So what are evangelical voters up to this year? For a while now, we’ve been told that evangelical voters are up for grabs.

But Pew data hasn’t shown a shift of white evangelicals toward Democratic candidates. Comparing data from four and eight years ago, Obama is faring no better than Democratic nominees from years past. The most significant change is that evangelicals have been much less enthusiastic in their support for McCain than they were for Bush. Without the full support of that crucial voting block, McCain has been in trouble.

It will be several weeks before Pew comes out with its next poll — and I like to compare the same polls since they ask the same questions and use the same methodology — but there are other surveys that are newsworthy. This CBS poll shows a McCain gain of nine percentage points among white evangelicals in the last few days. Obama is apparently down to 18 percent.

So what is going on? Tmatt discussed a bit of this the other day. Peter Smith of the Louisville Courier-Journal had some interesting analysis after the latest Pew results.

Beliefnet’s Steve Waldman, writing in the Wall Street Journal, had some really interesting analysis about the issue. I’m not sure where he got the number, but he says that six million moderate evangelical votes were up for grabs. Folks who voted for Bush last time but were interested in Obama. He says those votes are slipping away, quoting one formerly pessimistic McCain supporter as saying that it was “game over” for Obama’s outreach efforts. Here’s why, according to Waldman:

1) His poor performance at the Saddleback candidates forum, especially (or perhaps entirely) his comment about it being “above my pay grade” to know when life begins.

2) John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, an appealing antiabortion figure and the perceived attacks on her by the media, which led evangelicals to think the “elites” were against them. This sentiment has been skillfully stoked by the Republicans.

3) The Democrats’ decision to run radio ads championing Sen. Obama’s abortion-rights position without discussing his abortion-reduction agenda. “Unless the Obama campaign will stop emphasizing abortion rights and strongly address the major common cause issues with a spirited vision and practical details, the Republicans can continue to scoop up a ton of votes,” says Hunter.

He also names Obama’s opposition to bills that would protect infants who survive abortions and concern about faith-based initiatives. Obama wouldn’t allow discrimination in hiring on the basis of religion, meaning church groups would have to hire outside their particular faith. It’s some great analysis and it would be great to see Waldman’s theory, based on his following of the Obamagelical phenomenon, is correct. Some reporting on these various explanations would be helpful.

The first three are all relatively recent events and while November isn’t too far away, there are many more twists and turns to cover in this race. I am sure that reporters who were so interested in the story when it was about evangelicals being up for grabs will continue to cover it now that the narrative has changed.

It is also worth noting that just because the numbers are slipping does not mean the main media narrative is worthless. Could it be possible, for instance, that Obama is gaining some young white evangelicals whose politics are changing? Could there numbers be making up other voters he’s losing for his staunch support of abortion rights? It’s just good to remember that constant numbers can successfully cover up some dramatic underlying stories.

Bookmark to:
         

I recently wrote a GetReligion post about the Rev. Joel Hunter’s closing prayer at the Democratic National Convention, the prayer that ended with that “On the count of three” pray your own prayer interfaith twist.

Well, the more I read about that prayer and one or two others in the DNC convention, the more I thought about some previous public prayers that raised some similar issues. This led to my Scripps Howard News Service column this past week. A comments page regular sent me this note:

There’s this religion reporter named Terry Mattingly (Hi Terry) who wrote a piece that appeared in the Contra Costa Times today. It was provocative but left off a critical element that I really expected to see. The element is what was the reaction to the ending of the prayer? Without that, the piece reads a bit like a breathless piece about a modern day (pro-life, conservative) Daniel tempting some (pro-choice, secular) lions with red meat. Sorry Terry, but that’s the way it struck me. And I really do want to know how his prayer ending was received. . . . So how about reviewing your own piece including commenting on what you wrote versus what was printed?

Actually, the piece he read cut off a piece of the direct quotation that ended my piece, but the missing material would not have affected his criticism.

My column — I write columns, not straight reporting — simply didn’t go where he wanted the column to go. By the way, I do not think that Hunter waved “red meat” at the Democrats at all. And would that be Republican red meat or Democratic red meat? If he was being brave, wouldn’t he have clearly expressed his pro-life views and avoided the interfaith ending to the prayer?

I did look up some reactions to Hunter’s prayer, but did not have room for them. It was hard, on the video footage, to see what happened on the convention floor — but the reaction seemed to be positive.

Meanwhile the reader found some reaction and reaction to the reaction, but not all that much.

I simply was more interested in the content of the prayer, and those that came before it that raised similar issues, than I was in the reaction. If there had been major reactions from religious groups, I might have rethought that. Then again, my column is written plus or minus 10 words. There wasn’t any other room.

So, if you wish, read the column that I wrote and then comment.

However, the most important reaction to the prayer came from Hunter himself, who clearly heard from many who question his methods and content. I thought it was very important to include some of his comments about this — his own defense of his actions. That was a crucial addition to the column and that was where I decided to end things. Like this:

. . . (When) it comes to church-state strategy, the most groundbreaking prayer was offered by the Rev. Joel Hunter of the giant Northland Church near Orlando — especially since his benediction ended the mile-high rally that included Obama’s acceptance speech.

A self-identified “pro-life Republican,” the preacher offered a conventional prayer that included appeals on behalf of infants, children, the poor, the persecuted and those who are enslaved, as well as for peace and for the environment. Then, at the end, Hunted paused to interject a unique “closing instruction.”

“I want to personalize this,” he said. “I want this to be a participatory prayer. And so therefore, because we are in a country that is still welcoming all faiths, I would like all of us to close this prayer in the way your faith tradition would close your prayer. So on the count of three, I want all of you to end this prayer, your prayer, the way you usually end prayer. You ready? One, two, three.”

Hunter, on his own behalf, spoke into the microphone: “In Jesus’ name, Amen.” Meanwhile, 80,000 or so other people were free to name their own God or gods.

After fielding questions about his actions, the pastor stressed that it would be “taking the Lord’s name in vain” if he created confusion in such a setting. The goal was ensure that participants did not believe they were being asked to accept a prayer that forced them to “compromise their core beliefs.”

Thus, “I did not ask people to pray to another god; I asked them to finish a prayer according to their faith tradition,” argued Hunter, on his church’s website. “This may be a small point linguistically, but it is a huge point theologically. . . . As you may imagine, I prayed long and hard before feeling like God had given me the precise words for this prayer. I believe that He in His sovereign way will use it to bring people to Himself.”

That made sense to many people. Others disagreed. But I thought I would let the reader react to the content, in my small column space.

Bookmark to:
         

Give credit to Eric Gorski of the Associated Press. While some reporters don’t get that Catholic prelates are supposed to be able to influence the lives of those in the pews, including their votes at the ballot box, Gorski understands that they can and do.

Consider this passage from his latest story, about the McCain and Obama campaigns’ outreach to Catholic voters:

One unknown in the race: the voice of U.S. Catholic bishops. Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput has said Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, a Catholic supporter of abortion rights, should refrain from receiving Communion.

And several U.S. bishops have rebuked Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for misstating Catholic teaching on when life begins.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Jim Nicholson, appearing at the same forum as Brownback this week, said more bishops need to speak out about core Catholic issues.

“And we need to help them,” Nicholson said. “We need to give them cover, give them solidarity, because it can get very lonely for them.”

But it’s still rare for bishops to directly criticize politicians. Instead, Catholic dioceses nationwide have begun to distribute “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” an issue-based road map for Catholic voters.

No scholar I know of has quantified, or validated even, the political influence of Catholic leaders speaking out about issues. But I do know that at least some local Democratic Party leaders have complained about it (here and here). And you know what they say about politicians: while they might be dumb, at least they can count (votes).

Yet even a reporter as skillful and knowledgeable as Gorski committed the most elementary sin of journalistic omission: he failed to define the term Catholic social teaching and to give examples of same. Take this passage:

Neither presidential candidate lines up precisely with the breadth of Catholic teaching, but Catholic organizers for McCain and Obama are making the case that their man comes closest.

Or take this passage, about Sen. Sam Brownback’s defense of McCain:

But Brownback also challenged the notion that Democrats are more in line with Catholic social justice concerns, suggesting that McCain’s opposition to torture and support of comprehensive immigration reform provide an opening.

“I am not conceding the social ground,” said Brownback, a former presidential candidate. “We are a pro-life and whole-life party.”

Or take this passage, about the Obama campaign’s claim for the Catholic vote:

Last week in Denver, the Obama campaign argued that his policies on the economy, environment and poverty fit the Catholic pursuit of the common good.

At some point in the story, Gorski should have defined these terms — Catholic social teaching, Catholic social justice concerns, the common good.

To be sure, the terms are not easily defined, as they are made up of several principles or themes. (Can you say “the right to life,” “option for the poor,” “subsidiarity,” and “the rights of workers”?) And it is hard to know which documents to cite from, such as the Catechism or “Faithful Citizenship,” which Gorski cites. But defining the terms and quoting from a document would have gotten religion, for it would have given readers an objective measure of Catholic social thought.

Imagine a story about McCain and Mitt Romney battling over whether either candidate was a true Republican. In that case, the reporter would have informed readers if he or she had quoted from the party’s latest platform and laid out its general principles. Now I am not advocating that the reporter assert which candidate was closer to the party’s principles; outside experts or academics are more likely to reach those conclusions. But at least readers would be broadly informed about Catholic social thought.

And in the next two months, we can expect to hear a lot from both campaigns as they claim that their candidate’s positions are closer to those of church teaching.

Bookmark to:
         

I realize that some of the following information is old news, yet I continue to hear comments from GetReligion readers and friends (and friends who are readers) about the fact that the press isn’t covering the religious left enough.

This is a point this blog has been making from Day One and, for sure, after the rise of Sen. Barack Obama. At the same time, it’s clear that the mainstream press’ growing awareness of the “broadening evangelicals” — With a nod to the late Pope John Paul II, can we call them “culture of life” evangelicals? — will continue to be a story. Thus, let me point journalists and readers toward the following passage in a recent Weekly Standard article by Terry Eastland, a political journalist who got religion before getting religion was cool. This focuses on the roots of Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church forum, which, in fact, didn’t start out as his forum at all:

. . . (Those) who think politically conservative evangelicals were the prime movers in creating the forum at a church whose members, Warren himself has speculated, voted 85 percent for George Bush in 2004 will have to think again. Indicative of today’s consensus about religion and politics is the fact that an interfaith organization, Faith in Public Life, established out of concern that in the 2004 election year the Religious Right had dominated the faith-and-politics discussion, made the move that led to Saddleback.

During the primary season, Faith in Public Life organized a “Compassion Forum” at Messiah College in Pennsylvania. There were three presidential candidates still running when it was held — McCain on the Republican side, and Obama and Hillary Clinton on the Democratic — but McCain was unable to attend. So members of the “Compassion Forum Board,” described on the Faith in Public Life website as “a diverse coalition of faith leaders from across the ideological spectrum,” asked the two Democrats questions designed “to elevate” such “compassion issues” as “poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change, abortion reduction, genocide in Darfur, and torture.”

Pleased with that event, Faith in Public Life wanted to have another. Looking this time to partner with an evangelical but not one associated with the religious right, the organization asked Warren whether he might host a compassion forum, this time with the two presumptive nominees, Obama and McCain.

If you study the people who were behind this move, it’s pretty clear that this is part of a wider outreach by Democrats and mainline Protestants into the wider evangelical world. This is a totally valid project and one that should be cheered, so long as similar efforts on the right draw similar responses from journalists and lawyers. The growth of two different camps of evangelicals — the “consistent life” camp and a true, candid evangelical left — are both important news stories in this era and deserve more coverage.

At the same time, these groups must not be confused. This has been a major issue for the mainstream press all the way back to the early work of Ronald Sider and his landmark, and still controversial, revised, expanded and updated and update book, “Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger.” Rest assured there are probably several editions of that book on Warren’s bookshelf (I have three).

With that in mind, please click here and head on over to a recent Wall Street Journal piece by Naomi Schaefer Riley entitled “What Saddleback’s Pastor Really Thinks About Politics.” I have been meaning to point this article out for over a week. The lede is blunt, blunt, blunt (and I am not sure that I agree with Warren on some of this, especially the thumb and forefinger part):

“Overhyped.” That’s how the Rev. Rick Warren describes the notion that the evangelical vote is “up for grabs” in this election. But what about the significance of the evangelical left, I asked the pastor of Saddleback Church after his forum with the presidential candidates last weekend. “This big,” he says, holding his thumb and forefinger about an inch apart.

Sitting on a small stone patio outside the church’s “green room,” I question him further — has he heard that the Democratic Party is changing its abortion platform? “Window dressing,” he replies. “Too little, too late.” But Rev. Jim Wallis, the self-described progressive evangelical, has been saying that the change is a big victory. “Jim Wallis is a spokesman for the Democratic Party,” Mr. Warren responds dismissively.

But here is the section that political journalists need to read, if they are trying to read — oh, please go read them — the Pew Forum numbers on just how many mainstream evangelicals may be drifting to the moral and cultural left in this election year.

But there is a misunderstanding by the media, says Mr. Warren. “A lot of people hear [about a broader agenda] and they think, ‘Oh, evangelicals are giving up on believing that life begins at conception,’” he explains. “They’re not giving up on that at all. Not at all.” . . .

And as for the notion that younger evangelicals are ready for rebellion against their parents’ ideals, Mr. Warren cites polls showing that the younger evangelical generation is even more concerned about abortion than the older one. After the Sunday morning service at Saddleback . . . I interviewed 15 random attendees. Only two were Obama supporters, one of whom was a British guy on holiday. Almost all of the remaining congregants mentioned abortion as the most significant issue affecting their vote in November.

So why is most of the press under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, is so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson? “It’s a matter of tone,” says an amused Mr. Warren, who seems unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagree.

Wait, read that again. Note a crucial word in that statement — which is paraphrased, but rings true to me. Note the word “theological” in that comment about Dobson. Not “political,” but “theological.” There are doctrinal issues at stake, here.

And there is the rub and, I might add, the story.

The ancient moral doctrines of Christianity do not fit neatly into the platforms of either party. Consistent life voters have been struggling for a long, long time on how to handle this situation. Click here for a piece of my own political story, an article I hope to update soon. It was written for Salon.com, but rejected by editors there. You can also read this decade-old piece by my dear friend, Frederica Mathewes-Green on her journey.

Anyway, if I may be even more honest and personal for a moment, many old-school Democrats like me (people with FDR portraits in their offices) are waiting to see if there is any chance for Obama to compromise and seek middle ground on the hot-button issues. For voters like me, he really needs to say that abortion is evil, that the number of abortions should fall and that some legal restrictions must be put in place. In other words, the current abortion regime must change — along with increased efforts to support women and children before and after they choose life.

So read the whole Warren interview. There is a big story out there in the churches — ancient and modern — that are caught in the middle. I am not sure if the press gets it, yet.

Bookmark to:
         

The Wall Street Journal took on the challenging task Thursday of reporting on and explaining the faith of 2008 Republican Vice Presidential candidate and Alaska governor Sarah Palin and how it might impact her public policy views. Needless to say, despite the Journal’s good efforts, more journalistic work remains to be done.

The article starts out with a short description of Palin’s place of worship for more than twenty years:

At the Pentecostal church where Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin worshipped for more than two decades, congregants speak in tongues and are part of a faith that believes humanity is in its “end times” — the days preceding a world-ending cataclysm bringing Christian redemption and the second coming of Jesus.

The Rev. Ed Kalnins, pastor of the Pentecostal church, Wasilla Assembly of God, says he has told church members that God put President George W. Bush in office and that America is locked in a “holy war” with terrorists.

Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for the campaign said that her time at this church for twenty years is not relevant and that she would not “get into that.” Apparently, the important thing is where Palin worships today, according to the campaign. Right. Exactly what is the McCain-Palin campaign trying to keep reporters from finding out? One way or another reporters have a job of helping the public better understand what Palin believes in her heart and how twenty years at this church impacts her perspectives on public policy.

Fortunately, there is some public material out there and the WSJ was able to dig some of it up and provide some outside commentary on the subject matter:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country,” Gov. Palin said, in a video of the talk posted on the church’s Web site. Pray “that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we’re praying for: that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”

David Gushee, a Christian ethicist at Mercer University in Atlanta, says he is troubled that a public official might presume that government action could be God’s intent. “I would never think it is appropriate to describe the actions of the United States military or the strategies of our commanders as a plan from God,” Mr. Gushee says.

That commentary from Mr. Gushee is all nice and good, but is it really all that remarkable in today’s political climate? Perhaps Palin is just more honest in public about she feels spiritually. Remember here what Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama wrote in a note he thought would remain private:

Lord,

Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins and help me guard against pride and despair.

Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just.

And make me an instrument of your will.

Go ahead and comment away on the difference between asking God to make one an instrument of His will and asking others to pray to God that the country’s leaders would send people out on a task from God, or that the plan is God’s plan. Of course, what matters significantly is the perspective and setting from which that person makes that public statement or puts that private prayer into writing. What also matters significantly is that person’s religious faith. Either way, it would help to put her statement into a bigger context and compare it to what other people have said in front of groups of faith.

A reader of ours submitted an excellent comment, noting that the article spent plenty of time on Palin’s old church and little on her current church. The reader noted the article’s interesting summary of the denomination’s beliefs:

The Wasilla Assembly of God and its parent denomination — the three-million member General Council of the Assemblies of God — espouse core beliefs not widely ascribed to by major Christian factions. Many members pray in undecipherable sounds or “tongues.” The denomination’s Web site says some scholars believe that the “end times” foreshadowing the end of the world was confirmed in 1948, with the founding of the state of Israel, marking the Jews’ return to the Holy Land, fulfilling a Biblical prophecy. The Assemblies of God is part of a Pentecostal movement that numbers 80 million people world-wide.

The reader pointed to the official Assemblies of God Web site that has a list of sixteen fundamental truths. Many of these fundamental truths are certainly ascribed to by most major Christian denominations (or factions if you want it that way). Of course there are some that make the denomination distinct. In addition, “some scholars” will say anything. A better and more thorough description of the denomination is needed along with some solid journalism into religion’s role in Sarah Palin’s life.

P.S. Mark Silk’s excellent Spiritual Politics blog notes that a recent poll shows McCain’s support among white evangelicals up from 57 percent this past weekend to sixty-six percent.

Bookmark to:
         

OK, I knew that this was coming. Yet part of me really didn’t want to admit that I knew it was coming.

Care of the Boston Herald:

Yes, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has a lot on her plate: a pregnant teen daughter, a son on his way to Iraq, an infant with Down syndrome and a looming national election.

But must her hair suffer? With her long, straight, often pinned-up locks, Palin looks one humid day away from fronting a Kiss cover band.

“It’s about 20 years out of date,” said Boston stylist Mario Russo of the Alaska governor’s ‘do. “Which goes to show how off she might be on current events.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m waiting for the in-depth, investigative report on whether or not the GOP focus-grouped the decision on whether to let her keep the hairstyle that she has used in recent years. Or is it months? Did she change it? When? Perhaps this is secret Pentecostal hair, a kind of code signal to theocrats in hair salons in Jesusland? Are people asking similar questions about Sen. Joe Biden’s hair? Wait a minute. Don’t answer that one.

In the wake of Gov. Palin’s breakout address, all kinds of people are asking the degree to which sexism is shaping the mainstream coverage of her life and career. The flip side of this, of course, is whether feminists would be up in arms about the coverage if the woman in the cross hairs was a loyal activist in the Sexual Revolution, instead of being a heretic and rebel.

There is no way, of course, to comment on all of the coverage. It would take 100 GetReligionistas to even attempt it. But after wading through a whole lot of it, I would like to offer readers this suggestion.

In the next few days, ignore everything about Palin and her speech except for (a) work critical (in the best sense of that word) of her by conservatives and pro-life liberals or (b) work praising her or defending her by Democrats and/or people who are cultural liberals (mainstream media people are close enough). Trust me, this will save you lots of time, because you won’t have much to read.

I always find it interesting to pay attention to people who cut against the grain and offer dashes of critical commentary about their own camps. In this case, it would be pro-lifers who are concerned about Palin’s stands on the Iraq war or people who are pro-abortion-rights, yet think people at the Daily Kos and elsewhere really have crossed over the line into, well, the left-wing version of the Savage Nation.

So let me note one article out of dozens today. The Politico has, of course, been in the thick of things on the Palin stories and many readers are convinced the webzine has been out of bounds, a few times.

Then again, The Politico also published this article by John F. Harris and Beth Frerking, which ran with the headline: “Clinton aides: Palin treatment sexist.” A sample, from a scholar whose work I have read for years:

Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen, who has written best-selling books on gender differences, said she agrees with complaints that Palin skeptics — including prominent voices in the news media — have crossed a line by speculating about whether the Alaska governor is neglecting her family in pursuit of national office.

“What we’re dealing with now, there’s nothing subtle about it,” said Tannen. “We’re dealing with the assumption that child-rearing is the job of women and not men. Is it sexist? Yes.”

“There’s no way those questions would be asked of a male candidate,” said Howard Wolfson a former top strategist for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The sexism charge was hurled with new intensity Wednesday afternoon by McCain surrogates, all women, at a news conference just hours before made her acceptance speech here — a speech in which she said this about the media and Washington elite: “I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion ” I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country.”

The big hole in the article — the ghost, in other words — is that the reporters did not appear to ask anyone whether these sexist attacks are linked to Palin’s stands on cultural issues or to her openly professed evangelical Protestant faith. In other words, is she a safe target? Is she a heretic, in the context of media orthodoxies?

However, it should be noted that the religion theme returned quickly when the same publication published an article that studied the impact of the speech on potential voters.

It is hard to overstate how underwhelmed most Republicans are by McCain and the current cast of GOP leaders. This was especially true of social conservatives, many of them religious evangelicals, who are most thrilled by Palin.

Now that Palin has cleared the bar — truth be told, a fairly modest one — of delivering an effective speech, McCain has much more flexibility to follow his own instincts. He can play up reformist rhetoric and play down socially conservative ideology — the exact combination that in 2004 had some liberal commentators hoping McCain would abandon the GOP and go on the Democratic ticket.

Before Wednesday night, McCain was in big trouble when it comes to mobilizing conservative faithful. Now, Palin can help the party organize and turn out the same base of Christian evangelicals, Second Amendment supporters and abortion-rights opponents that proved instrumental to the back-to-back George W. Bush victories.

All this leads to one question: When will The Politico connect the dots on these two halves of the story?

Bookmark to:
         

I have a confession to make.

I dislike criticizing newspapers stories that are well reported, not to mention detailed and interesting.

As a former daily reporter, I know the difficulty of finding a story and sources, getting time from your editor to report the story out, and confirming details while you’re writing. And in this era of massive cutbacks on the print side, criticizing well-reported stories seems unfair, even petty. Yet many stories require the reporter to show readers not only the small picture, but also the big picture, and if the reporter doesn’t show both, the story will disappoint in some way.

The preamble above summarizes my thoughts about Erika Hayasaki’s story in The Los Angeles Times about a professional woman who specializes in acquainting the living with the dead. Before you reflect on the nature of this woman’s work, read and appreciate Hayasaki’s lede:

The dead man lies naked on a metal table, a small cloth covering his groin, mouth open, arms rigid and cocked.

A blue-gloved autopsy technician thrusts a hefty razor into his chest, unzipping his brown skin to reveal a thick layer of yolk-colored fat. He pulls marbled meat from the bone.

The man was 30, an only son, married, a father of three. Around 9:40 p.m. the night before, someone shot him in the head. Now, a technician at the New Jersey Medical Examiner’s Office in Newark is holding his lungs, tar-speckled as if covered with spores of mold.

Rebecca Schmidt, 21, a ponytailed biology major, stands over the body, alongside a dozen of her Kean University classmates midway through the eight-week summer course Death in Perspective.

“They’re looking for the bullet; come see,” says Professor Norma Bowe, 49.

Schmidt leans in, captivated by the disfigured ball of metal lodged above his left ear. She breathes through her mask sprayed with perfume, which does little to block the smell of death: feces and rotten eggs.

This is so cool, she thinks. Schmidt has seen death plenty of times, but never the inside of a corpse.

For the last decade, Bowe has led her classes of 30 students into the refrigerated tombs of bodies stacked bunk-bed-style in the morgue and into hospice bedrooms, glowing from television screens, occupied by the sickly and soon-to-die. She guides them through the barbed-wire fences of Northern New Jersey State Penitentiary, past the outdoor recreation kennels where gang members sweat and swear, to a law library where they sit down with murderers.

Hayasaki’s description was replete with details — yolk-colored fat, marbled meat, the gang members sweating and swearing. As someone who has seen the body of a person who has died from violence, I think it captured the grisliness and funeral elements of death.

Yet detailed, it seems fair to say, does not describe Hayasaki’s treatment of Norma Bowe’s philosophy. Hayasaki gives plenty of hints that Bowe might be religious or that she has thought about religion. For example, at the end of the story Bowe tells a student the following:

Bowe keeps Schmidt in mind on the last day of class when she reads them a commencement speech written by Anna Quindlen: The knowledge of our own mortality is the greatest gift God ever gives us. It’s so easy to waste our lives, our days, our hours, our minutes.

Interesting, but the passage is never elaborated upon. Why did Bowe mention God? Do students talk about God and religion’s consideration and treatment of death? Hayasaki should have asked Bowe a religion-related question, for it might have shed light on the lessons that Bowe seeks to impart to her students. Are students to understand death in purely personal terms or in philosophical or religious ones?

Religion was something of a ghost in this story. It was airy and ethereal, not fleshed out. If only Hayasaki had given readers a few details about Bowe’s examination of the meaning of death, one that she applied skillfully to the topic of the biological processes of death.

Bookmark to:
         

I’m here in St. Paul, and still processing everything from last night. I was pretty sure there was no way that the Republican National Convention could come even close to the excitement of the Democratic National Convention but last night was truly amazing. We’ll be sure to cover the coverage of the religious angles — although it’s funny that most of the fodder for religion news seemed to come from Rudy Guiliani, of all people.

The interesting thing about the difference between the two conventions was that you couldn’t go more than a few minutes in Denver without hearing mention of the party being welcoming to religious adherents. There were prominent invocations and benedictions, the interfaith gathering, the faith caucuses (caucii?). Here, every mention of religion I’ve heard has been so different. Obama’s “clinging to religion” comments get joked about a lot — but there is no “appeal” being made to religious voters. This is likely because Democrats have a real image problem, although it’s improving, with being seen as “friendly to religion.” It will be interesting to see how the religious outreach will be compared in press reports.

But before we get to that, I wanted to highlight a very comprehensive piece looking at the Democratic convention’s religious angles. Reported by Religion & Ethics’ Kim Lawton, she nailed what religious outreach means to Democrats. Watch it all. Leah Daughtry’s commanding presence is highlighted. She quotes people talking about moral issues facing the nation. She shows the prominent display of religion, beginning with the interfaith gathering:

LAWTON: The gathering was part of a new Democratic strategy to incorporate religion and more aggressively reach out to faith-based voters. Observers say it’s a sea change from 2004, when the Democrats appeared reluctant to address issues of faith.

Reverend ROMAL TUNE (Clergy Strategic Alliances): Four years ago, the party was still gaining momentum in terms of the outreach in the religious community. But now the party is more willing to express its views as people of faith, the diversity of the faiths represented by the Democratic Party.

Lawton notes the polling data that suggest Democratic problems with religious outreach. Only 38 percent of Americans think the Democratic Party is friendly toward religion. But she shows how the efforts are playing out and how they are completely different than the way that Republicans reach out:

LAWTON: In addition, for the first time ever the Democrats created special caucus meetings where people of faith could come together as other affinity groups do. At a series of four separate faith caucus meetings, national religious leaders held panel discussions about key issues. In another first, Muslims organized the American Muslim Democratic Caucus. Fifty-five Muslim caucus members were delegates at this year’s convention. Former Muslim Army chaplain James Yee was a delegate from Washington State. After working in Guantanamo Bay, Yee was detained in 2003 and accused of spying. The charges were later dropped, and now Yee is mobilizing Muslims to get involved in politics.

Chaplain JAMES YEE (Washington Delegate): The values of justice, diversity, equality, religious freedom — these are all values that are not only reflected in our Constitution, but they are also reflected in the teachings of the Qur’an. . . .

LAWTON: Joe Turnham was gratified to see the many expressions of Democratic faith at this convention. Turnham is chair of the Alabama Democratic Party and a lifelong evangelical Christian. He has been deeply frustrated by the Democrats’ recent image on issues of faith.

JOE TURNHAM (Chair, Alabama Democratic Party): Democrats are people that pray. They are people that seek forgiveness. They are people that seek for higher meaning and truth in life and that really do follow scriptural precepts for how we live our lives. And it’s a barometer of how we may govern.

As someone who was there, these quotes resonate perfectly with the tone of the various events. It’s nice to be able to compare a piece against actual events and Lawton nailed it.

The big ghost of the religious outreach efforts was definitely the abortion issue. And not just because of the protests. Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, was given a prominent speaking slot whereas Democrats for Life met in a small room blocks away from the convention.

NANCY KEENAN (President, NARAL Pro-Choice America, during speech): I am proud to say that my party, the Democratic Party, is a party of many faiths and backgrounds united behind these core moral values: we support and defend a woman’s right to choose a safe, legal abortion.

LAWTON: The party maintained its strong support for abortion rights. But this year, delegates also approved support for measures to reduce the number of abortions. Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput called the measure a “distraction.”

Archbishop CHARLES CHAPUT (Archdiocese of Denver): The fact that there’s a part of the platform that calls for that doesn’t blind me to the other part of the platform that is unconditionally committed to the right to abortion. So, quite honestly, I’m not impressed by it.

The piece also mentions that it’s a delicate line between reaching out to religious believers and alienating some of the party’s secularists. Clergy and other religious adherents were clearly enthused about the new approach being taken. Lawton managed to present that enthusiasm without overselling what is happening. As we usually say when looking at that fine show, great work.

Bookmark to:
         

A few weeks ago I wrote about an increase in coverage of the “diverse Amish” lifestyles and found it curious that there had been a great deal of minor news articles on various legal conflicts the communities were having with the governments around them. An answer to my curiosity arrived in the form of an Associated Press article on the fact that the Amish have nearly doubled their population in about 16 years.

The article bases a lot of its facts on an upcoming book by a leading Amish expert from Elizabethtown College Professor Donald Kraybill. The book found that the states of Missouri, Minnesota and Kentucky have had Amish populations jump by more than 130 percent and now number 227,000 across the country. New Amish communities have been planted in about 28 states and a lot of this movement is due to their desire to acquire inexpensive farmland.

The article is a bit short on the theological aspects of the Amish (or Anabaptist) faith, but the description of the group is pleasantly descriptive, neutral in tone and accurate:

Also known as Anabaptists, most Amish reject modern conveniences and rely on horse-drawn carriages. They began arriving in eastern Pennsylvania around 1730. Along with English, they speak a German dialect called Pennsylvania Dutch or Pennsylvania German.

Amish couples typically have five or more children. With more than four out of every five deciding in young adulthood to remain within the church, their population has grown steadily. More than half the population is under 21.

A small portion of the increase is also due to conversions to the faith.

The Amish are attracted to areas with relatively cheap farms, a rural lifestyle and nonfarming jobs such as construction or cabinet making that fit their values and allow them to remain independent. In some cases, they have migrated to resolve leadership problems or escape church-related disputes.

More could be said of course on the issue of church-related disputes, but that is probably a subject for another in-depth article on that particular subject. Note the typical size of Amish families and the high rate of decisions to remain in the church: what goes unsaid is that one does not become Amish until the point of baptism. Baptisms do not happen until the person is older (think 18 or 19) and understands exactly what they are committing themselves too. (Thankfully the article doesn’t attempt to blame global warming on large Amish families. Horse and buggy communities don’t emit many fossil fuels)

The article notes the conflicts that arise when the Amish move into areas, but the article also notes the benefits of having Amish in a community.

Journalists in communities with an influx or new community of Amish should look to this article and this book (when it comes out) when reporting on the issues. I suspect that the book provides an excellent resource for reporters looking at these issues.

Photo of Amish children playing baseball used under a Wikimedia Commons license.

Bookmark to:
         

I tried, really tried, not to add another post to the Sarah Palin parade today. Then the Divine Ms. MZ Hemingway found this piece of strangeness. But MZ is on her way to St. Paul for more freelance work and this online offering from the Associated Press is so interesting and, well, strange, that we really need to air it before the GOP convention tonight.

Here’s the main question: What IS this? What is this large piece of text?

It’s from the Associated Press, but it is sure not your grandfather’s wire-service report. It’s not a true feature or analysis essay, either.

Instead, it’s four AP reporters offering their advice on what the new Republican lightning rod needs to do in her speech tonight.

Of course, you know that religion-beat specialist Eric Gorski is going to tell her to go ahead and explain where she is coming from, in terms of faith. So here’s another sample, entitled “Tell Your Story.”

Dear Sarah:

Keep to your faith, stick to your principles and be sure to introduce yourself. This is the advice of your fellow Republicans who are attending the party’s convention.

“Remember who your faith is in and who holds you in his hand,” says Crystal Kennedy, a delegate from Eagle River, Alaska.

Social conservatives and religious leaders have praised your selection as John McCain’s running mate. This is a group whose support you and McCain will need to win the White House.

Jim Edwards, a delegate from Plano, Texas, has been watching you for a year as he volunteered for former GOP primary contender Mike Huckabee. Voters like Edwards are attracted to your stance on family values. He says he sees the news of your 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy as a chance highlight how families should support soon-to-be parents and show love for the unborn baby, rather than be shameful of the situation.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez says you have much to offer, but the country is not as familiar with you.

Tell your story.

“I’m sure the American people will love her once they get to know her,” Gutierrez said. “That’s all they need.”

By Ann Sanner

OK, that was probably some quotes out of the reporter’s notebook, taken from a quick trip through the convention hall.

But, again, what was this supposed to be — as a journalism product?

You have to ask whether this is an attempt by the AP to add some semi-blogging edge to their online offerings. Is this the AP tries to do “On Faith”? Or you could say that it was supposed to show a soft side of the mainstream press during a time when — click here for Howard Kurtz — many conservative religious believers are convinced that journalists are trying to get Palin, while failing to get her religion.

So GetReligion readers: What, pray tell, was going on in AP land on this?

Bookmark to:
         

Out in the heartland, much of the news coverage of Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin has focused on how she has thrilled evangelical voters.

In other words — surprise, surprise — the focus is on the horse race and not on the substance. Since the pick was announced, there has been some coverage of the substance of Palin’s beliefs and career, but a lot of it still focuses on the process that was involved in selecting Palin.

In the heartland and in Ohio specifically, newspapers have had predictable coverage. The Columbus Dispatch ran an article focusing on how Palin could draw evangelicals (and women) to vote for the Republicans in November.

Ohio Right to Life Executive Director Mike Gonidakis praised McCain’s choice, saying Palin will energize social conservatives: “It’s a definite game-changer, not only for the pro-life movement, but for the (GOP) base here in Ohio.”

But Emily’s List, which raises money for female Democratic candidates, said Palin won’t hurt Obama among women.

That description of Emily’s List should have noted that the group supports only candidates who are also support abortion rights. However, that almost goes without saying.

Some articles have focused on local Democratic Party responses to the Palin pick. Others have mentioned local Republicans enthusiasm. The enthusiasm typically focuses on evangelical voters. Other articles don’t mention religious issues at all.

Since there is no real practical way for me to canvas all of the papers around the country, please send us local articles that discuss whether or not GOP officials believe Palin will help bring out more voters that otherwise might have stayed home. My hometown newspaper, The Indianapolis Star, wrote in an article Tuesday that Hoosier delegates at the Republican Convention were excited about Palin. The only suggestion of religious issues is the mention that Palin is pro-life and the fact her 17-year-old unmarried daughter is pregnant.

The Dayton Daily News writes little on Palin’s personal views, but repeats the often repeated story about Palin’s pro-life views and the way those views have influenced her personal actions:

Palin, 44, already has made history. She is both the first woman and the youngest person to hold the Alaska governorship. She is the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket, and if elected, would be the first female vice president. She is pro-life, and was celebrated in the anti-abortion movement when she refused to consider an abortion after learning Trig was likely to have Down syndrome.

People have marveled at how well she has juggled her public and private life as a mother of five children, including one with special needs.

Much more could be said about Palin’s personal religious views and how they influence her public policies. From what I have seen most local newspapers have either relied heavily on wire services or other major newspaper’s coverage of the Palin pick. Part of the challenge is that Palin’s religious views are hardly typical, at least compared to what reporters are used to seeing in national politicians, and remain somewhat of a mystery.

I am hoping there are some local heartland-oriented newspapers out there with the resources to cover how the Palin pick is seen in their local community. And maybe they will mention religious issues.

Bookmark to: