GetReligion
Thursday, April 03, 2025

National Review

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

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
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dang it! Your GetReligionistas pounced a bit too early on the 'parental rights' wars

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dang it! Your GetReligionistas pounced a bit too early on the 'parental rights' wars

Dang it (said the Texas Baptist preacher’s kid), I really hate it when GetReligion gets to a serious media topic Just. A. Bit. Too. Early.

What am I talking about?

Well, take a look at the New York Times headline featured in the tweet at the top of this post, a tweet authored by a symbolic figure in the wider world of Democratic Party life. Michael Wear is a political consultant, but he is best known as the faith-outreach director for Barack Obama's 2012 campaign and then as part of Obama's White House staff. Here’s that headline:

Republicans Seize on Schools as a Wedge Issue to Unite the Party

Rallying around what it calls “parental rights,” the party is pushing to build on its victories this week by stoking white resentment and tapping into broader anger at the education system.

First of all, I think the verb “seize” is a stand-in for the world “pounce,” which has become a bit of a cliche in recent years. Here is the Urban Dictionary take on the “Republicans pounce!” phenomenon or click here for a National Review essay on the subject. The whole point is that the issue at hand isn’t really all that important, but conservatives have “pounced” on it and are using this alleged issue to hurt liberals in social media, conservative news sources, etc.

Major media on the coasts, of course, avoid covering the topic — unless it leads to an embarrassing defeats for Democrats in a symbolic state like Virginia.

Anyway, the Times headline may ring a bell or two for those who read this October 22 podcast-post here at GetReligion: “Are 'parental rights' references (inside scare quotes) the new 'religious liberty.” Here is the opening of that post:


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

That question again: What's happening to religious believers and others stuck in Afghanistan?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
That question again: What's happening to religious believers and others stuck in Afghanistan?

This is a case in which I don’t want to say, “We told you so,” but – well — we told you so.

If you dug into this recent podcast-post — “ 'What's next in Afghanistan?' Warning: this news topic involves religion” — you’d know that the GetReligion team has been worried about what will happen to elite news coverage of human rights issues and, specifically, religious freedom, in Afghanistan under this new Taliban regime. In fact, that podcast included many themes from an earlier GetReligion podcast-post with this headline: “When the Taliban cracks down, will all the victims be worthy of news coverage?”

It appears that there are two problems.

Reality No. 1: It’s hard to cover the hellish realities of life in the new-old Afghanistan without discussing the messy exit of U.S. diplomats and troops from that troubled nation. Thus, new coverage will please Republicans, who are infuriated about that issue, and anger the White House team of President Joe Biden, which wants to move on. New coverage allows Republicans to “pounce,” as the saying goes.

Reality No. 2: There are many valid stories inside Afghanistan right now, but some are more explosive than others in terms of fallout here in America. This is especially true when dealing with stories about Americans who are still trapped there. Then there are religious believers — including Christians and members of minority groups inside Islam — who face persecution and even executions because of their beliefs. It appears that some journalism executives (and foreign-policy pros) continue to struggle with the reality that religious issues are at the heart of the Afghanistan conflict.

Thus, cases of political and religious persecution in Afghanistan are “conservative news.” For a quick overview, see this National Review piece: “In Afghanistan, ‘Almost Everyone Is in Danger Now.’ “ Note this snarky line:

The sort of headline that shouldn’t just be local news. … Those knee-jerk Biden critics over at . . . er, the Connecticut affiliate of NBC News report: “43 Connecticut Residents Still Stuck In Afghanistan.”

Here is a key chunk of that NBCConnecticut.com report:


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

Does this ancient document have authority in modern debates about moral theology?

, , , , , , , ,
Does this ancient document have authority in modern debates about moral theology?

THE QUESTION:

What was the ancient Didache and what is its to moral controversies relevance today?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

Except for the Bible or Quran, ancient writings rarely pop up in 21st Century public disputes. So it was rather interesting to see that happen with the Didache, whose importance rests on its likely status as the oldest surviving text from Christianity's earliest days other than the New Testament itself. Certain scholars think it was written even before the Gospels, between A.D. 50 and 70, but more common dating puts it in the early 2nd Century A.D.

This text's sudden media appearance involved the unending abortion debate, which is hotter than ever in the U.S. with the Supreme Court set to re-examine the law next term in the Dobbs case and the Catholic bishops' conference considering whether to endorse denial of Communion to "pro-choice" office-holders, President Biden included.

Garry Wills, the Northwestern University historian and renegade Catholic, recently sought to convince New York Times readers that "the cult of the fetus" embraced by Catholic bishops (also evangelical Protestants) is off-base because, among other things, Jesus and the New Testament authors never condemn abortion as sinful.

A blistering response by National Review's Michael Brendan Dougherty cited the Didache as prime evidence in contending that Christianity from its earliest phase opposed abortion. The document's second chapter forbids "grave sins," listed as follows:

"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge . . . (Roberts-Donaldson translation).

A later section targets "murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God" in a catalogue of people who are living out "the way of death."


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

UFO buzz raises (once again) big religion question: Will aliens erase belief in Christianity?

, , , , , , ,
UFO buzz raises (once again) big religion question: Will aliens erase belief in Christianity?

THE QUESTION:

Would proof that intelligent life exists on distant planets overturn the Christian religion?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

Religious skeptics say very likely yes.

Why? They argue that given the unimaginably vast number of planets throughout space, there seem to be heavy odds that life would have evolved on some or many of them. If so, we earthlings no longer stand at the center of God's plan for the cosmos, and that overturns the biblical viewpoint.

The answer is “no,” according to the consistent view of Christian thinkers who've pondered this since ancient times. The Bible naturally focuses on homo sapiens, not theoretical species elsewhere.

Space is red hot just now. It's Roswell 1947 all over again. The latest fuzzy videos and reports from the Pentagon suggest something may be going on up there that's not merely the stuff of science fiction novels. Are we no longer alone in the universe? Are aliens from another galaxy spying on us from those UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects)? Is SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) poised for its devoutly desired breakthrough?

Even strict Bible literalist Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis sees a chance because "the Bible does not state whether life exists elsewhere in the universe," though he "strongly" suspects it does not.

University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank pooh-poohs the current UFO buzz because the real story is that super telescopes may well bring us proof of life by other means, for instance spotting light gleaming on the dark sides of distant planets. He also poses a common-sense objection. If we're really being visited by aliens "why don't they just land on the White House lawn and announce themselves?"

That "I" in SETI is all-important.


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

Lots of Mississippi folks don't want COVID-19 vaccines: They're white evangelicals, right?

, , , , , , , ,
Lots of Mississippi folks don't want COVID-19 vaccines: They're white evangelicals, right?

One of the snarkiest things an editor can say to a reporter — after reading a story that has been turned in for editing — is this: You really need to read your own newspaper.

Most of the time, this means that a reporter has produced a story about a topic the newspaper has already covered, yet the new story failed to engage with some of the previously reported information. Maybe the new material even clashes with an earlier story. That may be good, but the earlier reporting still needs to be acknowledged.

I thought about this while reading a New York Times piece that ran with this double-decker headline:

Why Mississippi Has Few Takers for 73,000 Covid Shots

The good news: There are more shots available. The challenge is getting people to take them.

Now, what I’m about to say may sound strange, in light of what I argued in last week’s “Crossroads” podcast, the one linked to the post with this headline: “New podcast: Familiar splits among white 'evangelicals,' only now they're about vaccines.”

That post/podcast focused, in large part, on a recent Times piece that claimed believers inside the dreaded white-evangelical monolith were America’s biggest pandemic problem, in terms of flyover-country people who are refusing to get their COVID-19 vaccine shots. A quotation linked to that thesis said:

“If we can’t get a significant number of white evangelicals to come around on this, the pandemic is going to last much longer than it needs to,” said Jamie Aten, founder and executive director of the Humanitarian Disaster Institute at Wheaton College, an evangelical institution in Illinois.

The story cited a poll indicating that 45% of white evangelicals planned to refuse their shots, while 55% planned to cooperate with anti-pandemic programs. I noted that these numbers were solid evidence of a DIVISION inside white evangelicalism, not a sign of unity in opposition to vaccines.

What is the big problem in Mississippi, where there are lots of empty slots on the lists where people sign up for appointments to get shots?


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

Catholic journalists are must-read sources for those seeking reality of Cuomo scandals

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Catholic journalists are must-read sources for those seeking reality of Cuomo scandals

It was just two months ago, in the aftermath of the U.S. Capitol riot, that an idea was floated that could help stop all the misinformation in our society: a “reality czar.”

It was a New York Times piece by tech columnist Kevin Roose (his new book “Futureproof” is a must read if you’re interested in automation replacing you at work) on Feb. 2 that quoted experts who floated ideas to stop what the paper called the “scourge of hoaxes and lies.”

Roose’s piece threw out some interesting solutions — although “reality czar” is Orwellian, a Soviet-style solution to misinformation.

The harsh reality is that news consumers will need to read a wider variety of news sources if they are interested in finding solid facts, on-the-record sources and some sense of balanced reporting. On issues linked to religion, culture and politics, that will mean paying more attention to independent religious publications — including Catholic websites — that are now punching way above their weight. Hold that thought, because we will come back to it.

The truth is reality used to be what journalism purported to report on.

That’s no longer true given how polarized the news media has become over the past decade, a progression that sped up during the Donald Trump years and following the proliferation of partisan news sources during the internet age.

From a political standpoint, this brand of one-sided journalism has allowed politicians to earn cover from many mainstream newsrooms for alleged wrongdoings. On the left, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, embroiled in dual scandals regarding nursing home deaths during COVID-19 and growing claims of sexual harassment, is a prime example of this phenomena.

At this time last year, professionals at news organizations were fawning all over his press conferences as the country plunged into the pandemic. Many journalists considered Cuomo the coronavirus reality czar.

Why? Cuomo, a Democrat, served as the counterweight to then-President Trump.


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

Once again, AP accuses big Catholic bosses of abusing government coronavirus relief efforts

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Once again, AP accuses big Catholic bosses of abusing government coronavirus relief efforts

There they go again.

In this case, “they” refers to whoever is in charge of religion-news coverage these days at the Associated Press. Someone there needs to take a remedial course in (a) church history, (b) church-state law in the United States or (c) both.

Let’s start by flashing back about six months, when the AP rolled out an investigation of what its editors clearly thought was a scandal of epic proportions. Does anyone remember this lede, and this GetReligion dissection (“AP explains why it was wrong for local-level Catholic employees to get coronavirus relief money“), of the expose)?

NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. Roman Catholic Church used a special and unprecedented exemption from federal rules to amass at least $1.4 billion in taxpayer-backed coronavirus aid, with many millions going to dioceses that have paid huge settlements or sought bankruptcy protection because of clergy sexual abuse cover-ups.

That was a bizarre, but honest, opener. The entire story was built on the assumption that there is such a thing — corporately and legally speaking — as a “U.S. Roman Catholic Church.”

As I said at the time, this is “like saying that there is an ‘American Public School System,’ as opposed to complex networks of schools at the local, regional and state levels.” One could also note that there is a Planned Parenthood of America. However, government coronavirus aid in the paycheck-support program went to 37 regional and local Planned Parenthood groups.

The Associated Press has now produced a sequel, with this headline: “Sitting on billions, Catholic dioceses amassed taxpayer aid.” While the editors avoided the “U.S. Roman Catholic Church” label this time around, this lengthy story is built on a similar misunderstanding of what happened when Catholic parishes, schools, nonprofits and other ministries applied for coronavirus aid.

As readers can see in the headline, in the sequel AP leaders focused on finances at the diocesan level, as opposed to a mythical national Catholic structure. This is closer to the truth, but it still misses the mark. While many issues of church authority are linked to local bishops, in local dioceses, the crucial issue here was paycheck-relief money reaching staff members in individual parishes, schools and ministries that had been rocked by falling donations during the COVID-19 crisis. Let’s start with the overture:


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

Life after Georgia: Questions about a pro-life Democrat in U.S. Senate and other issues ...

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Life after Georgia: Questions about a pro-life Democrat in U.S. Senate and other issues ...

Once upon a time, there were these strange political unicorns called “pro-life Democrats.” They were often, but not always, part of another endangered species called “blue-dog Democrats.”

Most of these unique politicos were in the U.S. House of Representatives, but there were occasional — but increasingly rare — sightings in the U.S. Senate. After all, Tennessean Al Gore had an 84% rating with National Right to Life when he was a congressman, but that changed — for the most part — when he became a senator. And as vice president? Forget about it.

This brings us to the thought for the day, a quote drawn from a mini-firestorm in the Democratic Party back in 2017. Here is a quote from an “On Religion” column at that time:

… Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez drew another bright line defining who participates in the work of his party.

"Every Democrat, like every American," he said, "should support a woman's right to make her own choices about her body and her health. This is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state." In fact, he added, "every candidate who runs as a Democrat" should affirm abortion rights.

What if that state is West Virginia?

Some key Democrats quickly stepped forward in 2017 — including Rep. Nancy Pelosi — to suggest that Perez wasn’t speaking for all top Democrats. Still, the party’s stance on abortion rights and funding continued to veer further and further to the cultural and religious left, eventually causing one Joe Biden to shed the last scraps of his once “centrist” stance.

This, of course, brings us to religion-beat angles in the aftermath of the Georgia earthquake, in which Democrats — Black and White — and other anti-Donald Trump voters appear to have handed the Democrats the slimmest possible control of the U.S. Senate.

This brings us to Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a conservative Democrat and active Roman Catholic who has been endorsed by Democrats for Life, even though his record on that issue has become rather complex. He remains a throwback to the days when it was perfectly normal to be a Democrat and a cultural conservative. One can imagine the pressure he faces from establishment Democrats.

Well, how many Democrats want to toss Manchin out of the party right now?


Please respect our Commenting Policy