Religious Liberty

It will be easy for journalists to find God connections in Turkey's run-off election

It will be easy for journalists to find God connections in Turkey's run-off election

A few weeks ago, I got the opportunity to spend a few days in Turkey (recently re-branded as Türkiye), a country I’d not visited in 19 years. Back then, I was in Turkey’s mainly Kurdish southeastern sector — near the location of Turkey’s Feb. 6 earthquakes. It was like a visit to America’s Jim Crow past, as Kurds are a despised minority in Turkey.

My most recent journey (courtesy of the country’s tourism board) was very different — a swing around the country’s south-central precincts tracing the steps of St. Paul, who zig-zagged about Turkey during several visits.

While there, I experienced plenty of reminders (billboards and cars parades blasting slogans) that this was Turkey’s election season and that the country’s future very much hung on whether the current president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan could be unseated in the upcoming May 28 run-off election.

Stay with that thought, because we will return to some observations on religion angles in the upcoming presidential run-off election.

Whatever happens, Erdogan will be a footnote in history. As Turkey’s most famous native son throughout the ages, Paul grew up in Tarsus, about 10 miles from the Mediterranean coast. It’s thought that his Jewish forebears arrived there a few centuries before and were made Roman citizens due to them being landowners. Tarsus was our first stop and because it’s impossible to know exactly where Paul’s family lived, the government has had to rely on where church tradition says it might have been.

So, there’s a “St. Paul’s well” with water you can still drink; some first-century ruins under protective glass, a St. Paul Museum surrounded by mulberry bushes and even an Islamic site purporting to be the biblical prophet Daniel’s tomb. One needs a tour guide to get about this town; these sites would have been difficult to locate in a rental car.

Those of us who live in the New World have difficulty imagining life in a country built on layers and layers of archeological sites; where’s it’s nothing to find a 2,000-year-old piece of statuary in one’s back yard and where the earliest Christians hung out.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: A growing army of Americans (#surprise) no longer trusts the news media

Podcast: A growing army of Americans (#surprise) no longer trusts the news media

Were there tears in Anderson Cooper’s eyes? Did you hear a tremor in his voice?

A clip featuring the CNN superstar (that’s a relative term, these days) went viral after he wore his elite heart on his finely tailored sleeve when responding to woke social-media meltdowns after The. Most. Trusted. Name. In. News. dared to air a ratings-chasing “town hall” with former President Donald Trump.

By all means, watch the YouTube video featured at the top of this post, because it was featured in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which focused on another set of bleak, hellish poll numbers about Americans doubting the mainstream-news industrial complex. I argued — no surprise if you read my recent Religion & Liberty essay (“The Evolving Religion of Journalism”) — that niche-press coverage of moral, cultural and religious issues has played a big role in this disaster.

Cooper’s dramatic soliloquy included some strong language aimed directly at CNN’s shrinking choir of loyal viewers on what used to be called the “left.” In a way, it’s a kind of niche-news Rorschach test. What do you see and hear?

Meanwhile, here are some of the key quotes, drawn from a rather snarky piece at The Hollywood Reporter (I have added bold text for emphasis):

Echoing some of the points that network CEO Chris Licht had made to CNN staff … (Cooper) attempted to pivot and spin why CNN felt it was important to cover Trump. “The man you were so disturbed to see and hear from last night, that man … may be president of the United States in less than two years. And that audience that upset you, that’s a sampling of about half the country.”

He added, “If last night showed anything, it showed [Trump winning] can happen again. It is happening again. He hasn’t changed and he is running hard. You have every right to be outraged today and angry, and never watch this network again.

Cooper then rather bizarrely put the onus back on the audience to not remain ignorant of people on the other side of the political divide and incredibly implied that some people were ignorant of Trump. “Do you think staying in your silo and only listening to people you agree with is going to make that person go away? If we all only listen to those we agree with, it may actually do the opposite.”

Yes, the crucial word “silo” was used, in an emotional dermon aimed directly at CNN viewers. At some point, we can expect someone on Fox News to offer some variation of this litany when talking to its post-Tucker Carlson audience.

This is the media dynamic at the heart of trends in the Divided States of America.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What's missing from that 'conservatives pounce' New York Times sermon on trans fights?

What's missing from that 'conservatives pounce' New York Times sermon on trans fights?

At this point in journalism history, does anyone expect to read New York Times coverage of events and trends on the Religious Right and find a single sentence that presents interesting, provocative information — drawn from interviews with cultural conservatives — that supports that point of view?

OK, #TriggerWarning. This post assumes that, when dealing with hot-button issues, journalists should present information that accurately represents the views of people on both sides of those debates. Here is another way of stating that: Stories about controversial, divisive issues should contain information that make people on each sides uncomfortable.

This brings us to that recent Times piece with this headline: “How a Campaign Against Transgender Rights Mobilized Conservatives.” This is a classic case of the “conservatives pounce” trend in which news stories are defined in terms of conservative responses to a national trend, with next to zero discussions of the origins and nature of the trend itself.

Before we get to the Times sermon on this topic, let’s back up a bit and consider some background information. Here is a byte from a Reuters report:

In 2021, about 42,000 children and teens across the United States received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, nearly triple the number in 2017, according to data Komodo compiled for Reuters. Gender dysphoria is defined as the distress caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and the one assigned to them at birth.

Overall, the analysis found that at least 121,882 children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria from 2017 through 2021.

Here’s another look at the general trend, which includes a few hints at the wider debates:

The number of young people who identify as transgender has nearly doubled in recent years, according to a new report that captures a stark generational shift and emerging societal embrace of a diversity of gender identities.

The analysis, relying on government health surveys conducted from 2017 to 2020, estimated that 1.4 percent of 13- to 17-year-olds and 1.3 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds were transgender, compared with about 0.5 percent of all adults. Those figures illustrated a significant rise since the researchers’ previous report in 2017, though the analyses used different methods.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking about Bari Weiss, Twitter, evangelicals and New York Times op-ed doctrines

Thinking about Bari Weiss, Twitter, evangelicals and New York Times op-ed doctrines

Here’s a question for you: When it comes to defining the doctrines of blue-zip-America, which is more important — the news pages of The New York Times or the newspaper of record’s op-ed pages?

In the old days, I would have said the op-ed pages.

But that was back when most of the Times news desks were, to one degree or another, still part of (to one degree or another) the American Model of the Press (background in this .pdf file). That was certainly the case in the era of the late, great A.M. Rosenthal.

At this moment in time, there are signs of actual diversity — even tension — in the op-ed pages and maybe, just maybe, signs of a few glowing embers of editorial independence in the news papers.

But let’s still assume — as I argued in my Religion & Liberty essay, The Evolving Religion of Journalism — that the Times news operation is still operating as a niche-news, advocacy journalism publication anxious to please the new liberal, maybe illiberal, readers who pay cash for its content.

Let’s assume that the July, 2020, resignation letter posted by Bari “The Free Press” Weiss remains a must-read “think piece” for all news consumers. For those who need a refresh, as part of this “think piece” doubleheader, here are two key passages from that shot over the bow of the Gray Lady’s principalities and powers:

… [A] new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

Here is another essential passage from this “read it all” classic. This comes after Weiss — a gay, Jewish, old-school First Amendment liberal — describes the in-house digital bullying that made her hit the exit door:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Coverage on whether employees must work on the Sabbath ignored the clout of Amazon

Coverage on whether employees must work on the Sabbath ignored the clout of Amazon

After Sherbert v. Verner, a 1963 Supreme Court case that granted a Seventh-day Adventist the right to take her chosen day of worship (Saturday) off without recrimination from employers, I thought the right to not work on a particular day of the week had been settled.

But apparently not, especially if the employer’s needs shift over time.

At this point, the original promise to the employee that he/she would not have to work on a religious holiday goes out the window. Especially if Amazon is involved. This creates an interesting news dynamic, by the way, because the titan of Amazon is, of course, Jeff Bezos — owner of The Washington Post and a major player on the cultural left (except when it comes to labor issues).

First, there is this from USA Today:

Gerald Groff wanted to spend his Sundays at church. His employer, the U.S. Postal Service, wanted him delivering packages.

That simple dispute between an employee and his managers sparked one of the most significant religious cases to reach the Supreme Court in years – with the potential to shift the balance of power between employees and employers over weekend schedules, dress codes and how workers conduct themselves around colleagues.

The appeal raises a basic question with potentially sweeping consequences: How far must large employers go to accommodate the religious needs of their workers? For Groff, an Evangelical Christian who told his boss in 2017 that he wouldn’t cover Sunday shifts because of his faith, the answer became a personal and painful one. 

Then, instead of referring to the abovementioned 1963 case, the article refers to Trans World Airlines, Inc., v. Hardison, an airline maintenance clerk who was discharged for refusing to work Saturdays.

Larry Hardison, a Worldwide Church of God adherent, had switched to his new faith just after he was hired and for a time, he was able to observe his new faith’s requirement that one not work on the Sabbath. Then he switched positions and lost his seniority and his ability to decline Saturday shifts. Hardison sued the airline, but lost.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: Does requiring a mail guy to work Sundays violate his religious freedom?

Plug-In: Does requiring a mail guy to work Sundays violate his religious freedom?

Surprise! I mentioned earlier that I’d be on an international reporting trip and unable to produce today’s Plug-in.

Alas, I ran into a visa issue, so here I am. So, today’s news includes:

Muslims celebrating the Eid al-Fitr holiday amid joy and tragedy, via The Associated Press’ Abby Sewell.

Conservative Anglican leaders calling for a break with the Archbishop of Canterbury over same-sex blessings, via the Wall Street Journal’s Francis X. Rocca.

An Iowa GOP event this weekend that represents a key test of former President Donald Trump’s hold on the U.S. religious right, via the Washington Times’ Seth McLaughlin.

That’s just the start of this week’s best reads and top headlines in the world of faith.

Let’s keep rolling!

What To Know: The Big Story

High court seeks compromise: The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday reviewed “the case of a part-time mail carrier who quit his U.S. Postal Service job after he was forced to deliver packages on Sundays, when he observes the Sabbath.”

A majority of justices “expressed interest … in a compromise intended to balance religious rights in the workplace with the burden they might impose on employers and co-workers,” the Washington Post’s Ann E. Marimow reports.

CNN’s Ariane de Vogue explains:

A lower court had ruled against the worker, Gerald Groff, holding that his request would cause an “undue burden” on the USPS and lead to low morale at the workplace when other employees had to pick up his shifts.

Not just Christians: Conservative Christians aren’t the only ones asking for accommodation in the mailman case, Religion News Service’s Yonat Shimron notes.

“Religious minorities — Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Seventh-day Adventists — have filed briefs asking the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that gutted a civil rights statute’s protections for religious accommodation,” Shimron’s story points out.

Important context: The Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner recently interviewed Larry Hardison, whose “name was chiseled into American legal history 46 years ago when the Supreme Court ruled against him in a landmark religious accommodation case.”

For more insight, see “A brief history of American Christians fighting Sunday mail” by Christianity Today’s Daniel Silliman.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

'On Religion' column enters year 35: Demons, martyrs, violence and miracles in Colombia

'On Religion' column enters year 35: Demons, martyrs, violence and miracles in Colombia

In one of her first encounters with violence linked to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Deann Alford heard, or felt, a bullet pass and slam into a door frame, with shrapnel striking a nearby woman and child.

The future journalist was both shocked and inspired by her contacts with Christians caught in that land's toxic climate of paramilitary warfare, narcotrafficking and kidnappings. She struggled to grasp how someone like pilot Russell Martin Stendal, after years held for ransom, could forgive his kidnappers and then start a missionary effort to convert them.

"Without his months as their hostage, I'm convinced he never could have reached the FARC," wrote Alford, in "Victorious: The Impossible Path to Peace," her blunt memoir about religious freedom in Colombia.

Stendal, she added, "has forgiven all. But I have not. ... In my quarter-century as a journalist, I've written dozens of articles about Colombian guerrilla groups' crimes against Christians, ranging from extortion to murder. Many of these stories regard crimes of the FARC, typically threatening and abducting church workers, missionaries and pastors, extorting them with offers they could not refuse."

Eventually, Alford realized that it wasn't enough to cover Colombia with telephone calls, faxes and Internet connections. She would have to put "boots on the ground" and return. "But I didn't. I was afraid. No, that word is too mild. I was terrified. I let the risk of being killed and kidnapped keep me away."

Alford's bottom line: "I told the Lord I would go anywhere for him but Colombia."

But she returned and, over years of contacts, her fears mixed with frustration. After working in secular newsrooms, as well as Christian publications and wire services, she couldn't understand why more people -- journalists and religious leaders -- could not see the importance of the faith stories unfolding, decade after decade, in Colombia.

This is another example of an important theme woven into my work with this "On Religion" column, with this week marking the start of my 35th year. Simply stated, many journalists do not "get" religion, in terms of grasping the role faith plays in many important events and trends stories.

But Alford was dealing with an even more complex equation. Yes, many editors fail to value religion-news coverage. But it's also true that many Americans -- including people in pews -- do not value coverage of international news. Thus, it's hard to imagine a tougher sell in today's media marketplace than coverage of religion news on the other side of the world.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Has Donald Trump won nomination already? Careful. And keep a hawkeye on Iowa ...

Has Donald Trump won nomination already? Careful. And keep a hawkeye on Iowa ...

In nationwide polls, Donald Trump has defied multiple legal snarls to pad his already healthy margin over potential challenger Ron DeSantis for the Republican nomination. So far, those two swamp all other possible names, such as Nikki Haley.

As for state polling, South Carolina numbers last week from Winthrop University have Trump at 41% and DeSantis 20%, while the two locals got only 18% (Haley), and 7% (Tim Scott). Likewise in New Hampshire with its first primary, where a St. Anselm College poll in late March reported Trump 42%, DeSantis 29%, popular Governor Chris Sununu a mere 14% and Haley 4%.

Reporters on the politics, religion, and religion-and-politics beats should especially keep a hawkeye (so to speak) on Iowa, with its crucial first-in-the-nation caucus next January — turf already well-trod by GOP hopefuls. An April 4 poll of likely G.O.P. caucus-goers by J.L. Partners shows Trump 41%, DeSantis 26%, and Haley a 5% also-ran.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

FBI war on 'rad trad' Catholics: Where's the outrage (or even fairness) in press coverage?

FBI war on 'rad trad' Catholics: Where's the outrage (or even fairness) in press coverage?

There are several factors that, when put together, make an event or trend a news story. 

The first is that it is new. It’s not a coincidence that the first three letters of the word news helps to form the word “new.”

Then there’s timing. Not just “what,” but also “when” something happens makes it newsworthy. “What” and “when” are essential to the five W’s (which also includes “where,” “who” and “why”) that reporters and editors worry most when determining news coverage.

The inability for certain types of stories to register with the secular press, especially legacy media, is yet another sign of the political, cultural and moral divisions in our society and the dying American model of the press. 

While this space is very much dedicated to critiquing news coverage of Catholic issues and those involving Catholics, it is very difficult to do so when there is little to no coverage of important Catholic stories by a very sizable chunk of the American media ecosystem. 

This takes us to a trio of stories involving the federal government and the Catholic church that took place during the first half of this month. At a time of year where the mainstream media is seeking Christian storylines to coincide with Lent, Holy Week and Easter Sunday (beyond photos of elaborate hats), the three stories I am about to dissect here drew very little mainstream media attention.

Instead, it was the Catholic press (once again!) and “conservative” secular media that did the bulk of the reporting on, for my first example, the issue regarding the decision by Walter Reed Hospital to drop a contract for Franciscan priests to provide pastoral care of patients and, instead, hiring a secular firm to oversee those same services going forward. Try to imagine “secular” Last Rites for Catholics?

The second was the decision by the Department of Justice to recommend zero jail time in a plea deal involving a suspect charged with destruction of property at a Catholic church in Washington last year.

Finally, there were, according to documents, traditional Catholics who were targeted by the FBI because they could be considered domestic terrorists.


Please respect our Commenting Policy