Abraham Lincoln

, , , , , , , , , ,

Journalism question for our day: Are all attacks on public statues considered equal?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Journalism question for our day: Are all attacks on public statues considered equal?

Another day, another religious and-or political statue destroyed.

This is the age in which we live. In this case, however, the act of vandalism has received national coverage in the mainstream press, since this event was — with good cause — unique and controversial.

The Associated Press headline, for those who who have ignored this media storm: “Former Mississippi House candidate charged after Satanic Temple display is destroyed at Iowa Capitol.” Here is the overture:

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A Satanic Temple display inside the Iowa Capitol in Des Moines was destroyed, and a former U.S. Navy fighter pilot who was recently defeated in a statehouse election in Mississippi is accused of causing the damage.

The display is permitted by rules that govern religious installations inside the Capitol but has drawn criticism from many conservatives, including presidential candidate Ron DeSantis. A Facebook posting by The Satanic Temple … said the display, known as a Baphomet statue, “was destroyed beyond repair,” though part of it remains.

Michael Cassidy, 35, of Lauderdale, Mississippi, was charged with fourth-degree criminal mischief, the Iowa Department of Public Safety said Friday. He was released after his arrest.

Yes, there are important “equal access” angles attached to this story. If Iowa created a law allowing temporary placement of religious symbols in its facilities, then — once again — the law should apply equally to all groups without “viewpoint discrimination.” Yes, this was the topic of last week’s “Crossroads” podcast here at GetReligion.

There are some angles to this latest Satan worship story that are rather interesting and worthy of further investigation by journalists. Let me list a view:

* The Des Moines Register story about the crime included an important detail about the attacker. Read to the end of this chunk of that story:

The solicitation for donations on GiveSendGo, the contribution platform, said Cassidy "tore down and beheaded a Satanist altar erected in the Iowa State Capitol." It said he "pushed over and decapitated this Satanic statue before he discarded the head in a trash can." 


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

Boring sermons happen and savvy preachers need to spot what is going wrong

, , , , , , , ,
Boring sermons happen and savvy preachers need to spot what is going wrong

Kids do say the darndest things, and with decades of pulpit experience, the Rev. Joe McKeever has learned that these revelatory remarks often happen just after church.

In one case, a parent shared a question from a perplexed child who struggled with a complex McKeever sermon. Thus, the 7-year-old asked: "Why does Pastor Joe think we need this information?"

That's blunt. But not as blunt as what happened to a friend, as McKeever recounted in a recent essay: "Boring sermons: We all have them from time to time."

This pastor said a family from his church attended a Friday football game, and during halftime, their preschooler asked why students chanted "BORING!" at the visiting marching band. "Her mother explained that sometimes students will do that when they feel the other band is doing poor work," wrote McKeever. The mother added: "It tells them they stink."

The child remembered this and shouted "BORING!" during the next Sunday sermon.

Pastors need honest feedback from time to time, stressed the 83-year-old McKeever, who -- in addition to decades in various kinds of Southern Baptist ministry -- was for 20 years an active member of the National Cartoonists Society.

"One of the problems with being a pastor is that we rarely hear anyone else preach," he said, reached by telephone. "We do what we do in the pulpit, over and over, and it's easy to lose any sense of standards.

"Many preachers lose the ability to listen to themselves. … They end up telling people things that they don't need, things that they didn't want, that they don't understand and, worst of all, that they don't find inspiring."


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

Podcast: What would happen if GetReligion provided 'hot' GOP debate questions?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: What would happen if GetReligion provided 'hot' GOP debate questions?

I’m not a fan of the cable-television festivals called “presidential debates,” because they rarely feature any substantial debates and the candidates don’t act presidential.

Maybe this is more evidence that I am what I am, a journalist who is a registered third-party person who doesn’t fit in America’s Republican-Democrat binary vise (rather like Megyn Kelly’s take here).

However, the producers at Lutheran Public Radio had an interesting idea for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). They asked me to prepare questions — thinking religion-beat, GetReligion-oriented stuff — that I would ask if (#ducking) I was the moderator at last night’s GOP presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library.

I came up with 10 or so questions and I’ll share some of those shortly. However, I knew that the subjects that most interest me — as an old-school First Amendment liberal — would not be on this debate’s menu.

First, let’s deal with the orange elephant in the room. The New York Post, in it’s “exclusive drinking game for the second Republican presidential debate,” reminded viewers to:

Take a sip of WATER …

… every time Donald Trump is mentioned. This will keep you hydrated.

Later, the Post team offered these style points:

Take a sip of your drink …

… every time a candidate says “woke”

… when a candidate calls another candidate by an unflattering nickname

… when someone references the Biden Crime Family

… when a candidate uses a 3-letter acronym (think FBI, IRS, DEI, CDC)

… when a candidate tries to deflect when asked if they think the election was rigged

… when a candidate says they support Trump’s movement (but think they’re the one to finish the job)


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

July 4, 2023, thoughts about our divided United States and potential for a 'civil war'

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
July 4, 2023, thoughts about our divided United States and potential for a 'civil war'

What ails the United States of America? Why have some serious thinkers even talked about a second “civil war”?

Both journalists and religious leaders should be pondering that on July 4th. Consider some recent media coverage.

To begin, America’s religious center is imploding. Political scientist Ryan Burge (also a GetReligion contributor) calculates that if nine major Protestant denominations — especially the old “mainline” — had only kept pace with national population growth they’d have 21 million more members than they actually do. (Meanwhile, non-denominational independents surge.) And Burge analyzes the significant increase of Americans, and especially Democrats, who never attend worship.

Obituaries remind us how Pat Robertson, alongside fellow Virginia clergyman Jerry Falwell and others, unexpectedly rallied a sector of conservative Christians and upended American politics and religion -- as well as mass-media treatment of religion.

Culture wars envelop Disney, Target and Budweiser, and the Los Angeles Dodgers even honored a group that mocks the Catholic faith (pious Branch Rickey spins in Ohio grave).

One-year anniversary reporting conveys nationwide tumult since the Supreme Court returned abortion policy to Congress and 50 state legislatures.

Then consider all the fears and furies over fentanyl deaths, teen suicide, urban crime, border chaos, race and reparations, college admissions, impeachment, gerrymandering, 2020 rehash, January 6, COVID-19 policy, gender transition laws and pronoun wars, LGBTQ+ rights and religious rights, “Christian nationalism,” “cancel culture,” “woke” classrooms, sliding test scores, book-banning, guns and whatever else you’d like to add.


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

Did Winston Churchill believe in God? Why did Churchill urge his nation to pray?

, , , , , , , , ,
Did Winston Churchill believe in God? Why did Churchill urge his nation to pray?

THE QUESTION:

Did Winston Churchill believe in God?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

Sorta. Maybe. Depends what you mean.

The question and that answer are raised in the new book "Duty & Destiny: The Life and Faith of Winston Churchill" (Eerdmans) by Grove City College historian Gary Scott Smith, whose prior works include "Faith and the Presidency from George Washington to George W. Bush."

It's fair to say that during World War Two Churchill saved the United Kingdom and with that the broader prospects for democracy and the defeat of tyranny. In the prior century, the Civil War President Abraham Lincoln had saved the United States and the very possibility of democracy. These two great statesmen, the subjects of an immense number of books, are rather similar -- and similarly mysterious -- when it comes to religious faith.

Lincoln's story is well told in "Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President" (also from Eerdmans) by Princeton Professor Allen Guelzo. Never a baptized church member and a youthful skeptic, Guelzo wrote, Lincoln when leading the nation through unprecedented crisis experienced a spiritual turn. This convinced him that only a moral revolution to end slavery could bring meaning to the war's horrid slaughter.

Thus he wrought the Emancipation Proclamation, announced in 1862 and proclaimed in 1863 and then, definitively, the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery as of December 6, 1865, after he had been assassinated.

Churchill (1874-1965) underwent conventional baptism and confirmation in the Church of England. In the upper-crust mode, his neglectful and non-religious parents left his upbringing to boarding schools (with their mandatory chapels) and especially to his beloved nanny. Elizabeth Everest, a devout Christian, immersed the lad in prayer and study of the Bible, which through life he would quote at length by memory.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Kneeling or rising: Should readers be told both sides of Emancipation Memorial debates?

, , , , ,

As the old saying goes, a picture is worth 1,000 words. This does not, however, mean that everyone who views an image will agree on what it is saying. The same thing is true for statues.

Americans have been arguing about the meaning of the Emancipation Memorial in Washington, D.C., ever since the image was created, erected and then dedicated. At the heart of the debates is a basic question: What is this statue saying? What is happening in this image?

Apparently, there are two ways of “reading” this statue. People who know the story that the artist was telling may — repeat “may” — see the statue differently than those who do not. The question for journalists is whether readers need to hear from people on both sides of this debate as it has unfolded over the decades and now, in the #BlackLivesMatter age, has reached a boiling point.

Here is the top of a recent Washington Post story that offered a summary of the speech that the great Frederick Douglass delivered when the statue was dedicated. Here is the overture:

On April 14, 1876, Frederick Douglass arrived at the unveiling ceremony for the Emancipation Memorial, the statue now under attack by some protesters in Washington’s Lincoln Park.

A crowd of 25,000, many of them African American, had gathered to hear Douglass speak on the 11th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination.

By all accounts, Douglass, the great orator and abolitionist, was not pleased with the monument, which depicted Lincoln holding a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation while towering over a kneeling black man who had broken his chains.

Yes, note that the freed slave had the strength to break his own chains. Other crucial questions: Is the slave kneeling or, with one knee raised, is he rising to his feet? Also, is he rising because Lincoln has told him he should not kneel to a man? That would be the opposite of what critics see in this image.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Yo, @NYTimes editors: How about printing an op-ed essay by the great Frederick Douglass?

, , , , , ,

This is not a normal GetReligion post. Then again, these are not normal times in American life.

Ponder this journalism question. Let’s say that alt-right leaders made a public announcement that they were — in two days — going to gather to attack, desecrate and topple a memorial to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. How much news coverage would that story receive? How about a right-wing attack on a statue of President Abraham Lincoln?

That brings us to the status of the Emancipation Memorial in Washington, D.C.

What is missing from the following material in a Washington Post story about a number of events unfolding in the nation’s capital?

Other protesters gathered on Capitol Hill’s Lincoln Park, home to another controversial statue. Protesters decried the Emancipation Memorial, which depicts a freed slave kneeling at the feet of President Abraham Lincoln.

Earlier in the day, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) introduced a bill to have the statue removed, saying it did not reflect the efforts African Americans made to free themselves from slavery.

Now, click here and watch the video at the top of this post, which contains a specific threat made against this memorial.

Is that threat worthy of coverage?

Of course, it also helps to know something about the history of this particular memorial — which was created with funds donated by freed slaves.

While critics claim that the statue depicts a white man towering over a subservient black man, that is not what it mean to the former slaves who created it. They knew the story behind the image.


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

Be honest: After journalism earthquakes of the past week or so, wouldn't you head for the hills?

, , , , , , , , ,

Where are you, right now, on your end-of-the-world bingo board?

Has anything happened that really pushed you over the edge?

Maybe it was the whole Murder Hornet thing.

How about the large asteroid that is scheduled to pass somewhat close to earth?

I’ll admit that the anti-racism rioters defacing the Abraham Lincoln statue in London was a body blow.

But that wasn’t as bad as the retired African-American police officer being killed while defending a store from looters. I’m not sure that had anything to do with #BlackLivesMatter.

Maybe I’m forgetting something? Oh, right, the coronavirus. How about Donald Trump, pepper spray, rubber bullets and that strange Bible drill? Talk about efforts to cancel “Paw Patrol”? And no baseball (right, Bobby Ross, Jr.?). All that and a large chunk of the New York Times newsroom doing its best to kick off a red-state vs. blue-state journalism war. Basically, the advocacy press doctrines of Kellerism (click here for origin of this GetReligion term) are now being applied by Times people to a wider array of news topics.

It all kinds of adds up, especially for old journalists like me. So I am heading to the hills. Actually, I already live in the foothills of the Cumberland Mountains outside of Knoxville, Tenn., but my family is going to make one of its regular escapes deep into the mountains of North Carolina.

Forget WiFi. We’re talking about a blue-collar valley where cell signals are so weak that the wind pretty much needs to be blowing from the right direction to send a text message. But, as I have said before, the rocking chairs work fine and so does the gravel road next to the river. And barbecue.

GetReligion will stay open, sort of. This week’s podcast will go up tomorrow. There will be a think piece of two over the weekend and I’ll come back down to “normality” early next week. And if you want to read a fine mood piece on the journalism side of this craziness, let me point readers back to this Clemente Lisi piece: “Journalism cancels its moral voice: What does this mean for Catholic news? For religion news?”

Lisi — as a New Yorker’s New Yorker — basically opened a vein and said what he needed to say. He told me, via email, that he started this piece over and over and finally wrote something he could live with.

So here is a crucial chunk of that. Let us attend:


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

Is it OK to pray for President Donald Trump’s defeat?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Is it OK to pray for President Donald Trump’s defeat?

BRAD ASKS:      

I think Trump is a bad president. Is it right of me to pray for his defeat?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Let’s turn Brad’s question around. Will it be proper for others to pray for the defeat of the Democrats’ 2020 nominee? Does this change the answer?

The president has provoked the most ferocious pro-and-con political emotions in our lifetimes, so prayers inevitably result. That’s because prayer is a virtually universal phenomenon.

We all know the phrase ‘foxhole religion” about desperate situations. How many hardened unbelievers find themselves offering sincere prayers when their child is in the emergency room?  Even under ordinary circumstances, Pew Research polling shows 55 percent of Americans say they pray every day, while an added 21 percent pray regularly but less frequently. Even one-fifth of those without any religious affiliation or identity pray daily!

There are countless accounts of favorable responses to prayer, yet how do we understand the many prayers left unanswered? Why do bad things happen to good people despite their prayers? Why do good things happen to evil people who never pray? What happens when, as with election 2020, people pray simultaneously for opposite results a la President Lincoln on the two sides in the Civil War: “Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other.”

Mysteries abound. A veteran minister’s newsletter says after a “physical breakdown” and full medical testing last year, doctors concluded he was “exhausted by stress and worry.” He indeed faced major difficulties, but the diagnosis surprised him because he was praying so earnestly. He finally realized “I was simply worrying in the presence of God,” which “wore me out.” His health gradually improved after he learned to relax and simply pray for “strength to persevere,” with “peace in the assurance that God has heard me.”

These are among the most complex matters of the human heart, as ancient as the Bible’s Psalms and Book of Job (which provide us no neat formulas).


Please respect our Commenting Policy