New podcast: Are tensions between Speaker Pelosi and her archbishop a valid news story?

New podcast: Are tensions between Speaker Pelosi and her archbishop a valid news story?

The following is not a hypothetical case or a parable. This is the heart of the news story that was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

Step one: Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a guest on Hillary Clinton’s “You and Me Both” podcast. As you would expect, since this was recorded a week after the stunning January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, they spent some time discussing their views on the Donald Trump years.

This led to a discussion about the choices made by pro-life voters in the 2016 election. Here is some crucial material from a Catholic News Agency story about the exchange.

… House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that support of pro-life voters for former President Donald Trump was an issue that “gives me great grief as a Catholic.”

“I think that Donald Trump is president because of the issue of a woman’s right to choose,” she said of abortion, implying that pro-life voters boosted Trump to victory in 2016. She added that these voters “were willing to sell the whole democracy down the river for that one issue.”

Other than the “sellout” implication, the key phrase there is “as a Catholic.”

Step two: The archbishop who — canonically speaking — is charged with overseeing Pelosi’s life as a Catholic believer was not amused by this assertion. Here is another chunk of that CNA report.

“No Catholic in good conscience can favor abortion,” said Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, Pelosi’s home diocese. … “Our land is soaked with the blood of the innocent, and it must stop.”

Pelosi has long supported abortion despite her Catholic faith. In 2008, she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” regarding when life begins, “over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.” She said that her Catholic faith “shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to choose.” …

Archbishop Cordileone clarified that "Nancy Pelosi does not speak for the Catholic Church. … And on the question of the equal dignity of human life in the womb, she [Pelosi] also speaks in direct contradiction to a fundamental human right that Catholic teaching has consistently championed for 2,000 years.” …

Step three: Write a mainstream news story?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Israel issue complicates anti-Semitism definition. This could haunt Biden’s Middle East work

Israel issue complicates anti-Semitism definition. This could haunt Biden’s Middle East work

A tired Jewish cliche states, “two Jews, three opinions.” As a member of the tribe for, well, my entire life, I have to agree that it has a clear ring of truth.

However, I’m inclined to say that it’s not just Jews who seem to disagree about almost everything, certainly these days, and perhaps never. To quote the Talking Heads (one of my favorite post-punk rock bands, “same as it ever was, same as it ever was…”

So, President Joseph R. Biden, unity will not be had just for the asking. But I digress.

Among the latest Jewish communal verbal slugfests is one an outsider might reasonably think Jews would likely agree upon — which is, how do you define anti-Semitism?

But we don’t, because nothing is simple in life (allow me to refer you back to the “two Jews, three opinions” cliche above) no matter what we’d like to think.

This is particularly so when you add Israel to the equation. Or, to be more precise, the question of what constitutes fair political criticism of Israel and what is unfair — or biased — criticism of Israel that bleeds into hateful anti-Semitism?

The top of this JTA (the international Jewish news agency) story from mid-January lays out the issue.

(JTA) — When is it anti-Semitic to criticize Israel?

Anti-Semitism signifies hatred of Jews and the ways that hatred is perpetuated through age-old conspiracy theories and their modern variants. But what about when that hatred is expressed through rhetoric about the Jewish state? Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism?

Those questions have divided American Jews in recent years — and are doing so again.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Could these writings shatter Christian history? True or false, journalists might take a look

Could these writings shatter Christian history? True or false, journalists might take a look

Let's pretend there's not much news coming out of Washington, D.C and a reporter yearns to cover something different. And what if the press has missed "the biggest biblical discovery to date," indeed, "arguably the most important religious discovery of all time"?

Sounds interesting. And if those lavish promotional claims turn out to be false, that's a story, too.

A friend of The Religion Guy uses the News360.com app, whose algorithms scan 7,000 newspapers and magazines for articles keyed to the individual's interests. This friend's interests include Christian history, and he was alerted to a Jan. 29 article announcing the discovery of ancient documents that "could revolutionize our picture of Christianity."

A seasoned journalist immediately recalls hoaxes of this sort. Leave aside the deceptive history on Christian origins offered as fact in "The Da Vinci Code" novel, a huge 2003 seller that spawned a movie starring Tom Hanks. A claim of proof Jesus Christ was married that emanated from august Harvard Divinity School was debunked. Evangelicals swooned over spurious reports about finding a manuscript of the Gospel of Mark written in the 1st Century. In 2017, The Guy attempted to assess the Shroud of Turin dispute.

The Jan. 29 article wasn't from a recognized scholarly journal or site but CoreSpirit.com, which informs practitioners, entrepreneurs and curiosity-seekers about magic, esoterica, life enhancement nostrums, transcendence and "ancient wisdom."

By the way, this site is potentially useful for media. The Guy bets journalists know nothing about most of the 800-plus topics covered (e.g. global brain, isolation tank, medical intuition, superhuman agility, urine therapy, tongue cutting, wall crawling, you name it).

Core Spirit neglected to tell readers that its news is not new.

The mysterious "Jordanian Codices," a collection of small, bound-together metal tablets, first won publicity in 2011 and mostly in Britain. Though scholars scoffed, there's been lively chatter across the Internet ever since that reporters can plumb to assess story prospects. The history of where these items came from is confused, but they're now being held by Jordan's antiquities department.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Happy birthday (I guess): GetReligion will keep highlighting 'religion ghosts' in the news

Happy birthday (I guess): GetReligion will keep highlighting 'religion ghosts' in the news

Growing old is complicated.

This is especially true during these bizarre COVID-19 days in which one day runs into another and sometimes it’s hard to remember what is what and when is when.

Oh well, whatever, nevermind. I being this up because GetReligion.org launched on Feb. 2, 2004 (even though the first post was written a day earlier). I think that means we just turned 17 and are headed into year No. 18, but my aging mind goes rather numb just thinking about it.

This blog has always had two essential goals.

The first is to highlight what we call “ghosts” in mainstream news coverage, as in essential facts and themes about religion that journalists — on lots of beats — frequently miss when covering news stories, big and small. A side effect of that task has been urging newsroom managers to hire experienced religion-beat reporters to strengthen their newsrooms.

Goal No. 2 is related to that. We have tried, year after year, to defend what is frequently called the American Model of the Press (see this .pdf) — with its emphasis on accurate, fair-minded, even balanced coverage of stories in which there are competing, or even clashing, viewpoints. For a taste of what that sounds like, check out this famous 2003 memo by the late, great, Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll. Here’s a crucial chunk of that, after his critique of a one-sided story:

The reason I'm sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times.

I'm no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same.

In recent years, economic, cultural and political forces have greatly weakened the American Model of the Press (see this recent Celemente Lisi post on that topic). Some people say this model is outdated, in a digital age in which opinion is cheap and information is expensive and the safest business model — producing mouse-clicks and loyal subscribers — is to tell your niche audience what it wants to hear.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Now for something completely different: RNS scribe doxxed after investigating Ramsey Solutions

Now for something completely different: RNS scribe doxxed after investigating Ramsey Solutions

Religion reporters don’t usually have to fear for their lives, nor wonder if someone’s going to show up at their homes to exact some kind of revenge for an unfavorable story.

But there’s always a first time.

Several weeks ago, Bob Smietana, the veteran national reporter for Religion News Service, got to experience some very weird doxxing — not at the hands of some anti-religious conspiracy, but from devout Christians.

On Jan. 15, RNS published Smietana’s 4,150-word investigative piece on the workplace at evangelical financial guru Dave Ramsey’s $42 million headquarters in Franklin, Tenn., just south of Nashville. (The Tennessean, Nashville’s hometown newspaper, finally got around to running the piece on Jan. 28.)

That piece followed a Dec. 11 story by Smietana on Ramsey’s for-profit enterprise defying COVID-19 precautions such as wearing masks.

Put all that together and you had a non-flattering description of a workplace shaped by strict controls and perhaps even a personality cult. Here is what ran Jan. 15

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (RNS) — Dave Ramsey has spent the past three decades trying to build what he calls the best place to work in America.

From his headquarters south of Nashville, the evangelical Christian personal finance guru runs a media and live events empire that includes a popular national talk radio show. Tickets to workshops on topics such as “EntreLeadership” run from $3,000 to $10,000.

Thousands of churches around the country, meanwhile, host Ramsey’s “Financial Peace University,” a 9-week program built around his principles for handling money “God’s way.”

Several churches I’ve attended have indeed offered this program. Finances is something most pastors know nothing about, so they kick the task over to Ramsey, who’s making millions off these referrals.

But inside Ramsey Solution’s $42 million headquarters, there appear to be some problems, according to the kind of source one normally encounters in pieces of these kinds — former employees..

Ramsey’s intolerance for dissent has created what former employees call a cult-like environment, where leaders proclaim their love for staff and then fire people at a moment’s notice.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

It was hard to edit God out of Cicely Tyson's epic story, but some journalists gave it a try

It was hard to edit God out of Cicely Tyson's epic story, but some journalists gave it a try

It was hard to listen to Cicely Tyson talk about her life without recognizing the strong undercurrent of Christian faith in her words, deeds and also in her art. While remaining a proud, private, dignified woman, her faith was not something that she tried to hide.

The question here at GetReligion, of course, was whether any of that imagery and information would make it into the news coverage surrounding her death at the age of 96.

The answer was, of course, “yes” and “no.” Many of the obituaries mentioned her Tony-winning return to Broadway in 2013, at the age of 88, to play the unstoppable matriarch in Horton Foote’s classic, faith-driven play, “The Trip to Bountiful.” The show-stopping moment, night after night, was when Tyson would sing — joined by many in the audience — the classic hymn “Blessed Assurance.” It’s hard to avoid the content of lyrics such as these:

Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine; Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine!
Heir of salvation, purchase of God; Born of His Spirit, washed in His blood.

This is my story, this is my song, Praising my Savior all the day long.

If you were looking for the faith-free version of Tyson’s life, the natural place to turn was The New York Times.

This story did a great job of capturing her impact on American culture, especially in terms of the sacrifices she made to portray African-American life with style, power and dignity. Here are two crucial summary paragraphs on that essential theme:

In a remarkable career of seven decades, Ms. Tyson broke ground for serious Black actors by refusing to take parts that demeaned Black people. She urged Black colleagues to do the same, and often went without work. She was critical of films and television programs that cast Black characters as criminal, servile or immoral, and insisted that African-Americans, even if poor or downtrodden, should be portrayed with dignity.

Her chiseled face and willowy frame, striking even in her 90s, became familiar to millions in more than 100 film, television and stage roles, including some that had traditionally been given only to white actors. She won three Emmys and many awards from civil rights and women’s groups, and at 88 became the oldest person to win a Tony, for her 2013 Broadway role in a revival of Horton Foote’s “The Trip to Bountiful.”

But the only reference to her Christian faith — negative, of course — came in this bite of biography:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Black church leaders working to promote COVID-19 vaccines to their skeptical flocks

Black church leaders working to promote COVID-19 vaccines to their skeptical flocks

Some religious people see the COVID-19 vaccines as an answer to prayer.

Others are skeptical.

To encourage wary African Americans to roll up their sleeves, many Black churches are working extra hard.

The Tampa Bay Times’ Margo Snipe notes:

As COVID-19 continues to push health disparities to the forefront, Black churches have become advocates for mask-wearing, hand sanitizing and vaccine distribution.

In a Religion News Service interview with Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, the Rev. Jacques Andre DeGraff of Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem, New York, “talks about how Black communities are overcoming distrust of the medical community.”

This week, Dr. Anthony Fauci joined Bishop T.D. Jakes of The Potter’s House church in Dallas in a discussion aimed at quelling distrust about the vaccines, report the Dallas Morning News’ Jesus Jimenez and Religion Unplugged’s own Jillian Cheney.

“You have to respect the skepticism in the African American community,” said Fauci, the nation’s top infectious diseases official. “You can’t just ignore that.”

Here in my home state of Oklahoma, the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Oklahoma City partnered with state and county health departments to organize a “vaccine pod.”

The Rev. Derrick Scobey discusses the outreach effort with The Oklahoman’s faith editor, Carla Hinton:

He said some Blacks recall the infamous "Tuskegee Experiment," a medical study in which hundreds of Black men in Alabama from the 1930s to the 1970s were misled into thinking they were being treated for disease.

"Because of that you still have African Americans that are very hesitant about taking this vaccine," Scobey said.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Inauguration Day showdown: U.S. Catholic bishops remain divided on 'McCarrick doctrine'

Inauguration Day showdown: U.S. Catholic bishops remain divided on 'McCarrick doctrine'

Speaking to an Italian family association in 2018, Pope Francis compared the abortion of children with genetic problems to "what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today, we do the same thing but with white gloves."

A year later, Francis bluntly asked a journalist from Mexico if it's "fair to eliminate a human life in order to solve a problem? The answer to which is, 'No.' Second question: Is it fair to pay a sniper to solve a problem? No. Abortion is not a religious problem. … It is a problem of eliminating a human life. Period."

But the pope was careful in his Inauguration Day message to America's second Catholic president, assuring Joe Biden that he would "pray that your decisions will be guided by a concern for building a society marked by authentic justice and freedom, together with unfailing respect for the rights and dignity of every person, especially the poor, the vulnerable and those who have no voice."

The pope's text was examined closely after reports that the Vatican -- on behalf of progressive American bishops -- tried to stop the circulation of a sobering statement from the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The letter from Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles addressed the challenge, and blessing, of working with "our first president in 60 years to profess the Catholic faith."

Clearly, Biden's piety had offered "solace in times of darkness and tragedy," said Gomez, leader of America's largest diocese and a crucial voice among Hispanic Catholics. He also praised Biden's "longstanding commitment to the Gospel's priority for the poor."

Nevertheless, Gomez noted that "our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the … the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences."

Cardinal Blasé Cupich of Chicago fired back on Twitter, attacking this "ill-considered statement on the day of President Biden's inauguration" while claiming "there is seemingly no precedent" for this action by Gomez.

The Pillar, a Catholic news website, reported that the Vatican Secretariat of State intervened to "spike" the statement from the U.S. bishops after objections from Cupich, Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark and some other bishops.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Skeptical thinking (from left) about role of religion in President Joe Biden's big day

Skeptical thinking (from left) about role of religion in President Joe Biden's big day

Back in the early days of GetReligion (we launched on Feb. 2, 2004) I urged reporters not to forget the old Religious Left and, when covering believers in those flocks, not to forget that there is more to their stories than politics. The left is the left because of doctrinal and worship traditions, as well as convictions that align with the New York Times editorial page.

Then something happened that modified my thinking on this subject. Hang in there with me, because I am working my way to an interesting think piece, care of Religion Dispatches. The headline: “The Inauguration’s Beautiful Call for Unity Was Undermined by the Invocation of Religion.”

Faithful readers of GetReligion will remember that, in the summer of 2007, political scientist and polling maven John C. Green spoke at a Washington Journalism Center seminar to a international circle of journalists who came to Capitol Hill to discuss press freedoms in their homelands. But the hot topic of the day was the rise of Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and whether he could reach the White House. As I wrote in a previous post about that:

The bottom line: Obama was speaking directly to Democrats in the black church, but he was also reaching out to an emerging power bloc in his party — a group Green called the “religiously unaffiliated.” These so-called “nones” were poised to form a powerful coalition with atheists, agnostics and liberal believers.

Green made a prediction that was years ahead of schedule, in terms of the conventional thinking of Beltway politicos. At some point in the future, that growing coalition of secularists and religious liberals was going to cause tensions inside the Democratic Party.

Five years later, when the Pew Forum released its groundbreaking report on religiously unaffiliated Americans, Green raised that issue once again in a public event. Here’s a bite of the “On Religion” column that I wrote at that time.

[The] unaffiliated overwhelmingly reject ancient doctrines on sexuality with 73 percent backing same-sex marriage and 72 percent saying abortion should be legal in all, or most, cases. Thus, the "Nones" skew heavily Democratic as voters — with 75 percent supporting Barack Obama in 2008. The unaffiliated are now a stronger presence in the Democratic Party than African-American Protestants, white mainline Protestants or white Catholics.

"It may very well be that in the future the unaffiliated vote will be as important to the Democrats as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party,” said Green, addressing the religion reporters. "If these trends continue, we are likely to see even sharper divisions between the political parties."

This brings us to Biden, today’s Democratic Party and some of the challenges he faces, when dealing with moral, cultural and religious issues in American life.


Please respect our Commenting Policy