Kellerism

To cover Qatar World Cup, journalists will have to understand both soccer and Islam

To cover Qatar World Cup, journalists will have to understand both soccer and Islam

The World Cup in Qatar kicks off in less than a week. It is likely to be the most controversial soccer tournament in FIFA’s history, something that has dogged the host nation since being awarded the tournament in 2010.

The controversy is largely tied to the Muslim country’s beliefs and mores. It’s about human rights, welcoming LGBTQ fans, drinking alcohol and modest dress. It’s as much a cultural and societal issue as it is a sporting one. It is also, of course, a religion-news story.

The focus of the news coverage so far has been around what could happen on the field as much as off of it.

Qatari officials have labeled much of the negative coverage either racist or Islamophobic. Either way, this could be the first global sporting event in history where religion, and understanding it, will be a major part of the overall context of this competition. Even the World Cup’s official mascot is an homage to Islamic garb. And did you notice the Pride logo for the 2022 team USA kit?

I explore many of these themes and issues in my new book on the history of the World Cup. With over a billion followers, Islam is the second-largest religion in the world after Christianity. Muslims are forbidden from drinking alcohol since the Prophet Muhammad, to whom Muslims believe the word of God was revealed in the Quran, spoke against it. This is key for sports editors and journalists to understand when it comes to Qatar 2022 coverage.

For example, Qatari officials have said beer will be sold inside the venues and drinking will be allowed inside designated areas, such as fan zones, hotels and restaurants. I was asked that very question months ago when I was booking my trip to Doha. At the same time, billboards have been put up across the country with quotes from the Prophet Muhammed.

The Associated Press, with bureaus across the globe, put together a great explainer under the headline, “Islam in Qatar explained ahead of FIFA World Cup.” This is a must-read for editors and reporters as well as fans and visitors. Here is how it opens:

Qatar is a Muslim nation, with laws, customs and practices rooted in Islam. The country is neither as liberal as Dubai in the United Arab Emirates nor as conservative as parts of Saudi Arabia. Most of its citizens are Sunni Muslim.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: More ink about crazy churches sinking down (maybe) into partisan politics

Podcast: More ink about crazy churches sinking down (maybe) into partisan politics

I’m hiding in a different set of mountains this week, but it’s my understanding that important political stuff has happened. Was that the midterm elections or something like that?

I also understand — based on reading stories on my smartphone — that those nasty evangelical churches had a bad week, in terms of getting “their candidates” elected. I know that because I wrote a post about that topic earlier this week, right before I fired up the electric car and rushed off to hide in the hills. That headline: “Crazy political stuff happening in churches right now, but which events get the elite ink?

We revisited that topic in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), as a way of dipping a toe into the churning midterm waters. The key to the discussion was trying to discern whether political-beat reporters — religion-beat pros tend to do much better work — understand what religious leaders are allowed to do when talking about “political” topics and politicos who are running for office.

This happens on the Religious Right and (#triggerwarning) even more on the Religious Left (click here for more on that from Baptist progressive Ryan Burge). But most of the political-beat coverage is built on scary passages like this one from a piece at The Guardian that ran with the headline, “He was chosen’: the rightwing Christian roadshow spreading the gospel of Trump.” The coverage focus on the ReAwaken rallies that blend lots of Donald Trumpian talk with nondenominational evangelical-speak. That sounds like this:

Mark Trudo, who runs his own swimming pool construction company near St Louis, is more optimistic, saying: “Right now I’m hopeful, I think things are going to turn around, a great awakening is taking place.”

Like most of his ReAwaken peers, he sees the current politics in apocalyptic terms: “The country is being taken away from us from within. This is good versus evil.”

Actual evil? As in satanic evil?

“Is God real, is Satan real? Yes, I believe they are,” he says.

Is Biden satanic?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Revenge-return by Bishop Gene Robinson, seen from two radically different viewpoints

Revenge-return by Bishop Gene Robinson, seen from two radically different viewpoints

It’s been a long time since I stepped into The Falls Church, a historic edifice in the middle of the northern Virginia city of Falls Church, where I lived for 12 years. It’s a spacious, lovely place, with a circular seating arrangement for a large congregation.

Next door is what they call the “historic church,” a much smaller brick building that dates back to 1769. At one time, George Washington was on the vestry. In Beltway culture, this is really important.

It was a major center for the conservative wing of the Diocese of Virginia, the nation’s largest Episcopal diocese back in the first decade of this century,. Then, in December 2006, 11 parishes or missions announced they were leaving for for orthodox theological pastures. The 2003 election of the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson as the denomination’s first gay bishop was the beginning of the end for these folks, after decades of tensions on other doctrinal issues.

The legal battle over these historic properties lasted for years and the conservatives basically lost everything, including the crown jewel of them all — The Falls Church building. That is the background for Robinson’s recent visit to the church, which is kingdoms apart from what it once was. Whereas it was crowded to the gills on Sundays, the sanctuary is barely one-quarter full and rector (senior pastor) is a gay man, a possibility that would have horrified its former parishioners.

Robinson’s visit was covered by a conservative mainline Protestant website and by a Washington Post reporter. Guess which report had the most information and insights into the status of the current congregation? Juicy Ecumenism posted a piece by Jeffrey Walton, headlined “Gene Robinson Takes Victory Lap at Falls Church Episcopal” — filled with insider knowledge. I’ll begin with Robinson’s reactions.

He also highlighted gratitude for an invitation to speak at a parish that had prominently opposed his election and consecration.

“Words fail me when I try to describe to you what an honor it is to be here,” Robinson exclaimed. “When I got this invitation from [TFCE Rector] Burl [Salmon] I could hardly believe my ears and all day yesterday. When I was here, I just kept pinching myself: ‘you’re actually at the Falls Church in Virginia, oh my God.’”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Crazy political stuff happening in churches right now, but which events get the elite ink?

Crazy political stuff happening in churches right now, but which events get the elite ink?

It’s that time, once again. It’s time for the mainstream press to be terrified of that fact that, for millions of Americans, the content of their religious beliefs frequently has implications for what happens inside voting booths on Election Day.

This happens all the time on both the Religious Left and the Religious Right, although it appears to be more common in sermons on the political left (click here for more on that from Baptist progressive Ryan Burge).

If you have any doubts about press concerns about this issue, see this recent collection of headlines from one of those daily Pew Research Center emails about religion in the news:

* Churches are breaking the law and endorsing in elections, experts say. The IRS looks the other wayProPublica

* Virginia pastor investigated for campaigning during church services — The Associated Press

* The senator-pastor from Georgia mixes politics and preaching on the trailThe New York Times

* Black church tradition survives Georgia’s voting changes — The Associated Press

* ‘We need to make America godly again.’ The growing political influence of Latino evangelicals — CNN

* Battle for Catholic vote inflames Pa. governor’s racePittsburgh Post-Gazette

Remember that GetReligion mantra: Politics is the true faith of most elite-newsroom professionals, who — functionally — believe that politics is the only answer If you want to get something done in the real world. Politics is real. Religion? Not so much. Thus, it is logical that religious faith is important to the degree that it affects politics.

Is the blue-zip-code press more worried about political influence on the conservative side of this equation? Of course, especially this soon after an earthquake like the fall of Roe v. Wade. I would also admit that, at the moment, the stunning rise of nondenominational, independent evangelical and Pentecostal churches has made it even harder for reporters to cover what is and what is not happening in the institutions that define conservative Christianity..

This brings me to that ProPublica investigation that hit social-media the other day: “Churches Are Breaking the Law by Endorsing in Elections, Experts Say. The IRS Looks the Other Way.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

U.S. bishops preach pro-life Catholic doctrine to Biden: Isn't that a story during midterms?

U.S. bishops preach pro-life Catholic doctrine to Biden: Isn't that a story during midterms?

The looming midterm elections have the Republicans giddy over the potential that they may take control of the House and Senate. Democrats, on the other hand, are hoping to stem the loses knowing that they still have President Joe Biden in the White House.

Amid all this midterm mania are the talking points politicians are pushing in order to appeal to their core voters. Republicans are campaigning on inflation and crime and Democrats on diversity and, of course, abortion following the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

Polls show that voters care more about inflation, but Democrats are hoping that talking up abortion will get out their base. Abortion, however, isn’t just a political issue. As Biden, a practicing Catholic, promises to make abortion a federal right by codifying Roe v. Wade into law should Democrats keep a majority, tension among him and several prominent U.S. bishops has heated up once again.

Some of these bishops have been in the news in the past regarding Biden’s support of abortion, threatening to deny him the sacrament of Holy Communion. It was last week that the issue came to the forefront again.

At least, it come to the forefront in Catholic news publications. In the elite press that GetReligion studies? Not so much or not at all.

This is how Catholic News Agency reported it on Oct. 25:

President Joe Biden, a professed Catholic, must end his “single-minded” abortion extremism and see the humanity in unborn children, the U.S. bishops have said. They said abortion’s impact is “tragic” and urged the president to support mothers.

“The president is gravely wrong to continue to seek every possible avenue to facilitate abortion, instead of using his power to increase support and care to mothers in challenging situations,” Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said Oct. 25.

“This single-minded extremism must end, and we implore President Biden to recognize the humanity in preborn children and the genuine life-giving care needed by women in this country,” he said.

The U.S. bishops’ statement noted that last week Biden declared that his top legislative priority after the November elections is to codify a national right to abortion.

This is a major story that was covered by the Catholic press, but big secular newsrooms ignored it.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Earth to RNS: Why not show a bit less deference to 'devout' Catholic abortionists?

Earth to RNS: Why not show a bit less deference to 'devout' Catholic abortionists?

Last week, I was in New York receiving three awards for my work that appeared last year in Newsweek, Politico and National Geographic. Writers for Moment magazine, Sojourners, The Forward, The Washington Post, the San Francisco radio station KALW and many other organizations won as well, including Religion News Service.

In the case of RNS, much good work has been done. Which is why I’m scratching my head at two recent pieces: one a hagiography of the Rev. James Martin, a Catholic priest known for his ministry to gays, and a Catholic gynecologist who insists she keeps the faith –- yet performs abortions.

It was difficult to know exactly what the Martin piece, written by two rabbis was: A news story? An opinion piece? An analysis? A sermon? A nomination for sainthood?

The last is in jest yet only partially; Martin’s teachings are radical enough that then Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput had to release a statement in 2019 about how Martin does not speak for the Catholic Church and “to caution the faithful about some of his claims.”

The authors put Catholic teaching in the worst possible light in this paragraph:

This time of great change affords Catholic clergy the chance to adapt to new needs and serve people in new ways. Even as some may feel constrained by vows of obedience that obligate leadership to line up with papal directives, others are finding support for new areas of ministry and outreach to underserved and marginalized groups…

With this multifaceted approach, Father Martin brings his ministry outside the traditional institutional framework to directly reach the people he seeks to serve. His work provides a new model for clergy leadership within the Catholic Church, modeled on the example of Jesus.

Well actually, whenever Jesus encountered someone operating outside the bounds of traditional sexual mores, he certainly reached out to them, but he also said, “Go and sin no more.” Not sure Martin is doing that.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Tips for reporters covering feds arresting abortion-facility protestors, from Christianity Today

Tips for reporters covering feds arresting abortion-facility protestors, from Christianity Today

Long ago, back in 1980s Denver days, I was out of town covering a national religion-news event when something interesting happened during an Operation Rescue protest at abortion facility.

The protest was going as planned, with peaceful protestors willing to be arrested for blocking the entrance (think civil disobedience) when someone rushed forward and started verbally and physically harassing a client and her escort. This became the big story of the day.

When I heard about what had happened I asked the city desk if anyone had checked to see if the attacker was actually part of the planned protest. There was a possibility, of course, that this was a rogue protestor or even a plant from pro-abortion-rights groups whose goal was to get Operation Rescue shut down.

The key question: Had this person signed the Operation Rescue card to take part in the protest, in which participants promise to do nothing more than pray and sing hymns during the blockade, then allow themselves to be arrested? I had included that tactical detail in my earlier coverage of the protests.

Well, no one asked. To cut to the chase: No one really wanted to ask.

The template for the story had already been created. Factual details about Operation Rescue techniques were irrelevant. Once I was home, I checked. No one knew the identity of this rogue protestor and he had not signed the pledge card. He wasn’t part of the organized protest.

I thought this was a story. My editors just shook their heads.

I bring this up because of an interesting story I read at Christianity Today: “DOJ Steps Up Prosecution of Pro-Life Protestors at Clinics.” GetReligion rarely looks at coverage in religious-market publications, but I thought that this piece included some information that might help MAINSTREAM reporters cover this important trend story. Here is the overture:

In the past month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has indicted more than a dozenpro-life protestors across the country for obstructing access to abortion clinics.

Such prosecutions have been rare historically, with just a case or two annually for the past decade. But after the US Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade this summer, the DOJ announced a task force to pursue more enforcement against anyone obstructing access to abortion clinics. Many of those protestors facing charges are Christian.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Catholic voters and the midterm elections: Mainstream news blitz ignores major voter bloc

Catholic voters and the midterm elections: Mainstream news blitz ignores major voter bloc

We are in the middle of another election season and in full mud-slinging mode.

Elections are an annual occurrence, to one degree or another, but the vote that will dominate this Nov. 8 are known as the midterms. It’s when a majority of seats in both the House and Senate are up for grabs, allowing for the party in the minority (in this case the Republicans in both chambers) to potentially becoming the majority. Midterm elections are also traditionally viewed as referendums on presidents.

This takes us to the Catholic vote and its impact on the outcome. This is a topic that is receiving little or no mainstream press coverage. As we say here at GetReligion: “Hold that thought.”

While inflation and crime will certainly be on the minds of most as they cast ballots, “culture war” issues are very much alive and well. Abortion, especially after this June’s Supreme Court decision that once again made it a state issue after Roe v. Wade was rolled back, will certainly be an issue.

There have been many, many news stories about how the abortion issue will motivate those on the political left to come out and vote following the Dobbs decision. The Washington Post, on Oct. 8, reported on the issue in a news feature that appeared under the headline, “Women powered Democrats in the 2018 midterms. Will they again in 2022?”

After opening with two Colorado women, Robin Kupernik and Elizabeta Stacishin, who had joined forces in 2016 to combat Donald Trump, who was elected to the presidency that year. This is the feature’s thesis:

In the 2018 midterm elections, women like Kupernik and Stacishin were part of a women-led army that changed politics. Women who had never been particularly active politically worked phone banks, wrote postcards and sent text messages to voters. They were repulsed by Trump and determined to do something about it.

They met in small groups, marched in the streets and went door-to-door to encourage people to vote for Democrats. Their passions were palpable. Many of the congressional candidates they were supporting flipped Republican-held seats, all part of a political tide strong enough to flush the GOP from control of the House, dealing Trump a major defeat. The Pew Research Center has estimated that 62 percent of White women with college degrees backed Democrats for the House four years ago.

That has become the major press-coverage storyline of the midterms.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Journalism question for these times: When are death threats 'real' death threats?

Journalism question for these times: When are death threats 'real' death threats?

Here is a journalism question for you: When is a death threat an actual “death threat”?

Let me state that another way: When do words that clearly communicate a death threat represent a “real” or legitimate death threat in the eyes of journalists, local police and (wait for it) the Department of Justice?

We can add another question I received via email from a religion-beat veteran: In what sense is a death threat “pro-choice”?

Yes, once again we are looking at a story that is linked to abortion, a topic that mixes politics, religion, law and science. In this case the event that made news (barely) was the vandalism of yet another Catholic church in a blue zip code. Here is the entire report from a local CBS newsroom and note the headline, which inspired that email question: “Catholic Church in Lansing vandalized with pro-choice graffiti.”

(CBS DETROIT) - The Diocese of Lansing released video footage of three people vandalizing the Church of the Resurrection with spray-painted pro-choice graffiti.

The incident happened on Saturday, Oct. 8, between 11:52 p.m. and 11:56 p.m. Video footage shows the three suspects walking up to the church from the area of Jerome and Custer, spay-painting the church, and then leaving the area.

The suspects spray-painted on the doors, signage, and sidewalk of the church, and the messages included: "Restore Roe" and "Is overturning Roe worth your life or democracy?"

Police are reviewing the security footage and searching for the suspects. According to the Diocese of Lansing, the graffiti has been power-washed.

If anyone has any information about this crime, they are urged to contact the Lansing Police Department at 517-483-4600.

The key language: “Is overturning Roe worth your life or democracy?" What are the logical implications of the words “worth your life”?

I realize that some anti-abortion demonstrators use chants claiming (thinking “mortal sin” consequences) that those taking part in abortions are risking their souls. Is that the same thing as saying that the U.S. Supreme Court voting to overturn Roe v. Wade is, addressing Catholic worshippers, “worth your life”?


Please respect our Commenting Policy