Get Religion is a national and global journalism site focusing on how the mainstream press covers religion news in politics, entertainment, business and sports.
There is a lot that could be said about Time‘s August 20 article on how Christianity is changing China. Clocking in at about 1,800 words, it’s not an especially long piece considering the breadth of the subject. But it packs a punch in explaining the complex ways that Christianity is changing China.
The New York Times Saturday used the New York Mets’ acquisition of Major League Baseball star slugger Shawn Green to write about Jews in sports. To better phrase it, the 1,200-word article was about how Jews are not involved in sports.
After looking back over the comments from last week’s post on the disastrous news articles on the firing of a longtime Sunday School teacher in upstate New York, I feel it’s necessary to make a couple of points very clear.
Bill Blakemore of ABC News dropped a blunt assessment of the Tom Cruise-Paramount situation Thursday: It’s all about Scientology. (By the way, did you hear Cruise has inked a new deal already?) It’s the link that everyone has been wanting to make, but no other reporter has had the guts to run with it, until now.
After reading the article several times, I really do not know where to start when it comes to chasing the ghosts in the sprawling New York Times feature story on pedophilia in cyberspace. It was called "On the Web, Pedophiles Extend Their Reach," and I've been haunted by it for a week. But we can start with the obvious: It does appear that the Times has found a moral absolute that it can affirm when dealing with the various armies of the sexual revolution.
So pedophilia is bad -- period -- even though the piece briefly waves at several issues related to this behavior without explicitly passing judgment. Would the newspaper's editorial board, for example, back conservative calls for stricter enforcement of statutory rape laws? Even if that led to investigations of allegations against Planned Parenthood for protecting offenders?
But some of you will view that as a digression from the main issue -- pedophilia. And you would be right. But that leads to one of my basic questions about the Times piece: What precisely is pedophilia? How is the newspaper defining this term? What are the origins of this condition, as science has struggled to understand them?
To be more specific, where does the Times draw the line between "pedophilia," sexual activity by adults involving prepubescent children, and "ephebophilia," illegal sex with underaged boys and girls in their teens?
Let me offer the blunt illustration that explains the difference, as told to me once by an expert on the topic. A 40-year-old man who wants to have sex with a 16-year-old Britney Spears is sick and disturbed and being tempted to commit a crime. But this man is not sick, disturbed and a criminal in precisely the same way as a 40-year-old man who wants to have sex with a 6-year-old Britney Spears. The same would be true of a gay adult male.
Where did the Times draw this line in its research?
I was reading Seymour Hersh’s excellent New Yorker piece on the Bush administration’s interest in the Hezbollah-Israeli war when I stumbled across this paragraph:
Reader John Hoh sent us a note regarding a photo caption accompanying this Associated Press article. It describes snipers killing 20 people in Baghdad who were on their way to commemorate Imam Moussa Kadhim at his golden-domed shrine.
