, , , , , , , , , ,

Journalism question for our day: Are all attacks on public statues considered equal?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Journalism question for our day: Are all attacks on public statues considered equal?

Another day, another religious and-or political statue destroyed.

This is the age in which we live. In this case, however, the act of vandalism has received national coverage in the mainstream press, since this event was — with good cause — unique and controversial.

The Associated Press headline, for those who who have ignored this media storm: “Former Mississippi House candidate charged after Satanic Temple display is destroyed at Iowa Capitol.” Here is the overture:

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A Satanic Temple display inside the Iowa Capitol in Des Moines was destroyed, and a former U.S. Navy fighter pilot who was recently defeated in a statehouse election in Mississippi is accused of causing the damage.

The display is permitted by rules that govern religious installations inside the Capitol but has drawn criticism from many conservatives, including presidential candidate Ron DeSantis. A Facebook posting by The Satanic Temple … said the display, known as a Baphomet statue, “was destroyed beyond repair,” though part of it remains.

Michael Cassidy, 35, of Lauderdale, Mississippi, was charged with fourth-degree criminal mischief, the Iowa Department of Public Safety said Friday. He was released after his arrest.

Yes, there are important “equal access” angles attached to this story. If Iowa created a law allowing temporary placement of religious symbols in its facilities, then — once again — the law should apply equally to all groups without “viewpoint discrimination.” Yes, this was the topic of last week’s “Crossroads” podcast here at GetReligion.

There are some angles to this latest Satan worship story that are rather interesting and worthy of further investigation by journalists. Let me list a view:

* The Des Moines Register story about the crime included an important detail about the attacker. Read to the end of this chunk of that story:

The solicitation for donations on GiveSendGo, the contribution platform, said Cassidy "tore down and beheaded a Satanist altar erected in the Iowa State Capitol." It said he "pushed over and decapitated this Satanic statue before he discarded the head in a trash can." 


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

Religion-beat pros: Spikes in Islamophobia and antisemitism topped U.S. news in 2023

, , , , , , , , , ,
Religion-beat pros: Spikes in Islamophobia and antisemitism topped U.S. news in 2023

For those with short attention spans (you know who you are), be sure to read all the way to the end of this post for an important programming note.

Among the week’s big news, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take on a faith-related case (hint: the abortion pill). The Deseret News’ Kelsey Dallas has the details.

At the Wall Street Journal, Francis X. Rocca offers a deep dive into Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu. As Rocca explains, Becciu might have been pope but instead may go to prison.

And at The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Drew Lindsay delves into “What Philanthropy and Nonprofits Lose as Religion Fades.”

This is our weekly roundup of the top headlines and best reads in the world of faith. We start with the top religion stories of 2023, as determined by the Religion News Association.

What To Know: The Big Story

Top 10 stories — times two: The Religion News Association used to do one Top 10 list. Now, it splits the year’s biggest headlines into two Top 10 categories — international and domestic. And still, there is no shortage of important news to go around.

The year’s No. 1 stories — on both fronts — concern the same topic: the Israel-Hamas War, according to balloting by RNA member journalists.

War in the Middle East: Here is how the RNA describes the No. 1 international story:

Hamas launches a surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7, killing about 1,200 Israeli civilians and soldiers, and taking about 240 hostages. Following this, Israel begins a full-scale assault in Gaza, killing at least 18,000 civilians and militants. The war reignites intense debates around Palestinian liberation and Zionism, and spikes in Islamophobia and antisemitism worldwide. 


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

Norman Lear: An iconic mass-media seeker who evolved past secularism

, , , , , , , , , ,
Norman Lear: An iconic mass-media seeker who evolved past secularism

Early in the premier of Norman Lear's sit-com "Sunday Dinner," the beautiful environmentalist T.T. Fagori raised her eyes to heaven and, with a sigh, entered a spiritual minefield.

"Chief?", she asked God. "You got a minute?"

In addition to praying out loud in prime time, this character offered a theological reverie at dinner while meeting the family of her fiancé, a 56-year-old widower nearly three decades her elder. The problem: His granddaughter heard Fagori mention God during a science lecture.

"You see, I talk about extending 'love thy neighbor' to include animals, plants, stuff like that. I say that the natural world is the largest sacred community to which we all belong," Fagori explained. "I talk about cosmic piety because the same atoms that form the galaxies are in all of us and it's the universe that carries the deep mysteries of our existence within itself.

"You see how all that sounds pretty spiritual. … So, when the kids hear me say these things, some of them think they hear the word 'God,' but they don't. I don't actually mention it. Interesting, huh?"

This 1991 comedy flopped, but it was an important statement from Lear, whose December 5 death at 101 years of age closed his career as lightning rod in popular culture and politics.

For decades, Lear described himself as a cultural Jew who didn't practice any traditional form of faith. He also founded People for the American Way, an old-school liberal advocacy group on church-state issues. But this television icon became more and more intrigued with religious faith, both as a force in American life and as a topic ignored by Hollywood.


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

Thinking about an ancient question that's back in the news: 'Terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about an ancient question that's back in the news: 'Terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'?

What we have here is a news-you-can-use explainer on a controversial topic that comes from a source that, for some readers, will automatically be controversial.

The headline: “Why terrorists aren’t freedom fighters.” The source is the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest non-Catholic religious body.

Ah, but if you follow SBC politics, you know that many on the political and cultural right now believe that the ERLC is kind of “woke” when it comes to issues of this kind. For other readers, the SBC is the SBC and that is that. I would suggest that it helps to contrast the ERLC staff’s material with, let’s say, “just war” thoughts from the Catholic left (care of the Jesuits at America magazine).

Also, the “one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” debate looms over the results of this year’s “top stories” poll from the Religion News Association (Bobby Ross, Jr., summary here).

Here a view clips from the ERLC thinker. It’s always interesting when Southern Baptists get involved in debates that include Latin terms (“jus ad bellum”). Thus, let’s jump down to the section on the “moral requirements for going to war.” This isn’t the whole list of conditions, of course:

The primary difference is how they align with the criteria of the just war tradition. First, let’s measure them against the jus ad bellum, the moral requirement for going to war:

1. Just Cause: Like nation-states, non-state actors may have just and proper reasons for going to war. For example, they may be acting in self-defense to prevent genocide or acting to restore human rights wrongly denied.

2. Proportionate Cause: Again, like established nation-states, non-state actors could go to war to prevent more evil and suffering than their warfare is expected to cause.

3. Right Intention: Non-state actors may also have the right intentions for going to war. They could, for instance, be motivated by Christian love and pursuit of justice instead of an illegitimate intention to go to war, such as revenge.


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

Podcast: How long to sing this song? Yes, we have another (M.I.A.) 'equal access' story

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: How long to sing this song? Yes, we have another (M.I.A.) 'equal access' story

How long to sing this song? Audible sigh.

How often, during GetReligion’s nearly 20 years online, have your GetReligionistas critiqued church-state stories about public schools, libraries and other state-funded facilities in which officials were wrestling with “equal access” guidelines — but it was clear that journalists didn’t know (or didn’t care) that they were covering an “equal access” story?

That was the Big Idea that loomed (once again) over this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). Before we jump into this new case study, let’s do a flashback into a few recent “equal access” headlines at GetReligion:

* “Washington Post looks at 'school choice' bills, and (#surprise) omits 'equal access' info.”

* “Another SCOTUS win for 'equal access,' whether most journalists realized this or not.”

* “Fellowship of Christian Athletes wins an 'equal access' case, even if LATimes missed that.”

* “Reminder to journalists (again): Private schools — left, right — can defend their core doctrines.”

For starters, what are we talking about here? Let’s flash back to a summary that I have used in posts more than once. Sorry for the echo-chamber effect, but that’s kind of the point of this post:

What we keep seeing is a clash between two different forms of “liberalism,” with that term defined into terms of political science instead of partisan politics.

Some justices defend a concept of church-state separation that leans toward the secularism of French Revolution liberalism. The goal is for zero tax dollars to end up in the checkbooks of citizens who teach or practice traditional forms of religious doctrine (while it’s acceptable to support believers whose approach to controversial issues — think sin and salvation — mirror those of modernity).

Then there are justices who back “equal access” concepts articulated by a broad, left-right coalition that existed in the Bill Clinton era. The big idea: Religious beliefs are not a uniquely dangerous form of speech and action and, thus, should be treated in a manner similar to secular beliefs and actions. If states choose to use tax dollars to support secular beliefs and practices, they should do the same for religious beliefs and practices.

At some point, it would be constructive of journalists spotted these “equal access” concepts and traced them to back to their roots in the Clinton era (and earlier). But maybe I am being overly optimistic.

Once again, the Bill Clinton era wasn't about throwing red meat to the Religious Right. Instead, you had old-school First Amendment liberals trying — more often than not — to find ways to prevent “viewpoint discrimination” in the use of public funds and facilities.


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

Legal barriers complicate what the pope wants from next year's pivotal Synod puzzle

, , , , , , ,
Legal barriers complicate what the pope wants from next year's pivotal Synod puzzle

Pope Francis’s extraordinary Synod of Bishops, consisting of two meetings last October and the concluding session next October, is dealing with “synodality.”

What? The media and Catholic activists are all energized about such topics  as letting women be deacons, or married men be priests, or softened LGBTQ+ policies, or allowing Communion for divorced members who remarry, or for Protestants.

Just possibly something on those might occur next year. But for certain the delegates will try to fill out that mysterious, Zen-like “synodality” term — which means some sort of organizational revamp so male and female lay parishioners are more closely engaged in the life of their church. Some call the whole puzzle Vatican III Lite.

In the flow of comment after the recent first session, Claire Giangravè, Religion News Service’s Vatican correspondent, filed a particularly savvy article on realistic changes required for any substantive doctrinal shifts in that direction. Not a simple process because, as the headline said, “To remake church power in Francis’ vision, synod calls for changes to canon law.”

In the interim leading to next October’s session, The Guy thinks the news media should be tracking down experts on the canon law code, which was revised in 1983 under Pope John Paul II to accommodate the documents from the Second Vatican Council. (Note: Eastern Rite churches in communion with the pope have separate laws.) See a Canon Law Society of America member listing here.

A reminder of the basic realities begins with Catholicism as a supremely hierarchical church centered on Francis’s own office. The code (#331) states that the pope as head of the college of bishops worldwide and the “Pastor of the universal Church on earth … enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise.”

Don’t miss the importance of that word “immediate.”


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

Let us attend: Mark Kellner offers readers a visit from the ghost of church-state past

, , , , , , , , ,
Let us attend: Mark Kellner offers readers a visit from the ghost of church-state past

Every now and then, religion-beat readers are granted a visitation from the ghost of church-state past.

In this case, we are dealing with a Washington Times report by former GetReligionista Mark Kellner, who has spent enough time inside the D.C. Beltway to understand that mass transit is the true public square for most citizens.

Thus, spot the classic church-state ghost in this headline: “Christian group, ACLU sue Metro over rejected bus ads featuring a praying George Washington.”

Need a hint? Who were some of the major players in the broad coalition that backed the near-unanimous votes in the U.S. Congress for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993?

OK, here is Kellner’s overture:

A Texas-based Christian education group has filed a free-speech lawsuit backed by the ACLU over the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority‘s rejection of the group’s ads that feature images of a praying George Washington.

WMATA earlier this year rejected the ads from WallBuilders, an Aledo, Texas, organization founded by evangelical author David Barton to communicate “the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation” of the United States. The ads would have been displayed on Metro buses.

Wallbuilders was joined in the suit by the American Civil Liberties Union and its D.C. chapter, the First Liberty Institute and the law firm of Steptoe LLP.

Wait a minute. The ACLU and a conservative Christian group are on the same side in a First Amendment free speech/religious liberty case?

Of course, there was a time when this kind of broad church-state coalition was common, as in the RFRA era. But, these days, it’s tempting to think that this kind of First Amendment logic can only be achieved with the help of a time machine (or a case involving a small, sympathetic religious minority group).


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

Guide to the mainstream media's failed attempts to report on Pope Francis-era scandals

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Guide to the mainstream media's failed attempts to report on Pope Francis-era scandals

Another month, another scandal. That seems to be the case these days with former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden. 

It’s also the case when we talk about Vatican life in the tense era of Pope Francis. World without end. Amen.

The most-recent drama in Rome involves Luca Casarini, who recently took part in the Synod on Synodality as a special nominee of Pope Francis. 

Here is the key for religion-news consumers: The problem isn’t that the mainstream press has done a poor job covering this case — it’s that mainstream journalists have’t covered it at all. This fits into a recent trend in which important and, for many, troubling stories about Catholic debates, scandals and divisions are simply ignored by leaders in elite newsrooms.

The Catholic press, however, has been on this latest story, especially newsrooms with Rome-based bureaus and reporters. This is what noted Vatican journalist John Allen reported on Dec. 3 for Crux:

Perhaps under the heading that no good deed ever goes unpunished, Pope Francis today finds himself dragged into a new controversy which, among other things, illustrates that even the very best of intentions have the potential to generate heartache.

The case centers on an Italian non-governmental organization called “Mediterranea,” the head of which is a former leader in the “no-global” movement and a longtime leftist activist named Luca Casarini, who recently took part in the Synod of Bishops on Synodality as a special nominee of Pope Francis.

While saving lives unquestionably is a worthy cause, there have been accusations that the group’s motives aren’t entirely altruistic.

Currently, Casarini and five other individuals associated with Mediterranea are under investigation in Sicily for an incident in 2020 in which the Mare Jonio, without permission from local authorities, disembarked 27 migrants in a Sicilian port whom it had taken on board from a Danish supply ship which had rescued them at sea 37 days before.

The Danish company that owned the ship, Maersk, later paid Mediterranea roughly $135,000, in what the company described as a donation but which prosecutors suspect was a payoff for violating Italian immigration laws. A judge is expected to rule Dec. 6 as to whether the case should go to trial.

The press in Italy has been all over the story since the start of this month, but legacy media in the English-speaking world have not. It may be because it involves this pope and a hot-button issue such as immigration, one of the most painful fault lines in European life today.

Either way, it is the latest in a growing number of scandals that have either been ignored or downplayed in recent years. 


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

Finding religion ghosts in the Ivy League wars, with help (sort of) from Andrew Sullivan

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Finding religion ghosts in the Ivy League wars, with help (sort of) from Andrew Sullivan

If you have been following the horror shows at Ivy League schools, you know how agonizing this situation has become for old-school First Amendment liberals.

Are the tropes of anti-Semitism still protected forms of speech? Back in the 1970s, ACLU lawyers knew the painful answer to that question when Nazis wanted to legally march through Skokie, Illinois, a Chicago-area community containing many Holocaust survivors.

America has come a long way, since then. Today, the illiberal world considers a stunning amount of free speech to be violence, except in myriad cases in which speech controls are used to prevent “hate speech” and misinformation/disinformation in debates when one side controls the public space in which free debates are supposed to be taking place.

Clearly, death threats, physical intimidation and assaults are out of line. But what about a slogan such as, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”? Is that automatically a call for genocide? The Associated Press has this to say:

Many Palestinian activists say it’s a call for peace and equality after 75 years of Israeli statehood and decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians. Jews hear a clear demand for Israel’s destruction.

Ah, but what does Hamas say? The same AP report notes:

“Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” Khaled Mashaal, the group’s former leader, said that year [2012] in a speech in Gaza celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas. “There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”

The phrase also has roots in the Hamas charter.

The key is that Hamas opposes a two-state solution allowing Israel to continue as a Jewish homeland. How is Israel eliminated without the eliminating, to one degree or another, millions of Jews?

This brings us back to the Ivy League. At this point, I think that it’s time for someone to ask if other minorities on Ivy League campuses have — in recent decades — experienced severe limitations on their free speech and freedom of association. To what degree are other minorities “ghosts” on these campuses? Do they barely exist? Has the rush to “diversity” eliminated many religious and cultural points of view?

Ah, but the Ivy League giants are private schools. They have rights of their own.


Please respect our Commenting Policy