”
Here’s why I think it’s unfair. Even among those who do hate her, I doubt the hatred is as indiscriminate (“popular conservative female in powerâ€) as you suggest. I doubt that Margaret Thatcher or Jeane Kirkpatrick or even Elizabeth Dole would trigger the same sort or the same level of hatred from the same people.
September 29, 2008, at 3:37 am
“But since that time, the term has become an insult. Everyone knows this.”
“Christian fundamentalist” is how I was raised to self-identify. Irrespective of AP guidelines, how else do you refer to someone who believes the Bible — and not doctrines of men or self-perpetuating hierarchies — to be the only reliable guide to salvation? Seriously, what term would YOU use, Mollie?
September 29, 2008, at 4:45 am
When you say you don’t want posts concerning people’s personal views of creation, you’re creating a barrier to discussion of one part of your post. By writing that the LA Times is taking a “side on this issue” (calling Intelligent Design “creationism”), you yourself are taking a side on the issue. …
September 29, 2008, at 6:44 am
Let’s be clear what MZ is saying.
She is talking about the AP Stylebook and what these words actually mean.
The best evidence is that Palin is an “evangelical” in the context of US religious history, not a “fundamentalist” as that movement defined itself. That is why the AP Stylebook says that the F-word should not be used in this kind of context, as an unsupported slur. To say that some one believes the Bible or believes that it is “literally true,” whatever THAT means, is not enough to label that person a “fundamentalist.” If the person is a Protestant, it probably is save to say they are an “evangelical.”
Now, historically speaking, you can’t be a Pentecostal Christian — SOME of whom are not Trinitarian believers — and a fundamentalist. These movements actually clash on a regular basis. Ask any reporter currently covering some battles within the Southern Baptist Convention.
It is true that many newspapers have, even AP reporters have, misused the F-word in violation of their own stylebook. That’s the point of MZ’s post.
The stylebook does not address the blurring of definitions between creationism and evolution, but it should. Historically, the word Creationism referred to people who accepted a seven-, 24-hour day version of the biblical creation story.
Now, the word seems to apply to anyone who believes that God played any discernible role in creation — even through a gradual, change-over-time, common descent method of creation. The key is whether this person rejects the philosophical view that the process was random and without purpose. You would think that this position would be called “theistic evolution,” but it is not. The Materialist interpretations of the Darwinian mechanism are what the late Pope John Paul II spoke out against, while noting that their are multiple interpretations of Darwinian theory.
What MZ is calling for is a better use, by journalists, of these important words — which have historical meanings. Use neutral language. Describe people’s actions, without speculating on what they mean. Allow them to label themselves, the way you do other religious believers.
MZ is taking a side on the JOURNALISTIC issue, based on history and journalistic principles. When newspapers — such as the LA Times in this case — violate basic journalistic principles, it begins to feel like an attack on a certain group or class of people.
Please discuss the journalism issues. Period.
September 29, 2008, at 9:14 am
First of all, these are the Five Fundamentals as I was taught them many years ago and as listed in Wiki:
There are, obviously, variants. Is there some reason to suppose Gov. Palin doesn’t believe these things? It’s highly likely that a “Bible Church” is, in fact, without pejorative meaning, “fundamentalist”. For the record, one of the finest, most generous, good-hearted people I know is a fundamentalist, formerly an elder in a Bible Church, though now a Baptist.
Moreover, Pentecostals most certainly can be fundamentalists. If I’m not mistaken, the Assemblies of God accept the 5 fundamentals, or some variant of them. I think it was the church growth specialist Lyle Shaller (sp?) who divided these sorts of Christians into “word fundamentalists” (Bible Church folk) and “spirit fundamentalists” (pentecostals, charismatics, so on). Of course, a Catholic charismatic would probably not be a fundamentalist, but a member of the Assemblies of God probably - probably - would be.
September 29, 2008, at 9:17 am
Let me just repeat the AP Stylebook on the matter, since it seems to be curiously absent from the discussion, despite me posting it prominently:
You can’t really get around that.
This is not a theology discussion.
This is a journalism discussion.
September 29, 2008, at 9:42 am
The LA times piece uses the term fundamentalist incorrectly in two ways. They applied it to a group that doesn’t use the word for itself, contra the stylebook suggestion, and they used the word to mean something it doesn’t. I don’t think the term is an insult, though some people view it that way (sort of like the word “liberal”), but it does mean something distinct within the Venn-diagram jumble of Evangelicals, evangelicals, fundamentalists, and pentecostals; some of whom de-emphasizing doctrinal and denominational subdivisions to begin with. It seems to me that the confusion is the best reason for the stylebook to throw up its hands and say “just try not to use it.”
September 29, 2008, at 10:02 am
Fantastic Mollie. I feel 100% the same. I can’t read through a Palin article in the Washington Post without wondering whether I’m actually going to get legitimate coverage.
September 29, 2008, at 10:30 am
Unfortunately, like so many words,the words fundamentalist and fundamentalism have, over time, become distorted in their implications, if not their actual meanings. For many people, fundamentalist has come to mean someone who is a wild-eyed religious fanatic. You know, the type who handle snakes, bomb abortion clinics, recieve messages directly from God, etc. The fact that those type people are not fundamentalists in the strict definition does not matter - they have been described so often as fundamentalists that the very word has become politically charged and scary.
Remember, it is not the strict dictionary definition of the word that matters, it is the meaning that people who read the report attach to the word. Describing someone as a fundamentalist is a way the reporter can inject his/her bias into the story, saying that this is a scary, religious nut, without actually using those words.
Unfortunate, but true.
September 29, 2008, at 10:50 am
As the Stylebook definition is wrong, and Palin clearly is a fundamentalist, the Stylebook definition should be ignored.
September 29, 2008, at 11:10 am
I disagree with Curious Presbyterian. It is the same reason that the LA Times would not refer to “Liberal Senator Barack Obama” in a news story. Even if true, it is taken to be editorializing.
September 29, 2008, at 11:11 am
Curious Presbyterian, what’s the correct definition of fundamentalist?
September 29, 2008, at 11:30 am
Do you expect journalists to have advanced degrees in theology before they can report on any aspect of religion? There are thousands and thousands of christian denominations, and you expect we are suppose to rely on the denomination to accurately pigeon-hole themselves into a correct term usage? You call Palin a conservative? What does that mean? You’ve broken your own journalistic principle. The correct term would be republican.
September 29, 2008, at 11:38 am
John - That is why the AP has a stylebook, so that journalists don’t need advanced degrees in theology. They need only to refer to the stylebook. Besides, it doesn’t take an advanced degree in theology to understand that “fundamentalist” has become a perjorative.
September 29, 2008, at 11:38 am
Is this a Get Religion first? This is the very first time I’ve read or heard “f word” used to mean something other than the swear word that starts with “f” And taking the phrase out of context as I have done gives an entirely different meaning, doesn’t it:-)
September 29, 2008, at 11:40 am
Though I would think that a journalist who writes a story on a particular candidate’s churches and religious views would acquaint themselves with those particular denominations. Wouldn’t you?
September 29, 2008, at 12:04 pm
The Stylebook is being set up here as some sort of Holy Writ that can never be gainsaid. “The Stylebook says it, I believe it, end of story.” Yet the entire argument being put forward depends on the premise that many/most journalists are inaccurate, sometimes wildly inaccurate, in making religious and denominational ascriptions and definitions. Yet journalists amazingly got it 100% correct this one and perhaps only time, in the Stylebook, which is forever true and unchanging. A likely story!
The Stylebook is clearly wrong on this, times move on and definitions change. [And by the way, it’s a logical fallacy to argue that a new definition must be proposed before an old one can be perceived to be erroneous.]
One of the ways the Stylebook is in error is when it claims that the ascription “fundamentalist” is “pejorative.” Fundamentalists themselves disagree: they are proud to be known as fundamentalists and wear the name as a badge of honour. They have not the slightest problem being called fundamentalists and do NOT consider it pejorative, as to them it merely means that they subscribe to the historic Fundamentals. So in its strict meaning, and the argument above is that strict meanings should be adhered to, to call someone a fundamentalist is not pejorative, no matter what the Stylebook claims.
Has Palin called herself an “evangelical”? If not, and self-ascription is the rule, then we aren’t allowed to call her an evangelical either. As Palin seems to be saying nothing about her religious beliefs, no self-ascription is possible, so going by that rule the press has to just shut up and say nothing until Palin herself “self-ascribes”!
September 29, 2008, at 12:29 pm
CURIOUS:
Well, you are simply wrong — unless you want journalism to turn into meaningless name calling.
Stylebooks develop over time and across the nation as a kind of common law. They are there for a reason and, in this case, the logic of the “fundamentalist” ruling has also been echoed recently by the self studies at the New York Times. You may want to check that out.
Fundamentalists who call themselves fundamentalists can be called fundamentalists. People who believe the historic doctrines of that movement can be described in terms of what they believe that is relevant to the story.
If you want to violate AP Style as a rule, go work for a publication that practices advocacy journalism.
The other key rule in this case is to judge her by public actions and public words. That is why MZ pointed readers to the Eastland piece, which basically lays out the material that is on the record.
I would say precisely the same thing about Obama and his beliefs, linked to the UCC and liberal Christianity.
September 29, 2008, at 1:36 pm
I was outraged by the very first sentence of the story:
“Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago — about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct — the teacher said.”
Surely if Gov. Palin was willing to tell this to a total stranger, the LA Times would be able to find someone else to give a similar story and confirm it, right? But apparently some guy who “has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog” makes up a story, and it gets first-sentence mention in a major newspaper story? Can this possibly be considered standard journalistic practice? And anyone wonders why the MSM is loathed?
September 29, 2008, at 1:50 pm
The thing is, Fundamentalist has a specific denominational and theological meaning.
Like Evangelical.
Like Mainline.
Like Traditional.
The meaning has now drifted from the specific definition it first had to a vague one that seems to hover about ‘non-liberal; probably anti-abortion and anti-gay rights; probably strict 7-day creationism; probably anti-women’s ordination; probably strictly Biblical literacy and inerrancy’ and not noticing that some of the terms don’t necessarily fit with the others.
It’s become - like it or not - shorthand for ‘conservative/Republican’ and that does no-one any service.
It’s the same error that we see when talking about “Islam” or “Muslims” - are all Muslims Arabs? What about the Sunni/Shia divide? What about Turkey secularism versus Saudi Arabia versus Pakistan versus Egypt versus Indonesia as Muslim states?
Are there such beings as cultural Muslims (as there are cultural Catholics) who are not strict believers but have a vague ancestral and social attachment? Are there Muslim atheists - yes, guys who are not religious but are anti-American/anti-Western all the same?
It’s the same problem we see with the Roman Catholic women priests; who are the fundamentalists there? These women and their supporters say they are priests, the Church says they are not - if you’re a ‘fundamentalist’ on this, does that mean that you are a misogynist?
September 29, 2008, at 2:34 pm
I too thought the first paragraph was particularly egregious. I also notice that the article slides back and forth between calling her churches “fundamentalist” and “evangelical”. There’s also the “she grew up with a bunch of narrow-minded weirdos” tone of the section on her upbringing— the only part where the word “pentecostal” appears. There’s a lot of supposition in this paragraph, such as the claim that she was “accustomed early on to the sight of churchgoers ecstatically declaring their faith by speaking in tongues.” If she didn’t say this (and it is pretty clear that she didn’t), then it has no place in a news article.
The overall tone is rather odd too. The thesis seems to be, “she’s a nutcase, but don’t worry that she’ll impose it on others.” All the material that seems to be factual is in support of the second clause; the first clause seems to be part allegations from enemies and part reporter guessing from what appears to be a not particularly good understanding of her background.
September 29, 2008, at 2:42 pm
Mollie -
If your #8 was a reply to my #7, then I still don’t see your problem. The bible churches do refer to themselves as fundamentalists. Since Gov. Palin is a member of a bible church, I would assume she is a fundamentalist, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Hence, by tmatt’s stated rule, it’s ok to call her one. Perhaps imprudent, given the perjorative connotation, but not inaccurate, nor a violation of the AP stylebook.
Apologies if this appears to be a theological comment, as it is intended as reply to your own comments, which I don’t understand.
September 29, 2008, at 2:47 pm
FW Ken,
It was a reply to everyone.
But what do you mean by “bible churches do refer to themselves as fundamentalists.”
Maybe some do. I actually think they don’t.
Does Palin’s church? No.
September 29, 2008, at 2:48 pm
I should note that “Bible Church” is not a denomination. There is no creed or set of doctrines you have to adhere to. They can’t really be grouped together in this fashion.
September 29, 2008, at 3:02 pm
I pastored two ‘Bible churches,” one that explicitly called itself a “Bible church,” one that used a different name. Neither church would have called itself fundamentalist. Virtually 100% of the attenders would have used the word evangelical instead.
Mollie is right that “Bible church” is not a denomination. I think most Bible churches would not use the word fundamentalist to describe themselves.
September 29, 2008, at 3:43 pm
<
Like Evangelical.
Like Mainline.
Like Traditional.>>
Actually, there is no agreed upon meaning for “evangelical.”
“Mainline” churches include a wide array of people on basic doctrines. See the Anglican wars. So no meaning set in stone there, either.
“Traditional”? That varies from church to church and faith to faith. It refers back to foundational, historical doctrines — like small-o orthodox — but there is no content to the word itself.
So, sorry, but you are wrong.
I found it interesting, when speaking to Afghan journalists in Prague last year, that they had to create a new word to equal the English “fundamentalist.” There simply was no such concept in the world of Islam. They had to create a new word to capture the meaning of an English word that describes a school of conservative Protestant Christians. What a mess.
September 29, 2008, at 4:46 pm
tmatt is precisely correct. Most of these terms have a wide range of meanings, which (as I have argued before, specifically with regard to the words “evangelical” and “orthodox”) is why reporters must be extremely cautious about using them. Reference to a stylebook is a helpful tool for negotiating this sort of thing — but only if the stylebook is accurate.
If the AP stylebook said that “fundamentalist” should be avoided entirely because of its supposed pejorative connotations, it would be a grave error. However, as quoted, it actually says “except to groups that apply it to themselves.” That is fair enough, since there are many that do, and gladly.
It is also important to understand that among historians of religion, “fundamentalist” is often used as a clinical term, with neither praise nor blame implied, but in a way which advances beyond simple adherence to the “5 Fundamentals.” For example, Martin Marty (in “Fundamentalisms Observed”) uses to it to refer, roughly, to a category of movements in various religious communities, Christian and otherwise, which react against modernity by asserting a rigid and reductionist vision of their own traditions. That’s my phrasing; Marty surely has a briefer way to say it. (And by the way, there may be no word for “fundamentalist” in other languages, but that does not mean the concept is foreign in Islam or even Hinduism. It isn’t.)
Of more interest to me in this case is the single-sourced quote regarding dinosaurs. As a non-journalist, I don’t know what the standards are, and under what circumstances corraborating sources are required. But as a reader, I do know that, if a candidate for national office holds views on science which are far outside the mainstream, that is something I want to know before voting. Obviously, the problem is that any single source may be lying, especially one who actively dislikes the candidate. Obviously, more digging would be better, as would asking the candidate — if deadlines permitted one, and her handlers the other. But in a case like this, where the claim is so remarkable and neither the source’s name nor its biases are hidden, it would seem to be at least potentially newsworthy.
September 29, 2008, at 5:25 pm
I understand what you are saying, Mollie, but the AP Style book is not the end all be all of correct usage. They think its okay to say Cardinal first name last name when the ancient tradition is to say firstname Cardinal last name. They might as well say we should call Alfred Lord Tennyson by the name Lord Alfred Tennyson. Sometimes AP makes a mistake, thought not, I think, in the case of fundamentalist. Even when I was one I didn’t like the name.
September 29, 2008, at 5:27 pm
I hope this comment doesn’t get deleted, because I’m really trying to stay within the stated strictures, but to make my point about media coverage I have to allude to opinions about the “…personal views of people who believe in creation… personal views of creation… personal views of Palin.” In the following way:
The reason the mainstream media permits itself to express its hostility toward creationism, Palin, fundamentalism, etc. (let’s call these “Beliefs” as shorthand) is that the MSM thinks the Beliefs are so far outside the boundary of sensible opinion as to be undeserving of as much respect as someone like mollie would like them to receive. I’m sure high percentages of Americans believe in angels, alien abductions, ghosts, and all sorts of things like that, yet those things aren’t given a serious hearing in the MSM. It’s the same thing with respect to the Beliefs, whether 4% or 40% of American believe them.
Given this fact, I don’t really know what mollie thinks could realistically be different as long as the MSM is composed of the people who currently work in it. They aren’t about to change their opinion of the Beliefs, which is what would be required for the tone of current MSM coverage to change. It’s not relevant to argue (as one might) for more “respect” from the MSM: they are simply never going to feel more respect for the Beliefs than they do now, any more than they would for beliefs in ghosts, alien abductions, etc.
Really, the only solution is for different people to work in the MSM — there would need to be more people in the MSM who believe in, or are much more sympathetic to, the Beliefs.
If mollie and other people want MSM coverage to change, they should direct all their efforts to effecting such change. Everything else is just noise.
September 29, 2008, at 7:18 pm
Ok, ya’ll are right and I am wrong.
I called my “fundamentalist” friend - actually my step-father - and he tells me that not his bible church, nor others he knows, nor Dallas Theological Seminary which is their intellectual headwaters, call themselves “fundamentalists”. He said that he considers himself an “evangelical bible-believing born-again Christian” and avoids “fundamentalist” because of the negative connotations.
sigh…heavy sigh…
September 29, 2008, at 8:17 pm
Why is it when journalists write about teaching of origins, it typical to see headlines such as: “School board to discuss creationism vs evolution”, or “School board to discuss religion vs evolution”, but NEVER “School board to discuss creationism vs evolutionism” or “School board to discuss creation vs evolutionism”? Have you seen a headline like: “School board to discuss creation vs evolution”?
An “ism” is usually identified with an ideology, so the implication is that creation/creationism is something “religious”, whereas evolution is scientific.
The following suggested Origins of Life policy first appeared in the Buckna/Laidlaw article, “Should evolution be immune from critical analysis in the science classroom?”
(www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=411)
The suggested policy is a realistic, practical and legal way for local and state boards of education to achieve a win-win with regard to evolution teaching. Even the NCSE, the NAS, the AAAS, the ACLU, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State should find the policy acceptable:
“As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [province/state] science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that _supports_ and _questions_ evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This
discussion would include only the scientific evidence/information _for_ and _against_ evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of
the universe and the diversity of life on our planet.”
September 29, 2008, at 10:03 pm
David Buckna, the problem with the “suggested policy” is that it opens the door for creationist parents to prime their kids with canned religious utterances in science class. Students are in school to hear the curriculum, not one another’s evangelizing.
September 29, 2008, at 10:51 pm
FW Ken,
Please drop and give us twenty pushups.
Just kidding.
September 30, 2008, at 12:39 am
A journalistic question: How would you describe Wasilla Bible Church? I don’t think “evangelical” gets it. The term has become too big and squishy to be helpful to most readers. An independent, Bible church such as Wasilla Bible should not be confused with Rick Warren’s church.
The primary difference between the two. it appears to me, is Wasilla Bible’s separatist impulse, something that is absent from Saddleback and many other megachurches. I agree that “fundamentalist” has become a toxic term, but there has to be some other way to identify conservative Christian churches, usually independently run, with this strong separatist impulse. “Evangelical” just doesn’t do it.
P.S. We journalists need to stop treating the A.P. Stylebook as gospel. The damn thing is not inerrant; it’s a guide. Journalists should be free to depart from it when we have good reason.
September 30, 2008, at 12:42 am
Dan,
What do you mean by “separatist”? I’m unsure what you mean when describing Wasilla Bible Church as having a “strong separatist impulse.”
Also, I rather think evangelical has always been too big and squishy a term. Too bad there are not many better choices.
Also, agreed on the Stylebook, although this is a great instance of how it would have been a helpful guide. There was no good reason to use the term “fundamentalist” five times and plenty of excellent reasons not to.
September 30, 2008, at 1:44 am
Dan,
If by “separatist,” you mean “independent,” the appropriate term is probably “congregational.”
Also, I fail to see how Saddleback is any more or less “separatist” or “independent” than Wasilla Bible, unless you mean that Saddleback is extremely large and its pastor is very popular, while Wasilla Bible has remained fairly small, which is probably in part due to the fact that Wasilla itself is pretty small.
Choosing a church is a very personal matter — it’s very often essentially a choice of community. While some people are comfortable in larger churches, others may prefer smaller, more tightly knit ones. No one should be stigmatized with the term “fundamentalist” or “separatist” for such an innocuous choice as that.
September 30, 2008, at 3:45 am
well, I scrolled down through most of this and didn’t see one reference to the one thing that is most disturbing and needs to be asked by the media: she is seen standing on stage nodding her head in agreement w/ her former pastor while he talks about the End Times and how Alaska will be a place of refuge for people from the lower 48. That, my friends, would be us.
It’s called premillenial dispensationalism. Millions of copies of the Left Behind series promoting it have been sold in this country. It is a right-wing nutcase hijacking of Revelation that is entirely unbiblical and is not taught in any mainstream seminary in the world, as opposed to liberation theology and black liberation theology which (whether you agree w/ it or not) is taught in many if not most such seminaries.
How the media could be completely fumbling this continues to amaze me, but no one seems to know how to discuss it. Sarah Palin needs to be asked about and whether she literally believes Jesus is returning in her lifetime and whether the existence of the State of Israel is a sign of the End Times.
September 30, 2008, at 6:14 am
I’m not surprised that the average journo is not up on the Sunni-Shia distinctions of conservative Christianity - if that term is permissible. It seems from some of the comments, there is even some internal disagreement. Since Gov. Palin’s religious beliefs are obviously a matter of interest and concern, I would suggest a simple solution. Just as JFK and Sen. Obama did and Mitt Romney probably would have, Mrs. Palin should give a speech and adress the issue. That would eliminate any confusion.No doubt, she would reach far more people than any newspaper article, and, one assumes, articulate her faith much better than a turgid recitation of doctrinal terminology.
September 30, 2008, at 7:55 am
Some of the most damaging quotes in the LA Times piece come from Professor Philip Munger, an Alaskan who has actually known Sarah Palin since the mid 1990s.
As you criticize the LA Times for poor journalism you make no mention of Mr. Munger’s eye witness account. There has also been no denial from Palin that she made these confessions about her Young Earth Creationist beliefs to Mr. Munger.
Is it safe to assume that the LA Times got this part of the story correct?
September 30, 2008, at 9:44 am
Berkeley, what does how many seminaries something is taught in have to do with whether or not it is true? Certainly if the number of people who teach something has anything to do with it’s truth than premillenial dispensationalism can at least make a pretty good claim - you admitted that there have been millions of copies of the Left Behind series told.
For the record, I don’t have a dog in this fight, I think that both Premillenial dispensationalism and liberation theologies are bad theology.
September 30, 2008, at 9:47 am
Re ##36&37, use of the term “separatist” should be approached with caution. The term in Alaska has the same connotations it does in Quebec. The candidate’s husband was reputedly involved for a while with an Alaskan separatist party.
September 30, 2008, at 9:59 am
I agree, the use of “fundamentalist” is problematic, especially since it is a news article, not an opinion piece. The headline describes the beliefs, not Sarah Palin herself, as fundamentalist; does that make a difference? Interestingly, the article itself only uses “fundamentalist” once and uses it in reference to the Assemblies of God (the AOG lists “Fundamental Truths” on their website, and the word appears to have been used by an interviewee, so perhaps that’s why it made it in there?) In any event, this is something I’d like to look into more.
Also, a quick search of this site shows the word “homosexual” used countless times. Perhaps a Christian way to address the use of this pejorative is to address the pejoratives that Christian writings employ. Setting a standard and then calling others around us to rise to is. Thoughts?
September 30, 2008, at 11:14 am
Getting back to journalism … perhaps a useful distinction can be made between Fundamentalism (the belief system) and fundamentalist (one who holds ‘fundamental’ beliefs. Not to mention the distinction between literalists and fundamentalists, something that is often ignored or glossed over. To mix metaphors, they are neighbors, but not synonyms.
I was also surprised (given the nominal topic of this salon, that no-one has pointed out that there are fundamentalist and literalist sects and movements within every religion that has a set of core texts. The major strain for these faiths (as with constitutional scholars) has always been between the “strict constructionist” and the “interpreted” movements. Much like the bipartisan factionalism in the US political system, the core tenets of one side have become anethma (and thus pejorative) to the other, and vice-versa.
So what we are seeing play out here is simply another chapter in the ongoing cutural development of the world, the slinky (or inchworm) of social progress.
September 30, 2008, at 11:45 am
It’s easy to quibble with the L.A. Times article, and I agree that the word “fundamentalist” shouldn’t be used here. But I think the writer did a good job of drawing on sources to show that Palin hasn’t shown a propensity toward imposing her religious beliefs on other people — and that, in fact, those of who aren’t conservative Protestants probably don’t have to worry that she’s going to try to set up some sort of a theocracy.
What I think the article suffers from the most is what might be called the National Geographic syndrome — covering Palin like she’s some sort of a person from a strange and foreign culture (this issue has been discussed on this blog before, so I’m not claiming an original thought here). While I disagree with her on many issues (and will not be voting for her), I don’t see her as particularly odd. The clips I’ve seen of her at various church services remind me of what I’ve seen in many evangelical churches.
I think that’s one reason she has so many enthusiastic supporters — not because she’s an expert on the issues (she obviously isn’t), but because many of them can identify with her. She shows that it is indeed true what many of us have been told by our country, that anyone can become president. I confess I say this with what some might see as an elitist smirk, but it’s true that she would fit in at thousands of church potlucks across the country in a way that the other three president or VP candidates (or, for that matter, many a MSM journalist) couldn’t hope to.
September 30, 2008, at 1:02 pm
The Wasilla-Palmer phonebook lists the following churches and religious organizations:
1 Baha’i; 4 Seventh-Day Adventist; 1 Alliance; 1 Apostolic; 7 Assembly of God (and an affiliated Bible college); 3 Baptist; 11 Independent Baptist; 2 Baptist National Convention of America; 13 Southern Baptist; 8 Bible Churches; 1 Brethren; 8 Catholic; 2 Christian; 2 Christian and Missionary Alliance; 1 Christian Science; 6 Church of God; 2 Church of God, Anderson IN; 1 Latter-Day Saints; 3 Community Churches; 1 Covenant; 3 Episcopal; 4 Evangelical (1 in Russian); 1 Free Methodist; 5 United Methodist; 5 Full Gospel Fellowship; 4 Jehovah’s Witnesses; 5 Lutheran; 3 Lutheran ELCA; 1 Missouri Synod Lutheran; 2 Wisconsin Evangelical Synod Lutheran; 3 Church of the Nazarene; 3 Orthodox (1 Russian Orthodox); 1 Pentecostal Church of God; 2 United Pentecostal; 1 Orthodox Presbyterian; 3 Presbyterian USA; a chunk of churches claiming to be independent, interdenominational, or nondenominational but often advertising in other sections too; and apparently there might be a Zen center, but it doesn’t seem to have placed an ad this year.
So yeah, I think it matters whether the woman’s a fundamentalist in the strict sense, because her town does in fact include churches that are — and she didn’t join them.
September 30, 2008, at 1:23 pm
Beth Hallel, the local “Nazarene Yisraelite Synagogue”, wasn’t in the book either, that I saw. Well, it’s new.
There used to be a Conservative shul in Wasilla, but it has closed.
September 30, 2008, at 5:50 pm
Mark Farmer says: “As you criticize the LA Times for poor journalism you make no mention of Mr. Munger’s eye witness account.”
Actually, a couple of us above have criticized this “eye witness account” as frankly not believable. There is no corroboration at all and no reason to believe such a sensationalistic unsubstantiated claim from an acknowledged political opponent.
“There has also been no denial from Palin that she made these confessions about her Young Earth Creationist beliefs to Mr. Munger.”
This is a Dan Rather style “defense.” Gov. Palin is under no obligation to issue a press release in order to pro-actively deny every ludicrous claim that finds its way into print. The LA Times is the one exhibiting shameful journalistic malpractice here.
September 30, 2008, at 7:04 pm
Dave wrote (Sept. 29): “David Buckna, the problem with the “suggested policy†is that it opens the door for creationist parents to prime their kids with canned religious utterances in science class. Students are in school to hear the curriculum, not one another’s evangelizing.”
I’m not encouraging “canned religious utterances” from students of creationist parents. The suggested policy focuses on scientific evidence FOR and AGAINST evolutionary theory.
Shouldn’t students have the academic freedom to discuss criticisms of evolution from the evolutionists themselves?
For example, from the field of zoology:
“Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown.†- A.G. Fisher, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia fossil section, 2003
The following quotes are from Hickman, Roberts & Larson, Zoology W.C. Brown, 1997 - “The origin of the ciliates [e.g. the paramecium] is somewhat obscure.†- p. 235
“Unraveling the origin of the multicellular animals (metazoans) has presented many problems for zoologists.†- p. 240
“… one of the most intriguing questions is the place of mesozoans [a phylum of animals containing only one organ, a gonad] in the evolutionary picture.†- p. 242
“The origin of the cnidarians and ctenophores [comb jellies] is obscure.†- p. 275
“Any ancestral or other related groups that would shed a clue to the [evolutionary]relationships of the Acanthocephala is probably long since extinct.†- p. 317
“The primitive ancestral mollusc was probably a more or less wormlike organism …†- p. 346
“No truly satisfactory explanation has yet been given for the origins of metamerism and the coelom, although the subject has stimulated much speculation and debate over
the years.†- p. 365
“What can we infer about the common ancestor of the annelids? This has been the subject of a long and continuing debate.†- p. 365
“Controversy on phylogeny within the Chelicerata also exists …†- p. 379
“The relationship of the crustaceans to other arthropods has long been a puzzle.†- p. 399
“The evolutionary origin of insect wings has long been a puzzle.†- p. 429
“The phylogenetic affinities of the Pentastomida are uncertain. - p. 439
“The phylogenetic position of the lophophorates has been the subject of much controversy and debate.†- p. 447
“Despite the excellent fossil record, the origin and early evolution of the echinoderms are still obscure.†- p. 450
“Despite the existence of an extensive fossil record, there have been numerous contesting hypotheses on echinoderm phylogeny.†- p. 465
“Hemichordate phylogeny has long been puzzling.†- p. 476
“However, the exact phylogenetic position of the chordates within the animal kingdom is unclear.†- p. 480
” . . zoologists have debated the question of vertebrate origins. It has been very difficult to reconstruct lines of descent because the earliest protochordates were in all probability soft-bodied creatures that stood little chance of being preserved as fossils even under the most ideal conditions.†- p. 485 [In other words, there is no evidence for their evolution]
“The fishes are of ancient ancestry, having descended from an unknown free-swimming protochordate [a tunicate or lancelet] ancestor.†- p. 499
“To the cladist, however, the statement that humans evolved from apes says essentially that humans evolved from something that they are not, a trivial statement that contains no useful information.†- p. 204 (phylogenetic systematics = cladistics)
“Our concepts of species have become more sophisticated, but the diversity of different concepts and the disagreements surrounding their use are as evident now as they were in Darwin’s time.†- p. 205
September 30, 2008, at 10:59 pm
Okay, please no more on the evolution discussion.
Also, I have had to delete some absolutely disgusting anti-Palin comments.
Please take your seething anger elsewhere. And deal with the misogyny pronto.
October 1, 2008, at 12:03 am
One question. If you attend a church called Wasilla Bible Church, doesn’t that mean you are a fundamentalist christian?
October 1, 2008, at 12:09 am
John,
Why would it? I’m confused by the question.
October 1, 2008, at 12:58 am
One of the earlier posts is correct about the history of the word “separatism” in Alaskan history. But the term also has an lengthy pedigree in religious scholarship on this very subject.
Specifically, by “separatist,” I am referring to the academic use of the term in such works as the Fundamentalism Project by Scott Appleby and Martin Marty. They evaluate religious groups across a spectrum from separatist to accommodationist in these groups’ response and reaction to their larger cultural context. Appleby and Marty are not original on this point, as both would readily acknowledge.
I think that Saddleback, Willow Creek and most megachurches would appear at a very different place on that spectrum than a typical independent, Bible or Baptist church. (I grew up in several Bible churches and have attended many megachurches. I’ve seen the differences.) For journalists to lump them all such churches into the broad category of “evangelicalism” does as much to confuse readers as to enlighten them.
Mollie, for a lengthy discussion of the notion of separatism in conservative American Christianity, check out George Marsden’s “Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.” You probably already have a copy.
It’s a good starting point for a journalism discussion such as this one — much better than the AP Stylebook.
October 1, 2008, at 3:59 am
“P treads between free-market fundamentalism and socialism” doesn’t imply P is either a free-market fundamentalist or a socialist, just that there’s pressure on him from those quarters. As may be true for Palin from religious fundamentalists.
I thought they did OK in showing the reader that the quotes attributed to her may be from an unreliable source. You could question whether they should even print what may just be a rumor, but that’s a tough question for all journalism these days. See also her pregnancy.
October 1, 2008, at 8:38 am
John (#52) -
Go read the earlier comments and learn…
I’m still hurting from those pushups, Mollie.
October 1, 2008, at 11:16 am
David Buckna wrote:
I know you’re not, but the suggested policy would encorage it slip in the door.
Once again this is a matter of framing. None of the instances of uncertain descent you cite, nor even the collection of instances as a whole, is evidence against evolutionary theory. It’s the plain fact that evolutionary theory is still developing, ie, it is not a dead science. Framing this as “evidence against evolutionary theory” is, alas, a typical creationist nose-under-the-tent tactic.
October 1, 2008, at 7:47 pm
Dave in brief:
Some people do not deserve free speech. No arguments allowed. But please continue to pay for your newspaper subscription.
What a year.
October 1, 2008, at 7:50 pm
Terry, you know perfectly well that I’m talking about speech in a high school science classroom, not exactly an example of the free market of ideas. I’ll defend the general free speech rights of creationists, as I will yours.
October 1, 2008, at 9:29 pm
[…] This is an amazing post, from Mollie Ziegler at the Get Religion blog,deconstructing the appalling lack of standards on much of the reporting from the mainstream media on Sarah Palin’s religion. […]
October 1, 2008, at 9:50 pm
Mollie,
Great piece. As FW Ken learned (some fundamentalists might call that repentance), I hold to the historic, traditional creeds of the Christian faith in the reformed tradition (and all of FW Ken’s fundamentals) but do not consider myself to be a fundamentalist. I live in the upstate of SC, the home to the largest fundamentalist college in the universe, (and yes they self ascribe to it) and am fine with beer, women wearing pants, movies, long hair, praise songs, rock and roll, piercings, tattoos, cable television, democrats (though not one myself), and a host of other things that would make me unfit as a student of that university. I am adding Get Religion to my RSS Feed.
Thanks,
Steve
October 2, 2008, at 9:10 am
Brian (#49) writes
“Actually, a couple of us above have criticized this “eye witness account†as frankly not believable. There is no corroboration at all and no reason to believe such a sensationalistic unsubstantiated claim from an acknowledged political opponent.”
So as I understand it your sole rationale for dismissing Professor Munger’s account of his conversation with Ms. Palin is that he disagrees with her politically. Indeed, he describes himself as a “61 year old composer, educator, political activist, coach, outdoorsman, gardener” He is also an accomplished musician who teaches at a major state university. Your position is tantamount to saying that if someone opposes me or my position then they must be a liar.
In addition to what Mr. Munger originally wrote in his blog he has agreed to several interviews with reputable journalists from both print and radio media. I myself took the time to write directly to him and specifically ask him about the validity of his statements. (Let me know if you would like his email address) In each case he has stood behind his claim that Sarah Palin admitted to believing in a 6000 year old world where dinosaurs walked among humans. She was, and probably still is, a young Earth creationist. She did this not as a child, but as a college educated woman in her 30’s.
Given the significance of his claim and given Mr. Munger’s professional reputation (remember this is not some anonymous crack-pot we are talking about, he is a University Professor) if Ms. Palin feels that he is lying then she should call him on it. Neither she nor the McCain camp has made any attempt to respond to Munger’s accounting of their conversation.
I agree that Ms. Palin is under no obligation to respond to this or any other claim made about her. But sometimes silence speaks volumes.
October 2, 2008, at 11:41 am
Mr. Farmer: No, here’s my argument: Prof. Munger claims that Sarah Palin told him (a complete stranger) that she believes that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together 5000 years ago. This is acknowledged by most people to be an “extreme” opinion. We do know that he has a strong political bias against her, so it is reasonable to question his motives and to ask for corroboration. I maintain that someone who tells a complete stranger things like this is certain to have told it to MANY other complete strangers, to say nothing of friends and family (and we know that she has former friends and family happy to spread dirt about her). So it should be easy to find someone else who can tell the same story. The LA Times did not do so. If a conservative political blogger with a respectable job were to claim that he met Barack Obama 10 years ago and that he said “I’m actually a secret Muslim who has a plan to take over America” would the MSM publish it just like that? Of course not.
October 2, 2008, at 12:48 pm
Brian,
As for Mr. Munger and Sarah Palin being “complete strangers” it would seem that you have not taken the time to read his original blog in which he writes:
“I first met Alaska Governor and GOP Vice Presidential aspirant Sarah Palin when she was on the City of Wasilla Planning Commission. I appeared at one of their meetings, along with my boss at that time, now-convicted ex-Allvest CEO, Bill Weimer. We were presenting a proposal Allvest was working on, in conjunction with a Wasilla-based mental health clinic, to open a community corrections project there, and needed a facility permit.
At that time, I remembered her, because she seemed to be the only person on the commission who had actually read our proposal. It was obvious from her questions.”
http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/2008/09/saradise-lost-chapter-sixten-palins.html
So with regards to his motives he begins his piece by paying her a complement. I think that it is fair to say that their paths have crossed many times over the past decade and they are certainly not strangers to one another, complete or otherwise.
With regards to seeking corroboration of her YEC beliefs I agree, it should be fairly easy to do this. But given the fact that close to 50% of Americans reject evolution and many of these believe that the earth is approximately 6000 years old I would venture that many of her friends and relations share this view and would not consider it to be extreme. What is more is that if one perceived that the MSM did consider this to be an example of Ms. Palin’s irrational beliefs someone who shared those believes would not come rushing up to confirm them. No, it would take someone who both rejects YEC and yet also took the time to question Ms. Palin about it. She seems to have grown more cautious over time as Mr. Munger relates in his blog when he spoke with her again several years after the first encounter:
“Once again, we found ourselves being able to talk privately. I reminded her of the earlier conversation, asking her if her views had changed. She was no longer “necessarily” a young earth creationist, she told me.”
And if a liberal blogger were to lie about Obama having admitted to being a muslim Manchurian candidate, and the story got repeated in the LA Times, it would probably take his organization about one nanosecond to deny the story and threaten the L.A. Times with a liable suit.
I concede that being accused of being a YEC pales in comparison to being labeled an islamic undercover agent, but given the attention Mr. Munger’s comments have elicited (they even joked about Palin and dinosaurs on Saturday Night Live) then I am still surprised she has not forcefully denied it.
Unless of course it’s true.
October 2, 2008, at 3:02 pm
Mr. Farmer: The fact that Sen. Obama loves to use legal threats to shut down criticism of himself has nothing to do with the journalistic malpractice practiced by the LA Times here. If Gov. Palin had to deny every unsubstantiated smear thrown at her and outrageously given legitimacy by the MSM, she wouldn’t have time to do anything else. Just dealing with Andrew Sullivan would be a full time job.
October 2, 2008, at 5:28 pm
Brian Writes:
“If Gov. Palin had to deny every unsubstantiated smear thrown at her and outrageously given legitimacy by the MSM, she wouldn’t have time to do anything else.”
Ah, but unlike Andrew Sullivan, Professor Munger has actually met and spoken with Sarah Palin. Multiple times it would seem. He is not part of the MSM. So your attempts to repeatedly try to dismiss his comments as an “unsubstantiated smear” is beginning to ring a little hollow.
Why do you find it so inconceivable that Mr. Munger may be telling the truth about Ms. Palins’s creationist beliefs? Certainly such beliefs would be entirely consistent with the Alaskan Republican party platform:
http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/PartyPlatform.aspx
E. We support teaching various models and theories for the origins of life and our universe, including Creation Science or Intelligent Design. If evolution outside a species (macro-evolution) is taught, evidence disputing the theory should also be presented.
If Ms. Palin shares this position then she should embrace it and let the voters know who she is and what she believes. As I have pointed out, nearly 50% of Americans reject evolution so this should be a vote getter for her. If she is not a creationist (or at least is no longer a YEC) then she should proclaim this as well. In the meantime we have little else by which to judge the validity of Professor Munger’s comments. Ms. Palin is apparently content to let him have the last word.
October 2, 2008, at 6:15 pm
Here’s a journalistic issue for you, since you demand that comments be so limited: maybe we’d know more about Gov. Palin and her beliefs, which are clearly important to a lot of voters (end times anyone?), if she/the McCain campaign didn’t insist on basically hiding her from reporters while at the same time demonizing the press. Hmmm?
October 2, 2008, at 8:32 pm
Thanks Jon,
Nice to know someone besides Brian and I are still following this thread. I began to think it was becoming a private conversation.
I agree with you. Before I can bring myself to vote for someone I want to hear what THEY think. Not their handlers, not the pundits, not their critics and not the MSM. The candidate themselves.
So Gov. Palin, if you or your organization are following this thread please tell us honestly. Is Ms. Palin a YEC as Mr. Munger alleges or not?
C’mon, the American people appreciate and respect honesty.
October 2, 2008, at 8:44 pm
Not that what motivates people to vote isn’t terribly fascinating, but please keep comments focused on mainstream media coverage of religion news.
October 3, 2008, at 9:23 am
[…] The Associated Press Stylebook has a decent working definition of Fundamentalism (even if most reporters don’t heed it): 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. […]
October 3, 2008, at 1:10 pm
How was Jimmy Carter, arguably the most religous President in recent times, described?
Bill Clinton? Hillary Clinton, whose Methodism was the primary factor in shaping her philosophy and world view?
Munger’s story about dinosaurs has no other source. He’s got an axe to grind and a POV that’s decidedly left of center (find the story about his musical tribute to Rachel Corrie and how he treated a rabbi). He’s not credible.