Washington Post tries to define ‘liberal’ in Maryland

April 5, 2013 By

There is much to applaud in today’s Washington Post story that ran under the headline, “Maryland’s leftward swing.”

If I could listen in on the inner thoughts of the newspaper’s editors, I would imagine that one element in this story that they considered a bit edgy, in terms of journalistic norms, as its open use of the word “liberal” to describe the victories of liberal politicians in the state of Maryland. Yes, the increasingly popular word “progressive” — the preferred label among political liberals these days — used used high up in this report. But the other “L” word is used without shame.

This is appropriate, since the Maryland left is on a roll.

Now, I live and vote in Maryland and I get that this is a pretty liberal state. Trust me on that.

The problem with this story is that the Washington Post team seems to be viewing events in Maryland through its usual lens, which is the point of view of the Washington establishment. The Post, of course, takes very seriously its role as the voice of the new and evolving normal in the nation’s capital.

The problem is that the view of the Washington establishment is not the same as that in Maryland. The essence of the Post worldview is a kind of white, professional, moral Libertarianism. I would imagine there are debates in the newsroom about, oh, how to handle Iraq and Medicare, but very few debates about issues linked to abortion and the Sexual Revolution.

So what does this have to do with Maryland?

Maryland is a liberal state, yes. But two of its most powerful forms of political liberalism are touched by streams of religious thought that appear to be hard to see through the lens of the Washington establishment. First, there is the crucial role that the African-American church plays in Baltimore and in the older suburbs, especially in Price George’s County. The second is the complex role that Catholicism plays in the state.

Let’s look at the top of the story, a story that has next to nothing to say about either race or religion:

Benefits for illegal immigrants. Same-sex marriage. Strict regulations on gun purchases.

Over the past two years, Maryland has enacted laws that represent a dramatic liberal shift, even for a state long dominated by Democrats.

Driving the progressive swing is Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and the Maryland General Assembly, which now embraces legislation that it previously rejected. Emboldened by victories in statewide referendums, the governor and his allies have imposed tax increases, repealed the death penalty and approved a system to provide more than $1 billion in subsidies to a potential offshore wind farm.

Now, look at that lede. Where, for example, would establishment Catholics be on the issue of benefits for illegal immigrants? The church hierarchy would favor that. How about the African-American church? More complex, but I would predict that most lean “left” on that issue, if the word “left” applies.

Jumping to the third issue, where would the Catholic establishment be on gun control? Once again, that’s a “life” issue on which most Catholics — even the weekly and daily Mass crowd — would tend to back the “liberal” option. How about the African-American church? Once again, most would lean “left.”

How about the death penalty? Ditto.

How about tax increases, especially those intended to help programs for the poor and unemployed? Ditto.

A measure pitched as pro-environment? Ditto.

Now, what about same-sex marriage? All of a sudden, things change and grow much more complex. The same is true for issues linked to abortion and sexuality in general. There are fault lines and divisions among church-going Catholics and those active in the African-American churches, yet it is safe to say that they remain more conservative than the Maryland norm on moral and cultural issues.

What’s my point?

[Read more...]

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Baptists, Catholicism, Mainline, Politics, Race, Same-sex marriage, Sex, Social Issues Tagged With: , , ,

Hey CNN: Ghosts in the ties that bind Cyprus and Russia

March 21, 2013 By

So I’m sitting in a restaurant eating my lunch and, up on the wall, the large-screen television is tuned to CNN, where a lengthy report is unfolding about a European Union plan attempt to raise the corporate tax rates on Cyprus, a land in which wealthy Russians have funneled billions into tax shelters.

It’s all quite complex and offers yet another wrinkle in the larger financial crisis in Mediterranean markets and governance. This is a valid and important story.

I have not been able to find an online version of the exact CNN story that I saw earlier today, but here is a piece of a CNN Money story about the showdown, under the headline, “Why Russia is irate about the Cyprus bank tax.”

It’s easy to see why some in Russia are unhappy with a new proposal from the European Union to levy a one-off tax on Cyprus bank deposits of up to 9.9% in exchange for €10 billion in bailout money to help the government pay its bills. If most of Russia’s deposits get hit with the top tax rate, which applies to accounts holding €100,000 or more, the country’s citizens stand to lose more than $3 billion.

Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed the bank-tax proposal, while Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev called it “just like a confiscation of someone else’s money.”

There’s a suspicion that not all of that money was obtained honestly. Cyprus is believed to be a harbor for ill-gotten gains. The country “remains vulnerable to money laundering; reporting of suspicious transactions in offshore sector remains weak,” the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency wrote in its country brief.

Again let me stress that this is important and valid news.

What kept poking me, however, were all the on-screen headlines and prompts stressing that Russia and Cyprus share a long history of cultural, political and economic ties. It seemed that every time I looked up from my meal, there was a new caption offering a variation on that theme.

So why is Russia so involved in Cyprus? Money and politics, of course, which is true. In CNN wire-service coverage, that sounds something like this, with commentary from Marios Zachariadi of the economics faculty at the University of Cyprus:

Zachariadi said Greek Cypriots and the Russians have had a special relationship for centuries, with the Russians helping the Greeks during their war for independence in the early 1800s. Cyprus was one of the first countries to welcome Russian money after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Both nations share a rocky history with the Turks.

Yes indeed, that is part of the picture. But what is missing?

The answer is tragically obvious: Centuries of ties linked to Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

Here are some relevant numbers from the website of the Cyprus embassy, describing decades of destruction of priceless sacred, cultural and artistic treasures:

[Read more...]

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Business & Economy, Islam, Orthodoxy, Politics, Race, Religion, World, World Religions, Worship Tagged With: , , , , ,

What do conservatives really think about Cardinal Mahony?

February 27, 2013 By
YouTube Preview Image

Yes, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles will be in Rome and will vote in the process to select the next pope. In fact, as part of his social-media campaign against his critics, he plans to tweet whenever and wherever Vatican officials will let him get his hands on a keyboard.

Meanwhile, I am still following, with great interest, the mainstream media’s attempts to describe Mahony’s starring role in the North American Church and, especially, his approach to Catholic life and doctrine, which has for decades made him a figure of some controversy. Click here, for some background information related to this topic, especially the contrasting personalities of Mahony and current Archbishop Jose H. Gomez.

Both supporters and critics of Mahony would agree that, to understand the cardinal’s legacy, one has to wrestle with the history of the giant Religious Education Conference held in Los Angeles. Simply stated, it has long been a symbolic gathering of the progressive leaders of American Catholicism.

Thus, The New York Times dispatched a team to cover this year’s event. Here is some summary material from the resulting report to set the stage:

… This is a defining moment for Archbishop Gomez, who took over from Cardinal Mahony two years ago and is universally described as low-key and quiet, particularly compared with his predecessor. His public rebuke of Cardinal Mahony stunned observers not only for its content, but because the normally mild-mannered archbishop would react so swiftly and dramatically. …

Now, many see this as a first turn in the spotlight for Archbishop Gomez. Cardinal Mahony was known for marching in public rallies, cultivating allies in politics and Hollywood and an almost larger-than-life public persona. By contrast, Archbishop Gomez has only rarely appeared in the press over the last two years. He declined to be interviewed for this article and his staff declined to allow a reporter into the Religious Education Congress without an escort.

Once again, Mahony is described merely in terms of style, while Gomez receives both a style nod and, later on, an accurate theological label.

But here is the passage in this lengthy story that caught my eye:

Many here questioned whether Archbishop Gomez, a theological conservative shaped by his membership in the movement Opus Dei, would move quickly to undo Cardinal Mahony’s more liberal policies, like appointing women and lay people to powerful positions and supporting a robust AIDS ministry. But two years after taking the reins, he is often praised for not acting along ideological lines and has made changes only slowly. Last year, for example, he changed the name of the Office of Justice and Peace to the Office of Life, Justice and Peace. …

For many, Cardinal Mahony has long been a lightning rod in the church. He has deep wells of respect among Latinos, largely because of his role as a champion for immigrants. But traditionalists resent him for his liberal stances.

Now the key to this story is that the Times never appears to have actually interviewed any conservative Catholics in order to learn why they considered Mahony to be a liberal in the church. Instead, as is often the case, readers are given that reference to his “appointing women and lay people to powerful positions and supporting a robust AIDS ministry.”

Well, that’s interesting.

[Read more...]

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism, People, Race, Same-sex marriage, Sex, Social Issues, Worship Tagged With: , , , , , ,

What are the real differences between Mahony and Gomez?

February 20, 2013 By

Guess what? There are significant differences in the theological approaches and doctrinal convictions of Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez and his predecessor, Cardinal Roger Mahony.

So, what are they?

It’s hard to tell, in a fascinating Los Angeles Times story that goes way, way out its way to argue that the differences that really matter are rooted in style and, you guessed it, politics. You can tell that right up front in the content of the magisterial double-deck headline:

Gomez, Mahony are a study in contrasts

Where his predecessor led labor rallies and took up worker rights, earning the nickname ‘Hollywood’ from a pope, Gomez has quietly promoted conservative voices and evangelization.

Trust me, the contents of the story are way better, are way more complex, than that tone-deaf headline. However, I think that headline does show you where the newspaper’s editors were coming from when they approved work on this important news feature story.

The surprising bottom line, however, is that Gomez — whose roots are in Opus Dei — has not turned out to be a rampaging monster out to destroy Mahony’s work as one of the heroes of progressive American Catholicism. Part of this, yes, is a matter of style. Yet the story also hints that the bottom line is clear for those who have eyes to see: Mahony was a political animal who was always seeking the media spotlight; Gomez thinks the best way to achieve Catholic goals is to quietly use Catholic means, year after year after year.

Thus, readers are told, right up top:

In more than two decades leading the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahony headlined immigration rallies, marched for worker rights and made national news by announcing he would defy a congressional bill he regarded as anti-immigrant.

But the man who replaced him in 2011 — Archbishop Jose Gomez — has shied away from such attention-getting actions. Instead, he plans to take 60 conservative Catholic business leaders on a spiritual pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City this fall in hopes of winning them over on immigration reform.

It’s a distinctly different style from that of Mahony, whom Pope John Paul II nicknamed “Hollywood” for his frequent media appearances.

In other words, both men are highly committed to helping immigrants, a crucial issue in America’s largest Catholic archdiocese — 4.5 million Roman Catholics in 120 cities in Southern California, with Latinos as 70 percent of the faithful. However, Gomez appears to be reaching out to Catholic leaders on these issues through worship and Catholic education, perhaps with few television cameras nearby.

Still, I think that this passage does raise an interesting journalistic question: Did someone in the Gomez camp say that the goal of the trip to the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe was “winning” these business leaders “over on immigration reform”? Would Gomez state the goal in political, rather than spiritual terms? It’s hard to tell, since Gomez did not consent to be interviewed, which may or may not tell readers something about his view of the Times.

I found this passage especially interesting:

[Read more...]

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Godbeat, Marriage & family, People, Politics, Race, Same-sex marriage, Social Issues, Worship Tagged With: , , , , ,

Dr. Ben Carson’s faith makes news, this time

February 19, 2013 By
YouTube Preview Image

Every now and then, the newspaper that lands in my front yard runs a story about one of the most famous and, for many, most inspirational men currently alive and well and working in Baltimore.

No, this is not another post about coverage of the theological insights of Ray “God’s linebacker” Lewis of the world champion Baltimore Ravens.

I’m talking about Dr. Ben Carson, who is usually, in media reports, described as the “trailblazing black neurosurgeon” at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is also well known as an author, of course.

The most recent Baltimore Sun story about the good doctor is not, repeat, is NOT, haunted by a religion ghost. In fact, the story does a pretty good job of noting that his Seventh-day Adventist faith is a crucial part of what makes him tick — even if the references settles for the usual “devout” label without providing any material that demonstrates that fact, as opposed to simply proclaiming it.

Let me repeat, this particular story does not ignore religion. In fact, the team that produced it made sure to include the doctor’s beliefs as part of his public persona.

So what, in my humble opinion, makes this a story that deserves some GetReligion attention? I was fascinated by the fact that the Sun team clearly took the content of Carson’s faith semi-seriously for a completely and painfully obvious reason, which is that his recent remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast have stirred up political talk about his future.

The content of his faith is news because it’s political, not because it’s a key element in the life of a major figure in the city. Thus, readers are told right up front:

Dr. Ben Carson says he didn’t anticipate the reaction to what he considered his common-sense remarks as keynote speaker this month at the National Prayer Breakfast. But after video went viral of the trailblazing black neurosurgeon taking jabs at Barack Obama’s health care overhaul a few feet from the president himself, some want the famed doctor at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore to parlay the attention into a new career: politics.

“Here you have this guy who has been a celebrity minority for 30 years coming out and making the conservative case better than a lot of conservatives can,” said Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large for National Review Online. “Emotionally, that had a really big impact for a lot of people.”

While some objected to Carson raising health care and tax policy at the traditionally nonpolitical Washington breakfast, conservative heavyweights Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter all cheered his address. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial with the headline “Ben Carson for President.”

Trust me on this: How does the Sun team expect their readers to react to all of those names, to this litany of cultural doom, in a news report about a prominent local African-American leader? Click here for the YouTube answer.

So what was Carson actually trying to say at the breakfast? It would have been nice if the piece had actually quoted a chunk or two of the address, but this information made it into the report:

[Read more...]

Print Friendly

Filed Under: People, Politics, Race, Religion, Same-sex marriage, Science, Social Issues Tagged With: , , , , ,

Ugh — when ‘reality’ TV looks inside clergy homes

February 5, 2013 By
YouTube Preview Image

I know, I know. “The Sisterhood” is a reality television show about pastors’ wives.

I know, I know. That piece on the Style page at The Washington Post — “‘The Sisterhood’ is more religious entertainment than reality TV” — is primarily a review of this alleged fact-based reality show, not a true news feature about a serious issue in church life.

What we are talking about, of course, are the glass houses in which most clergy families live. This is delicate, serious territory.

All that aside, I actually would like to praise this Post piece for noting several serious holes in this oh-so-unreal reality show.

However, GetReligion readers will not be surprised to learn that the article does not spotlight the fact that the show is — despite focusing on the lives of Atlanta-area preachers’ wives — almost completely lacking in content about the beliefs of these women or the practice of their faith.

Right up front, readers are told:

“The Sisterhood” is a new reality show on TLC about pastors’ wives in Atlanta. The city is the spiritual home of Martin Luther King Jr.’s ministry and the show promises a rare window into the lives of several “first ladies.”

So far — we’re four episodes in, halfway through the inaugural season — a pastor has given his spouse a pair of handcuffs, a first lady has pointed out the first house where she smoked crack and there’s been a nice chat about sexually transmitted diseases.

Can we get a fan in the first pew? This is so not mama’s sweet hour of prayer.

More on those handcuffs in a minute, since that’s a rather important plot twist that gets mangled.

The key is the whole National Geographic-explores-strange-people approach that is given to what the creators see as an exotic and mysterious niche culture in American life. Right, this is a land in which pastors, priests, rabbis, imams, etc., are out of the mainstream.

So what, precisely, is the edgy Bible Belt niche explored in this series? That’s where the key racial and doctrinal elements come to the forefront, creating heat and controversy:

None of these first ladies are at major denominational churches, such as Baptist, Catholic, Episcopalian or Methodist. Instead, they’re all at what are loosely known as “prosperity churches,” with names like the Oasis Family Life Church, Emmanuel Tabernacle, Work with Wonders and The Good Life Ministry. Two of the couples were between churches during filming.

Actually, “Episcopalian” is a noun and the adjective form of this word is “Episcopal,” but never mind. Let’s continue, since is the point where the Post team offers some serious information to readers. This is the heart of the report:

[Read more...]

Print Friendly

Filed Under: People, Pop Culture, Race, Radio & TV, Religion, Sex, Worship Tagged With: , ,

Super Bowl: Ray Lewis is Ray Lewis — deal with it

February 3, 2013 By

I have said it before and I will say it again. I know that, as a rule, GetReligion readers care very little about what happens in the world of sports.

Nevertheless, some of you may have heard that there is a rather big football game being played tonight in New Orleans, with the Baltimore Ravens squaring off against the San Francisco 49ers. It’s in all the newspapers.

Some readers may also have heard that a very famous, sure first-ballot Hall of Fame linebacker named Ray Lewis is — after 17 remarkable years — playing his last game for the Ravens.

Now, whether one considers Lewis a kind of urban saint or a man who, literally, got away with being an accessory to murder, this big man is a major figure in American sports. There is no way around this. Click here for a GetReligion post containing all of the basics.

With the Super Bowl looming, ESPN.com summed this all up the other day:

Do you believe in Ray Lewis? Do you embrace the eye black, smeared down both of his cheeks, occasionally mixed with tears? Does your heart pump faster when he dances, feet sliding, biceps bulging? Do you nod and say, “Amen” when he speaks? Do you have your name in his cellphone? There are hundreds in the NFL who do, my friend — rookies, Ravens and even the poor soul he just flattened on the 20-yard line. “I love you,” Ray will tell some of them. And they love him, too. …

Do you see it in his eyes, his passion? Maybe you roll your eyes because Lewis is doing another news conference in designer sunglasses when it’s dark outside. But do you believe? That villains can become heroes? Do you buy into what he’s selling? It’s simple, really. Either you do or you don’t; you’re in or you’re out. … Do you believe in Ray Lewis? Do you believe that a man should be judged at his very worst or his very best?

Now, I know a lot about the sins in Lewis’ past and, in posts here, I have tried to deal with the press coverage of the man’s fiery, if at times vague, faith. After reading a week or two of the “last ride” coverage, I think it is rather obvious that a significant number of reporters simply want the man to shut up — especially about God.

Forget the last pre-game dance. Many are dreading the last post-game sermon.

Well, I want to urge GetReligion readers to pay close attention to the post-game sermon. In particular, I want folks to see whether Lewis is outspoken about the blessings of God if the Ravens win and silent on the blessings of God if they lose.

Personally, I want the Ravens to win, but I rather expect the ’49ers to win (with the key being whoever runs the ball most effectively). So I think we will have a chance to hear Lewis deal with defeat.

[Read more...]

Print Friendly

Filed Under: People, Race, Religion, Sports, Worship Tagged With: , , ,

GetReligion turns nine; Newsweek sort of vanishes

February 2, 2013 By

So once again, with feeling.

Nine years ago today, the Rt. Rev. Douglas LeBlanc clicked a mouse and GetReligion went live. As I have noted before, I actually wrote the “What we do, why we do it” post on Feb. 1, 2004, but the site opened its cyber-doors the next day, on Feb. 2, 2004.

This kind of anniversary landmark tends to inspire meditations on the passage of time (and a GetReligionista or two will jump in with anniversary thoughts in the next few days). So what is on my mind this year?

Well, how about this: Newsweek, Newsweek, Newsweek, wherefore art thou Newsweek?

Let’s start with a confession or two.

I was a loyal Newsweek (and Time, as well) subscriber for several decades, until theologian-in-chief Jon Meacham openly and honestly decided to run off a million or more of his readers in order to re-brand his struggling magazine as a more elite and openly progressive advocacy operation. At the time, I observed that this mystified me. I mean, I already subscribed to The New Republic. Why would I want Newsweek to take the same approach to the news?

It was pretty obvious that issues linked to religion and faith were at the heart of this Newsweek lunge to the journalistic left. I wondered, out loud, if Newsweek was simply trying to become the World Magazine of the religious left.

Whatever. It didn’t work. Meacham left and Newsweek drifted into another brief era, one in which editor Tina Brown tried to keep the advocacy thing going, while featuring voices on the right as well as the left. The key, however, was that opinion and heat was more important than journalism, more important than reporting and clearly attributed information.

All I knew was that, with the magazine’s ties to The Daily Beast, I needed to start paying attention to Newsweek once again — because that was where I would find the religion, politics and culture reportage of one of the best journalists on the planet, Peter Boyer (best known for his years of work at The New Yorker). So I bought another subscription.

Well, that didn’t last long.

For me, the key was that Newsweek — along with most of the work published at another Meacham-DNA platform, “On Faith” at The Washington Post — came to symbolize the belief that the best way for journalists to handle religion coverage was to baptize it in emotions, feelings and opinions, as opposed to striving for a journalistic blend of history, factual material and clearly attributed quotations from qualified people on both sides of hot-button issues.

Religion, in other words, was not real.

Religion was not worthy of real journalism. Religion was interesting and powerful, but there was no need to think of it as an issue linked to real life in the real world. It was sort of, well, hazy, vague and foggy. In a GetReligion post about “On Faith” (“On Fog” — A Meditation), I noted:

[Read more...]

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Announcements, First Person, Godbeat, Journalism, People, Politics, Pop Culture, Race, Religion, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,