Political Rhapsody: Don’t Miss The Campaign’s Funniest Video

Something to lighten-up the final campaign weekend--you’ll love this spoof, the funniest campaign video I’ve seen, especially if you’re a fan of Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody. Democrat or Republican. With the Pentagon methodically dismantling the New York Times missing explosives story on which Kerry has based an entire week of campaigning, the Democrats may need some levity.

--jwpj

The Final Issues of the Incessant Campaign

This is either going to be a very close election or it’s not. That is crystal clear. With a swing of just a percent or two in several states, it appears the election could produce a win for Kerry in a squeaker or an electoral blow-out victory for Bush.



Negative Campaign is Redundant



Reaching this point of any campaign, the negativity grates on our souls. But we must recognize that today—and perhaps this isn’t all that new--to say someone is conducting a negative political campaign is redundant. They all seem to turn negative, unless a race isn’t a real contest.



It is clear to me that Kerry as the challenger has been particularly negative, but I am roundly partisan, and the record of the incumbent is always fair game.



Don’t you get the impression that everyone, including media, are tired of all this? When television hosts ask questions, and all you hear from both sides is the same talking points we’ve heard for months, don’t you want to reach through the television and slap the party hacks. Say something new!



The negativity makes a quote sent to me by a friend apropos for today:



“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -- and both commonly succeed, and are right,” said H. L. Mencken.



It doesn’t seem to be dampening the spirits of potential voters, however, and a new report signals the highest voter registration in more than three decades, with more than 143 million Americans on the voting rolls (10 million more than were registered to vote in 2000.



Send the Lawyers Home



Will the incessant campaign become the interminable court drama? That would be the worst possible result. For the sake of democracy, send the lawyers home. Accept the results of the election.



In Tuesday’s election there will be no sizeable group of people who will be disenfranchised except the citizens of Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and other American protectorates. Go home.



As we try to export democracy to places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, what is the lesson of elections that end up in the courtroom?



One public official remarked: “I could think of no worse example for nations abroad, who for the first time were trying to put free electoral procedures into effect, than that of the United States wrangling over the results of our presidential election, and even suggesting that the presidency itself could be stolen by thievery at the ballot box.”



But the official wasn’t talking about today’s effort to expand democracy. The speaker was Thomas Jefferson. Man, is he speaking to the 21st century.



Death of Media Fair Play



Whether or not explosives were pilfered from an ammunition dump is a valid question, and I believe it is a good investigative piece for media. It could go to question of whether the application of a military plan missed something.



But it would be better done after the war. War is absolute chaos, and there are many important objectives to be accomplished as a force seeks to vanquish the foe. Could a warehouse of explosives have been overlooked? Of course. Was it? We don’t know. What we do know is that if it was left unguarded and somehow the bad guys were able to steal the munitions, it happened last April or May, as in 2003. We also know is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of Bush or Kerry to lead the nation, and it should not have been raised at this point in the campaign.



The most troubling part of the story is the effort of a United Nations official to impact the American election, and the complicity of two of the traditionally most respected news organizations, the New York Times and CBS News. CBS’s intention to air the story 36 hours before the election is beyond the pale of media fair play. CBS News will emerge from this election the most damaged media entity and it is likely that there will be big changes in the offing.



Can you imagine how Edward R. Murrow would feel about his network criticizing soldiers in the field during a time of war. He’s doing somersaults in his grave.



What Impact, Azzam the American?



ABC seems to have handled professionally the question of whether to air the new terrorist video, waiting for some verification of its authenticity from the CIA or FBI. Talk radio was ablaze yesterday with accusations that ABC was holding it because its potential of refocusing attention on terrorism, not Iraq, would help Bush. For whatever reason, last night they aired the message of a speaker who identifies himself as "Azzam the American" praising the Sept. 11 attacks, and saying new wave could come at any moment. Certainly chilling, although we’re getting used to the threats.



Will it have an effect in the final days of the incessant campaign, soon to end?

--James Jewell

A Scary Halloween Story

In the arena of political correctness gone amuck, it doesn’t get much funnier than this. Did you see the Fox News piece by Shepherd Smith last night about the school district in the state of Washington that was banning Halloween this year. This wasn’t particularly surprising, because schools often derail celebrations that have gotten out of hand in the past, or caused violence, or were just too much of a distraction from studies.



But no. The superintendent was stopping all Halloween observances because the mocking portrayal of witches and goblins may be offensive to those of the Wicca faith. “We’re just trying to get our students to respect all faiths and traditions,” the superintendent said.



If that isn’t strange enough, the school district hadn’t received any recent complaints, and when Fox News could track down a witch or two, they said they weren’t offended in the least. They thought the costumes were cute. “The Superintendent must be off his broomstick,” said the Wiccans.



So let’s unpack this. Although Halloween is a bastard of the holy observance of All Saints Eve (or is it All Souls?), the portrayal of witches and devils and such would be fine if it only offended the Christian faith. But if we might be offending Wiccans, none of whom we could find who were offended, stop the celebration.



If we could just find a few Wiccans who are offended by Halloween, it would give us Christians more reason to get out and make fun of the witches.



Like I said, this is really just too funny to be real.



(Of course, Wicca isn’t funny at all. As Steve Russo writes in the new book They All Can't Be Right , "Wicca is the fastest growing religion among high school and college students today. Pop culture today is filled with examples of Wicca and witchcraft...including Buffy, the Vampire Slayer and Charmed. Numerous books - including...the Harry Potter series... - encourage teenagers to explore the world of Wicca.")

--James Jewell

Once in a Red Moon

Baseball is often a microcosm of larger life. It is usually predictable, but there are no certainties. It consists of much tedium, during which time you have to pay attention to the small details to get ahead. Even the best hitters are out more than 60% of the time. A small number of teams get most of the attention. Some of those who excel give credit to God; many take it for themselves. There’s almost nothing you face in baseball that has not been faced a thousand times before, and if you search hard enough you can determine how it turned out.



For baseball fans, the Boston Red Sox sweep of the St. Louis Cardinals to win the 2004 World Series is a rich story of one of the beloved longtime baseball franchises finally overturning the impossible by accomplishing the impossible. It violates the percentages and predictability of baseball for a team to fail to win the World Series for 86 years. That’s nearly impossible--not to mention wrenching, when you see fly –by-night, Johnny-come-lately teams like the Florida Marlins rise up and snatch the Series on a whim. The Red Sox won by doing what no team had ever done, the impossible, winning four after being down three in a post-season series. Then doing what many had done—sweeping a series. Since there was something surreal about the Red Sox run, it was appropriately played out under the red moon of a full lunar eclipse.



There’s a new identity for the Red Sox, whose fans were faithful but realistic. They knew the Sox would have their run, but lose at the end. When the celebration is over, there will be a crisis of sorts for Boston and its team. What is the endearing new identity for a team that not only plays well, but wins it all in convincing fashion.



They’ll live with it. And we’ll all start rooting for the Cubs.

--James Jewell

Why Are Most Reporters Unchurched Liberals?

Thoughtful journalists recognize that while objectivity is the professional standard, writing and reporting about anything with more than an inch of depth without reflecting who you are is in reality an impossible dream. Opinions are projected most clearly and obviously in an editorial section, or in a television news segment titled “Opinion,” or “Commentary,” but the opinions of reporters, editors, and producers are reflected in their assignments, story placements, angles, headlines, language, inferences, attitudes, inclusions and omissions, interview selection and editing, and so much more. It is less obvious than editorial positions and therefore more insidious and ultimately more effective.



It has become so accepted among Americans that media are biased that it is a factor in the continual erosion of mainstream media audiences. Bias against conservative and Christian worldviews is documented regularly by groups such as Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media. For a scholarly view of these issues, consult the Ethics and Public Policy Center.



Occasionally, members of the establishment media admit bias openly and honestly. In July 2004, Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, said: "There's one other base here: the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards -- I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but -- they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there's going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."



While this should be pointed out daily, and groups such as MRC and AIM are vital, the assertion that mainstream media lean heavily toward liberalism is beyond debate today.



In our work, we’ve faced enormous ignorance toward things of faith by media. It’s natural. National and major media representatives are far less likely to be involved in organized religion or to identify themselves with the church, or simply to attend church. While 41% of Americans attend church at least once a week according to both Gallup and Barna Research Group, and two-third of Americans have attended church in the last six months, among major media it is no greater than 30 percent, and among national reporters in the single digits.



The most interesting question is “why” media are mostly liberal and generally disinterested in matters of personal faith.



Here are several possibilities, which I would love to have discussed and augmented by readers.



1. Today’s major reporters were steeped in the idealism of the 60’s, which led them to journalism to change the world. This idealism or utopianism breeds liberalism.



2. As a result, those who turned to media at that time are now in the seats of power in major media; they are liberals, which impacts hiring and promotion, making it difficult for a conservative to emerge.



3. From the water cooler to the editorial meetings, anything that doesn’t align with prevailing liberal thought is scorned and outvoted.



4. Young reporters yield to the peer pressure of those already in the industry, perpetuating the liberal mindset and their desertion from the church.



5. There is something about the daily cynicism that leads to liberal thought.



6. Those involved in the search for knowledge come to believe that this requires openness and tolerance that they are told comes only with a liberal view of the world.

7. It’s part of spiritual warfare and the forces of evil are winning in the newsrooms of America.



What do you think? Why are people working in the media world markedly more liberal and unchurched than the society at large? We need to understand this to combat it. While establishing alternatives such as Fox News Channel, talk radio, and the blogosphere is way one to go, we should also find ways to address the media culture as a whole.



Reporters, editors, and producers can be viewed as landscape artists, called on to paint in living color the scenes they observe in our world. But their denial of personal faith and the full spectrum of creation has left them color blind, and as they reach for their palettes, they can portray the world around them only in shades of gray.



What will it take for the newsrooms of America to paint in full Technicolor?

--James Jewell

Picking the Presidential Winner With 1 Week to Go

The means of electioneering, message spin, and the nuancing of public opinion becomes tragically ridiculous at this stage of closely contested campaigns. It’s a shame that so many people seem to make up their minds in the final days before voting, because no one should listen to campaign rhetoric in the last week. It becomes overly shallow, strident, and caricatured. Anyone who is undecided at this point should stay home.



At any time, and especially during these stretches of inane closing banter, it is easy to view politics as a parlor game. Clearly, compared to the battle for hearts, minds, and souls of people and the larger questions of eternity, who flies in Air Force One is not all that important. There is, however, reason to be passionate about the 2004 political choices.



George W. Bush is a man of moral clarity and authentic personal faith who understands the evil of Islamic extremism and the need for national strength and, if necessary, lonely sacrifice to protect America from the forces that seek to destroy it.



I have been praying every day that God will save our land. It is my strong conviction that we will be in grave danger in many fundamental ways if the Senator from Massachusetts prevails next Tuesday. The re-election of President Bush is vital to a future of peace, safety, and moral fortitude.



With one week to go, those who agree with this sentiment can be provisionally encouraged. Yesterday’s national poll numbers were promising, and the electoral map had a clearer shade of red.



I’ve been told for some time now that the only poll worth paying attention to is the Zogby poll. Zogby called the 2000 election dead on, and as his website boosts: “came within one-tenth of one percent of the presidential result in 1996.”



Yesterday afternoon (Mon., 10/25), Zogby’s daily tracking poll showed Bush’s national lead expanding from two to three points (Bush 48%, Kerry 45%).



Zogby said, “President Bush continues to gain ground over Democratic nominee John Kerry. . . .The President has opened up a 12-point lead among Independents. While each candidate is polling solidly among most of his base constituency, Kerry should be concerned that his numbers among Hispanics appear to be anemic.”



Zogby has been tracking the 10 states he and most people think will determine the winner. Yesterday, his tracking polls in these states showed:



Colorado—Kerry 49, Bush 45

Florida—Bush 49, Kerry 46

Iowa—Bush 47, Kerry 45

Michigan—Kerry 52, Bush 42

Minnesota—Kerry 46, Bush 45

New Mexico—Bush 49, Kerry 44

Nevada—Bush 48, Kerry 44

Ohio—Bush 47, Kerry 42

Pennsylvania—Kerry 47, Bush 45

Wisconsin—Bush 48, Kerry 45



Democratic-leaning Electoral-vote.com, which has a daily count on its site using the poll numbers from various pollsters, had Bush up yesterday 285 to 247. Electoral-vote.com’s picks match Zogby’s top 10. The surprise on this site is Arkansas, which is seen as a toss-up.



It’s hard to believe Arkansas will end up a blue state in the sea of southern red—I’ll give that one to Bush. On the other hand, Electoral-vote.com has Hawaii listed as a Bush state; that would be a shock—I’ll give that one to Kerry.



Other than that, barring an effective last minute smear—such as the DUI revelation four years ago—it's not likely any of these will change. Earlier it looked as though Michigan and Minnesota may be headed Bush’s way, which would have been earth shattering. They’ll probably stay blue. Iowa has been voting for the Democrat in recent years; it would be one that may slide to blue.



I’ll take my electoral guess one week out—Bush 287, Kerry 250.



And I’ll pray that no one listens to the candidates, surrogates, and pundits in the final week.

--James Jewell

A Defining Bush Moment Before September 11

Taking a life to save a life, was President Bush’s short-hand debate description of embryonic stem-cell research, which while terribly simplified is not a bad summary of the immoral foundation of medical research depending on the death of fetuses.

“Prior to September 11, the defining moment of the Bush presidency had been the president’s decision to limit embryonic stem-cell research,” said Chuck Colson on his BreakPoint commentary Friday. “And while that issue has been overshadowed by the war in Iraq, it hasn’t gone away. In fact, it’s back with a vengeance, and that means it’s time for Christians to understand the facts and what’s at stake in the debate.”



Colson’s daily piece—four minutes on many radio stations and in print on his website—has been a good stop for a brief discussion of current issues from a Christian perspective for more than 10 years.

--James Jewell

The Campaigns Are On Message, and So Is Everyone Else

Mercifully, there is only one week of campaigning remaining. Not that politics isn’t engaging; I just haven’t heard an original thought coming from the candidates, reporters, or commentators (with the possible exception of Dick Morris) in weeks.



Journalists aren’t doing much real reporting on the political campaigns these days, opines the Columbia Journalism Review, because technological advances and 24-hour news stations “have reporters on what amounts to a constant deadline, processing a never-ending torrent of digital spin.”



The editorial continues: “It’s often debatable who is actually framing the stories — the journalist or the campaigns. The poor reporter out on the trail, under orders to break news and remain “objective,” usually doesn’t have time to reflect, or even to really report in a way that gets beyond the spin. The spinners know this, and exploit it.” This system encourages busy reporters — even good ones — to lean on someone else’s version of the truth instead of assembling a more complete version of their own. In this echo chamber, where reporters talk to the same sources and to one another, storylines rapidly calcify.”

Even our favorite talking heads and political voices sound like they’re reading off the daily message points of the DNC or RNC. Over and over again. It would be great to hear something original in the campaign’s waning days. But it’s not likely.

--James Jewell

Anti-War Democrats Quoting Pat Robertson?

The sage of Virginia Beach is making headlines again, and for the first time in history the secularists and liberals believe him. What an interesting twist. What an embarrassment.



Come to find out, Robertson sat President Bush down before the Iraq war and told him how dreadful it all would be. God had told him that. And Bush just wouldn’t listen, and told Robertson there would be no U.S. casualties.



Oh please.



Contrary to last week’s interview, earlier this year Robertson said on Hardball that in his meeting with the President, he said, “You better prepare the American people for some serious casualties, and Bush responded, “Oh, no, our troops are, you know, so well protected, we don't have to worry about that.”



I doubt that, but even that’s a whole lot different than saying there will be no casualties. Of course, there have not been serious casualties. 1160 deaths is lousy, but that cannot be considered heavy losses. More American were killed before lunch in one day at the Battle of Gettysburg.



There has always been something very cocksure about Pat Robertson that makes the skin of even many evangelical Christians crawl. Perhaps it’s the way he says that God tells him what’s going to happen, whether it’s the path of hurricane or a presidential election.



In February 2004, Robertson told viewers of his 700 Club program on the Christian Broadcasting Network that “I’m hearing from the Lord it’s going to be, like, a blowout election in 2004. It’s shaping up that way.” Robertson said the revelation came amid several days of prayer at the end of 2003.



“I’ve had a pretty remarkable track record” when it comes to anticipating future developments based on God’s words, Robertson told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.



(I wonder where the results of the 2004 election can be found in the Word. If we could find it, it would save a lot of time and money. Stop the polling. No more anxious moments.) God certainly knows the outcome of this and every other political race to come. I just do not believe he’s telling.



In 1988, Pat Robertson beat George H.W. Bush in the Iowa caucuses and became a temporary frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Those were heady days for Robertson, but he seems to have faded inexorably from the national spotlight since those days. Now, he’s back. Pat and the anti-war liberals. What strange bedfellows.



Recently I saw a not-so-scientific Internet poll on the most embarrassing Christians in the last hundred years, and it was neck and neck between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.



Robertson has often been the victim of his own intemperate statements, and so it appears here that he made what is certainly either a misstatement or an exaggeration. It is too bad this has become the focus of his news coverage because his new book, Courting Disaster, sounds interesting and important. It explores how the judiciary is usurping the power of the people.



Last week Robertson tried to launch a media tour to promote his new book. Instead he launched his foot right into his mouth. Again. I wonder if God told him this would happen.

--James Jewell

Polling Frenzy: Here are the Numbers

The first thing I did this morning was check for any new national poll results. It’s what I’ve been doing every morning for a few weeks, to get a sense of whether there is any movement. Where are things trending? I know that the next president will be determined in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, or perhaps where the political season begins, in Iowa. But the state preferences and trends do seem to follow the national ones, so they’re worth watching, too.



The partisan talking heads pick a few polls each day on which to base their comments, and most commentators have staked themselves to the position that the polls are “all over the place,” essentially canceling each other out.



Well, let’s dip our toe into the polling pool and see what it says today. We’ll check back the next two Fridays:



Latest as of Oct. 22



National



Fox News

Bush 49 Kerry 42



Wash Post/ABC

Bush 51 Kerry 45



CNN/USA Today/Gallup

Bush 52 Kerry 44



Time

Bush 48 Kerry 46



Newsweek

Bush 50 Kerry 45



CBS News

Bush 47 Kerry 45



Zogby

Bush 46 Kerry 45



Pew Research Center

Bush 47 Kerry 47



Associated Press/IPSOS

Bush 46 Kerry 49





Key Battleground States



Penn. (NBC/Knight Ridder)

Bush 45 Kerry 46



Iowa (NBC/Knight Ridder)

Bush 49 Kerry 43



Ohio (Gallup)

Bush 47 Kerry 48



Florida (Mason Dixon)

Bush 48 Kerry 45



Michigan (Detroit News)

Bush 47 Kerry 43



Wisconsin (Gallup)

Bush 49 Kerry 46

--James Jewell

Longing for the Situation Comedy

As frightening as it is, television is perhaps the greatest single conduit of values in American culture. That has worried parents in every generation since the advent of television, but it has certainly never been as bad as we face today, with the dominance of reality shows that demonstrate moral depravity, bad taste, and utter stupidity.



It is difficult to criticize the decision of many families to totally eliminate television from daily life. When I visit two of my sisters, one of whom has a small tribe of children still at home, I can’t even find a television. On one trip, I finally did find a television to watch a football game that was important to me. I just couldn’t get a signal.



Today, there is very little worth getting a signal for. This came to mind as I was watching The Left Wing season premier last night. I’ve always been able to sift through the liberal dialogue to follow interesting story lines. But the clunky and caricatured dialogue of the military leadership and the president, the peace-at-all-costs story line, the Israel bashing, the not-so-subtle parallels with Bush’s Iraq decisions—just about put me over the edge. I’ll give it another week or two to see if they balance things out, even a little bit, to determine if I’ll make it a Wednesday habit in 2004-05.



But I digress. There was an interesting article in yesterday’s USA Today by Stephen Winzenburg, a professor at Grand View College in Des Moines, titled Survival of Sitcom Requires Return to Family, Moral Roots.



Winzenburg suggests: “To bring the situation comedy back to life, shows must be situated within a value structure. . . Most of the comedies being pushed today emphasize rule-breaking and dysfunction without consequence. . . Instead, the industry needs to bring back the traditional foundation, in which contemporary issues and characters struggle within a moral culture. Until that happens, the situation-comedy format will remain on its death bed.”

--James Jewell

The Impossible Dream

I spent some of my childhood in Boston, something I haven’t talked much about in recent years or particularly during this presidential election. This morning, of course, I am a native son.



If ever there was a time in sport that screamed that it is never hopeless; never give up; battle every inch until you no longer have breath—it is the impossible victory of the Boston Red Sox over the New York Yankees in seven games, after being down three games to none. It isn’t just that there has never been a team to overcome a 0-3 hole in postseason play. The Red Sox had never beaten the Yankees in the post season. That’s a never never.



The Red Sox were one pitch, one swing, one out away from elimination several times in games five and six. Game seven was a blowout for the Red Sox, but it still carried enormous tension because of the history. Somehow the Sox would finally lose. The curse of the Bambino. The mystique of the Yankees. All that.



All that didn’t matter, and although it’s just baseball, the great lesson is that facing even the longest odds, the most impossible situation, the worst history, the understanding that everything must go right for you and just one thing needs to go right for the other guy—even then, it is not hopeless.



It can make one an optimist, even a guy from Boston.

--James Jewell

OFBI: The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions

The polls show that most of us who are people of faith will be voting for George W. Bush, and we are indeed praying that he will prevail. If he does, the next thing we should work for is the elimination of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.



What?! Take away the government gravy train headed for religious institutions? Let me explain why the OFBI is a bad idea.



When did health care costs become such a problem? When did patients lose the right to make their own health care decisions? With the creation of full-coverage health insurance. When someone else began paying the bill, they rightly got to determine the rules and how the money is spent.



Why are teenagers so anxious to leave home? Because while Mom and Dad pay the household bills, Mom and Dad rightly get to determine the rules and how the money is spent.



Why is the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the office that will help religious organizations obtain government contracts and funds to provide social services, such a deplorable idea? Because whoever pays the bills rightly gets to determine the rules and how the money is spent.



When I worked for U.S. Congressman John Linder (R-GA), I requested information from the Congressional Research Office on government funds going to religious organizations. I received a report written about a request from a Christian school for government funds. The school was denied the funds because the government stated that the religious and educational purposes of the school were “inextricably intertwined,” and funding the school would be like funding a church.



When the government gives money away, it rightly gets to determine the rules and how the money is spent. Frankly, the government should not be involved in social work in any way, as that is not the role of our government according to the Constitution. The more money the government gives away, the more places they have to determine the rules and how the money is spent…and the more control they have over our lives. That’s fine if you’re a Congressman or the military, because you are specifically doing the work of our government.



But it’s not okay if you’re a church or a faith-based organization providing social services. If you are, then your social services and spiritual content should be “inextricably intertwined” or you are no different than any other humanistic humanitarian organization, and you should quit masquerading as a faith-based program.



The rules of taking government money are there to protect the people from whom the money was taken in the first place – the American public. Blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, gays, pro-lifers, pro-choices, liberals, conservatives, and the list goes on. It is wrong to take money from a pro-lifer and give it to Planned Parenthood. It is wrong to take money from a Jew and give it to a church like The Salvation Army that teaches Jesus “is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me.” A homosexual doesn’t want his or her money going to a Christian school that will not hire homosexuals.



If the government gives contracts and funding to faith-based organizations, those organizations will of necessity turn into today’s YMCA. (Does anyone even remember that the “C” stands for Christian? I doubt The Village People did.) Faith-based organizations will not be able to witness to those they assist. They will not have the right to refuse to hire people who do no subscribe to the tenants of the stated faith of the organization or church. They will not be able to pray in Jesus’ name before they feed their hundreds of clients. And rightly so, because part of their money will have come from people who do not support those beliefs, and from people who are vehemently opposed to them.



I have heard leaders of faith-based organizations say, “Yes, we’ll take the money provided there are no strings attached.” How arrogant. How selfish. They want the right to take the money from gays and Buddhists, then determine how the money is spent – ways that many gays or Buddhists would despise. They are thinking of only the recipient (themselves) and not the giver (the taxpayer).



Even if the rules for faith-based organizations would be flexible now due to an empathetic Administration, they are likely to change down the road, recognizing that the giver of the money has the right to determine the rules and how the money is spent. Rules that atheists and pro-choicers and Jews can live with. And those rules of necessity will say that an organization cannot preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified with money that came from the personal pocket of the local Rabbi. And when you are dependent on money that becomes 30% or 60% of your budget, will you be able refuse further issuance of that money, and look in the face of the one you are serving and say, “I can’t serve you today?” Will you have the courage to pay the piper, cut that money you are now dependent on out of the budget--thereby cutting your services--and start a new fund-raising program to replace that government money and rebuild your organization?



Faith-based organizations would do well to take the high road. If money is offered from the government, refuse it and instead rely on the One you say is sufficient to meet your needs, and Who will do so for the purpose of making your ministry prosper. The One who gave you that ministry in the first place.



The Office of Faith-Based Initiatives will force faith-based organizations that take their money to become solely humanitarian in word and in deed. This is not paranoia, it is fact based on our government’s laws and regulations that must be equally mindful of the giver as well as the recipient. And it’s the right perspective for the government to have.



Because whoever pays the bills rightly gets to make the rules.

--Debbie Payton

The Death of Humanitarian Adventure

Terrorists kidnapped the head of CARE in Iraq yesterday, once again violating the international social compact that has enabled humanitarian groups to provide relief to all parties in a conflict or to victims of natural disaster in the midst of civil unrest. In this case Muslim thugs have violated their own doctrine protecting women from harm, as well.



After Afghan terrorists downed a civilian aircraft earlier this year, killing a pilot whose mission was to transport people who were repairing roads, Stu Willcuts—a veteran of international aid and the president of the world’s premier humanitarian aviation service, Air Serv International—wrote to readers in the relief and development community:



With the bombing of UN offices in Baghdad and now recent incidents, I’ve realized how complicated the equations of mission have become, and how much greater the risk is than at any other time in my more than 30 years of relief and development work.



Those of us in the humanitarian community must come to grips with the new contract. We know that under the new contract a sense of adventure is not enough. Traditionally, many people engaged in international humanitarian missions as a way to find new adventure, while “doing good” at the same time. Today, that is not strong enough motivation. The risks are too great.



Perhaps what we fear above all is what the new contract says about values. While the desire to continue serving reflects the core values of our staff and others who labor even with the dangers starkly placed in front of them, they must face a world where far darker impulses are at work. It is troubling to confront in multiple countries a small group of influential people who live a value system that would put in the cross-hairs people who come with a cup of cold water and a bag of grain.



That alone is enough to sober not only those of us flying planes over troubled lands, but all who care about the forces in conflict in the world community.

-jwpj

Purpose-Driven Drivel

Have the bright lights blinded Rick Warren? How disappointing it was to see Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life (which I have not read), pastor of Saddleback Church, and evangelicalism’s latest superstar, on the Today Show yesterday (Oct. 18), reducing his message to that of a satisfied-life theory. Warren said the precepts of his book can be and have been utilized by all—Buddhists, Muslims, NASCAR, NBA, etc.—to give purpose to their lives, and that one need not be a Christian to employ its precepts. He made no reference that I can recall to Jesus Christ.



Warren believes that Christ gives life purpose. I know that from everything I’ve read about him and what I’ve been told by trusted friends. But I didn’t learn it from Warren’s Today Show appearance, and the millions of people who are outside of the Christian faith didn’t hear it on the morning show, either. While I don’t’ believe he should have spoken in “Christianese”-- a mistake many Christian leaders make when faced with a media interview -- I believe Warren went completely in the other direction, and I was surprised that this solidly Christian book was portrayed as humanistic and ecumenical.



Warren seems to be everywhere with his purpose-driven maxim. The Purpose-Driven Life sold an average of nearly 800,000 copies a month since its release 24 months ago, making it the best-selling hardback nonfiction trade book in history and a mainstay on numerous best-seller lists. It hit the No. 1 spot more than 20 times during an 87-week run on The New York Times’ list and was named Book of the Year in both 2003 and 2004 by the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. Christianity Today dubbed Warren "America's most influential pastor" in a cover story last fall. There is no doubt that the God that gives life the purpose Warren refers to is the God of the Bible; on the Today Show yesterday, Warren shied away from admitting that undeniable truth.



“I believe that we are possibly on the verge of a new reformation in Christianity and another Great Awakening in our nation,” Warren said recently. “The signs are everywhere, including the popularity of this book.” Unfortunately, Warren used his time before a national television audience Monday to extol the book, not the One who can provide a great awakening.

--Debbie Payton

Anglican Angst

No one is particularly happy in the Anglican world today. In London, an anticipated report by the Anglican Communion issued yesterday called on U.S. and Canadian churches to stop ordaining openly gay bishops or blessing gay ceremonies. See the USA Today article here.



Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold “expressed regret that the church ratified and ordained an openly gay bishop without first listening to views of leaders worldwide.”

But it also said the dissenting 800-parish conservative Anglican Communion Network cannot replace the Episcopal Church as the official Anglican church in the USA.



At the same time, the report called on both The Episcopal Church that ratified the ordination of an openly gay bishop and the traditional groups that opposed it and have established alternative affiliations to express "regret" for their actions.



Perhaps you’ve tried this with your kids: “Both of you have to say you’re sorry.” This doesn’t accomplish much at home, and we should expect the same weak results in the world of Anglicanism.



The conservative Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council said: "We have strong concerns about the fact that they call only for the Episcopal Church USA to ‘express regret’ and fail to recommend direct discipline."

--jwpj

Machiavelli Redux

It may be Machiavellian politics is backfiring in the waning days of the campaign. See David Brooks New York Times column today, where he writes that “over the past few days, (Kerry) has underscored the feeling that he will say or do anything to further his career.”

Trending Toward Machiavelli

As pundits debate the political fall-out of the Edwards-Kerry one-two outing of Mary Cheney in their respective debates, two other interesting questions lurk. First, why did they do it? Kerry’s window-dressing answer that he was simply complementing the Vice President’s family is pretentious and unbelievable in any quarter.



William Safire, in his column today, looks to pro-Kerry columnist Margaret Carlson for an answer. She wrote that Kerry and Edwards "realize that discussing Mary Cheney is a no-lose proposition: It highlights the hypocrisy of the Bush-Cheney position to Democrats while simultaneously alerting evangelicals to the fact that the Cheney’s have an actual gay person in their household whom they apparently aren't trying to convert or cure."



Some of the most famous political dirty tricks beg for an answer to the question: “Why?” More than 30 years after the break-in at the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate building in Washington, no one has answered the fundamental question of why Nixon operatives ordered the break-in.



Nixon’s special counsel Charles Colson says to this day that he cannot figure out why the Watergate office was of enough interest to the Nixon campaign to risk an illegal act. Colson has heard all of the theories and rejected them. In his view, there was no good reason. (He also contends that there is no one person who could have all of the information that Woodward and Bernstein attributed to Deep Throat, and that the source so-named had to be a composite of several sources. The fact that Deep Throat has not been named, even after Nixon’s death and the death of so many Watergate figures, gives some credence to this suggestion.)



In addition to “Why?” we can ask the question: “By what means?” Is everything “fair game,” as Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill put it?



Perhaps we have come to the way of Machiavelli: “Let a prince then concern himself with the acquisition or the maintenance of the state; the means employed will always be considered honorable and praised by all, for the mass of mankind is always swayed by appearances and by the outcome of an enterprise,” wrote Niccolo Machiavelli in 1513, lauding the use of any means to win, for in the winning the means will be blessed.



Is there enough of a “community of character” in the nation that there will be a backlash against campaigns that do not respect the privacy of family or any personal matters?



The antidote to Machiavelli is early Bostonian John Cotton, a father of New England congregationalism, who wrote in the 1630’s: “Now faith is like a poise: it keeps the heart in an equal frame: whether matters fall out well or ill, faith moderates the frame of a man’s spirit on both sides.”



Commenting on these early American Puritans, British scholar Os Guinness said: “Puritans acted as if they had swallowed gyroscopes; moderns act as if they have swallowed Gallup Polls.”



Can we expect that our leaders will be guided by a personal gyroscope that will direct them away from ends-by-any-means campaigning or governing? Will public discourse and strategy follow Machiavelli or Cotton?



Unfortunately, it seems that the polls are trending toward Machiavelli.

--James Jewell

The Capitalistic Spirit in China

While almost no one will offer a sure opinion on why fuel costs are on the rise, one of the reasons being advanced is the soaring demand in China and India. Business in Asia took us to Beijing twice this year, giving us the right to at least offer the viewpoint that this could very well be a factor.



There isn’t anything in America that rivals the amount of building and the rate of expansion that we saw in Beijing, with construction cranes in every direction and new office buildings, apartments, and structure of all kinds recently completed or nearing completion. Capitalism is breaking out in China, and with more than a billion people anxious to get a piece of the action, the suction of the Chinese economic engine may certainly be putting pressure on the oil markets and much else.



Our Chinese interpreter who calls herself Jillian, a young newlywed whose husband is a junior executive with a prominent construction company, seeing our amazement at the amount of new construction, said that in the new system—the ability of people to make more money if their company made money—there was now incentive to work hard. (We nodded agreeably).



Jillian continued that when people made more money they looked for bigger houses or apartments, and spent more money on services. (Yes, we thought, realizing that we w ere getting a lesson in capitalism that she didn’t realize we’d already lived. Perhaps she thought we were liberals).



Clearly the people of China have seen the light concerning the free market economy.



Of course earlier this month many questions around the abrupt consolidation of power by the Communist Party's chief, Hu Jintao, suggested that it's too soon to conclude that the freedom to make money in modern China automatically spawns other freedoms. One chilling indication of that was the arrest of a Chinese journalist last week, apparently out of suspicion that he had helped a American reporter get a scoop on the political shift.



But increasing political freedom and greater human rights in China seem all but inevitable. The advent of capitalism will lead to greater democracy, rather than the opposite order, which we may have expected.



Theologian Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in his book Business as a Calling:



Although capitalism and democracy do not necessarily go together, at least in the world of theory, in the actual world of concrete historical events, they are led toward an almost predestined marriage, both by their inner dynamism and by their instinct for survival. “Capitalism” and “democracy” go together as “political” and “economy.” The “system of natural liberty” naturally seeks expression in both politics and economics, in republican forms of government and capitalist forms of economy.



On this basis, one can predict that as the entrepreneurial spirit grows in the People’s Republic of China. . .and as the middle class gains in self-confidence and independence, an ever-rising tide in favor of democratic institutions will slap against the sides of the governmental structures of China. The free economy will unleash forces that propel China toward the free polity.



I wonder if Jillian realizes this yet.

--James Jewell

Marriage: The Foundation of Civilization

Just before John Kerry outed Dick Cheney’s daughter in the Third Debate, there was a brief discussion of the same-sex marriage issue, treated so carefully by both candidates that one would believe they have the same position. Of course they don’t.



Kerry is party to the effort to frame the same-sex marriage argument as part of a continuum of ever-increasing equality for “marginalized Americans,” as The New York Times editorialized this summer. But marriage is not a constitutional right; it is a crisply defined ancient institution that—until present times—has never even been considered a union of same-sex partners.



Our relatively young nation has codified some financial benefits for married couples, such as social security benefits, and certainly making these narrow benefits available to committed same-sex couples could and should be debated. But we should not escalate the discussion from immediate and temporal tax and monetary matters to a colossal redefinition of a ancient institution grounded not only in the teachings of nearly every religious tradition, but in 6,000 years of civil law in both eastern and western civilizations.



It is troubling, however, to observe many in the conservative, pro-family movement engaging in a tactic that elevates persuasion over truth by defining same-sex unions as the great threat to marriage. It has always seemed to me that opposing same-sex marriage is initially an effort to prevent the popular use of an oxymoron. Because marriages are a spiritual and civil union of a man and a woman they cannot be between two people of the same sex. But although use of the term "same-sex marriage" could be a threat to our definitions, the greatest threat to marriage is bad marriages.



Unless you have been in a heterosexual relationship with a homosexual, you’d have a hard time explaining how homosexuals are threatening your marriage. There are a lot of reasons why our marriages start badly or go sour. The homosexual agenda isn’t one of them.



There’s a good booklet on marriage titled “Why is Marriage Important? The Reasonable Defense of Marriage” by S. Michael Craven, a vice president at the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, a group doing great work against pornography.



Craven writes in part:



The Judeo-Christian concept of marriage is as old as mankind. It has served as the very foundation of civilization itself. The marriage covenant is singularly unique in civilization; for marriage is not just a civil union between two people, rather it is an emotional, physical and spiritual union between one man and one woman. Emotional in the sense that these two people, male and female, each with different attributes, join together in life; each assisting the other, nurturing and caring for one another, affirming and guiding one another – in essence, completing the other. Physical in the sense that marriage is procreative – two separate biological beings blending together to create what neither can create on their own: children. And lastly, spiritual in the sense that we are made for this partnership that places the interest of the other (or others in the case of children) above self – a relationship that ultimately mirrors God’s sacrificial love toward each of us and His bride: the church.



It is this understanding of marriage that we must recapture for the sake of this and future generations. We must persuade the culture to understand the necessity of the Judeo-Christian view of marriage to social peace and order. Augustine wrote in the 4th Century, “peace is the tranquility that is produced by order” (tranquillitas ordinis). Marriage is the very cornerstone of moral and social order. History has proven that no community can enjoy peace and harmony without following a true moral order and marriage provides the only suitable foundation for perpetuating this order.

--James Jewell

Supremes Jump Back Into 10 Commandments Fray

The Supreme Court said yesterday that it will take up the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government land and buildings. This was a surprise to many because the justices have repeatedly refused to revisit issues raised by their 1980 decision that banned the posting of copies of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. In the meantime, lower courts have reached a hodgepodge of conflicting rulings that allow displays in some instances but not in others.



The high court will hear appeals early next year involving displays in Kentucky and Texas. In the Texas case, the justices will decide if a Ten Commandments monument on the state Capitol grounds is an unconstitutional attempt to establish state-sponsored religion.



The Ten Commandments should be posted in public buildings, just as a statue of Moses looks down on the Speaker from across the room in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives. Moses is there as the first lawgiver, but there are also the busts of many others who have contributed to the rule of law throughout history.



Perhaps the Court will allow governments to display the Ten Commandments with other documents that have contributed to the judicial and legislative traditions of our nation. A bill that passed overwhelmingly in Indiana said that the commandments could be posted in schools, courthouses or other government property if displayed with other documents of historical significance that have formed and influenced the U.S. legal system. That’s the way to spread knowledge (including a reminder of the most important “Top Ten List”), instead of picking a fight.



There’s no real reason to envision a ruling next year that would turn back the 1980 decision, but it may allow an approach like the one Indiana took.



Certainly the histrionics on the issue have been amusing in recent years, and will most likely continue. We haven’t heard from former Alabama justice Roy Moore lately.

--jwpj

Reality Television: The Beginning of the End at TBN?

Commentary

Not again. With alleged homosexual trysts and lifestyles of the rich and famous, genuine reality programming has once again brought Christian television onto the headlines. With much-rumored evidence concerning sexual favors for hire and financial excesses beyond imagination at the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) now being reported in the Los Angeles Times and beyond, the end of another religious empire seems likely.



The exposes on TBN over the last month are likely the prelude of an ugly, tragic drama that—although it may go on for some time--will eventually bring down the bloated communications empire.



Since the collapse of PTL and the sell-off of parts of the CBN conglomerate, Trinity Broadcasting (TBN) has been the Protestant community’s most visible communications entity, broadcast via 43 satellites and more than 10,000 television and cable affiliates worldwide.



A bastion of rudderless programming full of hyper-emotionalism and spiritual pabulum, TBN has been embarrassing for most American Christians and apparently a scandal waiting to happen.



Many of us active in communications in the Christian non-profit sector for some time have a clear memory of the PTL and Swaggart scandals and the decline of televangelism (which one Christian commentator called bad television and ineffective evangelism), because they had a dampening effect on fundraising among Christian charities for a number of years. Unfortunately, it is quite possible that the excesses of TBN could once again decrease public confidence in charities.



I not only dread the impact on many who are doing worthy work, but also the picture those outside the church will once again see of the Christian faith—not of authentic, faithful followers of Christ, but of those caught up in the trappings of the unique pomp and popularity of religious television.



While much of the mainstream evangelical community has privately eschewed the overindulgences of Paul and Jan Crouch and TBN, many have nonetheless been unable to resist the temptation to use the network to extend their reach and increase the funding of their own missions. I’ve observed this close-up among leading Christian figures I’ve had close contact with over the years. The slimy means have been tolerated to accomplish laudatory ends.



TBN’s press release in response to the Times articles calls the claims "full of inaccuracies, condescension and mischaracterizations," and adds that "Dr. Crouch will continue to respond to God's call on his life as president of TBN. … This storm will pass."



In a strongly worded alert, Ministry Watch, an independent watchdog that polices Christian ministries, called for Paul and Jan Crouch to step aside from leadership positions until a review is completed, the establishment of a commission of respected Christian leaders, composed of experts in counseling, theology, and financial affairs, and the selection of a new board of directors.



It is highly unlikely that TBN will do any of this. If history is a guide, the Crouches will circle the wagons as they are consumed by the fires that have been fed by overindulgence over many years, just now fanned by media winds.

--James Jewell

New Evidence of Catholic Opposition to Kerry

A group of Roman Catholic bishops is using its influence to oppose John Kerry because of his positions on abortion and embryonic stem cell research, according to a report today in the New York Times.



The article reads in part:



Catholics make up about a quarter of the electorate, and many conservative Catholics are concentrated in swing states, pollsters say. Conservatives organizers say they are working hard because the next president is quite likely to name at least one new Supreme Court justice.



Catholic prelates have publicly clashed with Catholic Democrats like former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo of New York and Geraldine A. Ferraro, the former representative and vice-presidential candidate.

But never before have so many bishops so explicitly warned Catholics so close to an election that to vote a certain way was to commit a sin.



Less than two weeks ago, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis issued just such a statement. Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs and Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark have both recently declared that the obligation to oppose abortion outweighs any other issue.



In theological terms, these bishops and the voter guides argue that abortion and the destruction of embryos are categorically wrong under church doctrine. War and even the death penalty can in certain circumstances be justified.



But it is impossible to know how many bishops share this view, and there is resistance from a sizable wing of the church that argues that voting solely on abortion slights Catholic teaching on a range of other issues, including war, poverty, the environment and immigration.

--jwpj

A Long Hard Road for School Vouchers

With Iraq and terrorism sucking so much air out of political discussion this year, the issue of school vouchers has almost disappeared, at least in the presidential race, with the main educational arguments about whether Kerry flip-flopped on Every Child Left Behind, and whether Bush has supported his own program. The school voucher issue will probably not be addressed in the debate on domestic issues Wednesday because—although divisive--it lacks the emotional pull of issues such as health care or abortion.



The United States Supreme Court has said the nation's Constitution does not bar school vouchers. But it also ruled this year that states that gave money for secular education were not compelled to support religious instruction as well, essentially leaving the issue to state courts. Most activity on the issue is likely to be in the state courts over the next few years.

In August 2004, a Florida appeals court ruled that a voucher program for students in failing schools violated the state's Constitution because it sent public money to religious institutions. Most state constitutions prohibit or restrict state money from being spent on religious institutions, and that remains one of the principal legal barriers to the widespread adoption of school vouchers.



The public is split. A spring 2004 survey by The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life showed that overall Americans are divided on the use of school vouchers, slightly more people disapproving of the notion by a 45%-to-39% margin.



Traditionalist Evangelicals and traditionalist Catholics favor them, while modernist Evangelical Protestants, modernist Catholics, centrist and modernist Mainline Protestants, Jews, seculars, atheists and agnostics oppose them.



Minorities were split on the issue of school vouchers. Latinos generally favor vouchers — Latino Protestants by a 51%-to-31% margin and Latino Catholics by an even larger 58%-to-22% margin. But Black Protestants are more ambivalent, splitting 43%-to-40% against vouchers.

--jwpj

20 Years of Deep Respect That Is Morally Bankrupt

Commentary

When former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo spoke at Notre Dame almost exactly 20 years he was one of the first national politicians to articulate the principle of the separation of personal belief and public policymaking, particularly as it relates to abortion.



Cuomo is the godfather of the Kerry position that produced his most inarticulate moments in last Friday’s debate. In a nutshell, the formulation is threefold: First, express respect for the church and underscore your own deep personal faith. Second, reiterate how troubling it is that women, certainly poor women, feel they must resort to abortion. Third, broaden the discussion. Explain your unwillingness to reflect the teaching of the church against abortion by citing other teachings of the church that you can support.



The sophistry of the Kerry response is so rich, it must be printed here:



DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?



KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.



But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.



Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.



That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.



You'll help prevent AIDS.

You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.



You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.



Of course, the only response by someone with Kerry’s position to a citizen who believes abortion is murder is that he does not believe abortion is murder. But that would require giving an actual answer to a tough question, which neither candidate is pressed to do. From a political standpoint, Kerry simply cemented pro-life voters in the Bush column, where they certainly started the evening anyway.



The Cuomo formulation is once again evident in an op-ed piece in today’s New York Times by Mark W. Roche, dean of the College of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame. Roche writes:



When values come into conflict, it is useful to develop principles that help place those values in a hierarchy. One reasonable principle is that issues of life and death are more important than other issues. This seems to be the strategy of some Catholic and church leaders, who directly or indirectly support the Republican Party because of its unambiguous critique of abortion. Indeed, many Catholics seem to think that if they are truly religious, they must cast their ballots for Republicans.



This position has two problems. First, abortion is not the only life-and-death issue in this election. While the Republicans line up with the Catholic stance on abortion and stem-cell research, the Democrats are closer to the Catholic position on the death penalty, universal health care and environmental protection.



More important, given the most distinctive issue of the current election, Catholics who support President Bush must reckon with the Catholic doctrine of "just war." This doctrine stipulates that a war is just only if all possible alternative strategies have been pursued to their ultimate conclusion; the war is conducted in accordance with moral principles (for example, the avoidance of unnecessary civilian casualties and the treatment of prisoners with dignity); and the war leads to a more moral state of affairs than existed before it began. While Mr. Kerry, like many other Democrats, voted for the war, he has since objected to the way it was planned and waged.



Our interest is in the continuation of the morally vacuous argument that was initiated 20 years ago by Cuomo, restated in the meandering Kerry response in St. Louis, furthered in this Times op-ed today, and to be heard many more times before November 2.

--James Jewell

Coordinating Journalism and Faith

When I began my secondary education at the University of Iowa on a journalism scholarship (which by the way is not even close to a full ride. I think it might have been enough to buy books), I knew that I wanted to be a journalist. It’s been more than 30 years, I hate to admit, but even then the evangelical Christian community in which I was nurtured saw media as secular and liberal--hostile to Christians, or at least disinterested.



The analysis has changed only slightly in recent years, as more conservative outlets such as talk radio are available, and Fox News doesn’t treat Christian as a dirty word. But the analysis of mainstream media has changed little in the conservative Christian churches of America.



There are plenty of radio stations, publications, and some television stations that are overtly Christian. But in most cases they are not journalistic. They adhere to advocacy, sometimes posing as journalism. Contrary positions are not given ink, and the journalistic ethics I learned in j-school are routinely discarded. The easiest way to get a news story on a Christian radio station is to buy advertising. Often, this isn’t even voiced in hushed tones.



There are some good things happening in Christian media, I should hasten to say (since as a public relations practitioner I have to work with these folks). Salem Communications is the real deal. World (http://www.worldmag.com) and Christianity Today (http://www.christianitytoday.com) magazines are true examples of journalism in the evangelical world.



The current issue of Columbia Journalism Review has an interesting article (http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/5/beckerman-god.asp) on the efforts of the World magazine community, the World Journalism Institute. The group that offers quarterly seminars for aspiring or working journalists who are professing Christians. The reporters of CJR met some of the zealots who attended one of the seminars, and heard among the young students the passion and anger about mainstream media that I’ve heard my whole life.



The director of the Institute, however, is a seasoned journalist and professor, Robert Case, who understands the emotion but is holding up as a moderating examples people such as former New York Times reporter John McCandlish Phillips.



The CJR piece reads:



To younger journalists, Phillips’s name might not ring a bell, but for the eighteen years he worked as a reporter for The New York Times, from 1955 to 1973, he was considered one of its very best writers. Gay Talese, who was at the Times during the same period, has said of him, “There was only one guy I thought I was not the equal of, and that was McCandlish Phillips.”

He also was, and still is, a devout evangelical who kept a Bible on his desk at the Times “as a statement of who I was and what I believed,” he says. He doesn’t like the term Christian journalist. He sees himself rather as a journalist who happens to be Christian. “You are not out on a campaign for a conversion of souls; you are out on a very direct campaign to get information for an organ of public knowledge,” Phillips told me.



His work at the Times was distinguished by a fine, almost sensual attention to detail that was the envy of other journalists. He wrote features that depicted ordinary people with the richness of Technicolor — a Brooklyn high-school principal who was also a ragtime piano player, a homeless man and his social life at the Port Authority Bus Terminal, and, famously, a Jewish boy from Queens who became an American Nazi and a Ku Klux Klansman. But in the newsroom, Phillips largely kept his distance from fellow reporters, staying clear of the gambling and heavy drinking that engaged some of his colleagues after work. He says it’s an “absurdity” to think there should be any contradiction between being both an evangelical and a professional journalist. “I found them rather well coordinated,” he says.

In the CJR article, Case instructs students at the World Journalism Institute to: “First, endeavor to be extraordinary journalists. Then, you will have earned the right to bring your evangelical perspective into the newsroom, and offer an alternative to the godless and cynical atmosphere that he and most evangelicals believe predominates in the press.”



There’s a nice Terry Mattingly article on John McCandlish Phillips at http://tmatt.gospelcom.net/column/2000/09/20. Phillips, Mattingly writes, “has lived in two radically different worlds. Few journalists appreciate what goes on in churches, he said, and few church people understand what goes on in newsrooms. He believes that this warps the news.”



Robert Case knows that there’s some warp on both sides, something he is addressing through the World Journalism Institute.

--James Jewell

Reporting on Hurricanes

It may the consequence of too many hurricanes in one season or too much time staring at the news channels. Or maybe it was just one of those times when Geraldo Rivera pushed me over the edge. Is there anyone else out there who is sick of watching stand-up reporters shouting into their microphones as they hang practically horizontal on the light posts to tell us that yes, indeed, the wind is blowing very hard at (fill in Florida destination) Beach in the middle of a hurricane. When Geraldo decided it was another cool way to look daring, I was finished.



The weather services have come a long way with color satellite photos of hurricanes and other weather systems. Television news needs to find a new way to show us that there is a lot of wind and rain in the center of a hurricane.

--jwpj

Happy Battle of Lepanto Day

It’s a long time between legitimate holidays, so if you’re a Christian, or generally root for the Christians against the lions, celebrate today as a holiday. Happy Battle of Lepanto Day. On October 7, 1571, there was a naval engagement fought in the Gulf of Lepanto (now the Gulf of Corinth) between an Ottoman fleet and that of the Holy League (an alliance of Spain, Venice, Genoa, and the Papal States formed by Pope Julius II in 1511). Both sides sustained heavy casualties, but the Holy League won decisively, capturing more than 100 galleys and freeing thousands of Christian slaves. The battle was the first major victory of the Christians against the Ottoman Empire, the Islamic power that had conquered Constantinople in 1453.



It was a clash of the Christians vs. the Muslims, when they called it what it was. That kind of talk makes leaders squeamish today partially because it creates an environment in which is it difficult to forge friendships and alliances between largely Christian and largely Islamic nations that otherwise want to make nice. But primarily, while Islamic nations don’t have any trouble doing battle in the name of Allah, Western sensitivities work against overwhelmingly Christian nations affirming that they are, indeed, protecting the Christian faith and the right to lift the cross high. This day in 1571, the Christians won one. Has a nice ring to it.

--James Jewell

Mixing Religion and Politics

Commentary

In days past, it was seen as good manners to avoid the discussion of politics and religion in social settings. That’s changed, but not for the better. Today, we are almost always found in social settings only with those who agree with us politically and spiritually, where we can espouse our views on these matters without fear of being gauche or of being challenged to defend our convictions.



We luxuriate in the unanimity of our social gatherings. You know it’s true.



Because the public square does not provide that comfort, political debate rarely deals with matters of faith. Nothing of the sort in the 2004 debates, thus far. Has anyone broached the subject in presidential politics since George Bush said his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ?



Of course now we have the classic battle of the conservative Protestant George Bush and the liberal Catholic John Kerry. President Bush has been open and even outspoken on his beliefs as an evangelical Christian, and there has been much written on this topic, including The Faith of George W. Bush, by Stephen Mansfield: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585423092/qid=1072373275/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-0163221-8350279



We’ve heard only a little about the fact that if John F. Kerry is elected, he will be the first Roman Catholic president since John F. Kennedy, and only the second in the nation’s history. More has been said about the problem Kerry has with some of the teaching of his church.



Baptist leader Al Mohler writes:



TIME magazine recently pointed to a potential problem with Kerry’s Catholicism. This time, the criticism is not coming from non-Catholics opposed to a Catholic candidate, but from Catholic authorities increasingly frustrated with Catholic politicians who violate the church’s moral teaching in their political lives.



As TIME reports, “Kerry’s positions on some hot-button issues aren’t sitting well with members of the church elite.” The magazine cites a Vatican official who said, “People in Rome are becoming more and more aware that there’s a problem with John Kerry, and a potential scandal with his apparent profession of his Catholic faith and some of his stances, particularly abortion.”



Kerry has been a stalwart defender of abortion rights, and he holds to a thorough pro-homosexual set of policy positions. Though he claims to oppose same-sex “marriage,” he voted against the federal Defense of Marriage Act and opposes President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as a union of a man and a woman. He has taken confusing and contradictory positions in response to the same-sex “marriage” controversy in Massachusetts, and supports civil unions for homosexual couples. The Vatican is increasingly frustrated with politicians who run for office as Catholics, only to violate Catholic moral teaching at every turn. Will rank-and-file Catholics see John Kerry as a renegade? The question is certain to be magnified as the campaign heats up. (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=18011)



As California firebrand Bob Dornan commented to Sean Hannity yesterday (both Roman Catholic), because of the sexual scandals of the Roman Catholic clergy in recent years, the Catholic church may have lost the moral authority to hold politicians such as Kerry to account.



In the modern age it isn’t just the Catholic Church that has faced the development of what Mohler calls “cafeteria Catholics”—believers who pick and choose the church teaching they will accept, and simply disregard and disobey the rest. The heated debates of the culture wars are drawing increased attention to the problem of cafeteria Christians of many stripes.

--James Jewell

Rhetoric, Legitimacy, and War

Commentary

As the German Army marched down the Champs-Elysées in the summer of 1940, and across the channel the English endured the German Air Force blitz of London, President Franklin D. Roosevelt assured American voters in the heat of an election campaign: “Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign war.” Off microphone, Roosevelt added: “Of course, we’ll fight if we’re attacked. If someone attacks us, then it isn’t a foreign war.”



While under the strictures of the Neutrality Act and facing an isolationist Congress and a terrified public, in December 1940--one month after his re-election--Roosevelt announced that the United States would provide military supplies to Britain under a policy termed "lend-lease." He transferred 50 destroyers to Britain, in return for a lease on British bases in the Caribbean, initiated a peacetime draft, and mobilized the National Guard. The soles of American soldiers were soon planted on the European continent.



Getting into war and escalating foreign involvements, particularly concurrent with electioneering, has frequently resulted in political doublespeak and exaggerations to sway public opinion.

• Remember The Maine was the rallying cry leading to the Spanish-American War, but it was never proved that the Spanish had a role in the sinking of the ship.
• On August 5, 1964 New York Times reported on its front page: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin." But there were no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." The official claims reported by the media opened the floodgates for an escalation of the Vietnam War.
• The explanations for many incursions are nuanced for public consumption—see Reagan in Grenada, Bush 41 in Panama, Clinton in the Balkans.

But in the hindsight of history, we understand something that our leaders often see clearly at the vortex of responsibility and power--the reality of belligerent evil in rogue governments and the clear and present danger it poses for our nation.



The ideological evil of our present-day opponents is captured in the videos of the beheadings of Americans at the hand of al Qaeda leader al-Zarqawi. Not recommended viewing for anyone, the palpable evil of the acts against non-combatant workers puts in the perspective the larger issues we face internationally--crazed ideologues promoting a value system that puts in the cross-hairs people who come with a cup of cold water and a bag of grain.



George W. Bush is a good and honest man with firm convictions based on a clear faith in a good nation and a personal God. But I don’t believe Bush was ever certain about the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He acted with the indications of initial intelligence and a more significant conviction that the rogue nation under Saddam was a clear and present danger to the civilized world.



And he didn’t care about being wrong about the single issue of WMDs in the face of the grand conflict between good and evil. Today we can ask the question: Will the world be safer as a result? Is the Bush Doctrine sound and does it protect this nation? The discussion of military and political strategy is good and legitimate, and how we allocate limited resources to battle terrorism and ideological evil needs to be discussed. But it’s just political nonsense to question the President’s intentions or convictions.



Certainly George Bush saw in the eyes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein the same ambition and evil that Franklin Roosevelt saw in the likes of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. In a post-9/11 world, belligerence with a history cannot be tolerated.



Recognizing the danger to a nation attacked on its soil and choosing to confront evil wherever it is found and harbored is more important than the problem of weapons that were probably in Iraq or close or developing, but may never be found. That’s the rhetoric that cannot be voiced in a political campaign. Wait until December.

--James Jewell

Finally, Someone Who's Not Afraid to Speak the Truth

A book that takes on the world’s major religions and spiritual and entertainment fads was released September 15. The book, They All Can’t Be Right: Do All Spiritual Paths Lead to God? by best-selling author and radio host Steve Russo, was published as a part of Broadman & Holman’s TruthQuest student series. Russo’s newest book takes on Islam and Harry Potter.



From discussions on Louis Farrakhan to Harry Potter, the book is honest, it's forthright, and best of all, it's politically incorrect.



In his chapter on the Wicca religion, Russo calls into question American entertainment fads like Harry Potter, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and notes how the practice of Wicca among teens in America has risen, likely as a result of such fads. "Wicca is the fastest growing religion among high school and college students today," Russo writes. "Pop culture today is filled with examples of Wicca and witchcraft...including Buffy, the Vampire Slayer and Charmed. Numerous books -- including...the Harry Potter series... --encourage teenagers to explore the world of Wicca."



Contrasting Islam to Christianity, Russo writes, "The Islamic idea of paradise is very sensual and macho. Women do not have much to look forward to...Even though the Qur'an puts a lot of emphasis on ghastly punishments and sensual rewards, still the most devoted Muslim can never be confident of paradise." He adds, "In the West, Islam projects a 'user-friendly' image - a religion that is tolerant, just and filled with love. In the East, however, it has been historically and is currently being practiced more as a political religion."



“Like it our not,” Russo writes, “We must admit that all religions are not the same. Jesus alone provides the way out of the ‘maze.’”



This book takes on many of the world's religions, including Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, and contrasts them with Christianity, stating emphatically that with such drastic differences, particularly to Christianity, they just can't all be right.



Find the book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805430318/qid=1097068185/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-0163221-8350279?v=glance&s=books

--Debbie Payton

An Airline Flying Places You Don't Want to Go

Three Air Serv planes flying over the waters of the Caribbean this week have as their unique mission the movement of relief supplies and workers to and from the hurricane ravaged islands. A fourth plane has recently gone from the tragedy of Haiti to the danger of Afghanistan. With flight paths unlike any air service of the world, the planes of Air Serv International (http://www.airserv.org/) have been in harm’s way for 20 years (the anniversary celebrated by the humanitarian air service last Thursday). Air Serv flew the first non-governmental flight into Baghdad after the major conflict ended, and has since flown released hostages to safety. It’s a unique service that the humanitarian community relies on to continue its work.

--jwpj

Episcoplians in Los Angeles (Uganda)

Since one of Jesus’ parting instructions was for the church to be one, it is difficult to take too much pleasure in a schism. Yet I’ll have to admit that there is something deliciously ironic about moderate congregations of the Episcopal Church U.S.A. ending their fellowship with the liberal national church, not to be independent but to put themselves under the authority of conservative dioceses in Africa. Yes, over the last couple of years frustrated Episcopalians have gone to Darkest Africa to find light. In August, three more churches, these in the Diocese of Los Angeles—the nation’s fourth largest—announced that they were leaving the Episcopal Church U.S.A. and aligning themselves with the Anglican Church of Uganda. The New York Times reported on this yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/national/03episcopal.html?th). “To address the problem, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has appointed a commission to make recommendations, which are expected on Oct. 18,” the Times said.

--jwpj

Who Cleans Up After a Disaster?

Commentary

We were involved in hurricane relief in Florida last week. Flying to Ft. Lauderdale just as Hurricane Jeanne churned north toward Orlando, we found people weary after four 2004 hurricanes, emerging from their shuttered homes with the hope that the series of storms is over. Visiting the dark home of a friend who hadn’t had her corrugated metal storm shutters off the house in weeks, we brandished tools and began their removal—allowing sunshine into the cave-like dwelling and changing the spirit of the place.



But that’s really not the hurricane relief I’m talking about. You and I and every other tax-paying American citizen have been involved in hurricane relief all summer. Every time you hear that an area has been designated a disaster area, making money available for the residents to clean up and rebuild, it’s coming out of our pockets. In 2004 alone, there have been 121 federal disaster declarations. In Florida, $375 million has been spent by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in hurricane recovery—and that doesn’t county Hurricane Jeanne.



There are a lot worse ways for the government to spend our money, and it seems that they work hard at that. It is, however, a sad commentary on how we help each other as a society that the first place we look for help in a disaster is the government, not each other--the community, the church, the neighborhood.



At a dinner party over the weekend, a friend whose family served as missionaries in Irian Jaya described how the village tribes came together in times of disaster to rebuild homes and put the village back together after a disaster. It is just what they do. There is no FEMA and the tribe does everything as a group.



We know stories of community relief in this country. When a hurricane strikes an area, we see some hints of the way a culture can come together. The red and white canteens of The Salvation Army show up before the wind stops blowing and remain for weeks. The Red Cross is front and center, and there are many church and social services groups that spring to action. We are usually better neighbors when we face common crises, but our impulses have been trained to look first to government, and then to each other.



I suppose if the capricious winds of disaster knock down my walls, I’ll be glad that funds are available from the government. But it would be even more satisfying to see a vanload of friends from the church pulling up in my driveway with hammers in hand and load of lumber strapped to the top. That’s the way we began as a nation, and from time to time we can see enough of it to realize it can still be part of modern life.

--James Jewell

Blog It On The Rooftop

October 1, 2004

Sometimes it’s nice to be up on a soapbox, waxing eloquent on a topic of particular interest or concern. Even better a rooftop. We begin today with The Rooftop Blog, hoping to expand the reach of what we do and say, and to present-- to the public looking in-- the groups and friends and issues and opinions that we care about and that we believe are important to our society.



Our purpose is to explore the news and interplay of the Four Estates and the moral imagination of a culture informed by the Judeo-Christian tradition. It’s a big arena, but that will give us some latitude as we attempt to examine the important developments in our nation and the world as they impact our families, as they involve the church and government, and as they are reported on and influenced by the media.



Professionally we have significant contact with the American news media, and although we welcome them if they look into this portal, we are purposefully developing a channel that seeks not the media but the public as an audience. We are unabashedly looking for a direct path that is not encumbered by media gatekeepers.



This site will change and evolve as we figure out what is helpful and what is possible. We welcome those who come along for the ride.

--jwpj