That all-powerful, faith-free White House voice?

September 5, 2012 By tmatt

So, The New York Times ran one of those lengthy news features the other day that set out to penetrate the walls of Barack Obama’s White House and show readers what is really happening on the inside, in the halls of power that are the center of all that is important in the universe.

In other words, “The Other Power in the West Wing” is a story that’s about politics, politics and more politics.

But there’s a problem.

You see, everywhere you turn in this story — a massive take-out about Valerie Jarrett, a key Chicago insider and Obama friend who has moved inside the Beltway — religious issues keep showing up. This starts at the very beginning, with the mysterious political story that continues to divide Democrats in this city. This is long but essential:

WASHINGTON — President Obama was in a bind, and his chief of staff could not figure out how he had ended up there.

Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church were up in arms last fall over a proposal to require employers to provide health insurance that covered birth control. But caving in to the church’s demands for a broad exemption in the name of religious liberty would pit the president against a crucial constituency, women’s groups, who saw the coverage as basic preventive care.

Worried about the political and legal implications, the chief of staff, William M. Daley, reached out to the proposal’s author, Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary. How, he wondered, had the White House been put in this situation with so little presidential input? “You are way out there on a limb on this,” he recalls telling her.

“It was then made clear to me that, no, there were senior White House officials who had been involved and supported this,” said Mr. Daley, who left his post early this year.

What he did not realize was that while he was trying to put out what he considered a fire, the person fanning the flames was sitting just one flight up from him: Valerie Jarrett, the Obamas’ first friend, the proposal’s chief patron and a tenacious White House operator who would ultimately outmaneuver not only Mr. Daley but also the vice president in her effort to include the broadest possible contraception coverage in the administration’s health care overhaul.

So, as everyone knows, there were centrist Democrats who were pleading for change on this issue, for some kind of real compromise with Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims (as opposed to the Times and its Catholics-only approach) affected by this controversial mandate. However, Jarrett stood in the way. She was too close, too inside, to out maneuver.

So who is Jarrett?

Later in the story, readers are told:

Ms. Jarrett often serves as a counterweight to the more centrist Clinton veterans in the administration, reminding them and her innately cautious boss that he came to Washington to do big things. Some of his boldest moves, on women’s issues, gay rights and immigration, have been in areas she cares about most. If Karl Rove was known as George W. Bush’s political brain, Ms. Jarrett is Mr. Obama’s spine. …

But she has also steered him toward controversy, as in the contraception debate. And some of Mr. Obama’s most senior advisers worry — perhaps not entirely without jealousy — that her direct access to the president has at times led to half-baked decision making and unclear lines of authority. …

She is the only staff member who regularly follows the president home from the West Wing to the residence, a practice that has earned her the nickname “the Night Stalker.” By day, Mr. Obama is “Mr. President” to her, but in social settings, he is just “Barack.” When the Obamas take an out-of-town break, she often goes along.

What readers are hearing, of course, is the sound of jealousy.

This is the sound of jealousy inside the White House itself, the voices of Democrats who resent this powerful woman’s close ties to the Obamas. But this raises the same question: If Jarrett is who she is because of what she believes, then what does she believe? This is especially crucial since, while the story mentions some economic issues, it is clear that the heart of her power is linked to cultural, moral and religious issues.

Later in the feature, there is this highly symbolic showdown with a major figure on the religious left:

Ms. Jarrett was … “livid,” one former White House official said, with members of the Congressional Black Caucus who accused the president of paying insufficient attention to the particular economic woes of blacks. When the writer and academic Cornel West joined in, calling Mr. Obama the “black mascot of Wall Street,” Ms. Jarrett’s response was “ruthless,” Dr. West said. He recalled a phone call in which she dismissed his criticism as sour grapes for not receiving a ticket to the inauguration, and said he later heard from friends that she was putting out the word that “one, I was crazy, and two, I was un-American.”

“It was a matter of letting me know that I was, in her view, way out of line and that I needed to get in line,” he said in an interview. “I conveyed to her: ‘I’m not that kind of Negro. I’m a Jesus-loving black man who tells the truth, in the White House, in the crack house or in any other house.’ She got real quiet. It was clear that she was not used to being spoken to that way.”

I could go on and on. The bottom line, however, is clear: Everywhere readers turn in this story, they run into moral, cultural and religious issues.

This is true everywhere EXCEPT in the reporting about Jarrett herself.

So I will ask: Would it help to know something about the religious views of this all-powerful insider, since she seems so passionate about so many issues that have a religious component?

Just asking. Maybe there is nothing there at all. If true, that would — itself — be crucial information.

Just saying.

Blunt, messianic language about the Rev. Moon

September 2, 2012 By tmatt

I will be the first person to admit that I did a double-take when I saw the short, one-line New York Times front page headline — online and iPad, at this stage — for its obituary for the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Evangelist, Dies

For a moment, I honestly thought that the old Gray Lady had identified Moon as an “evangelical.” Instead, we have to settle for “Evangelist,” with a large “E” for some unknown reason. Perhaps the large “E” is a hint at his divinity claims? Moon was his own evangelist?

The whole key to this story is captured much better in the Times headline atop the actual obituary, which has the kind of depth and polish one expects when a newspaper is writing about a 92-year-old world leader. This story has been in storage for quite some time now, in other words. That headline stated the key fact well:

Rev. Sun Myung Moon, 92, Self-Proclaimed Messiah Who Built Religious Movement, Dies

It is hard, I would imagine, to write the obituary for a messiah.

Thus, what is the key point in the story? That’s when it is time to back up that blunt statement in the headline and in the lede, that Moon was a “self-professed messiah.” Here is the key material on that score, starting nine paragraphs into the text:

In its early years in the United States, the Unification Church was widely viewed as little more than a cult, one whose polite, well-scrubbed members, known derisively as Moonies, sold flowers and trinkets on street corners and married in mass weddings. In one of the last such events, in 2009, 10,000 couples exchanged or renewed vows before Mr. Moon on a lawn at Sun Moon University near Seoul.

Such weddings were the activity most associated with Mr. Moon in the United States. They were in keeping with a central tenet of his theology, a mix of Eastern philosophy, biblical teachings and what he called God’s revelations to him.

In the church’s view, Jesus had failed in his mission to purify mankind because he was crucified before being able to marry and have children. Mr. Moon saw himself as completing the unfulfilled task of Jesus: to restore humankind to a state of perfection by producing sinless children, and by blessing couples who would produce them.

While many stories will focus on Moon’s famous mass weddings, the key is for journalists to clearly state the doctrinal and theological importance — literally the messianic importance — of those rites.

Jesus failed; Moon would succeed. This meant, of course, that from the viewpoint of traditional faiths, Moon was a heretic or worse.

“I don’t blame those people who call us heretics,” he was quoted as saying in “Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church” (1977), a sympathetic account by Frederick Sontag. “We are indeed heretics in their eyes because the concept of our way of life is revolutionary: We are going to liberate God.”

The Times story focuses on the many different elements of this controversial figure’s life, from religion to politics and on to business, real estate, higher education, the arts, movies and, of course, journalism (through The Washington Times and numerous other outlets).

But one more time: What about that claim in the headline? Here is how this very long and detailed piece ends:

One of the more bizarre moments in Mr. Moon’s later years came on March 23, 2004, at what was described as a peace awards banquet held at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington. Members of Congress were among the guests. At one point Representative Danny K. Davis, an Illinois Democrat, wearing white gloves, carried in on a pillow one of two gold crowns, which were placed on the heads of Mr. Moon and his wife.

Some of the members of Congress who attended said they had no idea that Mr. Moon was to be involved in the banquet, though it was hosted by the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace, a foundation affiliated with the Unification Church.

At the banquet, Mr. Moon stated that emperors, kings and presidents had “declared to all heaven and earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity’s savior, messiah, returning lord and true parent.” He added that the founders of the world’s great religions, along with figures like Marx, Lenin, Hitler and Stalin, had “found strength in my teachings, mended their ways and been reborn as new persons.”

That last sentence is a theological blockbuster, but the Times didn’t really attempt to nail down its meaning.

The Washington Post, however, went all the way on that point:

His stated ambition was to rule the world and replace Christianity with his own faith, which blended elements of Christianity, Confucianism and Korean folk religions. … To much of the outside world, Mr. Moon undercut his credibility with grandiose statements. “God is living in me and I am the incarnation of himself,” he said, according to sermon excerpts printed in Time magazine in 1976. “The whole world is in my hand, and I will conquer and subjugate the world.”

And then, later in the obit:

In fact, according to Mr. Moon’s sermons, Jesus also had spoken from the spirit realm and recognized Mr. Moon as the savior of humankind. So had Buddha, Muhammad and Satan, among others. Mr. Moon claimed he had found a wife for Jesus and blessed the couple’s marriage.

One must assume that these sermons are available in text and/or audio form. I, for one, would like to see the direct quotes that support the claims in that powerful paraphrased quote.

One other question lingered as I read these early reports (and trust me, I am sure that the second-day coverage will include more wrinkles): What did Moon say, as he grew older, about the messianic significance of his own death?

Bishops are Republicans, Nuns are Catholic

September 1, 2012 By geoconger

Archbishop Timothy Dolan has been invited to give the closing prayer at this week’s Democratic Convention in Charlotte. The New York Times reports the New York cardinal will be one of matched pair of high profile Catholics to appear on the podium before the Democratic faithful, with Sister Simone Campbell of “Nuns on the Bus” fame completing the set.

Religion reporter Laurie Goodstein’s story “At Democratic Convention, a Cardinal and an Outspoken Nun” sets the scene and offers a bit of the “why” — but I’ve seen little so far on the “how” — and outside of the religious press, not much on whether this is a good idea at all.

The Times reports the news the:

Democrats are giving a convention speaking slot to Sister Simone Campbell, an outspoken advocate for the poor and elderly, according to an aide with President Obama’s campaign who would speak only on background.

In doing so, the Democratic Party has balanced its own Catholic ticket by showcasing both Sister Campbell, who pushed for the passage of the Obama administration’s health care overhaul, and Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, who is suing the White House over a provision in the health care overhaul that requires employers to cover birth control in their employee insurance plans.

The article is framed in good cop/bad cop terms, but seeks to balance the piece by positing a degree of moral equivalence between the Dolan and Campbell’s political activities.

Cardinal Dolan, who says he is a personal friend of Representative Paul D. Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate. has been perceived by many Catholic commentators as being too cozy with Republicans, while Sister Campbell has been seen as being too supportive of Democratic causes. In June, she led the “Nuns on the Bus” tour to call attention to cuts affecting the poor and elderly in the budget proposed by Mr. Ryan.

The two will have different roles at the convention:

Cardinal Dolan will give the closing prayer at the convention, and Sister Campbell will speak but not offer a prayer.

And the story then r0unds off with a few paragraphs about Sister Campbell. All in all a solid story with an editorial voice that favors the nun over the cardinal. The theme of the article is that the liberal Campbell is balanced by the conservative Dolan.

What would have made the story stronger would have been a development of the why and how themes. We have surface story of the Democrats playing “me too”, inviting Dolan because the Republicans did. The import being the Democrats are seeking to curry favor with Catholic voters in the same way the Republicans have. But Campbell?

The Times article notes her support for the President’s healthcare initiative and suggests she is an alternative Catholic voice. Yet is there more? In an Aug 24 story in the New Yorker — before the invitation from the Democrats was given to Dolan, Hendrick Hertzberg wrote:

Dolan, as you may also have heard, heads up the male hierarchy’s drive to portray Obamacare as an attack on freedom of religion and is a leading enforcer in the Vatican-ordered crackdown on women religious who regard ministering to the poor and the sick as more urgent and more admirable than railing against contraception and homosexuality.

He then cites with approval the Aug 24 edition of the Carville – Greenberg Memorandum, where James Carville argues the Democrats should invite Campbell to spite Dolan and exploit the social justice agenda of the church for their political advantage.

And now, a week later, we have Campbell speaking and Dolan praying in Charlotte. How did we get to this point? Do Dolan and and Campbell represent different wings of the same church, different views of what it means to live a Catholic life? Is it wise for the Catholic Church to allow individuals to become symbols of the conflicting views of its teachings?

Should the Catholic Church allow itself to be used by the national political parties in this way? I am not speaking of separation of church/state issues, but whether the integrity of the church, any church, is damaged when it comes in contact with secular politics. The assumption here is that it is social good for religious organizations — as opposed to religious individuals — to take a stand in the public square. Is that a valid assumption?

And should these issues be raised in the reporting on these questions? Not every story need be an essay on the merits of the marriage of politics and church leaders — but should there not be a voice offered from time to time that sees the arrangement differently? What say you GetReligion readers? Have I strayed into editorializing here by suggesting that clergy might be seen, but not heard at political conventions? Am I pushing my interpretation ahead of the simple facts of who is doing what in Charlotte — or is there a deeper truth that has yet to be revealed in the reporting of these issues?

And the title to this post? It comes from the Carville video –his mangling (deliberate?) of the old saw, “Bishops are Republicans, Nuns are Democrats.”

Michelle Obama as political art

September 1, 2012 By geoconger

Is this Spanish news magazine cover of Michelle Obama art or porn? Is it racist and sexist? Or is it a political fantasy of the noble savage, an incisive commentary on the centrality of Mrs. Obama’s sexuality in the presidential election campaign? Is it Granada I see or only Asbury Park in this profile of the First Lady?

The cover ignited a firestorm of controversy and prompted accusations of racism in the “black blogosphere”, the Huffington Post reported. But behind the fun over the racy cover lay an article that exemplified a secular worldview — a philosophical construct about the meaning and purpose of life that sees the acquisition of power as the chief aim of life and where God is absent (or far off on the margins.)

But before I become too airy fairy let’s start with the fun. On 9 Aug 2012 Fuera de Serie, a weekly magazine insert of the Madrid business daily Expansión published a profile of Michelle Obama. The article “Michelle se como a Obama” was illustrated by a cover painting of the First Lady draped in an American flag and posed in the style of a famous 19th century painting — Portrait d’une Négresse on exhibition at the Louvre by French artist Marie-Guillemine Benoist (1800).

On 29 August the magazine published the full text of the story and some background to the cover in an online piece entitled “La polémica desnudez de Michelle Obama”.

The initial controversy was missed by the American press, but animated African-American publications and blogs. The Huffington Post put the story into play within the mainstream press, shortly followed by Le Monde and other American and European publications. But their coverage focused on the cover, not the content of the article.

The Huffington Post was not pleased. It quoted one blogger as saying:

“By choosing to use such a jarring image to tell the story of how America’s first lady “seduced the people of the United States” and “stole the heart of Barack Obama,” as Fuera de Serie describes her,” writes Brande Victorian of Madame Noire, “it’s clear the magazine agrees with that mentality and wants to spread the message loud and clear: todavía estamos esclavos. We are still slaves.”

It cited other black interest publications who voiced similar objections, and likened the furore to the 2008 New Yorker cover that portrayed Michelle and Barack Obama as afro-centric terrorists.

Some European observers saw this negative reaction as an example of America’s lubricious Puritanism — a sentiment best summarized by Pascal Bruckner in last year’s Dominique Strauss-Kuhn affair.

It’s not enough though to describe [America] as puritanical because what governs [America] is a twisted puritanism which, after the sexual revolution, talks the language of free love and coexists with a flourishing porn industry.

Le Monde was less censorious than the Huffington Post and suggested the cover might not be so bad. It said the Portrait d’une Négresse was a celebration of the abolition of slavery and a symbol of liberation, of modernity, of freedom. It also gave the artist, Karine Percheron Daniels, space to deny charges of racism.

In my eyes, the image I created is of a beautiful woman with a beautiful message. For the first time in history the First Lady of the United States is a black woman who proudly displays her femininity (nudity), her roots (the slave) and her power (first lady of the United States embraced by the American flag). … I’m not racist. I’m trying with my art to show the beauty not the dirt.

So what is going on here? And where is the GetReligion ghost in all of this? Let’s go inside the story and see.

Like the cover painting, “Michelle se como a Obama” and “La polémica desnudez de Michelle Obama” are artistic interpretations of the meaning of Michelle Obama. Facts are present, but the meaning of these facts are a construct of the author who frames the article from the very beginning as a hagiography. Michelle Obama is a secular left-liberal saint, whose:

popularity ratings exceed those of her husband, President Barack Obama. Experts even suggest that she will be the key to the reelection of Democrat in November elections. But how the first lady has managed to [steal the hearts] of the American people?

The article answers this question by contrasting Saint Michelle with the Wicked Witch of the West: Sarah Palin. While “attractive” and “quintessentially America” the former Alaska governor was also “vulgar, predictable, uneducated and arrogant.”

Mrs. Obama in contrast is “sleek, friendly, outgoing, direct, sometimes irreverent, and mother of two daughters.” A woman whom nine out of ten voters believe “shares their values and understands their problems,” Fuera de Serie said. The article continues along these lines before moving to the heart of the story — the “why” of Michelle Obama.

Michelle is the daughter of Fraser Robinson, a worker who earned her living scrubbing floors in a water treatment plant in the city of Chicago, at the rate of $ 479 per month.

And it was this solidarity with the workers that drove the young Michelle to go on to Princeton and Harvard Law School and with Barack champion the cause of the poor and oppressed and right the “injustices” of the Bush Administration.

From the humble streets of their city [Chicago] emerged a community spirit, the spark that drove her husband to pursue his presidential dream … even though politics was “a waste of time” that would detract from [Barack Obama’s] responsibilities as a father and husband.

And like any good story from the “Lives of the Saints”, the article recounts tales of the miraculous and promises of divine intervention through the invocation of the saint’s name. For you see Michelle Obama is a better campaigner than her husband, one expert voice told Fuera de Serie, and her “passion and drive have triggered fantasies” that if her husband loses to Mitt Romney in the Fall, Michelle can carry forward the banner of change.

Let me step back a moment and say I am not denigrating or advocating the re-election campaign of President Barack Obama, nor am I slighting the First Lady. My target is this dreadful news profile of Mrs. Obama that is so over the top, so ludicrous, so one-sided that it is more likely to lead to ridicule than to admiration of its subject.

And absent from this entire story is any sense of what lay behind the family values and ethics of the parents that reared the young Michelle Robinson on Chicago’s South Side. Belief in God? Belief in history? We have snippets and slogans that hint at solidarity with the masses, but nothing else. The Michelle Obama in this article is identical to the artists portrait on the cover — a stylized fantasy that represents a cause, but is not representative of a person.

So GetReligion readers, tell me, is this racist, sexist, or vulgar? Is it beautiful, ennobling, a celebration of hope and change for a better world? Or am I taking a shovel to a souffle — seeing shadows and specters where none exist? What say you?

Dots in Muslim camp feature don’t connect

August 30, 2012 By Bobby Ross Jr.

A Los Angeles Times story this week on a Muslim youth camp starts out as one of those lazy summer features that most reporters could write in their sleep:

It’s a hot summer morning and the campers trundle through the gates of a Pasadena grade school, then fall in with their age groups: the Seeds, the Dates, the Coconuts and the Trees.

A day of typical camp activities awaits: scavenger hunts, a “pirates and princesses” dress-up play and water-balloon tosses. But there is a difference here: Those activities are sandwiched between Koran recital, the Dzhur afternoon prayer and story time that includes tales about Mecca and Muhammad.

Even as one of the counselors tries to bring order to the paper boat race, it’s a moment peppered in faith. “Let’s play fair,” said Noor Elfarra, 16, adjusting her hijab head scarf as she led her charges. “You’re not supposed to touch the boat. You can only blow on it. Insha Allah [God willing] you can win!”

But after offering a bit more background on the only Muslim camp accredited by the American Camp Association, the story takes an abrupt dive off a cliff into a sea of random statistics and editorial opinions.

Suddenly, this isn’t a camp feature any more. It’s an exposé on the travails of Muslim life in America. The only thing missing: any real line connecting A (the camp) to B (hate crimes, anti-Muslim rhetoric, etc.).

Notice the awkward way the Times transitions from A to B:

Most of the campers are children of immigrants from predominantly Islamic countries. Their U.S. upbringings mean not all of them know how to pray. When prayers are recited, Ezzeldine or one of the counselors will lead.

“That’s OK,” Ezzeldine said. “I make it a point to enunciate the verses. I tell everyone whatever your level of prayer is today, make it better tomorrow.”

Given current attitudes in the U.S. toward American Muslims, “a better tomorrow” is loaded with meaning.

FBI data indicate that hate crimes against Muslims seem not to be diminishing. Although anti-Muslim crimes fell to 107 in 2009 from nearly 500 in 2001, the latest data, from 2010, show that such hate crimes rebounded to 160.

In an instant, the Times leaps from children working on their prayers to statistics on hate crimes in America. Huh?

Keep reading, and you’ll learn that the Council on Islamic-American Relations, or CAIR, posted a safety advisory for mosques after the recent deadly attack on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. Also, there’s a reference to a Gallup survey showing many Americans with a “not too favorable” opinion of Islam. All of these facts are fair game for a story on a Muslim camp, of course.

The problem here is that the Times sprinkles these details throughout the story without attempting to connect the dots between A and B.

If this is a story about Muslim life in America, the reporter needs to ask the camp directors, their parents and even the campers questions such as: Have any of these campers suffered hate crimes or persecution because of their religion? Do these campers encounter negative attitudes about their religion in their normal, everyday life? Is this camp any kind of political statement (as opposed to being just like thousands of other religious camps across the nation that help children grow in their faith)?

The story’s penchant for editorializing isn’t limited to statistics:

And it’s likely that the Camp Izza model will be duplicated because the U.S. Muslim population is growing at a relatively fast pace.

According to whom? Without an identified source, that sounds like the reporter’s opinion to me.

Near the end of the story, the Times stretches the bounds of this simple camp story even more:

Jalel Aossey, the former director of Muslim Youth Camps of America, closed his organization last year after 13 years in business when he realized he could not design a camp that would meet American Camp Assn. accreditation standards.

There are other obstacles as well. Institutions such as the Khalil Gibran International Academy in Brooklyn (a nondenominational public school that teaches Arabic) and mosques such as the one slated to be built at ground zero in New York have been beset by angry protests and polarizing political opinions.

Camp Izza has not faced those problems. Ezzeldine counts his camp as lucky, or perhaps blessed.

It’s almost humorous that the Times goes off on the tangent of alleged obstacles, then acknowledges that such problems have not been an issue at the camp ostensibly at the center of this story.

Image via Shutterstock

Define ‘Mormon prayer;’ give three examples

August 30, 2012 By tmatt

http://youtu.be/O7l0PUEtr00

I realize that this is strange, but I continue to read press reports (wink, wink) containing evidence that Mitt Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that this could cause him trouble with evangelical Protestant Christians. Am I alone in reading about this?

I am not sure precisely why this Mormon element of his history is so problematic, even to these strange evangelicals folks, since the mainstream media coverage rarely, if ever, publish factual material about what Mormons believe and how their beliefs do or do not clash with those of evangelicals (as opposed the beliefs of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, United Methodists, Presbyterians, etc., etc.).

Frankly, based on my graduate work in church history, I had always thought that these tensions had something to do with doctrinal differences on the very nature of the Godhead and the Trinity — which would certainly mean that we would not merely be talking about tensions between Mormons and evangelicals, but between Mormons and all Trinitarian Christians. I have also heard that liberal Christians are actually more likely to oppose a Mormon candidate than conservative believers, but that must have to do with moral theology instead of doctrine. As all news consumers know, issues of moral theology — such as the sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, etc. — are no longer considered matters of theology by many in the press, but are now simply political issues. Right?

I bring this up because of a fascinating New York Times story about the delicate religious dance Romney is said to be performing during the Republican National Convention. The big question: How Mormon should this man be? Here’s the top of the report:

After years of largely resisting public discussion of his Mormon faith, Mitt Romney will embrace it on Thursday night when the Republican convention will stage a carefully chosen tableau of speakers who are expected to offer accounts of the candidate as a man of compassion, character and deep beliefs.

For most of his political career, Mr. Romney has said that his life in the church has nothing to do with politics, and he has offered only clipped discussions of his religious views, privately worrying about the impact of his faith on his electability. But he has changed course because of an urgent problem: voters who find him distant and unlikable have become a greater threat to his political fortunes than those who may be biased against Mormonism.

Once again, are these biased voters on the left or the right? From context, it seems that only the conservative voters matter. Why is that? More on that later.

In addition to Romney upping his Godtalk game, it appears that the GOP is letting some other Mormons and Mormon-friendly people into the mix up there on the convention platform. This leads to the bizarre reference that caught my attention:

Mr. Romney’s friends, colleagues and old classmates — women and men, Republicans and even some Democrats — have remarked throughout the campaign that they do not recognize the aloof, seemingly callous man that has been depicted by the Obama campaign.

To counter the argument that he is an indifferent elitist who hides his religious beliefs, the Romney campaign has invited Kenneth Hutchins, an old friend from church who is a retired police officer and is suffering from cancer, who will offer a Mormon prayer from the podium.

Whoa. Are we talking about a “Mormon prayer” or a “prayer by a Mormon”?

What’s the difference, you say? Look at it this way. I have long be fascinated by the wars over what is and what is not “Christian music.” Take U2, for example. The band’s primary songwriters are Christians and many of their songs contain clear Christian content. But does the band produce “Christian music”? Toss that question into the mix in some Christian gatherings and you will have a fight on your hands, pronto.

This is where I would like some help from our many GetReligion readers who are Mormons. What, precisely, would be the distinctive elements of a “Mormon prayer”? The implication here is that there will be language in this prayer that would serve as a kind of high-tone canine whistle, alerting some listeners — but not all — to the presence of real, live, Mormon content. If so, what might Hutchins say?

I would assume that this brief moment of podium drama will center on a “prayer by a Mormon,” not a “Mormon prayer.” As a reporter, however, I remain fascinated by this Times reference. You have to wonder what someone in the Romney camp said — the precise words that were spoken — that were interpreted in this manner.

After all, a real, life, doctrinal, “Mormon prayer” would almost certainly upset those legions of nasty evangelicals who are waiting in the wings to judge Romney. As this story notes:

… The Mormonism that Mr. Romney is expected to share on Thursday night will almost certainly be a carefully edited version, scrubbed of anything that might raise theological issues — especially among evangelical Christians. No one is likely to mention that as a church leader, Mr. Romney enforced policies like excommunication or limiting leadership positions for women.

“What they will do, I expect, is simply present Mitt Romney as Mike Huckabee, a pastor who has used religion as a vehicle who served his community,” said Matthew Bowman, author of “The Mormon People,” speaking of the former Arkansas governor.

Mr. Huckabee, speaking to convention delegates on Wednesday night, played down the issue of Mr. Romney’s faith. “I care far less as to where Mitt Romney takes his family to church than I do about where he takes this country,” he said.

So tune in, if you will, and help your GetReligionistas (Hello Mark Hemingway!) listen for whatever high-pitched whistling takes place. Will all of those evangelicals rise up and walk out?

Guilt, grief and God: a gay son’s suicide

August 29, 2012 By Bobby Ross Jr.

About that high-profile claim that a political and cultural progressivism “literally bleeds through the fabric” of The New York Times: Anybody catch the story on Tyler Clementi’s parents leaving their evil, gay-bashing evangelical church?

The parental guilt and grief that drip from nearly every paragraph of this story will grip you.

A big chunk of the top of the report:

RIDGEWOOD, N.J. — When Tyler Clementi told his parents he was gay, two days before he left for Rutgers University in the fall of 2010, he said he had known since middle school.

“So he did have a side that he didn’t open up to us, obviously,” his mother, Jane Clementi, said, sitting in her kitchen here nearly two years later. “That was one of the things that hurt me the most, that he was hiding something so much. Because I thought we had a pretty open relationship.”

In her surprise, she had peppered him with questions: “How do you know? Who are you going to talk to? Who are you going to tell?” Tyler told a friend that the conversation had not gone well. His father had been “very accepting,” he wrote in a text message. “Mom has basically completely rejected me.”

Three weeks later, he jumped off the George Washington Bridge after discovering that his roommate had used a webcam to spy on him having sex and that he had sent out Twitter messages encouraging others to watch.

An international spotlight turned the episode into a cautionary coming-out story, of a young man struggling with his sexuality and the damage inflicted by bullying. His roommate, Dharun Ravi, was tried and convicted of intimidation and invasion of privacy; he served a short jail sentence. But the trial never directly addressed the question at the heart of the story — what prompted a promising college freshman to kill himself?

What prompted a promising college freshman to kill himself? The story turns on that key question.

The obvious answer from the Times’ perspective: the young man’s evil, gay-bashing church:

At the time Tyler sat down to tell his parents he was gay, (his mother) believed that homosexuality was a sin, as her evangelical church taught. She said she was not ready to tell friends, protecting her son — and herself — from what would surely be the harsh judgments of others.

Later in the story, there’s this:

In the months after Tyler’s death, some of Ms. Clementi’s friends confided that they, too, had gay children. She blames religion for the shame surrounding it — in the conversation about coming out, Tyler told his mother he did not think he could be Christian and gay.

She decided she could no longer attend her church, because doing so would suggest she supported its teachings against homosexuality. And she took strength from reading the Bible as she reconsidered her views.

So, as any reasonable Times reader can see, the case against the evil, gay-bashing church is pretty much open and shut. But since the Times is a newspaper committed to giving a full and fair hearing to all sides on such a story, let’s see how the church responds to the charges against it.

Oh, wait. The evil, gay-bashing church isn’t identified by name. No one from the evil, gay-bashing church is asked to explain what the congregation believes or teaches concerning homosexuality. No one from the evil, gay-bashing church is asked to respond to the parents leaving the church.

The Star-Ledger in New Jersey matched the Times’ report with a similar story devoid of the church’s side of the story.

But then a strange thing happened: Religion News Service picked up the New Jersey version of the story. Except that apparently, someone at RNS made the brilliant observation that no one had bothered to contact the evil, gay-bashing church for comment. So RNS did exactly that and added four highly relevant paragraphs to the end of the story:

Rob Minor, senior pastor for Grace Church, said on Monday (Aug. 27) that his church teaches that “God’s ideal” is sexual abstinence before marriage, and monogamous heterosexual marriages. “But we also understand that we live in a world where everyone is striving to reach God’s ideal,” Minor said. Minor said he and an associate pastor relayed that message to Jane Clementi before she left the church.

“We love Jane and Joe and Jimmy and the rest of the family very much, and we respect their decision,” Minor said.

Minor added that the church does not “bash” or “judge” people, nor does it make homosexuality a priority issue.

“The fact is at least in the six years I’ve been here, I never preached on it, never talked on it,” Minor said. “It’s just not been an issue for us.”

Wow. It seems the pastor wants us to believe he’s not the evil, gay-bashing son of a gun that the Times makes him out to be. Imagine that.

Video: Tyler Clementi performing with others at Grace Church in Ridgewood, N.J.

Are there Muslim evangelists?

August 28, 2012 By geoconger

How far should the press go to acculturate their overseas news stories — to make them palatable to an American audience while also being true to the underlying facts? NPR Morning Edition reporter Lauren Frayer had a great story last week that “gets religion”, but also brought this issue to mind.

Her report broadcast on Pakistan’s Aamir Liaquat was an example of solid reporting. Her story entitled “Pakistani Televangelist Is Back On Air, Raising Fears” meets the Orwell test for journalism as it is free from cant, has a moral compass, is well researched and well crafted. But were the correct nouns used?

Here is the lede:

Pakistan’s most famous, and infamous, TV evangelist has been rehired by a top station. In 2008, Aamir Liaquat made on-air threats against a religious minority, the Ahmadis. Those comments were followed by widespread violence against the group. Liaquat’s return to the airwaves has rekindled the controversy.

As Pakistan’s media has expanded in recent years, there’s been a rise in Islamic preachers with popular TV call-in talk shows. And they’ve had their share of scandal. One famous TV host fled the country after embezzlement allegations. Others are accused of spewing hate speech

That’s the case for Pakistan’s most popular televangelist, Aamir Liaquat, who’s just been rehired by the country’s top TV channel despite accusations that he provoked deadly attacks in 2008.

I have some small knowledge of the political and religious culture of Pakistan and can say she knows what she is talking about. I encourage you to listen to the broadcast. To often Western reporters are parachuted into overseas hotspots and report on issues they know nothing about — either mangling the facts or mouthing a script written by others. My colleague at GetReligion M.Z. Heminway reported on a particularly egregious howler along these lines committed by the New York Times.

I applaud NPR for bringing this story to an American audience. Given the growing U.S. involvement in the Muslim word, it behooves the American press to cover these stories and not confine them to the ghetto of specialist publications.

In writing about the Muslim world, however, I wonder how appropriate it is to use Christian terminology. Terms such as “fundamentalist Muslim” are often dropped into stories to give Western readers some context or equivalence. In the headline of this story, and in the opening paragraphs the term evangelist and televangelist are used to describe Liaquat. Is that right?

Using the Associated Press style book as a guide, using this terminology is not wrong — but it is not quite right either. It states:

evangelist

Capitalize only in reference to the men credited with writing the Gospels. The four Evangelists were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In lowercase, it means a preacher who makes a profession of seeking conversions.

Conversions to what? To proselytize is the verb that means to attempt to convert someone to another faith or point of view, while a Muslim evangelist traditionally has been someone who seeks to convert Muslims to the Christian faith. Turning to Wikipedia provides little clarity as it defines an evangelist as one who practices Christian evangelism, while the Merriam-Webster‘s dictionary further refines evangelist as a:

Protestant minister or layman who preaches at special services [or] an enthusiastic advocate <an evangelist for physical fitness>

On one level it may well be appropriate to use terms familiar to readers to illustrate a story. That is after all the purpose of an analogy. But is this appropriate when language is available to describe the same fact set in the terms of the culture being described?

A Muslim preacher who seeks to evangelize is called a sheikh or imam. Da‘wah, meaning the issuing of a summons, call or invitation, is the duty of every Muslim to invite people to their faith or to recall lapsed or nominal Muslims to a deeper faith. A Muslim who practices da‘wah, either as a preacher, religious worker or someone engaged in a faith-building community activity is called a da‘i, plural du‘at.

To a Muslim audience, Aamir Liaquat is a da‘i — someone who seeks to renew the Muslim faith, proselytize non-Muslims, and combat false teaching. Yes, he is an enthusiastic advocate for Islam, but should Christian terms be used to describe this activity when then are Muslim terms to describe such actions?

At the same time there is a danger in taking this too far.

A Saturday Night Live skit that aired on 10 November 1990 and can be viewed here made fun of the mock Spanish some television reporters used on air. Entitled “NBC News Employees”, the skit starred Latino actor Jimmy Smits and the shows regular cast. The scene opens with a reporter speaking on air from Nicaragua, who says the word Nicaragua in a hyper-Spanish phonology. The skit progresses with the Anglo characters pronouncing Spanish place names (Los Angeles, San Diego, Honduras), foods (enchilada, burrito), and even sports teams (Denver Broncos) in a ridiculous Spanish accent.

Jimmy Smits’ character, Antonio Mendoza, is introduced to the Anglo reporters and says his name with an American English accent. The other actors respond by saying his name with an excessive accent and Smit’s character becomes more and more uncomfortable as the skit progresses. He finally states:

If you don’t mind my saying, sometimes when you take Spanish words and kind of over pronounce them, well its kind of annoying.

So, GetReligion readers, is it kind of annoying to use Muslim terms for Muslim religious leaders in news stories? Is it too politically correct, or effete — perhaps pretentious? Unnecessary? Ridiculous? A tele-sheikh? Or is it demeaning to the non-Western world to subsume all things into an American milieu? What say you?