At an old news service, a new reporter (blush) that readers really need to watch

At an old news service, a new reporter (blush) that readers really need to watch

Here is today’s tip for people looking for value in the news marketplace: Religion News Service, a unique, non-sectarian U.S. shop that’s been in operation for 80 years, e-mails without charge a daily Roundup that is (or ought to be) essential reading for news executives who run newsrooms, journalists who cover this field, executives of religious organizations and anyone else who wants to be well-informed about faith developments. Just go to the RNS home page, look for “Get The Roundup” and click to subscribe.

Though the Roundup is free, in return for some 250 daily news feeds a year you’ll surely want to also click on “Support R.N.S.” and send a tax-deductible $50 or $100 gift. (RNS is owned by the non-profit foundation of the Religion Newswriters Association, which acquired it in 2011 from the Newhouse newspaper chain.)

GetReligion has, of course, been praising (and critiquing) RNS work for a decade, while also arguing that this is an absolutely essential news outlet. As a veteran on the beat, I want to add another praise – even if it's a bit awkward.

Last year Sarah Pulliam Bailey joined RNS’s well-seasoned staff as a New York-based national correspondent. This young reporter is an alumna of Christianity Today magazine’s online operation, Odyssey Networks and – we blush to add – GetReligion.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

So why, pray tell, are the Democrats in so much trouble in the Bible Belt?

, , , , , ,

Several years ago, I attended a forum here in Beltway territory about religion and politics, featuring a presentation by one of the official voices of the Democratic Party establishment -- E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post op-ed page. This was about the time that he released his book "Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right."

During the question-and-answer session, I identified myself as someone who grew up as a moderate or conservative Democrat in Texas, back when that was the dominant political worldview in that state. In other words, this was before the whole red zip codes vs. blue zip codes phenomenon was identified, also famously symbolized by the "Jesusland vs. The United States of Canada" cartoon.

I asked Dionne if Gov. Mike Huckabee was nothing more than an "ordinary pre-Roe v. Wade populist Southern Democrat." This would explain, for example, why a secular libertarian like Rush Limbaugh detests Huckabee so much. 

Dionne thought about it for a second and replied that it would be very hard to argue against that thesis.

This brings me a piece that ran recently on the McClatchy wire -- "Democrats are all but extinct in the South." This news story was, timed, I am sure, to be relevant after the long-awaited fall of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, the last Democratic senator in the old South (or as many journalists prefer to say, the old Confederacy).


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

What was the point of that 'Tom Hanks goes to church' post the other day?

, , , , , , ,
What was the point of that 'Tom Hanks goes to church' post the other day?

Hang in there with me for a moment on this one. I want to respond to a few comments I have heard after my recent post on that faith-free Washington Post feature story about superstar Tom Hanks.

But first, let me dig into a topic that "Crossroads" host Todd Wilken and I discussed in depth while recording this past week's podcast (we're getting to this late because of technical issues). Click here to tune in on that.

Why is Hanks such an important, symbolic cultural figure in the first place?

Let's ponder this for a bit.

Long ago, I had a chance to interview Hollywood director Phil Alden Robinson about some of the cultural and religious themes woven into his famous "Field of Dreams" blockbuster. We discussed, for example, (a) the mental process he went though as he was casting the highly symbolic role of Dr. Archibald "Moonlight" Graham and (b) what he thought of the theory, which some articulated even as he was preparing to film this classic, that he was trying to produce the Baby Boomer edition of "It's A Wonderful Life."

Imagine, he told me, how many people would have connected those two movies if his first choice to fill the Moonlight Graham role had been able to play the part.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

New York Times examines secular campaign, but from only one side

, , ,

Atheists have lately been taking a page from the playbook of some Christians, who cry persecution when they face antagonism or discrimination. The newest chapter in this avowed liberation movement is the subject of a New York Times newsfeature: a drive to strike anti-atheism clauses from state constitutions.

The 1,150-word Times article is satisfyingly long, in an era when many newspapers are reluctant to keep religion specialists, let alone give much space to religion coverage. But the has a few limitations, which we'll look at a bit later.

It starts with the landmark 1961 case of Roy Torcaso, the Maryland bookkeeper who was denied a job because he was an atheist. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled for Torcaso, of course.

The Times continues:

But 53 years later, Maryland and six other states still have articles in their constitutions saying people who do not believe in God are not eligible to hold public office. Maryland’s Constitution still says belief in God is a requirement even for jurors and witnesses.
Now a coalition of nonbelievers says it is time to get rid of the atheist bans because they are discriminatory, offensive and unconstitutional. The bans are unenforceable dead letters, legal experts say, and state and local governments have rarely invoked them in recent years. But for some secular Americans, who are increasingly visible and organized, removing the bans is not only a just cause, but a test of their growing movement’s political clout.

Rather like the anti-Christmas billboard campaign by American Atheists, the coalition -- called Openly Secular -- is targeting southeastern states, although Maryland and Pennsylvania are also in their crosshairs. And the Times article has some truly surprising facts on how firmly theistic some state constitutions sound, requiring belief in God for public office holders.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, ,

Say what? Associated Press twists Francis's admiration for theologians into 'near disdain'

, ,
Say what? Associated Press twists Francis's admiration for theologians into 'near disdain'

Today at GetReligion, it's deja vu all over again.

Once again, a story on Pope Francis by Associated Press reporter Nicole Winfield has us asking, "What is this?" As I wrote the last time around:

Is [the article] meant to be hard-news journalism, or is it meant to be advocacy or commentary? And if it's commentary, or analysis, why is it not labeled as such? Why is the AP selling it to news outlets as straight reporting?

This time, the AP article is on Francis's address to the International Theological Commission, "Pope to Theologians: Listen to the Ordinary Faithful." It begins:

Pope Francis urged the Catholic Church’s top theologians on Friday to listen to what ordinary Catholics have to say and pay attention to the “signs of the times,” rather than just making pronouncements in an academic vacuum.

If this is meant to be straight news story, then the first question is, did the pope really say that? And the answer is no -- at least, not exactly. He did mention the "signs of the times." However, having read his entire speech, the claim that he decried "making pronouncements in an academic vacuum" strikes me as pretty far-fetched. 

Moreover, Francis's reference to the signs of the times was actually in reference to the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes. In context, it does not seem to mean what Winfield takes it to mean. As a Twitter user noted, it's not about blowing with the wind, but rather about evaluating contemporary voices "in light of the word of God":


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Pastor reports death threats for doing same-sex marriages, and guess who a Kansas newspaper quoted?

, , ,

This is basic Journalism 101 stuff.

A news story should give all the relevant parties an opportunity to speak and — if accused of wrongdoing — a chance to defend themselves.

So what happened when The Wichita Eagle reported on a pastor who reported death threats against her for performing same-sex marriages?

Of course, the Kansas newspaper quoted the pastor:

A Wichita minister says she has received death threats for performing same-sex weddings after the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was struck down by a federal judge last month.
The Rev. Jackie Carter, pastor of the First Metropolitan Community Church, said the church has been getting at least one phone call a day threatening to kill her or to perform acts of violence against her congregation. The church belongs to a denomination that embraces the gay and lesbian community.
Carter said she had received threats before the ruling, but they have escalated since she performed a wedding ceremony for 15 same-sex couples on the steps of the Sedgwick County Courthouse on Nov. 17.
“Monday was probably the most scary time for me,” Carter said. “The phone rang and I went to answer the phone and it was just somebody heavy breathing on it. Then somebody rang the door bell and then somebody started throwing rocks at the windows.”

The Eagle also contacted the police (who declined to comment) as well as Wichita's mayor.

But what about opponents of same-sex marriage? Don't they deserve a voice in the story since — ostensibly — their side is being accused of a crime?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Post-Zionism seems to baffle The Washington Post

, , , , , , , ,

It comes as no surprise that Jordanian officials believe that Israel bears responsibility for tensions over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. But is it proper for The Washington Post to believe it, too? 

The Post is well within its rights to make this assertion on its editorial page. I may disagree with its arguments, but opinion journalism is designed to offer these arguments. The classic model of Anglo-American journalism, however, mandates a news story offer both sides of a story equal time.

I have my doubts about a recent article by the Post’s Jerusalem bureau chief entitled “Relationship between Israel and Jordan grows warier amid tensions in Jerusalem." My reading of this piece leaves me wondering if it is unbalanced, incurious, incomplete or lacking in context. Could it have been written from an editorial mindset that blames Israel first?

Or is there something more at work here?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Your weekend think piece: Demographics are destiny, the liberal Jewish edition

, , , , , ,

On the surface, there is no religious component to the following question: "Why do some people choose to have children, while others do not?" The same thing is true if you ask, "Why do some people choose to have more than 2.1 children, while others do not?"

But if you know anything about polling linked to demographics, you know that it's impossible to answer those questions in real life -- in a majority of cases around the world -- without running into religious beliefs and practice. Look at it this way, if one Catholic family has one child and another has seven, the odds are very high that family No. 2 goes to Mass way more often than family No. 1.

Several years ago, The Weekly Standard (yes a conservative journal) did a highly fact-driven think piece -- "America's One-Child Policy" -- that contained the following paragraph that remains as relevant today as when it was written:

... (In) a world where childbearing has no practical benefit, people have babies because they want to, either for self-fulfillment or as a moral imperative. "Moral imperative," of course, is a euphemism for "religious compulsion." There are stark differences in fertility between secular and religious people.
The best indicator of actual fertility is "aspirational fertility" -- the number of children men and women say they would like to have. Gallup has been asking Americans about their "ideal family size" since 1936. When they first asked the question, 64 percent of Americans said that three or more children were ideal; 34 percent said that zero, one, or two children were ideal. Today only 34 percent of Americans think that a family with three-or-more children is ideal.

So here is the thesis statement that I think, on many stories linked to contemporary religion (think coverage of the declining number of Catholic priests in North America), journalists need to think about.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Yes, it does appear that Americans lack faith in politicians who lack faith

, , , , ,
Yes, it does appear that Americans lack faith in politicians who lack faith

The intriguing question of atheists who seek public office in America is currently being fictionalized on the TV drama “The Good Wife,” which achieves decent ratings though viewers never know when an episode will start because CBS won’t plan around Sunday football games. Lead actress Julianna Margulies has scooped up award after award for her portrayal of Alicia Florrick, the estranged but never-quite-divorcing wife of the Illinois governor.

At the moment, the atheistic Alicia (Margulies herself is quoted as saying “I’m not really religious”) is running for chief prosecutor of Chicago. The Constitution says in article 6 that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” but that law doesn’t control individual voters’ choices.

During the 2012 campaign, Gallup asked whether respondents would vote for “a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be” an atheist. Only 54 percent said yes, the lowest standing of any group, compared with 58 percent saying yes for a Muslim, 68 percent for a gay or lesbian, 80 percent for a Mormon, and virtually total acceptance for a Jewish, Hispanic, Catholic, female, or black president.  In 1958, only 18 percent would vote for an atheist. 


Please respect our Commenting Policy