, , , , , , , , , , ,

'Catholics are under attack': Is it a valid news story if a U.S. senator claims this is true?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Is it news if a sitting United States senator pens a letter to the U.S. Justice Department?

It depends on a number of factors. Let’s also say that the letter in question is made public by the senator’s communications department via the Internet and on social media. Is it a news story then?

This depends, of course, on what the letter says and whether it is connected to facts that journalists can seek out and report — if they are willing to do so.

Is the story linked to nasty political partisanship? Does it involve President Donald Trump? Does it involve religion, sex and maybe even money?

This post isn’t some esoteric exercise in press freedom or news judgement. It’s about something real that is plaguing the national press in this country at this very critical moment in time.

A letter of this very kind was written and made public on August 11 by Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy (no relation to the Kennedy’s of JFK and Massachusetts fame). The letter in question had nothing to do with Russian election interference or the disappearance of mail boxes. Those topics would have been covered immediately and extensively.

Instead, the letter was about the surge in vandalism targeting Catholic churches and statues, a story that the vast majority of pros in the national press (as I have noted in this space before) have ignored. The reasons for that vary greatly, but my best hypothesis is that it just doesn’t resonate among secular newsroom editors and reporters who don’t have a high regard for Catholics or religion in general in the importance in the lives of everyday Americans.


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

Washington Post ponders the future of Sen. Tim Scott (all but avoiding the word 'Christian')

, , , , , , , , ,

Let’s see, am I at liberty — after a week of big-time PTL scandal flashbacks — to discuss a completely different kind of religion story?

I have not been watching the major-party political conventions (for mental-health reasons, let’s say), but I have been spending a few moments watching reactions on Twitter. I tend to prefer baseball over the live visuals of advocacy media slugfests.

I saved a few links to materials about the interfaith strategies of the Democrats. I also looked for signs of the role that issues of religion and culture could play in the post-Donald Trump GOP. And in that context, I looked at some of the quotes from the short speech by U.S. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.

It’s obvious why this man once considered going to seminary. He’s a fine orator and has a knack for making references to Christianity in ways that are more graceful than, well, posing with a Bible for news cameras. It’s impossible to dig into Scott’s career without paying serious attention to his faith.

However, a recent lengthy Washington Post Magazine profile of Scott came close to doing just that. Here’s the epic double-decker headline:

The Burden of Tim Scott

As the only Black GOP senator, he has walked a delicate line between schooling his colleagues — and the president — on matters of race and remaining silent. Has that helped his political future?

I understand that this was a political piece and that Scott is tiptoeing through the Trump-Twitter era. The long opening anecdote in about Scott asking the president to take down the infamous “white power” tweet is totally justified.

However, to be blunt, I think that the word “Christian” should have been just as important in this long, long story as the word “token.” Read it all and see what you think. I think this story would have been completely different, if a religion-beat pro had been asked to take part in the reporting or editing.

So here is the political angle that is at the heart of this story:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Freethought Caucus in U.S. House reflects the rise, and political potential, of the 'nones'

, , , , , ,

Rashida Tlaib of liberal “squad” fame on Capitol Hill, the first Palestinian-American and one of two Muslim women in the U.S. House, won this month’s primary against the president of Detroit’s City Council and is guaranteed re-election in a heavily Democratic district.

Now the “Friendly Atheist” blog on patheos.com revealed that Tlaib has quietly joined the Congressional Freethought Caucus. Aysha Khan, Religion News Service’s Muslim specialist, quickly grabbed the report.

Lest there be misunderstanding, this doesn’t mean Tlaib is spurning Islam like, say, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, celebrated author of “Infidel.” In theory, a religious believer can back such Freethought Caucus goals as “public policy based on reason and science,” protection of government’s “secular nature” and opposition to “discrimination against atheists, agnostics, and religious seekers.”

There are dozens of these special-interest caucuses in the House (.pdf here), covering anything from Cannabis to International Religious Freedom to LGBT Equality to rugby. One of the largest is the Prayer Caucus, chaired by North Carolina Baptist Mark Walker. The House members who lead the Ahmadiyya Muslim and American Sikh Caucuses are not adherents of those faiths, only interested friends.

There are now 13 House members in the Freethought Caucus, all of them Democrats, while 18 representatives decline to list a religious identity. Another 80 label themselves generic “Protestant” without specifying any particular church affiliation. See rundown on all Congress members here (.pdf).

These facts echo the increase of religiously unaffiliated “nones,” now 26 percent of the over-all U.S. population in Pew Research surveys. If effectively organized, they should exercise growing influence in the Democratic Party — though churchgoing Catholic Joe Biden’s nominating convention featured the customary God-talk.

Three Freethought members are among those who specify no religious identity: Representatives Sean Casten of Illinois, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Happy birthday to Ganesh? How 'present' is Kamala's Hindu past?

, , ,

I’m not sure a presidential and vice-presidential candidate have ever observed the birthday of a Hindu god that’s half boy and half elephant, but this being 2020 — there’s a time for everything.

Ganesh is one of the most popular out of a huge pantheon of Hindu gods and you see his human body with an elephant head all over India. On his birthday, which was Aug. 22, Biden made a tweet, which was re-tweeted by his vice presidential nominee, as a greeting to his followers.

This from the India-based Economic Times:

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his Indian-origin running mate Kamala Harris on Saturday greeted the Hindu community in the US, India and around the world on the occasion of Ganesh Chaturthi.

"To everyone celebrating the Hindu festival of Ganesh Chaturthi in the US, India, and around the world, may you overcome all obstacles, be blessed with wisdom, and find a path toward new beginnings," Biden said in a tweet.

So why did Biden tweet this? Was this a nod to his vice presidential pick’s heritage? A move to win America’s tiny Hindu vote? A salute to India? You tell me.

The key, here at GetReligion, is where this side of the Democratic Party’s interfaith campaign is getting the news coverage that it deserves.

We’ve written about the whole Hindu angle before. For the record, Kamala Harris attends a Baptist church; her husband is Jewish and her mom was Hindu and she’s named after the Hindu goddess Lakshmi.

So … want some interesting reads on the heritage hook in the Kamala candidacy? Readers will want to search out media from India.


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

Did Falwell try to 'hang a lantern' before hotter problems surfaced at Liberty University?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

So the “cabana boy” story is back, only with a plot twist. I am referring, of course, to the neo-tabloid New York Times report last year that ran with this headline: “The Evangelical, the ‘Pool Boy,’ the Comedian and Michael Cohen.”

Now, expect lots of mainstream digital ink (#DUH) to be spilled in the hours ahead about this Washington Examiner “Secrets” column headline: “Exclusive: Falwell says ‘Fatal Attraction’ threat led to depression.”

This article by Paul Bedard was based on a 1,200-word document from Jerry Falwell, Jr. — currently on an indefinite leave of absence as president of Liberty University — and a follow-up telephone interview. Thus, journalists are starting off with on-the-record material they can quote.

The key: Falwell says that he has struggled with depression in the wake of an affair by his wife Becki, which then led to threats of blackmail.

In a statement exclusively to Secrets, Falwell revealed his wife Becki’s affair for the first time, said it was short lived and that the two reconciled quickly. But, they claimed, her former lover has threatened them over the past several years and they are done with it hanging over their heads.

“I’m just tired of it,” said Falwell of the anxiety he’s felt about the affair becoming public and embarrassing his family and Liberty. “It’s just got to end,” he added.

This may have been part of the subtext for recent statements by Liberty’s board about secrets and problems swirling around their digitally unzipped leader.

When I read this remarkable document, the first person I thought of was pundit Chris Matthews, and not because of the details of his resignation from his MSNBC show. No, I was thinking about something he shared long ago in his political playbook “Hardball.”

I am referring to this Beltway battlefield strategy: “Hang a lantern on your problem.”

What does that mean? You can see various definitions online, including: “When politicians recognize their problems and presents them outright, it takes them away from their opponents and puts them in control of how they are viewed.” I like this short version: “It’s always better to bear your own bad news.”

Thus, journalists will need to pause and ask if this remarkable Falwell memo is the whole truth or part of the truth that helps Liberty’s leader during his current problems? The answer, of course, could be “yes,” to both.


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

Democrats embrace interfaith America, while a few DNC caucuses cut 'under God' from pledge

, , , , , , , , , ,

Did the Democrats “get” religion or not?

Certainly, lots of headlines coming out of this week’s virtual Democratic National Convention had strong faith elements.

But a different storyline gained attention, too.

The words “under God” were left out of the Pledge of Allegiance at the DNC’s Muslim Delegates & Allies Assembly and its LGBT Caucus Meeting, as first reported by David Brody, the Christian Broadcasting Network’s chief political analyst.

“NOT the way to win rust belt culturally centered Dems,” Brody tweeted.

Victor Morton of the Washington Times noted:

The phrase was not part of the Pledge when Congress first officially codified it in 1942 (it dates back in various forms to 1906). It was added in 1954 under a bill signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty … In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource, in peace or in war,” Eisenhower wrote.

Brody stressed that when reciting the Pledge during main sessions, the Democrats said the words “under God.”

But the exclusion of those words by certain Democratic caucuses, he suggested, harkened back to 2012 when Democrats came under fire for removing “God” from the party platform. At the request of then-President Barack Obama, the party reversed that decision.

Eight years later, former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign — in what Biden calls “a battle for the soul of America” — has put an emphasis on winning over religious voters.


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

Behind the #WhiteJesus wars: Lessons to learn from ancient Christian iconography

, , , , , , ,
Behind the #WhiteJesus wars: Lessons to learn from ancient Christian iconography

For modern skeptics, the 6th-century icon hanging in the Orthodox monastery in the shadow of Mount Sinai is simply a 33-by-18-inch board covered in bees wax and colored pigments.

For believers, this Christ Pantocrator ("ruler of all") icon is the most famous image of Jesus in the world, because the remote Sinai Peninsula location of St. Catherine's Monastery allowed it to survive the Byzantine iconoclasm era. The icon shows Jesus -- with a beard and long hair -- raising his right hand in blessing, while holding a golden book of the Gospels.

This Jesus does not have blond hair and blue eyes. "Christ of Sinai" shows the face of a wise teacher from ancient Palestine.

"When you talk about ancient icons, you are basically talking about images of Jesus with long hair, a beard and some kind of Roman toga. That's just about all you can say," said Jonathan Pageau of Quebec, an Eastern Orthodox artist and commentator on sacred symbols.

In the early church, he added, believers "didn't ask other questions -- about race and culture -- because those were not the important questions in those days. … Once you start politicizing icons there's just no way out of those arguments. You get into politics and dividing people and then you're lost."

In these troubled times, said Pageau, many analysts are "projecting valid concerns about racism and Europe's history of colonization and the plight of African-Americans back into issues of church history and art that are centuries and centuries old. It's a kind of category error and everything gets mixed up."

But that's what happened when debates about some #BlackLivesMatters activists toppling Confederate memorials -- along with attacks on Catholic statues and even insufficiently "woke" Founding Fathers -- veered into #WhiteJesus territory.

"Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down. They are a form of white supremacy," tweeted Shaun King, author of "Make Change: How to Fight Injustice, Dismantle Systemic Oppression, and Own Our Future."

The popular Internet scribe later added: "All murals and stained-glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down. … We can debate [whether] or not Jesus was real all day long. What I do know, is that white Jesus is a lie. And is a tool of white supremacy created and advanced to help white people use the faith as a tool of oppression. Also, they never would've accepted a religion from a Brown man."


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

Old news in Turkey: What does Islam teach about turning Christian churches into mosques?

, , , , , , ,

THE QUESTION:

What does Islam teach about seizing Christian churches to become mosques?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The bitterly contested Hagia Sophia (“Holy Wisdom”) in Constantinople (the city now named Istanbul) was the grandest church in Christendom across nine centuries. Then Muslim conquerors under Mehmed II confiscated the church in 1453 and converted it into the Aya Sofia Mosque. In 1935, Turkey’s government secularized it to be an interfaith museum, but three weeks ago turned it into a working mosque once again.

Christian leaders worldwide are aggrieved by that latest development.

But apart from Christian feelings and fears for the future of the building’s celebrated artwork, in strictly Islamic terms was the 1453 takeover of a church proper? Should it be perpetuated in 2020, and are such takeovers legitimate today? Turkey’s summertime action has sparked new debate among Muslims.

A traditionalist view is well articulated at www.muslimmatters.org by Muhammad Wajid Akhter, a physician on the council of the British Islamic Medical Association who studies Islamic history.

He notes that Christian conquerors in Spain took over the Al-Hambra Palace and Cordoba Mosque, and built Granada Cathedral over the site of a mosque. That is accurate. But when was the last time Christians confiscated a mosque? Those events occurred in 1236, 1492 and 1529. In the centuries since, the world has gone through the Enlightenment, the rise of democracy and widespread support for human rights.

Tolerance-minded Muslims say Istanbul has plenty of mosques already and didn’t need to add one in 2020, Akhter, however, contends that a mosque “is owned by Allah” and Muslims have no right to simply give away “something that does not belong to us.” By the same reasoning, of course, Christians can say Hagia Sophia is sacred ground that belongs to their God, not Mehmed and his forces of 1453.

Akhter dismisses the concern some Muslims express about Christian sensitivities as “impractical” and “untenable.”


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

Biden 2020: 'Devout' Catholic? 'Cuomo' Catholic? 'McCarrick' Catholic? 'Pope Francis' Catholic?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Biden 2020: 'Devout' Catholic? 'Cuomo' Catholic? 'McCarrick' Catholic? 'Pope Francis' Catholic?

Joe Biden is a Catholic.

This is a statement of fact, because of his baptism. Vice President Mike Pence is a Catholic, too, by the way. Each man — as is the case with all Catholics — is one Rite of Confession away from full participation in the sacraments of his church. What is Biden’s status? That’s between Biden and his confessor.

Now we get to the tricky question, during an election campaign in which — as always seems to be the case — Mass-attending Catholics are the crucial swing vote across the Rust Belt.

What is the accurate adjective to put in front of “Catholic” in the following equation? Joe Biden is a ______ Catholic. This question was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

If you read the mainstream press, the operative words appears to be “devout.” See this typical overture for a recent USA Today piece: “Donald Trump claims Joe Biden is 'against God;' Biden calls attack 'shameful'.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump unleashed another strident attack on Joe Biden over religion … saying his Democratic opponent, a devout Catholic, is "against God" and even religion itself — comments Biden denounced as “shameful.”

“No religion, no anything," Trump told supporters at a brief airport rally in Cleveland as he visited Ohio for an economic speech. "Hurt the Bible, hurt God. He’s against God, he’s against guns, he’s against energy, our kind of energy.”

Biden, who has often talked about how his Catholic faith helped him survive the death of his first wife and their daughter in a 1972 car crash, described Trump as a hypocrite making a cynical appeal to religious conservatives.

Trump’s oh-so-typical blast makes zero sense and was similar to the old claims that President Barack Obama was not a Christian. Obama was, of course, active in the United Church of Christ, an oldline Protestant denomination that has long helped define the bleeding left edge of Christianity in America.

So, again: Joe Biden is a ______ Catholic and constantly talks about the role that his faith has played in his life. Has anyone spotted Biden’s chosen adjective? I have not.


Please respect our Commenting Policy