Jews and Judaism

Texas synagogue attack highlights press failure to consistently cover attacks against sanctuaries

Texas synagogue attack highlights press failure to consistently cover attacks against sanctuaries

The many cases of anti-Catholic vandalism have been documented by me here at GetReligion in recent years. Also well-documented have been how many professionals in the mainstream media keep overlooking such criminal activities.

These incidents — even as 2021 came to an end and now weeks into 2022 — just keep happening, yet they continue to be given little to no mainstream news coverage. It seems, at times, as if violence against religious groups — be they Catholics or otherwise — is a subject that isn’t worthy of coverage. This trend is also a lesson on how the press uses language, what terms journalists use to describe crimes and whether the story lasts just a day or for weeks and months.

Journalists also need to start asking: What are the motivations for these kinds of attacks?

A Catholic priest, parishioners and Catholic schoolchildren were among the dozens injured on Nov. 21 when authorities said Darrell E. Brook, driving an SUV, allegedly plowed into marchers during a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisc. Six people were killed.

The incident would get additional attention for its inability to get widespread national media coverage. Accusations quickly emerged that key facts didn’t fit the dominant media narrative.

Truth is, not all hate crimes are created equal. Crimes against Catholic churches are routinely ignored by national news outlets. We can also see a troubling journalism trend at work in coverage of the recent anti-Semitic attack against a Texas house of worship.

The gun-wielding suspect in that Jan. 15 synagogue attack, British citizen Malik Faisal Akram, took Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker and three other congregants hostage at the Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas.

The standoff with FBI agents was an act of terrorism and resulted in Akram’s death. National news coverage was intense during the standoff — but soon evaporated.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

'Final solution' logic: Was there more to the Wannsee Conference than mere bureaucracy?

'Final solution' logic: Was there more to the Wannsee Conference than mere bureaucracy?

It’s a blunt New York Times headline about a story that — here is the horror of it all — focused on German bureaucrats doing what governments pay bureaucrats to do, which is plan things.

Read this headline without shuddering: “80 Years Ago the Nazis Planned the ‘Final Solution.’ It Took 90 Minutes.

Actually, the death squads of the Third Reich were already at work. The following summary material makes that clear:

The host on that January day in 1942 was Reinhard Heydrich, the powerful chief of the security service and the SS, who had been put in charge by Hermann Göring, Hitler’s right-hand man, of a “final solution” and coordinating it with other government departments and ministries.

The men Heydrich invited were senior civil servants and party officials. Most of them were in their 30s, nine of them had law degrees, more than half had Ph.D.s.

When they convened around a table overlooking Lake Wannsee, the genocide was already underway. The deportations of Jews and mass killings in eastern territories had begun the previous fall but the meeting that day laid the groundwork for a machinery of mass murder that would involve the entire state apparatus and ultimately millions of Germans in different roles.

Here is my question and, I will admit, that there is more to it than mere journalism. Is it possible to write about this subject in a way that does not discuss evil with a Big E?

I’ve been thinking about that question ever since I read historian John Toland’s “Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography.” That’s a 1,000-page classic that will earn you some stares as you read it, day after day, on mass transit. The key was that Toland interviewed many, many people who knew Hitler at different stages of his life. Thus, as the 1976Times review put it, the author allowed readers to “draw their own conclusions about what made Hitler as he was, ‘a warped archangel, a hybrid of Prometheus and Lucifer.’ “

In the end, however, Toland was forced to contemplate how a symbolic element of the Holocaust rulebook — “the choice” — was an offense to German efficiency.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: Five key story angles linked to Texas synagogue where hostages were taken

Plug-In: Five key story angles linked to Texas synagogue where hostages were taken

When I first saw news on social media of a ranting man taking hostages at a Texas synagogue Saturday, I immediately clicked the link to an Associated Press report.

To my shock, I discovered that the standoff involved Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas.

I first wrote about that suburban congregation nearly two decades ago when I covered religion for AP in Dallas.

In 2004, I did a national feature on “frequent-flier rabbis” filling a need at then-fledgling Congregation Beth Israel and other small Jewish congregations across the nation. That same year, I wrote about Anna Salton Eisen, one of the congregation’s founders, and her Holocaust survivor father, George Lucius Salton.

Just this past October — 17 years later — Eisen trusted me to tell her family’s story again. I wrote a follow-up piece for AP on a surprising “reunion” between Eisen and the children of several Holocaust survivors who were in concentration camps together.

“I started this synagogue with two other families and am heartbroken and fearful,” Eisen wrote on Facebook on Saturday. “What has become of the world?”

I shared her status on my page and asked my friends to pray for a peaceful end. I was so relieved when Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker and two other hostages escaped unharmed Saturday night. A fourth hostage was released earlier. The FBI hostage rescue team shot the gunman.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Talking to Jesus? This is big New York Times news when a Hollywood spiritualist is involved

Talking to Jesus? This is big New York Times news when a Hollywood spiritualist is involved

Let’s see. If you were going to write a New York Times article in which someone claimed to be channeling the Buddha, would you, at some point, talk to Buddhists? Maybe even a scholar whose work is rooted in Buddhist thought?

What about Judaism? If someone was claiming to channel Moses, would you talk to a rabbi or two about that? Maybe a scholar who has studied Jewish mysticism?

How about Islam? How would a reporter approach the claims of someone who says she is channeling Mohammad? And what would Islamic believers think of this process?

With these questions in mind, let’s look at that chatty first-person piece that ran more than a month ago at the Times with this headline: “In Good Spirits — Carissa Schumacher channels the dead for her A-list celebrity clients. But most days, she’s in the forest.

The headline omits the big reveal: Schumacher claims to channel the spirits of the dead, including her most famous connection — Jesus. This is tricky territory, as demonstrated in the wild correction at the end of this long feature:

Correction: Nov. 29, 2021

An earlier version of this article described incorrectly the biblical name Yeshua. The name refers to multiple people, including Joshua; it does not refer solely to Jesus Christ. The article also referred incorrectly to the Old Testament; while the name Yeshua appears in it, Jesus Christ does not.

Ready for the overture?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Return of a Godbeat F-bomb: The 'curse of Ham,' Twelve Tribes history and a Colorado fire

Return of a Godbeat F-bomb: The 'curse of Ham,' Twelve Tribes history and a Colorado fire

Let’s start with a journalism question about the news coming out of Colorado about possible links between the Marshall Fire and a controversial religious group known as the Twelve Tribes.

The New York Times has used that popular journalism F-word — “fundamentalist” — in a major story that ran with this headline: “Colorado Wildfire Inquiry Focuses on Christian Sect.” The read-out under that headline states: “Investigators are looking at the possibility that a fire that destroyed more than 900 homes started on property owned by a fundamentalist Christian sect known as Twelve Tribes.”

Once again, we need to talk about what the word “fundamentalist” means and what it does not mean. Let me ask this question, before we proceed: Is the “Twelve Tribes” movement a “fundamentalist Christian” group in the same sense that Black or White independent Baptist churches found in many or most American cities are accurately described, in doctrinal terms, as “fundamentalist”?

Perhaps the crucial question for journalists covering this story is whether the Twelve Tribes movement is a “sect” or, in sociological terms, an actual “cult”? Hold that thought.

First, here is the overture of the Times story, showing the context for this religion-beat F-bomb:

Investigators looking into the cause of a colossal wildfire in Colorado that forced the evacuation of tens of thousands of people are focusing on a property owned by a Christian fundamentalist sect, after witnesses reported seeing a structure on fire there moments before the blaze spread with astonishing speed across drought-stricken suburbs.

Sheriff Joe Pelle of Boulder County said at a news briefing … that the property owned by Twelve Tribes, which was founded in Tennessee in the 1970s, had become a target of the inquiry after investigators ruled out the possibility that downed power lines might have sparked the fire.

With that in mind, let’s return to the pages of the journalism bible know as the Associated Press Stylebook (h/t to Bobby Ross, Jr., for checking the evolving online edition).

Let us attend.

fundamentalist The word gained usage in an early-20th-century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians.

In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Progress for American Jews? Tis the season for lots and lots of Hanukkah junk

Progress for American Jews? Tis the season for lots and lots of Hanukkah junk

It's hard to do justice to ancient holy days in throw-pillow slogans.

Consider the Zazzle item offering a menorah with an un-orthodox number of candles, along with: "Imagine if your cellphone was at 10% but lasted 8 days. Now you understand Hanukkah."

Maybe not. Or how about the Bed, Bath & Beyond pillow stating: "Why is this night different from all other nights? Happy Hanukkah."

Actually, that's the most famous question from rites during a Passover Seder dinner.

"There's no quality control with any of this stuff. No one's being careful with decisions about what's good and what's bad," said journalist Mira Fox of the Forward, a progressive Jewish website. "The point is to sell stuff. It doesn't need to be good stuff. It's just stuff.

"Basically, it's a lot of people saying, 'We can find a way to sell stuff to Jews during the holidays, along with selling lots of stuff to everybody else.' "

Hanukkah began rather early this year, starting at sundown this past Sunday (November 28) and extending for eight days. This placed the "Festival of Lights" closer to Thanksgiving -- near the start of the merchandizing frenzy known as The Holidays.

The story at the heart of this home-centered season dates to 165 B.C., when Jews, led by the Maccabee family, defeated Greek and Syrian oppressors. When the victors reentered their temple, only one container of ritually pure oil could be found for its eternal flame. Tradition says this one-day supply burned for eight days. Thus, Jews light menorah candles during Hanukkah, one on the first night, increasing to eight.

"It's not a biblical holiday. Hanukkah is not in the Hebrew Bible. … God is not a huge part of this story," said Fox. "Honestly, I don't think a lot of people understand what this holiday is about."

That's certainly true in the American marketplace.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Modernized New Revised Standard Bible is surefire news, landing amid today's language wars

Modernized New Revised Standard Bible is surefire news, landing amid today's language wars

As religion writers (and historians) know, the 1611 King James Version of the Bible begat the 1952 Revised Standard Version, which begat the 1989 New Revised Standard Version which now begets the new "Updated Edition" of the NRSV.

It’s the "NRSVue" — a surefire news topic. This Bible will be available in ebook format by Christmas and in print around next May 1.

Media might issue advance articles about this production or wait for reactions to the complete text from reviewers or local clergy and parishioners. A 36-page media memo provides an advance look, accessible here. For further queries contact Friendship Press at info@friendshippress.org or CEO Joseph Crockett at joseph@frienshippress.org.

The NRSV copyright is held by the National Council of Churches, a cooperative body of the “Mainline” Protestant and Orthodox denominations. It assigned this rewrite to the Society of Biblical Literature, a professional guild of university and seminary scholars, whose 63-member team made approximately 12,000 "substantive" changes and thousands more that are trivial. The team consulted African-American church leaders, a group said to be "historically excluded" from prior Bible translation projects.

The result "improves" upon the original NRSV policy "to eliminate masculine-oriented language when it can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture." The church council says both of its versions seek to be "as free as possible from the gender bias inherent in the English language."

A typical example is saying "brothers and sisters" when the original Greek literally said only "brothers" but was referring generally to people of both genders. The update omits footnotes that specify what the Greek said. Plural pronouns will abound, which depending on the translation can occasionally make the antecedent unclear or miss the direct force of a singular pronoun. In the rewrite, the Bethlehem "wise men" are now "magi."

Both the 1989 and 2021 renditions leave language about God undisturbed. "He" is still permitted and He remains the "Lord" and "Father."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

As Mississippi abortion case arrives, key religion stories vote views of Jews, evangelicals

As Mississippi abortion case arrives, key religion stories vote views of Jews, evangelicals

Let’s start with the basics, for those who have not been following weeks of heated commentary in the mainstream press.

On today’s docket at the U.S. Supreme Court is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case out of Mississippi some say is designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that legalized abortion.

It involves a 2018 Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, with few exceptions. If decided favorably, states with more restrictive laws (i.e. Texas) would be able to enforce them. Abortion would not be outlawed, but it would be greatly limited — which is why it’s annoying to hear broadcasts, such as the Fox TV item featured at the top of this post, saying the case could “end Roe v. Wade.”

Well, not quite. Because of its new “heartbeat” law, abortions in Texas are down 50% from what they were this time last year, to give you an idea of what may lie ahead.

As for me, I’d like to think that SCOTUS would actually make a decisive ruling on something that has divided the American public for 48 years and resulted in 60 million abortions. These justices have dithered a lot in similar cases and I’m guessing they will bail on this case as well — as they did with Masterpiece Cakeshop case in 2017 in refusing to rule on the merits of the case. I do realize the makeup of the high court has shifted since then. I’m guessing they’ll refuse to give Dobbs a definitive ruling and base their decision on some technicality.

So yes, I’m a pessimist. Key members of this court appear to shun clarity. But at least abortion is on the table again in terms of public discussion, with religion as one of its many permutations, which makes covering this case important for religion reporters.

On the left, this Slate piece argues that abortion rights are in dire peril:

On the eve of Dobbs — before a tsunami of protesters descend upon the court, before nerve-racking oral arguments before a partly empty courtroom, before months of tense deliberations behind the velvet curtains — the smart money counts five votes to gut Roe. …


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Left, right, middle? Two giant U.S. seminaries are pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate

New podcast: Left, right, middle? Two giant U.S. seminaries are pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate

Let’s do a COVID-19 religion-news flashback, looking at a storyline or two near the start of the pandemic.

I’m doing this in order to analyze how the press is framing a major new development — the federal-court lawsuit filed by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Asbury Seminary challenging the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate. These are, by the way, two of the largest seminaries in the United States and, while other seminaries are collapsing, these two are growing.

Coverage of this lawsuit was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast. (CLICK HERE to tune that in.)

So now the flashback. Remember when I was writing — at GetReligion and in my national “On Religion” column for the Universal syndicate — about the vast majority of American religious groups who were caught in the middle of the “shelter in place” and lockdown wars linked to COVID-19?

Remember the Catholic priests in Texas who were trying to hear confessions out in the open air (in a big field and parking lot), while following guidelines for social distancing? Or how about the churches that were under attack for holding services in drive-in movie theaters, with the faithful in cars, while it was OK for folks to be in parking-lot scrums at liquor stores and big box super-marts? Then you had the whole casinos are “essential services” while religious congregations were not “essential.”

I argued, at that time, that this was way more complicated than religious people who cooperated with the government and those who didn’t. This was not a simple left vs. right, good vs. bad situation. In fact, there were at least FIVE different groups to cover in these newsy debates:

They are (1) the 99% of religious leaders who cooperated and took worship online, (2) some religious leaders who (think drive-in worship or drive-thru confessions) who tried to create activities that followed social-distancing standards, (3) a few preachers who rebelled, period, (4) lots of government leaders who established logical laws and tried to be consistent with sacred and secular activities and (5) some politicians who seemed to think drive-in religious events were more dangerous than their secular counterparts.

That’s complicated stuff.

The problem is that, in the world of American politics, things have to be crushed down into left and right templates or even, there for a few years, into pro-Donald Trump and the anti-Donald Trump. I’m sure we’re past that last part. Right?


Please respect our Commenting Policy