Welcome to New York Times 'religion' feed? A kissy-kissy chat with exiting NARAL boss

Does anyone else remember RSS feeds?

The whole idea of RSS — Really Simple Syndication — is that websites can allow you can set up an automated feed that feeds you updates on specific topics in a standardized, computer-readable format.

The key is that computer algorithms are supposed to detect when stories address issues that interest a specific reader.

Anyway, I received this item the other day in my RSS feed devoted to New York Times stories about religion. In this case, the Times defines the RSS criteria, not me.

In terms of religion news, this one is pretty weird — even for today’s Times. The headline: “Ilyse Hogue, Influential Abortion Rights Advocate, Will Step Down as NARAL Chief — In an interview, Ms. Hogue discussed a tumultuous era for abortion rights and the future of Roe v. Wade.”

In other words, this is a kissy-kissy Q&A marking Hogue’s exit after eight years as leader of NARAL Pro-Choice America. The Times informs readers that “abortion rights are at something of a crossroads, with Democrats facing the choice of whether to try to deliver on their promise of codifying Roe v. Wade.”

All right, says I, let’s see the many points in this report that touch on religion. After all, the RSS algorithms put this in the “religion” feed.

I found three, and even that it is stretching it. Can you spot the religious content in the following three bites from this news feature? The questions, obviously, are in bold type:

Let’s start with perhaps the biggest question: Is Roe v. Wade safe?

Indian PM's mild reaction to violence over eating cows gets few bites in U.S. media

Scripture, as most GetReligion readers surely know, can be read in a myriad of contradictory ways. That includes interpretations that justify racism, slavery and punishing or even eradicating those who believe or act differently.

Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and others are guilty of this. As are Hindus, despite their penchant for theological pluralism.

Now we have a politically influential Indian Hindu journal writing that the Vedas, Hinduism's oldest scriptural texts, say it is permissible to kill "sinners" who slaughter cows, which are revered in Hindu culture.

I doubt Mahatma Gandhi would have agreed with this. But then again, he was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist who conceived the world through a darker and narrower lens.

If you're wondering about the news hook for this post is, it may be because other than The New York Times, American news media have paid little ongoing attention to this growing story (or so my relatively quick Web search found).

But look no further than the late-September killing of a Muslim Indian who was set upon by a Hindu mob acting on rumors that he had slaughtered a cow for food, an allegation that has not held up, according to later reports. He was one of three people to die in the last month in violent incidents related to consuming beef.

Here's a Times story summing up the basic situation. And here's a BBC report that explains India's laws concerning the slaughtering and eating of cows.

Note the Times story's critical political angle.