, , , , , , , ,

Why shout 'Allahu Akbar!' when killing other Muslims? Did journalists answer that question?

, , , , , , , ,

The stories have become tragically familiar. A band of jihadists enters a school or some other public facility somewhere in the Muslim world and massacres a large number of people. Mainstream media offer readers a few numbers and a heart-tugging human detail or two.

The latest nightmare unfolded this week in northwester Pakistan. As I read several news reports, a familiar detail was repeated time after time. This led to a question in my mind, one that I think some journalists need to ponder: "Why would radical Muslims shout 'Allahu akbar!' as they massacre other Muslims?"

In other words, if the basic goal in these stories is to provide the "who, what, when, where, why and how" facts, why not pursue the "why" issue? Some of the stories I read took at shot at this ultimate question and others did not.

The first story I saw was in USA Today. This is as close as it came to talking about this "why" issue:

Basit Khan, a computer science student, said he heard the terrorists through the fog and saw them in classroom buildings.
“They were chanting Allahu Akbar (God is great) when they started firing,” Khan said. “There were attackers in the stairwell and we had no arms to counter them. In the Pashto Department and Computer Science blocks, I saw at least three attackers.” ...

And later there was this:

A Taliban leader, Khalifa Umar Mansoor, claimed responsibility for Wednesday's attack, the Associated Press reported. Mansoor was the mastermind behind the deadly December 2014 attack on the Peshawar school.
A spokesman for the main Taliban faction in Pakistan, however, disowned the group behind the attack. The spokesman, Mohammad Khurasani, said Wednesday’s attack was “un-Islamic” and insisted the Pakistani Taliban were not behind it. Such statements among the Taliban are not uncommon since the group has many loosely linked factions, tje AP reported.
Khurasani said the Taliban “consider the students in the non-military institutions the future of our jihad movement” and would not kill potential future followers.

That was that.


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

What are the ins and outs -- mostly ins -- of the giant, online Bible Gateway?

, , , , , , , , ,
What are the ins and outs -- mostly ins -- of the giant, online Bible Gateway?

HEATHER’S QUESTION:

I don’t see the New Revised Standard Version in my biblegateway.com app. Do you have any idea why it’s excluded?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

This specific topic is quick and easy, so the Guy will use the space and occasion to provide broader information about the quite remarkable www.biblegateway.com (hereafter BG), billed as “the most-visited Christian Website in the world” with “more than 18 million unique visitors per month” -- and a must reference stop for journalists and Religion Q&A readers. The heart of things is a free and fully searchable online archive of complete Bible texts in 70 languages. The offerings in English are 53 texts and 14 audio versions (three of these read by the euphonious Max McLean of C.S. Lewis On Stage fame) plus many related features.

On Heather’s point, the main Website posts the New Revised Standard Version, known for its gender-inclusive language. But, yes, the NRSV is not among the text and audio versions accessible for free via the Bible Gateway App for mobile iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Android and KindleFire. This is not BG’s doing. Older Bible versions in “public domain” can be used free by anyone but BG negotiates with 27 publishers for licenses that allow posting of newer versions under copyright. The National Council of Churches, which controls NRSV rights, granted BG the Web rights in 2012 but decided not to include a license for the app.

Still, the app’s offerings are extensive, and the ins and outs of the parent Website are almost totally “in.”


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

Rubio and the atheist: For the best coverage, look to the media inside Iowa

, , , , , , , ,

It's starting to look like local media do better reporting on religion and politics -- i.e., less pejorative, viewpoint-tainted reporting -- than national outlets.

Case in point: Marco Rubio's exchange with an atheist in Iowa. From what I saw, the farther from Iowa, the more breezy and/or sarcastic the story -- and the harder to tell it from commentary.  Consider first the Des Moines Register:

Forgive me for the six-paragraph string here at the start, but the story is almost a perfect model for writing what you see and hear, not what you think of it. This is essential reading:

WAVERLY, Ia. -- Confronted by an "activist atheist," Marco Rubio said he’ll champion a country where "no one is forced to violate their conscience."
"No one is going to force you to believe in God, but no one is going to force me to stop talking about God," said the Florida senator, prompting applause and a whistle of support from the crowd.
During a town hall on Monday morning, Justin Scott, 34, of Waterloo asked about Rubio’s new ad, explaining that atheists such as him are "looking for somebody that will uphold their rights as Americans, and not pander to a certain religious group," he said.
In the commercial, Rubio does not mention specific political policy but discusses how "our goal is eternity, the ability to live alongside our creator for all time. To accept the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus Christ."
"You have a right to believe whatever you want," said Rubio, a Roman Catholic, in response. "You have a right to believe in nothing at all."
Rubio went on to explain how his faith has been the "single greatest influence in my life, and from that I’ll never hide."

Nor is it a mere puff piece.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Forgive the pun, but here's how to make the 'graying of the pulpit' sound like old news

, , , , ,

While serving as religion editor for The Oklahoman, I wrote a series 15 years ago on the "graying of the pulpit."

My 2001 stories cited a potential crisis for Christian denominations facing "a shortage of pastors as the boom generation of clergy who entered the ministry in the 1950s retires in great numbers over the next decade."

Fast-forward to this week and a front-page Houston Chronicle story similarly focused on aging clergy:

Newly ordained, the Rev. Romonica Malone-Wardley hit town in 2007 eager to save and nurture souls. Her first posting was as associate pastor at a southwest-side church, where she joined an energetic, innovative team ministering to a classically diverse Houston congregation. But beneath the godly high of a worthy mission and great job was one troubling worry.
It came as she met her colleagues in the United Methodist Church’s Texas Annual Conference, the Houston-based assembly of more than 600 Southeast Texas churches, and it was undeniable.
“Wow!” she thought, “We’re really old.”
The onetime small-town Baptist-turned-Methodist clergywoman had stumbled onto one of Christianity’s most daunting 21st-century challenges: the inexorable aging of its ministers.
When Malone-Wardley arrived, just over 3 percent of the conference’s ordained pastors were younger than 35. Nationally in her denomination — America’s largest mainstream Protestant group — more than half of ordained ministers now are 55 or older. Among Southern Baptists — the biggest evangelical Protestant group — half of senior pastors are 55 or older and fully 20 percent are on the gray side of 65. Among Catholic priests, the median age is 59 — up 14 years in just over four decades.
Like their pastors, American congregations are getting older as well, with a Pew Research Center study finding a direct correlation between age and affiliation with a religious group. All but 11 percent of Americans ages 70 to 87 are affiliated; more than a third of those ages 19 to 25 are not.

Before I make my point about this story, a quick nitpick: The United Methodist Church isn't America's largest mainstream Protestant group. The correct word there would be mainline. It's a common mistake.


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

New York Times explores Trump and those 'evangelicals,' whoever or whatever they are ...

, , , , , , , , , ,

As you would expect, variations on the word "evangelical" appear quite a few times in a New York Times news feature that appears under this headline -- "Evangelicals See Donald Trump as Man of Conviction, if Not Faith."

Yes, it does appear that issues of religion and culture will play some role in the GOP side of the contest to win the White House, in spite of that other recent Times feature that left religion totally out of that equation. I know that's hard to believe, so click here for more info.

So the evangelicals are back and some love Trump while others do not. Surprise!

As I read the new Times piece, a familiar question entered my mind: What do these journalists, the elite of the news elite, think that the word "evangelical" means? GetReligion has dedicated quite a bit of attention to the meaning of that word, as have I as a columnist.

So the goal, in this post, is to look for clues as to what the Times people think this term means. At the end, we will actually look at a set of characteristics used to define "evangelical" endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Association of Evangelicals.

Ready? Here is our first passage:

Buford Arning, a retired building-supply executive in Statesville, N.C., went to church each week until a pinched nerve made it hard for him to leave his house. He believes in living a faith-filled life. But he does not demand piety of his preferred presidential candidate, Donald J. Trump.
“Am I a Bible toter that gets out and preaches on the side of the street and tries to convert everybody? No,” said Mr. Arning, 62, who calls himself an evangelical voter. He said he believed that Mr. Trump was “a Christian man,” and that was good enough.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Meet The Guardian's 'Protest' section -- a sign that the times, they are a-changin'

, , , ,
Meet The Guardian's 'Protest' section -- a sign that the times, they are a-changin'

Go to the Website of The Guardian, the left-leaning British newspaper, and you'll find an array of stories grouped by subject, just as you will at other online news sites. It's the usual line up. There's world news, science, business, fashion, travel, tech, sports, opinion and others.

But, lo and behold, there appears to be something new under the sun in the news gathering business on display at The Guardian, one of the most-accessed news sites around. Or at least something new when it comes to organizing that which has been gathered.

Click "All Topics" on the The Guardian's home page and you can find a category intriguingly named, "Protest." You can also find it via the world section, or, easiest of all, just plug "protest" into the site's internal search engine.

Protest? Sounds like some '60s underground paper out of Berkeley. Or more to the point, a finger on the pulse of the current level of global discontent.

I don't see The Guardian print edition so I'm in the dark as to whether it, too, has a Protest section. But I doubt it does.

That's because on some level, most news stories have an element of protest at their core -- natural disasters, NFL playoff games, obituaries, freak accidents and similar stories not withstanding. Protest stories are scattering across all sections in deadwood products. It's easy to cross-post on line, but you can't run the same story in multiple sections in print.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Why Donald Trump didn't REALLY mess up when he said 'Two Corinthians' instead of 'Second Corinthians'

, , , ,

The Donald went down to Liberty University.

He was looking for a Scripture to quote.

But then Donald Trump "bungled" his Bible reference, Politico reported. The Republican presidential candidate "slipped" in how he said "Two Corinthians," The Hill said. Trump "flubbed" it, ABC News proclaimed.

"Second Corinthians"  is "the correct way of saying it," Time magazine chimed in.

Here's how CNN  boiled down the the controversy:

Lynchburg, Virginia (CNN) Donald Trump pitched himself Monday to Christian students at Liberty University as a politically incorrect protector of Christianity, tailoring his classic stump speech to the evangelical audience with mixed success.
"Christianity, it's under siege," Trump proclaimed early in his speech to the crowd of about 10,000 -- overwhelmingly Liberty University students who are required to attend the university's tri-weekly convocations.
But Trump, who has eagerly targeted evangelicals -- a key voting bloc in the first caucus state of Iowa -- in his quest for the presidency, tripped over himself Monday as he attempted to quote from the Bible to connect with the crowd of students at one of the most prominent Christian universities in the country, and the largest in the world.
"Two Corinthians, 3:17, that's the whole ballgame," Trump said, drawing laughter from the crowd of students at Liberty University who knew Trump was attempting to refer to "Second Corinthians."
Trump was still able to draw applause from the crowd by reading the Bible verse, however: "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty," the university's "School Verse" which is prominently displayed on campus.

Image via Shutterstock.com


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

Raise your hand, if you know the definition of 'blasphemy' in modern Pakistan

, , , , , , , ,

One of the toughest issues in reporting about any complex subject -- take religion for example -- is knowing how much background material needs to be included in a story for readers to be able to grasp the basic issues surrounding a piece of news.

So before we get to the actual event covered in this international-desk piece from the New York Times -- "Boy’s Response to Blasphemy Charge Unnerves Many in Pakistan" -- let's jump ahead to the background material. I thought this section of the story was especially strong, since the reporter had very few paragraphs to spare in a relatively short story.

By the way, this passage ends with what I considered a major piece of tech news, one worthy of its own story.

Blasphemy is a toxic subject in Pakistan, where a confusing body of laws has enshrined it as a potentially capital offense but also makes it nearly impossible for the accused to defend themselves in court. Even publicly repeating details of the accusation is tantamount to blasphemy in its own right.
Such cases almost never make it to court, however. The merest accusation that blasphemy has occurred has the power to arouse lynching or mob violence.
The governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, was assassinated by his own bodyguard in 2011, after Mr. Taseer criticized the country’s blasphemy laws and defended a Christian woman who had been falsely accused under them. The assassin is a national hero to many devout Pakistanis: His jail cell has become a pilgrimage site, and a mosque was renamed to honor him.

And that tech story?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Fighting Boko Haram: 'Ghosts' haunt otherwise fine New York Times report

, , , , , ,

Applause for the New York Times for keeping an eye on Nigeria, which has been struggling for years with Boko Haram terrorists. But the clapping is a bit muted because of the religious "ghosts" in the latest story.

As the most populous nation in Africa -- the Times puts it at 190 million -- Nigeria can be seen as a bellwether for the rest of the continent. And rather than a dry recital of official stats and statements, the 1,370-word Times story captures the dread under which many Nigerians live:

DAKAR, Senegal — A sense of fear nags at Hauwa Bulama every time she leaves home.
She worries that suicide bombers might be lurking at the vegetable stand where she shops for her six children. They could turn up at the hospital where she takes her relatives. Any woman in a hijab could have a suicide belt under her clothes, she fears. The frequent public announcements to avoid crowded areas in her northern Nigerian city only heighten her anxiety.
"You are always afraid," said Ms. Bulama, who lives in Maiduguri, a frequent target of the ruthless Islamist insurgent group Boko Haram. "When you take your child to be immunized, you don’t know who is seated next to you. You don’t know who is hiding what."
For Ms. Bulama and countless others in northern Nigeria and across the Lake Chad region, the victories scored by President Muhammadu Buhari’s multinational campaign against Boko Haram since taking office in May have mattered little to their daily lives.

The article acknowledges that the government of President Buhari has killed many Boko Haram fighters and shrunk their areas of control. An international fighting force, which includes Chad, Niger, Nigeria and Cameroon -- with armored vehicles from the United States -- has pushed back and scattered the terrorists. Buhari has even boasted that "technically we have won the war."

Yet the conflict has created more than 2.4 million refugees, the Times reports. The 200-plus schoolgirls kidnapped in 2014 are still missing, a clear sign of poor intelligence gathering. And the suicide bombings have continued -- two more in the last two weeks.

The newspaper praises Buhari for replacing ineffective army commanders and moving headquarters into the battle zone of northeastern Nigeria. But rebuilding the military will take money, something in short supply in the wake of the slump in oil prices.


Please respect our Commenting Policy