Politics

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Plug-In: Looming Israel-Hamas war brings familiar questions about the end of the world

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Looming Israel-Hamas war brings familiar questions about the end of the world

No big deal. OK, it’s sort of a big deal: went to Arlington, Texas, for the start of the World Series. Let’s go, Rangers! But you knew that I would say that.

Speaking of the Fall Classic, Marvin Olasky writes at ReligionUnplugged that the World Series “reflects life and what little we can control.” I sure hope my favorite team can control its bullpen and win its first title ever.

But you signed on for religion news, not my baseball analysis, so here goes: The new speaker of the U.S. House is a Southern Baptist who has served as a trustee of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Baptist Press’ Brandon Porter notes.

Rep. Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, suggested his election as speaker was ordained by God, according to Religion News Service.

This is our weekly roundup of the top headlines and best reads in the world of faith. We start again with the Israel-Hamas War, this time focusing on questions about the end of the world.

What To Know: The Big Story

End times debate: The Israel-Hamas war has sent Christians in search of prophetic meaning, as the Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner, a former GetReligion contributor, explains:

Evangelical leaders are looking to the Bible’s end-of-days prophecies as congregants seek to understand the Israel-Hamas war.

While the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of Matthew offer details of what is to happen before Christ’s return, apocalyptic Scriptures have often been cited when global tensions flare up, such as Israel’s war of independence in 1948, the 1967 Six-Day War and the October War of 1973.

Believers also sounded alarms after the eruption of World War II, the Cold War and the 9/11 attacks.

“I think even secularists would tell you never have we faced so many severe threats in the world that we’re facing right now,” said the Rev. Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas.


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

Thinking about Hamas and its doctrines? It helps to have a document to quote

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about Hamas and its doctrines? It helps to have a document to quote

One of my journalism mentors once said something that turned out to be very wise.

That gem: The more controversial the story, the more a reporter should search for a document (on letterhead, even) that backs you up.

This is especially important, in my experience, when selling a controversial story to an editor.

At the moment, I cannot think of a topic that is more controversial than Hamas — specifically, whether Hamas is, at its heart, a terrorist group.

Thus, I would like to offer a rather unusual “think piece” this week. This is an actual document that, I believe, should be in the news, as in a source for questions and content in stories linked to the hellish Oct. 7 Hamas raid into Israel.

The document in question is the 1988 Hamas covenant explaining the organization’s doctrines and goals. As I will mention later, there is a revised 2017 Hamas charter that is more political and, frankly, less doctrinal. The key is that the 1988 covenant has never been disavowed. Thus, it remains must reading.

Will it be controversial to quote this covenant? Probably. But it’s real, it’s important and it is a valid launching point for questions about present realities. If you want a journalism report linked to this covenant, then check out this new piece at The Atlantic: “Understanding Hamas’s Genocidal Ideology — A close read of Hamas’s founding documents clearly shows its intentions.”

Once again, note that this headline uses “ideology,” when the accurate term for the most controversial passages in this covenant would be “theology.” You know the drill: Politics is real. Religion? Not so much.

You can find the 1988 Hamas covenant in quite a few places, often with commentary. But let’s seek a basic academic source for the document itself, care of Yale Law School.

I have chosen, for this post, a few quotations that are directly linked to questions I have seen addressed in some of the mainstream news coverage of the Oct. 7 blitz. For starters, this is from the preamble:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).


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

Podcast: Any religion ghosts in Writers Guild silence on bloody Hamas attack on Israel?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Any religion ghosts in Writers Guild silence on bloody Hamas attack on Israel?

If you look up a standard definition of “antisemitism,” and commentaries that apply the term to public life, you will probably find references to mass media.

Consider, for example, this language from the “Working Definition of Antisemitism” commentary from the American Jewish committee. The definition itself: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The case-study material begins with these explanatory notes, the first two in a list of 10:

* Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

* Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

The phrase “controlling the media” loomed over this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which focused on a Los Angeles Times story with this double-decker headline:

How the Israel-Hamas war is dividing Hollywood

Nerves are fraying. Relationships are being strained to the breaking point. Words are being wielded like weapons.

For decades, claims that Jews “control” the media have included chatter about Jews “controlling” Hollywood.

The key word is “control,” as opposed to decades of writing — often by Jewish scholars — about the strong and unique role Jews have played in Hollywood life, in terms of creative skills and business clout. Consider this classic book by Neal Gabler, “An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood.”


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

Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case could be a huge religion-beat sleeper story

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case could be a huge religion-beat sleeper story

The agenda for the U.S. Supreme Court term that began this month has zero cases involving the two religion clauses of the First Amendment.

That’s quite the change after the important religion rulings the past two years, not to mention religious conservatives’ and liberals’ agitation after the 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe , which had legalized abortion nationwide.

So religion-watchers may not be aware that the court soon takes up two potentially tectonic cases involving — would you believe it — small businesses that fish for herring off the New England coast and say they shouldn’t have to pay their federal monitors. The cases are Loper Bright v. Raimondo (docket # 22-451), newly combined Oct. 13 with Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce (docket #22-1219). Oral arguments could come as soon as January.

This gets into the weeds of administrative law, an area that normally does not set pulses pounding but here involves the hot political dispute over powers exercised by federal agencies. Conservatives assert that agencies have long been interpreting and enforcing laws in ways that Congress never intended or has never defined, thus usurping legislative prerogatives and violating the Constitution’s “separation of powers.”

Background: The two fishing companies seek relief by overturning the Court’s highly influential 1984 precedent in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This unanimous decision granted wide deference to federal agencies in “reasonable” interpretations, applications and enforcement of ambiguous laws passed by Congress.

The list of Loper briefs posted by the invaluable SCOTUSBlog.com shows the variety of interests that include 48 of the 50 states lined up on the two sides and the Republican U.S. House of Representatives, along with e.g. the AFL-CIO, American Cancer Society, Environmental Defense Fund, Gun Owners of America and e-cigarette industry.

You are waiting for the religion-beat angle?


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

Plug-In: The crucial role of religion in the dangerous Israel-Hamas war

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: The crucial role of religion in the dangerous Israel-Hamas war

Did you miss me? I traveled to Cuba on a reporting trip. Given my limited internet access while away, Plug-in took last week off.

That means this is our first edition since the Israel-Hamas war started.

What an overwhelming story with countless religious angles. But I’ll do my best to catch you — and me — up.

The latest: a blast on the campus of the historic St. Porphyrius Greek Orthodox Church in Gaza City, where scores of Palestinian families had been sheltering from Israeli air strikes. The omnipresent Clemente Lisi has the details.

This is our weekly roundup of the top headlines and best reads in the world of faith. We start, of course, with the deadly conflict in the Middle East.

What To Know: The Big Story

‘Blood libel’: “The heated discourse about the deadly rocket explosion near Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in the southern Gaza City neighborhood of Zeitoun on Tuesday is rooted in the centuries-old religious hatred underlying the current war in Gaza.”

That’s the lede from Gil Zohar, reporting from Jerusalem for ReligionUnplugged.

The blast occurred at Gaza’s only Christian hospital, reported Christianity Today’s Morgan Lee.

The why: Hamas is selling its assault on Israel as a holy war, as Religion News Service’s Michelle Chabin and Yonat Shimron detail:

When Hamas, the Islamic Palestinian terrorist group, stormed into southern Israel on Oct. 7, took over military bases, massacred more than 1,300 Israelis — most of them civilians — and kidnapped 150, it dubbed its military operation the “Al-Aqsa Deluge.”  


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

Podcast: Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Seeking some Gaza facts, maybe even truth, in today's niche-media matrix

When journalism historians write about the Hamas terror raid on Israel, and the Gaza war that followed, they will need to parse the early headlines about the explosion in the parking lot next to the Ahli Arab Hospital.

I am assuming that something called “journalism” will survive the rise of AI and the fall of an advertising-based, broad audience model of the press. I am an old guy with old dreams. Thus, we dug into this subject during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

What did the mainstream press report? Click here for a “conservative” collection of tweets, headlines and URLs to basic reports from the likes of BBC, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, etc. At this point in time, it’s “conservative” to care about old-liberal standards of journalism ethics.

What matters the most, of course is the New York Times headline that guided the digital rockets, so to speak, fired by elite journalists around the world.

Let’s work through that headline: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.”

My first question, of many (and I tweeted this one out): “In this tech age, could some satellite imagery tell us the origin of the rocket?”

Whoever wrote that Times headline, or the editor supervising that process, had to know that someone — Elon Musk even — was going to share images and data from space or nearby radar, drones, smartphones, etc., that showed where the rocket was launched and in which direction it was headed.

That information would, of course, come from the United States (one way or the other) or Israel. Thus, the basic question an editor had to ask: Do we produce a banner headline based on information from Hamas, alone? The editor or editors answered, “YES.” The rest is history.

Next question: What part of that headline is accurate, in terms of the evidence now? Israeli attack? No. Was the hospital hit? No. It was a parking lot full of refugees. Did “hundreds” — 500 in one reference — die? It appears the number was much lower than that. Did anyone “strike” or target the hospital? No. It appears that an Islamist rocket malfunctioned, on its way to Israel, and fell in Gaza.

We are left with, “Palestinians say.” Sorry about that.


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

Relevant numbers, right now: Culture wars are alive and well on college campuses

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Relevant numbers, right now: Culture wars are alive and well on college campuses

I write a lot about religion and politics.

That’s led to some speaking engagements about my research to a wide variety of groups. I wish I could list all the audiences I have spoken to but it’s really run the gamut. I’ve given talks to some of the most liberal Protestants in the United States, but also to Southern Baptist church planters. I’ve spoken to non-religious groups in a variety of contexts including major corporations and members of Congress.

One thing that I try to do when I’m asked to give a talk is show up before my scheduled engagement and get a sense of the room. I want to see what type of people are gathered, if they have any reading materials handed out to participants and eavesdrop a little on conversations happening among attendees. I need to figure out the political and theological viewpoints of folks before I plow through my material — which can sometimes cause friction.

I mean, I talk about religion and politics. It may not go over well with every attendee in every room.

I would like to think that we all do things like that in our own lives when we are confronted with a new environment. We need to get a lay of the land before we strategize about how we fit in.

That’s certainly the case with the college experience. I think most students want to desperately fit in (it’s something we all do), and one way to make that easier is to make sure your politics aligns with the politics of your local environment.

That’s really the point of this post — trying to understand the political climate of college campuses right now and how individuals fit in to those larger environments. I am using the terrific dataset from The FIRE that I’ve been exploring in several posts this month. Like prior sets of analysis, I restricted my sample to just 18-25 year old folks who are attending a college or university in the United States.

Let’s start with a basic, yet important, question: what is the political partisanship of young folks based on their religious affiliation?

Pretty clearly there are two groups with a strong contingent of Republicans.


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

Why editors in legacy newsrooms struggle with calling members of Hamas 'terrorists'

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Why editors in legacy newsrooms struggle with calling members of Hamas 'terrorists'

It’s been a little more than a week since Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israeli civilians, killing more than 1,300 people. Many of those killed were children, some even babies, on the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.

Since then, the situation in that part of the world has become a full-blown war. Israel has responded by attacking Gaza, with Hamas leaders (and even hostages) mixed among civilians who, in some cases, have been prevented from evacuating by Hamas.

Palestinians now face a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.

Not surprisingly, many in the elite media have gotten — and continue to get — this story wrong. For too many years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was treated like a political story. It was a story about land. It was about colonization. It was about human rights.

It may be about all those things, depending on whom you ask, but it’s also a story about about Jews. It’s about Muslims. It’s about sacred sites in the Holy Lands.

In other words, it’s a religion story.

As someone who covered the 9/11 attacks and the years that followed, I am well versed and experienced when it comes to news about terrorism. I know what terrorism looks like when I see it. So do most reporters and editors.

However, not everyone seems to have open eyes these days.

Let’s start with the BBC, one of the biggest and most influential news organizations in the world. The British state broadcaster came under pressure last week when its leaders refused to call Hamas terrorists. In an explanation posted to the BBC website on Oct. 11, John Simpson, who serves as World Affairs editor, defended the decision this way:

Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people — they're all asking why the BBC doesn't say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.

The answer goes right back to the BBC's founding principles.


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

Clouds of images, blood and chaos, as old-school news chases the digital Hamas blitz

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Clouds of images, blood and chaos, as old-school news chases the digital Hamas blitz

The following is not a normal GetReligion post.

It is not a critique of the powerful religion ghost that is haunting the coverage of the crisis in Israel and Gaza in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attacks. Julia Duin has already written that post: “Important religion-news angles are everywhere, as Hamas triggers war with Israel.”

No, this post is about the lens through which people in Israel were forced to view the hellish opening hours of that crisis, a digital lens so clouded by blood and the fog of war that the people caught in the middle of the chaos could SEE pieces of what was going on, but had no NEWS they could trust.

In other words, this post is about what happens when a major event in the real world is seen through social-media ALONE. Also, a hat tip to former GetReligion colleague Ira Rifkin for sending me this stunning Haaretz essay — it’s more like a scream of pain — by Yonatan Englender. Let’s start with the long, angry double-decker headline:

How Telegram and Twitter beat TV to cover the Hamas-Israel war as it happened

An hour after Israelis understood they were under attack, it was clear the news knew nothing. On TV, they reported sirens in central Israel and reports of Hamas militants crossing from Gaza. Reports? On social media I already saw them riding around in Jeeps

In a way, this Haartz essay is a depressing update on my recent piece for Religion & Liberty: “The Evolving Religion of Journalism,” which focused on how digital technology is changing both the content of our news, the business model that produces it and, of course, the audience for all of that.

But I was writing about “normal” life, as in ordinary chatter about politics, politics, politics and the other related subjects that matter to most journalists. Early in the piece, I wrote:

Politicians, parents, pastors, and plenty of other people are struggling to understand what is happening in their lives while turning to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Parler, BitChute, Gab, Gettr, Rumble, Telegram, and Truth Social. And there are darker corners of this world, such as 4chan and the “Dark Web.” And never forget this crucial journalism reality: Opinion writing is cheap, while hard-news content is expensive.

Oh, and in a war zone, hard-news content is dangerous.


Please respect our Commenting Policy