Discrimination

, , , , , , , , ,

Interracial family faces prejudice: Whoa! That generic 'church' reference just isn't enough

, , , , , , , , ,

So, is the following statement true: A church is a church is a church is a church?

In other words, are all churches the same? When reporters cover stories about controversies linked to "a church," shouldn't it be a standard part of their journalistic marching orders to provide some kind of modifier or brand name in front of the word "church"?

I think most GetReligion readers would say "yes." Why pin some kind of blame on a vague institution when, with one or two questions, a journalist could dig out specific information to provide to readers?

You will see what I mean in the following story from The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss. The headline -- "Mississippi RV park owner evicts interracial couple" -- doesn't point to the religion angle, so hang on. Here is the overture:

TUPELO -- A Mississippi RV park owner evicted an interracial couple because of the color of their skin.
“Me and my husband, not ever in 10 years have we experienced any problem,” said Erica Flores Dunahoo, who is Hispanic and Native American and whose husband, a National Guardsman, is African-American. “Nobody’s given us dirty looks. This is our first time.”
More than a half-century after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 barred discrimination on the basis of race, Gene Baker acknowledged asking the interracial couple to leave his RV park near Tupelo. Baker, who lives in Aberdeen, said he only did it because “the neighbors were giving me such a problem.”

The on-the-record reaction from Baker is crucial.

Later on in the story, readers are given this crucial information linked to Baker, which pulls the church angle into play:


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

Hailing the valor of number 42 -- with something crucial missing from the story

, , , , , , , , ,
Hailing the valor of number 42 -- with something crucial missing from the story

Star documentary producer Ken Burns’s latest PBS show this week was a two-parter hailing Jackie Robinson (1919-1972), one of history’s great African American heroes -- period.

Years before the civil rights movement, Robinson famously broke the color line not only in baseball but all major league athletics, since professional football, basketball and hockey remained all-white years after his Brooklyn Dodgers debut on April 15, 1947. All MLB teams annually honor him by wearing his number 42 on that date.

Before addressing the main theme here, a Dodgers fan of that era would like to list some facts: Named the first Rookie of the Year in 1947. In 1949 the National League’s Most Valuable Player ranking #1 in both batting average (.342) and stolen bases (37), and  #2 in hits (203) and runs batted in (124). All-Star in six of his 10 seasons. In the top 1 percent of career batting averages at .311. The league’s leading second basemen in turning double plays four years running and in three of those years also the leader in fielding accuracy. 

In other words this was one fabulous athlete, not to mention he was the first man to letter in four varsity sports at U.C.L.A. (adding basketball, football and track to baseball). He had to be superior to survive vicious racism and threats hurled at him in the early phase with the Dodgers, as Burns’ telecast and the fine 2013 movie “42” depict.

Both the TV and film treatments portray the deep Christianity of Branch Rickey, the Dodgers president who took the big chance of hiring Robinson from double motives of racial justice and baseball prosperity. In the movie Harrison Ford, impersonating Rickey, quips to an advisor worried about backlash over a black ballplayer: “I’m a Methodist. Jackie’s a Methodist. God’s a Methodist. We can’t go wrong.”

The movie said little about Robinson’s own religion and Burns provided nothing.


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

Strike up the banned: The Bible is among the most-challenged library books, RNS reports

, , , , , , , , , ,

Secularists often chide evangelical Christians for nursing a persecution complex, but you know the old saying: Just 'cause you're paranoid …

And the paranoids among us won't be reassured by a new report thatthe Bible was one of the most challenged books in libraries last year.

The holy book, says the Religion News Service, sits among other books that many church people would reject:

(RNS) What does the Bible have in common with "Fifty Shades of Grey" or one of John Green’s best-selling young adult novels?
For the first time in nearly a decade, the Bible made the list of the American Library Association’s 10 most frequently challenged books last year.
The 2015 list was released Monday (April 11) as part of the ALA’s 2016 State of America’s Libraries report. It includes books that have drawn formal, written complaints from the public because of their content or appropriateness, according to the ALA.
The Bible, which came in at No. 6, was challenged for its "religious viewpoint," the ALA said.

The story reveals a trend since 2009 of growing complaints about books in libraries that contain "religious viewpoints," the article says. Sounds like the RNS writer, Emily McFarlan Miller, asked some penetrating questions.

What about before 2000? Well, back then, most complaints were about "sexually explicit material, offensive language or being unsuitable for the intended age group," the article says. Today, the growing edge is over religious content.

From the list, though, ALA seems to include sexuality in what constitutes a religious viewpoint:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

You won't believe this humdinger of an editor's note on AP religious liberty story

, , , , ,

That title is not just clickbait.

You really won't believe the editor's note on an Associated Press report this week on Mississippi's new religious liberty law.

But before we get to that, let's review the story itself:

BRANDON, Miss. (AP) — On many Sundays, conservative Mississippi Republican Gov. Phil Bryant can be found in the sanctuary at St. Mark's United Methodist Church, almost always in his trademark suit and boots, often among those helping pass the offering plates.
In the same sanctuary — sometimes just a few wooden pews away — are Jan Smith and Donna Phillips, a same-sex couple who are also active in the suburban Jackson church and have a 9-year-old daughter named Hannah.
The couple has fought Mississippi's ban on gay adoptions while Bryant has opposed same-sex marriage and recently signed a bill allowing government workers, religious groups and some private businesses to cite deeply held religious beliefs to deny services to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
"Trust me — the dichotomy of Phil Bryant and Jan and Donna sitting in the same sanctuary isn't lost on anyone," said Ann Pittman, who has been going to St. Mark's for 27 years. "As for me, I'm of the opinion that what two grown folks do on their own time is none of my business."
The juxtaposition of beliefs at this church in the Deep South is a window into a debate in much of the U.S. that sometimes puts friends, neighbors and even fellow church members at odds. At St. Mark's, members say the conversation is usually cordial, even if there are some uncomfortable moments at a church that has roughly 1,200 members.

Now, the story uses the familiar media framing that the law is about "denying services" to LGBT people.

That framing favors the law's opponents, whereas supporters say Mississippi's "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" simply protects residents from being forced to violate their own conscience:


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

If South Bronx Catholic church was a landmark, would state aid soon become controversial?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If you have followed GetReligion posts about The New York Times in recent years, you may have spotted a pattern in our comments about its religion-news offerings.

When dealing with national-level stories, especially those linked to sexy, hot-button "culture wars" issues, the Times team has consistently served up one-sided stories driven by the advocacy journalism doctrines of what your GetReligionistas call "Kellerism." Surf this file if you have questions about the origins of that term.

But things almost always seem to change when run-of-the-mill religion news stories surface at the local level. Time after time, the Times Metro team has offered solid, detailed, meaty reports built on a wide variety of on-the-record voices. It's called journalism, folks.

However, what happens when a complex local story may -- I stress "may" -- have the potential of overlapping with one of those larger, sexier national stories?

Let me show you what I mean. The Times Metro team recently covered the kind of story that is happening more and more often in America's great urban zones. It's a story about efforts to save the facilities of a strategically located Catholic parish that is crucial to local residents, especially the poor.

But what happens if government officials get involved?

Thus, the headline: "A Bronx Church Where Landmark Status Would Be More Burden Than Honor." Here's the colorful, detailed overture:

The bronze doors of Immaculate Conception Church are always open during the day, a welcoming gesture to the surrounding Melrose neighborhood in the South Bronx. Decorated with figures of the Virgin Mary, the doors are graceful -- and heavy. “My main issue is trying to open them in the morning,” the Rev. Francis Skelly, the church’s pastor, said. “They keep me in shape.”
The bigger challenge is keeping them open: The parish is poor, and money for repairs and maintenance is tight. Twenty years ago, the church’s copper steeple had to be dismantled after pieces began to crash onto East 150th Street. It has yet to be restored because parish leaders have other priorities for the congregation’s 1,200 members -- most of them Latinos and immigrants -- who turn to it not just as a place to worship, but also for help with things such as citizenship classes and preparing tax returns.


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

More on Mississippi religious liberty bill: Some views are more equal than others

, , , , , , , ,

Can you endorse differences of opinion and reject them at the same time?

The Memphis Commercial Appeal did it in its look at Mississippi's new religious liberty bill.

The Mississippi bill, like the one Gov. Nathan Deal of Georgia vetoed last week, would allow people to decline to perform certain services because of religious objections. The sponsoring legislators said it was prompted by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

The Commercial Appeal news article, in its DeSoto County edition, doesn't leave you guessing its slant. Not when it gives the lede to someone who attacks the law:

Differences of opinion don't bother Kelly Harrison as long as they're just differences of opinion. When those differences potentially become a matter of life or death, that's another matter.
"If you don't want my money, I don't want to give you my money," Harrison, of Nesbit, wrote on her Facebook page last week. "But what if I or my family needed your service, life or death, and this could stop you from providing it without any worries? No matter how you paint this picture, it's discrimination."
Harrison was referring to Mississippi's "Freedom of Conscience" Act, a measure that would allow government employees or private business operators to cite religious objections as a basis to deny services to gay or lesbian couples. The bill, House Bill 1523, has passed in both legislative chambers and is on its way to Gov. Phil Bryant. The Republican governor said Friday he would look at the bill and decide what to do when it reaches him, but he has said he doesn't think it discriminates and has supported religious liberty bills previously.

Only toward the end of the article, BTW, does the newspaper reveal that Harrison and her mate are the first same-sex married couple in DeSoto County. She has a right to her opinion, but it's hardly an impartial one.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Transgendered people in public bathrooms? North Carolina coverage shows one side only

, , , , ,

There are certain topics that anger the New York Times so much that the newspaper's editors drop all pretension of covering the story with any sense of accuracy and balance. Usually, media outlets have at least one dissenting voice explaining the minority point of view, but when it comes to anything to do with LGBT issues -- plus the perception of a law being passed without public scrutiny -- the Times erupts in righteous anger.

The first incident I’m about to describe occurred in North Carolina, a fairly conservative state. But there is a second, much lesser-known incident that occurred in Washington state that was the mirror opposite of what happened in Tar Heel land. 

About the first: There was a lot of indignation in several media outlets covering the North Carolina governor’s decision to sign a bill banning transgendered people from bathrooms that don’t match their birth gender and eliminating some anti-discrimination protections for homosexuals. Here is how the Times framed it:

A day after Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina signed a sweeping law eliminating anti-discrimination protections for all lesbians, gays and bisexuals and barring transgender people from using bathrooms that do not match the gender they were born with, the battle lines were clear in a bitterly divided state.
On social media and in public rallies, civil rights groups, businesses and politicians expressed dismay at the law, which was passed by the Republican-controlled legislature and signed by the governor within just 12 hours during a hasty special session on Wednesday.
American Airlines, which employs 14,000 people in the state and has its second largest hub in Charlotte, along with other companies with operations in the state, including Apple, Dow Chemical, PayPal, Red Hat and Biogen, all issued statements critical of the new law.


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

Religious Liberty: Atlanta Journal-Constitution follow-up ignores religious sources again

, , , , , , , ,

Drat. After criticizing mainstream media the other day, for playing up opposition to Georgia's religious rights bill while gagging the pro-law side, I was all ready to praise the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for a balanced follow-up. Sadly, I have to hold the applause.

Yesterday's post, "Sides argue about impact Georgia ‘religious liberty’ bill would have," details some arguments for and against the bill, which would allow religious objections to serving with LGBT people. The bill was passed on Wednesday and now awaits Gov. Nathan Deal's signature, or his veto.

AJC delivers on its promise, partly. It reveals the contents of a "packet of documents" from the state Republican Party to its legislative allies, with background and talking points. It tells (yes, again) of corporate opposition, on the grounds that such a law would drive away businesses -- including pro sports championships like Super Bowl -- from Georgia. And it reports a Monday press conference by three gay legislators.

On the downside, the article is lopsided against the bill (yes, again).  It doesn't quote any religious leaders, although it mentions religious rights, beliefs, people and organizations 10 times.  And yet again, it uses sarcastic, scare quotes in the headline -- a clear signal for the viewpoint we readers should take about the measure.

For sheer volume, the 1,300-word article seems actually to favor the pro-law side. I count 11 paragraphs in favor of the bill, 10 against. (Some paragraphs are neutral, with background or simple narratives of the proceedings.) But look closer.


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

Muslims are pretty much like the rest of us: RNS steps lightly through new survey

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Despite the furor by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz over Muslims, those believers are pretty much like other Americans, according to a Religion News Service story on a new survey of various kinds of believers.

With this piece, RNS' Cathy Lynn Grossman shows her talent once more for turning survey numbers into timely news copy. She also proves her nimbleness: Just the other day, we shared a stage as speakers for the Reporting on Religion conference in Madison, Wisc.

Right in the lede, Grossman plugs in the survey results with the presidential primaries:

(RNS) This election season, Muslims face a slate of Republican candidates who demand curbs on immigration and compete over how tough they’d be on Islamic terrorism, if elected.
But a new survey finds U.S. Muslims are looking at American society and its future much the same as their non-Muslim neighbors. Like non-Muslims, the economy is their top concern. They are engaged in community life and share similar attitudes on several significant issues.

The article is upfront about the Muslim source of the survey and, through the main researcher, the motives:


Please respect our Commenting Policy