Christianity

, , , , , , , , , , ,

This is sooooo New York Times? Cannibalism is hip, which raises zero religious questions

, , , , , , , , , , ,
This is sooooo New York Times? Cannibalism is hip, which raises zero religious questions

While it isn’t conventional grammar, there are times when people use “New York Times” as descriptive phrase, rather than as a noun. Here’s a common example: “He is a New York Times Republican.” A variation would be, “He is a New York Times conservative columnist.”

From time to time, I have also received emails from readers pointing me toward a story with a description that reads something like this: “There are New York Times stories and there are New York Times stories, but this is a perfect NEW YORK TIMES story.” In other words, this particular story is a symbolic example of the worldview commonly found in America’s most influential newsroom.

If you follow social media, you know that quite a few people had that kind of reaction to a feature that ran the other day with this eye-grabbing double-decker headline:

A Taste for Cannibalism?

A spate of recent stomach-churning books, TV shows and films suggests we’ve never looked so delicious — to one another

As veteran GetReligionista Clemente Lisi put it, via email: “This story wouldn't pass what we at the NY Post used to call the ‘Cheerios test.’ That is, people don't want to read about this as they have breakfast, especially on a Sunday!”

As that headline suggests, this is one of those oh-so New York Times trend pieces about the sophisticated cultural tastes of sophisticated people living in sophisticated zip codes. The only question, with this kind of topic, is whether it appears first in the Times or on National Public Radio. Here is the overture:

An image came to Chelsea G. Summers: a boyfriend, accidentally on purpose hit by a car, some quick work with a corkscrew and his liver served Tuscan style, on toast.

That figment of her twisted imagination is what prompted Ms. Summers to write her novel, “A Certain Hunger,” about a restaurant critic with a taste for (male) human flesh.

Turns out, cannibalism has a time and a place. In the pages of some recent stomach-churning books, and on television and film screens, Ms. Summers and others suggest that that time is now.

The contents of this feature — think issues of omission, as well as commission — led me to a logical question, at least one that would be logical here at GetReligion: What does this influential cultural trend have to do with religion?

Very little, and that surprised me, since cannibalism and religion are often served on the same platter in certain cultures.


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

Ciao, GetReligion: Thanks, all, for my tenure. Critic that I am, though, here are some final thoughts

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ciao, GetReligion: Thanks, all, for my tenure. Critic that I am, though, here are some final thoughts

I’ve been a contributor to GetReligion since 2015, when founder Terry Mattingly recruited me over salad at an Annapolis mall eatery. I’m grateful that he did.

Seven years is, for me, a hefty professional run. But nothing lasts for ever. Change is constant. In short, this is my last regular GetReligion post.

During my time here I’ve noticed what I consider an imbalance in the stories GetReligion bloggers generally choose to critique. It is this: The underwhelming and frequently inaccurate religion news coverage too often offered by “mainstream media” is criticized at GetReligion on a near-daily basis. The ignorance of important religion details and the coverage’s overall poor quality are often attributed to mainstream journalists’ “secular,” or “progressive,” worldviews.

Another regular criticism is that mainstream media journalists view everything through a zero-sum political lens. This, goes the argument, renders them incapable of understanding or communicating religious complexity as it’s actually lived by believers living outside the blue-state mindset. Politics is all that really matters, is the trope.

hese broadsides are standard GetReligion fare. Importantly, the accusations are generally on target. It’s more than a coincidence that the GetReligion team members behind this website have decades of experience in the mainstream press.

Religion journalism has suffered greatly in this Internet era. Relatively few news outlets ever invested in upping their religion coverage. Today, even fewer do. Blame that on journalism’s downward economic spiral brought about by the World Wide Web explosion — a major theme here at GetReligion.

However, what’s too often missed here is criticism of the similar lackluster coverage originating in clearly conservative media. At GetReligion, conservative-market media more often than not get a pass. This is, in part, because conservative media’s most popular content is offered by right-wing commentators who make little to no effort to hide their biases and whose stock in trade is pure opinion.


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

Looking beyond the polls to find Catholic news hooks in stories about 2022 midterms

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Looking beyond the polls to find Catholic news hooks in stories about 2022 midterms

Political news coverage is, in part, guided by polls.

There are dozens of them that come out every few days in reporters’ email inboxes trying to gauge the temperature of the electorate on any given politician or policy decisions. This is especially true in a presidential election year. it’s also true during the midterms, which will arrive on Nov. 8.

While mainstream pollsters took a hit for being inaccurate when Donald Trump won the White House in 2016, the polls roll on as the experts put them out, pundits dissect them and news coverage reports on what they mean.

Often lost in this horse-race coverage of who’s up and who’s down are the views of real people about issues that are, in many cases, larger than partisan politics.

However, an EWTN/RealClear Opinion poll, released on July 15, took a snapshot of what Catholics are thinking, at this point in time. I wrote about its major findings for Religion Unplugged. However, there was more to this survey than a one-day headline.

There are plenty of nuggets of data that could serve as a jumping off point for news coverage in the coming weeks and months.

Overall, the survey found, in the words of Matthew Bunson, executive editor of EWTN News:

This new EWTN News/RealClear Opinion Research poll finds that Catholics — like the majority of Americans — are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, have largely negative views about most of the institutions of government save for the Supreme Court, and are deeply concerned about attacks and vandalism against churches and pro-life clinics.


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

Here's a soundbite for you: In the Bible, does St. Peter call women the 'weaker sex'?

, , , , , , , ,
Here's a soundbite for you: In the Bible, does St. Peter call women the 'weaker sex'?

THE QUESTION:

In the Bible, does St. Peter call women the “weaker sex”?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Yes.

But why? What did that mean? What was he saying about women’s status in a culture far different from that of the 21st Century?

A preliminary point. Word limits do not allow adequate examination here of liberal scholars’ contention that St. Peter did not really write the two New Testament letters the texts attribute to him, or of the reasons conservatives are convinced that these are authentic words from the figure Catholicism uplifts as the first pope and all Christians revere as an apostle, founder and martyr. The following discussion will assume Peter was the author.

Jackson Wu, an evangelical theologian with the Global Training Network, raised the question about I Peter 3:7 in this June 29 blog item. The verse at issue reads “likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life. …”

That’s the Revised Standard Version translation. Using the ever-handy www.BibleGateway.com, you can quickly compare 60 other English renditions.

Others that say “weaker sex” are the Living Bible, a modern U.S. paraphrase; Expanded Bible, which includes alternate translations; and the original New Revised Standard Version, but not last year’s updated edition. Others say weaker “partner” and many have weaker “vessel,” which is the more exact translation of the original Greek. That’s important.

Peter’s letter is abundantly clear that women are not inferior spiritually, or morally, or of any lesser status than men in the eyes of God.


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

What's the role of religion as social trust unravels in American public life?

, , , , , , , ,
What's the role of religion as social trust unravels in American public life?

Time for a Religion Guy Memo that sidesteps the onrushing news of the moment for a broader-brush assessment of America and American religion that the media need to be thinking about.

Last Saturday, CNN host Michael Smerconish asked whether the United States is experiencing “a national nervous breakdown,” and conducted a (non-scientific) online poll in which 78% of 22,000-plus viewers answered “no” to this question: “Are concerns about America’s unraveling overblown?”

Devastating documentation on the situation came the morning after Independence Day from the Gallup Poll’s annual survey on the population’s confidence in the various institutions that lead, bind and shape the nation.

The Gallup organization stands out among pollsters for its data on identical or similar questions across many years. Writers who pursue this will want to examine the year-by-year “confidence in institutions” data, which in many cases date back to 1973.

Since this is GetReligion, we start with how much confidence this year’s 1,015 respondents have in “the church or organized religion.”

The following numbers combine the “a great deal” and “quite a lot” answers to yield a confidence index. (The poll’s other choices were “some,” “very little,” “none” and “no opinion.”) Note that these percentages track opinions among the general public, not just Americans who are personally involved or knowledgeable about religion.

Simply put, the populace’s confidence in organized religion has hit rock bottom in 2022 at 31%, compared with a 52% majority as recently as 2009, and consistent scores of 60% or better from 1973 through 1985. Digging into the internals we find 46% confidence among self-identified Republicans vs. a paltry 26% among Democrats.

What happened? The Guy sees no clear pattern of immediate reactions to, for instance, news eruptions regarding Catholic priestly predators or the abortion or the same-sex marriage disputes, though gradual accumulating impact seems likely. There’s possibly a bit of damage from a Christian faction’s visible conservative politicking, particularly in the Trump years, but even that is debatable.

The Guy proposes an explanation based upon all institutions gauged by the poll.


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

Podcast: Experts call the Unification Church a 'cult,' and that word requires explanation

, , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Experts call the Unification Church a 'cult,' and that word requires explanation

It has been a long time since I have done a podcast post about a developing news story only one day after I wrote the original post on that topic.

However, yesterday’s post — “New York Times report says the Unification Church is a 'church' and it's as simple as that” — turned out to have some old issues connected to it that, when discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” episode, took us back into a familiar journalism minefield. (To get to the actual podcast, JUST CLICK HERE.) Can you say “cult”?

Before we get to the old issue of journalists (and academics) struggling to define “cult,” let’s look at some of the ways and religious and political language are woven into the story of the assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan — primarily through the family history of Tetsuya Yamagami, who was arrested after the shooting. This is from The Guardian:

Tetsuya Yamagami has confessed to killing the former Japanese prime minister during a campaign speech on Friday. He blamed the global religious movement — whose members are often referred to as Moonies — for bankrupting his family, and believed that Abe had championed its activities in Japan.

The Japan branch of the church has confirmed that Yamagami’s mother is a member, but declined to comment on the suspect’s claims that she had made a “huge donation” more than 20 years ago that left the family struggling financially.

The branch’s president, Tomihiro Tanaka, told a press conference that Yamagami’s mother became a follower in the late 1990s, adding that the family had suffered financial ruin around 2002.

As I mentioned in the first post, it’s normal to call the Unification Church a “church” on first reference, since that is it’s primary name — as opposed to the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity or the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification.

The journalism issue here is how reporters describe this religious movement in follow-up references and how much material news reports include about the messianic claims of its founder, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Let’s return to the Guardian report:

Moon, who died in 2012, said he had had a vision aged 15 in which he was told by Jesus to complete his unfulfilled mission to restore humanity to a state of “sinless” purity.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

New York Times report says the Unification Church is a 'church' and it's as simple as that

, , , , , ,
New York Times report says the Unification Church is a 'church' and it's as simple as that

I have received several texts and emails about a recent New York Times story that ran with this headline: “Suspect in Abe Shooting Held a ‘Grudge.’ Scrutiny Falls on a Church.”

If you run a quick search for “church” in this report, you will find the term used 25 times. That’s quite a few uses of what appears to be, for the Times team, a word with no specific meaning.

Thus, we need to do that GetReligion thing that we do. Let’s look at some online dictionaries and see what the word “church” means. This Dictionary.com reference is typical and we need to see several of its secondary definitions:

church:

* a building for public Christian worship.

* public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly.

* (sometimes initial capital letter) the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.

* (sometimes initial capital letter) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination: the Methodist Church.

What’s the basic issue here? As one veteran journalist put it, in a text about this Times report: “I didn’t know the Unification Church was a Christian church.”

Once again we need to talk about how journalists use, or don’t use, tricky words such as “sect” or even “cult” — which may affect how news publications use a word like “church.” When dealing with the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity and the work of the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon, we also need to pay attention to the word “messiah.”

The bottom line: Moon’s movement called itself a “church” and identified it’s leader as either (lines tend to blur) a messiah or “the” new messiah. The problem with the Times report is that readers are told that this is a “church” and that is that — no additional information is needed.


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

Fallout from Supreme Court abortion decision: When reporters parrot partisan talking points

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Fallout from Supreme Court abortion decision: When reporters parrot partisan talking points

With emotions running high, the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade marked a cataclysmic shift in the ongoing culture wars. What it means for the upcoming midterm elections and beyond has been the topic of much speculation since the ruling was handed down.

The decision was marked by joy on one side and anger on the other, with may reporters wearing their emotions on their faces and under their bylines. However, many people I know reacted with mixed emotions. Even conservatives were uneasy about the decision, mostly because they feared the violence that could be a part of the fallout. Indeed, the National Catholic Reporter’s news account put it best in its headline: “As Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Catholics react with joy, anger, trepidation.”

We do live in a time when political decisions often inspire violence.

Lose an election? Storm the Capitol Building.

Unhappy with police misconduct? Burn down stores.

Both sides are guilty of this, although the mainstream press — which has grown ever-partisan in the Internet age — hasn’t always been good about calling out both sides for such intimidation.

The fallout from the Dobbs decision? It’s only been a few days, but there was violence in some parts of the country from Rhode Island to Iowa to Arizona. The rhetoric was vile on Twitter, quickly aimed at Christians, and that was soon on display in the streets in a variety of forms.

Again, national legacy media have not always been good about giving proper background and context to the events of the recent past, especially in terms of coverage of violence against churches and crisis-pregnancy centers.

The fissures in American public life are real. So are the distorted realities partisan news organizations like to perpetuate these days.

Just two weeks ago, Gannett, the nation’s largest newspaper chain, argued that opinion pages are alienating readers and becoming obsolete. They doubled down by warning their reporters to refrain from using social media platforms to comment on the decision. However, take a look at this morning’s news summary from USA Today. Spot any patterns?


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

Question for Catholic politicos and others: Who receives Holy (Christian) Communion?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Question for Catholic politicos and others: Who receives Holy (Christian) Communion?

THE QUESTION:

Who should receive Christian Communion?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

By coincidence, Christianity’s practice for sharing the Communion bread and wine (or juice) is popping up in two separate controversies.

Item: San Francisco’s Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone sparked an ongoing fuss with his May 19 declaration that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is not to receive the sacrament at Masses in her hometown because she vehemently advocates liberal abortion laws while openly identifying as Catholic.

Item: On June 27, Episcopal Church delegates will confer online on whether the agenda at a national convention in Baltimore July 8–11 will take up a radical proposal to offer Communion to people who are not baptized and thus not affiliated with the Christian religion.

Let’s first walk through the Catholic situation. Last year the U.S. bishops debated whether a forthcoming policy statement on the sacrament of Communion would address the fitness of pro-choice Catholic politicians to receive the elements at the altar. The advent of an ardently pro-choice and actively Catholic President, Joseph Biden, energized the discussion.

Kansas Archbishop Joseph Naumann, who chairs the U.S. bishops’ committee on pro-life issues, said it’s “a grave moral evil” to identify as Catholic and advocate open abortion choice “contrary to the church’s teaching.” In the end, however, the bishops’ statement sidestepped the problem.

Cordileone’s related stance toward Pelosi has been joined by the bishops of neighboring Santa Rosa, California; Tyler, Texas; and Arlington, Virginia. But policy on this is set by each local bishop and in Cardinal Wilton Gregory’s Washington, D.C., Pelosi has no problem finding a church to receive the sacrament.

In a similar action, on June 6 Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila and three other Colorado bishops asked Catholic state legislators who voted for an abortion rights bill to “voluntarily refrain” from taking Communion.

Cordileone explained that he is simply implementing canon law, which prescribes that parishioners “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” (#915).


Please respect our Commenting Policy