, , , , , , ,

Odd, unquestioning AP story misses point on University of Wisconsin's 'religion center'

, , , , , , ,

Once upon a time, the Associated Press could be depended upon to deliver solid, basic, hard-news stories which informed readers about a given event or issue. Samuel Langhorne Clemens, also known of course as Mark Twain, famously declared: “There are only two forces that can carry light to all the corners of the globe … the sun in the heavens and the Associated Press down here.”

Reading the AP's report -- perhaps more properly titled an "aggregation" -- on developments at the University of Wisconsin, one wonders if the AP of Twain's day is far less recognizable today. Instead of insights, we get hints and teases of information, and nothing more. I'd call that a journalism problem, wouldn't you?

Under the rather bland headline "University of Wisconsin-Madison starts new religion center," the AP story, seen online at websites for the Chicago Tribune and other outlets, is short on details:

A new center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison hopes to spread religious literacy on campus.
The Center for Religion and Global Citizenry comes after the Luber Institute for the Study of Abrahamic Religions closed last year due to lack of funding, Wisconsin Public Radio reported.

Neither the AP nor the original Wisconsin Public Radio story shed much light on the questions raised by the reporting. Who funded the now-shuttered Luber Institute? Who is funding the new Center for Religion and Global Citizenry? What do the funders expect from the new project?

Let's remember that the University of Wisconsin system is a state-funded campus.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

How about this religion angle? Jail nurse accused of trying to exorcize an inmate

, , , ,

Just in time for Halloween, a jail nurse in Oklahoma is accused of trying an exorcism on a  combative inmate.

Here in my home state of Oklahoma, a longtime investigative reporter for The Oklahoman reports the story.

Just to be clear, this news actually has nothing to do with Tuesday's holiday.

But it did break today:

A nurse has been banned from working at the Oklahoma County jail after witnesses reported she began an exorcism rather than help a combative inmate.
The inmate died the next day.
The nurse, Linda Herlong Jackson, 67, of Oklahoma City, denies the accusation.
"Oh, brother," she told The Oklahoman. "No. ... I didn't do an exorcism."
Detention officers reported the nurse said, "I revoke you demons,'' as the inmate thrashed around and screamed, a sheriff's investigator said. One witness reported the nurse had asked first if anyone would mind if she performed an exorcism.
A sheriff's lieutenant stopped the exorcism after arriving and being told what was going on, the investigator said.
Sheriff P.D. Taylor banned the nurse Oct. 20.

At the end of the story, readers hear from the nurse again:


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

Will team Trump come through for Christians in Middle East? Will press cover this story?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Two decades ago, my family converted to Eastern Orthodoxy -- becoming part of the ancient Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church that is based on Damascus, located on the street called Straight (as in Acts 9:11).

From 2001-2004 we were members of a West Palm Beach, Fla., congregation in which most of the members had deep family roots into Syria, Lebanon or Palestine. Needless to say, they had stories to tell about the struggles of Christians in the Middle East.

Here in America, we tend to focus on the present. At the moment, that means talking about atrocities linked to the Islamic State. When you talk to Christians from the Middle East, the events of the present are always tied to centuries of oppression in the past. It's all one story.

Right now, the issue -- for many Christians, and members of other oppressed religious minorities -- is how to survive in refugee camps. After that they face the ultimate questions of whether to flee the region or attempt, once again, to return to their battered homes and churches and start over.

Thus, I noticed a story last week that received very little attention in the American mainstream press. Once again, we are dealing with a story that I first saw in an online analysis at The Atlantic. When I went looking for mainstream, hard-news coverage, I saw this short CNN report, and that was pretty much it. Here's the heart of that CNN story:

Washington (CNN) Vice President Mike Pence announced Wednesday night that the Trump administration will no longer fund "ineffective" programs run by the United Nations to help persecuted communities and will instead send money to such groups directly through the US Agency for International Development.
"President (Donald) Trump has ordered the State Department to stop funding ineffective relief efforts at the United Nations, ... and from this day forward, America will provide support directly to persecuted communities through USAID," Pence declared to extended applause while speaking in Washington to the group In Defense of Christians, which advocates for greater protection of Christians in the Middle East.
"While faith-based groups with proven track records and deep roots in the region are more than willing to assist, the United Nations continues to deny their funding requests," Pence said.
The vice president, who is deeply religious, urged his "fellow Christians" to support faith-based groups and private organizations.

    Note the strange, vague little phrase that Pence is "deeply religious," backed by the scare-quote "fellow Christians" reference. In other words, this move is just another attempt to play to the GOP base. Thus, this isn't really a story that matters.

     


    Please respect our Commenting Policy
    , , , , ,

    A Kentucky judge defies gay couples. So why are readers told so little about his beliefs?

    , , , , ,

    By now some of you may have heard of the Kentucky judge who is quitting rather than award custody of adopted kids to gay parents.

    It’s reminiscent of Kim Davis, the Kentucky court clerk who in 2015 refused to allow her name on marriage licenses for same sex couples -- but was willing to let such licenses be issued under someone else’s authority. She ended up getting a meeting with Pope Francis, thanks to a sympathetic apostolic nuncio to the United States.

    Here’s what the Washington Post had on this latest story -- the latest Kentucky court drama, that is:

    A Kentucky judge who stirred controversy earlier this year by refusing to hear adoption cases involving gay parents says he plans to resign in hopes of quashing an ethics inquiry by a state judicial panel.
    Judge W. Mitchell Nance told the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission in a memo made public Wednesday that he would resign effective Dec. 16 rather than fight the commission’s charges that he violated ethical rules. He also sent a resignation letter to Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R), the Associated Press reported.
    Nance was facing sanctions that included possible removal from the bench.

    The first comment in the story is from the opposition.

    “Judge Nance must have seen the writing on the wall,” said LGBT advocate Chris Hartman, whose organization, the Fairness Campaign, helped bring a complaint against the judge. “I hope this sends a message to judges across the country that if their conscience conflicts with their duty, they must leave the bench.”
    Kentucky law permits same-sex couples to adopt children.

    As tmatt has written (but this is an angle often ignored in a lot of coverage), the main players in these dramas often try to engineer compromises by which the petitioners can get what they want, but without the Christian official’s cooperation.


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

    When First Amendment conflicts erupt at U.S. Supreme Court, it's time to ask WWDD?

    , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    When First Amendment conflicts erupt at U.S. Supreme Court, it's time to ask WWDD?

    Over a three-day period, 47 “friend of the court” briefs suddenly clogged the inbox at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the most important religious liberty case of this term -- if not of the coming decade. This is a crucial First Amendment showdown.

    Almost all these briefs opposed Colorado’s use of an anti-discrimination law against Masterpiece Cakeshop for refusing to provide the cake for a same-sex wedding.

    The immediate issue is the fate of certain religious bakers, florists, photographers, Orthodox Jewish catering halls and the like. In a parallel case, Oregon fined a bakery $135,000, demonstrating government’s power to penalize dissenters or put them out of business. Beyond that lie important rights claims by  conscientious objectors that the Supreme Court did not address when it legalized gay marriages nationwide in 2015 (.pdf here).

    The Cakeshop’s pleas for freedom of religion, conscience, and expression are backed in briefs from the Trump Administration, 11 Republican U.S. Senators and 75 House members, 20 of the 50 U.S. states led by Texas, a host of social conservative  and “parachurch” agencies, and America’s two largest religious bodies (Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention).

    Yet to be heard from are “mainline” Protestant and non-Orthodox Jewish groups that support the gay cause.

    This past week the court received briefs from the American Civil Liberties Union (.pdf here) on behalf of the gay couple and from Colorado officials (.pdf here). Repeating past contentions, the briefs contend that religious liberty claims cannot justify exemptions from anti-discrimination laws that are “neutral” and “generally applicable,” whether religious or secular in motivation. As Colorado sees things, the Constitution offers no support for a business “to treat a class of people as inferior simply because of who they are.”

    Whenever news about the First Amendment erupts, The Religion Guy first asks WWDD? That is, What Will Douglas Do? -- referring to Douglas Laycock, distinguished professor of law at the University of Virginia and a prime source on our beat.


    Please respect our Commenting Policy
    , , , ,

    Does deductibility really influence church giving? Salt Lake Tribune skirts the question, sort of

    , , , ,

    The fact that Americans who itemize their income tax deductions can also deduct their donations to the church, mosque, synagogue or (recognized) religious outpost of their choice is a cherished part of American taxation, something that's not true in all nations of the world.

    Now, the latest tax reform proposal knocking around Congress may -- or may not -- put a dent in such deducting. If the "standard deduction" of $5,500 for individuals and $11,000 for married couples is doubled, as proponents want, the thinking goes, more folks will skip itemizing and just go with the higher number. No itemizing means less in the collection plate, they theorize.

    But here's the journalistic question: Does a mere assertion mean something's a fact? Logic would say no, but sometimes a media outlet will seem to glide around logic for a compelling story. At the least, that's how it could look to a reader.

    The Salt Lake Tribune, serving a state where returning tithe is mandatory for Mormons, dives right in to the charitable deduction issue, leading with a dramatic point:

    A Republican tax plan being debated on Capitol Hill maintains the deduction for charitable giving but still may have an unintended consequence that could hurt donations to churches and nonprofit groups.
    The impact of the tax bill — if passed and signed into law — could mean less revenue for the LDS Church and other denominations and faith-based organizations as well as groups like the Salvation Army, Goodwill and humanitarian operations.


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

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't: Museum of Bible is hot news, no matter what

    , , , , , , , , , ,
    Damned if you do, damned if you don't: Museum of Bible is hot news, no matter what

    The debates began during World War II and raged through the following decades among human-rights advocates, private art collectors, museum leaders and others.

    The Nazis stole astonishing amounts of Jewish art on an unprecedented scale (something like the legendary 1204 rape of Byzantium by Crusaders). Some of that art vanished. Some went to art collectors, and museums, with leaders who argued that the greater good was to save it for viewing by future display. Some insisted these treasures must be returned to the heirs of the families who owned them. But what if there were no heirs?

    Now, similar arguments are raging about antiquities looted by the Islamic State as it ravaged the ancient communities, monasteries, churches, mosques, libraries, etc., of Iraq and Syria. Treasures hit the black market in the Internet age and, again, arguments raged about whether it is legal or moral to purchase these items, rather than leaving them in the hands of ISIS. But did purchasing them fund terrorism? It would appear so. Would it have been better to have let these items vanish into the hands of collectors who would hoard them out of sight? How could these treasures be returned to religious communities that, in some cases, no longer exist?

    To say the least, the Green family of Hobby Lobby fame and its Museum of the Bible got caught up in these scandals, producing waves of headlines. The crucial issue: At what point does trading for these items cross the line into theft and encouraging theft?

    So what makes a museum controversial? That was the question at the heart of this week's "Crossroads" podcast (click here to tune that in).

    As it turns out, there are all kinds of reasons for people -- secular and religious -- to argue about the new Museum of the Bible, just off the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Some of these issues ended up in a Washington Post feature that was the focus of my recent post on this subject. Headline: "Washington Post religion team (thank God) gets to offer first look at the Museum of the Bible."

    At the heart of the Post piece was a fascinating, and perfectly valid, damned if you do, damned if your don't question about this museum.


    Please respect our Commenting Policy

    Indiana court rules sex offenders can go to church with children: What questions does this raise?

    Should convicted sex offenders be allowed to attend worship services with children? Many faith leaders across the nation grapple with that question. 

    It's an issue that has sparked a new decision from an Indiana court: The Indianapolis Star reports that the state's Court of Appeals overturned a trial court decision and ruled that "sex offenders are allowed to attend church services even while children are present to attend Sunday school."

    More from the Star:

    The ruling handed down Tuesday stems from a letter the Boone County sheriff sent to his county’s registered sex offenders in July 2015 informing them of the passage of Indiana’s “serious sex offender” law. The law prohibits “serious sex offenders” from entering “school property.”
    School property, under the state's interpretation of the law, includes a church if the church conducts Sunday school or has child care for children of the ages described in the statute. Sex offenders faced arrest and prosecution if they attended such a church. 
    Citing Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, three unnamed sex offenders sought a court injunction to attend church. They argued that preventing them from attending services, even when children are present, places "a substantial burden on their exercise of religion."
    "It is a very serious infringement on rights in telling someone they cannot go to religious services," said Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, who is representing the sex offenders.  
    "Everyone seeks religious service for different reasons — to exclude someone seems problematic."

    The paper's story offers helpful background on the legal arguments on both sides of the Indiana case.

    A follow-up piece — by the Star or another enterprising news organization — might dig deeper into the issue and reflect other key voices.


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

    Are conservative news media downplaying the brutal crackdown against Egyptian gays?

    , , , , , , , ,
    Are conservative news media downplaying the brutal crackdown against Egyptian gays?

    Depending upon your point of view — and in their purist iterations — demands for equal rights for gay people are either about justly extending social and legal parity, or a moral struggle to uphold traditional religious doctrine and cultural ideas about sexuality and gender.

    Either way, homosexuality is one of the three biggest culture war issues dividing Americans, along with questions about abortion and the legal parameters of religious freedom.

    It's also a prime issue internationally. Globalization has fostered the spread of contemporary Western liberal values. That, in turn, has prompted push back in some non-Western nations enmeshed in the global market’s whirlwind of change.

    Some of the more recent stories referencing the issue have come out of Egypt, where homosexuality, while not explicitly outlawed, is harshly condemned by the majority Muslim and minority Coptic Christian religious establishments.

    Every so often Egypt’s authoritarian government, led by President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, appears to use the issue as a political cudgel to bolster support among Muslim and Christian traditionalists, who together comprise the vast majority of the nation’s population.

    Click here for a recent Washington Post piece summing up the situation.

    The story begins thusly:

    CAIRO -- A crackdown on gay people in Egypt intensified in recent days as security forces raided cafes in downtown Cairo and courts delivered harsh prison sentences, further driving the nation’s LGBT community underground.


    Please respect our Commenting Policy