Molie Hemingway:
Journalist Terry Mattingly wrote a great column back in 2006 noting the trouble many journalists have understanding the finer details of religion news. His column, “Reporters, crow’s ears and Karma Light nuns,” begins with an anecdote about how The New York Times covered the funeral of Pope John Paul II the prior year:
“The 84-year-old John Paul was laid out in Clementine Hall, dressed in white and red vestments, his head covered with a white bishop’s miter and propped up on three dark gold pillows,” wrote Ian Fisher of the New York Times. “Tucked under his left arm was the silver staff, called the crow’s ear, that he had carried in public.”
Get the joke? You see, that ornate silver shepherd’s crook is actually called a crosier (or “crozier”), not a “crow’s ear.”
Sometimes I check in on this April 4, 2005 piece to see if the Times has gotten around to correcting it. As of today, they have not! Sometimes I hope they never will.
But crozier mistakes are understandable. Less understandable? Saying Jesus is buried in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, that Easter marks Jesus’ “resurrection into heaven,” that St. Patrick is known forbanishing slaves from Ireland, or that William Butler Yeats is the author of the Book of Hebrews.
Then there’s what New York Times political reporter Jeremy W. Peters wrote for his piece “After Orlando, a Political Divide on Gay Rights Still Stands.” Peters is a reporter who struggles to cover issues fairly. He’s known for helping Nancy Pelosi avoid questioning on her abortion stance and other instances of being almost comically partisan in his reporting.
The article is less reportage than it is fuel for what it purports to describe:
The massacre, with stunning speed, has been transformed into a political wedge, beginning with fierce disagreements over just what the crime should be called. An attack by “radical Islamic terrorists,” as Republicans insisted? A hate crime in a place seen as a safe haven by gays, as many Democrats said?
Peters highlighted, among other things, theshameful Anderson-Cooper-avoidance theater.
And then this:
A Republican congressman read his colleagues a Bible verse from Romans that calls for the execution of gays.
Come again? Wait, what? What? What in the world is he talking about? A “Bible verse” from “Romans” that calls for the “execution of gays”? Way to bury the lede there, Peters. You found something that no one else has ever found in two millenia! Though maybe you should go ahead and show your exegesis if you’re going to make such an amazing claim.
Instead he links to a Roll Call story that makes a similar claim. That one is written by one Jennifer Shutt and claims that “House Republicans at a conference meeting heard a Bible verse that calls for death for homosexuals” before a recent vote.
Another story by Shutt says it’s a verse “calling for the death of homosexuals.” The stories say that the passage “discusses what types of penalties the Bible says should be applied to those who are not heterosexual.”
If you have even a passing knowledge of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Christianity in general, heck, the Western canon, or Western Civilization itself, you are probably confused. If you have met a Christian in your life, ditto.
Turns out … well, it turns out that reporters and editors at these two papers apparently do not have this knowledge.
The passages Rep. Rick Allen, R-GA, read were from Romans 1 and also a few verses from the Book of Revelation. It should go without saying, but sadly doesn’t in 2016 America, that neither call for the execution of gays or for their deaths.
Some Background, In Case Members of the Media Are Reading This
In Romans, Paul is defending Christianity and its mission. It has “law” themes and “gospel” themes. The “law” themes include believers’ struggles with sin, our hardened hearts, God’s wrath against sinners, death’s reign through sin, our submission to authorities, and the love we owe one another. But that’s not all! We also learn how God declares us righteous through faith in Christ, how we are made alive in baptism, how God bestows gifts such as the forgiveness of sins upon us, and how we are united in Christ. Those are the “gospel” themes.
It’s very much a 101 type book in that it’s a great introduction to Christianity, but that doesn’t mean it’s simple. It’s very challenging, for about a million different reasons. And it’s regarded as Paul’s greatest work. In any case, Romans 1 is a favorite chapter of mine because it includes the verse I was given when I was confirmed in the faith: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Yay, Romans 1:16!) It also has great prose such as, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools,” in verse 22.
When it comes to the infamous New York Slimes(All the Sludge that Fit to Print)always be sekpitcal when it comes to this liberal rag
the slime is the slime, a pedestal for the democrat and liberal repertoires. do we cheat them and how is the slogan for the slime. there is an actual law firm in Nyc
by this name.
Pretty funny.
The only thing he achieved (if you swallowed his bile, that is) was the Islamic belief that, found in holy writings (theirs, for sure) is the order that homosexuals be killed by people rather than wait, let them live their lives and then afterwards let God sort it out.
@Nanny G #3:
Still jumping to defend the Old Testament’s painfully outdated punishment crap, I see. Good for you.
The Author did what can be done to sugar-coat the problem Christians have with the Bible’s Old Testament: It contains indefensibly harsh punishments for what are now seen as ridiculously petty infractions of custom – stuff like cutting your long hair or children talking back to their parents. All the author’s nonsense about Christ’s generous escape clause – that no matter how egregious the crime, a perpetrator can be forgiven if he repents and accepts Christ – doesn’t erase the BS found, for example, in Deuteronomy and in Romans.
The contorted logic of that escape clause, along with the admonition to “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is simply too confusing for people to really understand, much less accept in their hearts. People are ALL THE TIME casting the first stone. Nobody wants to wait and “let God sort it out.” The popular thought is that God is either dead or too busy to take care of the details, so we must step into his shoes and do his work FOR Him. One must presume that people who think that way rationalize away their obvious violation of Christ’s “stone commandment” as just another infraction that the Grace Christ grants upon repentance and acceptance completely forgives. You have to love a religion that hands out wholesale quantities of “get-out-of-jail-free” cards, right? Because that’s what you have. All that Old Testament nonsense about the Ten Commandments got reduced to just so much wishful thinking with the stroke of a New Testament pen.
The Bible calls for fatal punishment of homosexual sins just as does the Quran and the Hadith, and no wordsmithing or self-serving rationalization of the grander intent of Christianity can escape that fact. Traditions like heterosexual-marriage-only and slavery are just that: TRADITIONS, and there is nothing inviolate about traditions. What was maybe OK for one, ANCIENT time isn’t necessarily OK for the rest of forever.
George Wells, Still living in lALA land IS GUESS YOU THINK ALL LIKE CAME CRAWLING OUT OF THE SEA AS SOME DUMB FISH AND HUMANS ARE RELATED TO APES TOO BAD YOUR SO IGNORANT
@George Wells: I believe that Roman I is part of the New Testament!
@Randy #6:
The Bible’s prescription for punishing homosexuals dates to archaic times, not the Christian era. Both Islam and Christianity put heavy emphasis on the homosexual context contained in the Sodom and Gomorrah myth, and their collective homophobia is often attributed to it and certainly goes back at least as far.
The similarities between all major religions are profound, and they are easily understood when one studies the ancient mythology of the Middle East in general. Religions that flourished in the region had this mythology in common. Clearly, the Christian Bible’s Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) evolved from Ancient Hebrew tradition – it consists of “Books” that were written by Man and that were “available,” if that word can be applied to any written document penned before the invention of the printing press. When an idea was particularly appealing, either because it presented an answer to a perplexing question that seemed plausible to the average ancient mind, or because it titillated those same minds, it spread like a wildfire and eventually became incorporated into religion… ALL religion. The myth of Noah’s Ark and the Great Flood is likely an example of the former, as is the Adam-and-Eve account; the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah is likely an example of the latter, and these stories, as well as many others, are represented in both the Bible and the Quran. They were also well-represented in numerous Babylonian texts, and the fact that some of these ancient myths are represented in geographically distant mythologies (Norse mythology includes an account of a great flood) does not provide proof of fact so much as it confirms the appeal of the story and suggests a VERY early date for the development and dissemination of it.
My comments regarding the Bible’s homophobia focus on the ancient genesis of that bias, point to the similar bias found in Islam as evidence of its pre-Christian heritage, and speak to why Christian and Islamic positions on homosexuality are not so very far apart from a scriptural standpoint. It comes as no surprise to me that the parts of the Bible written within the last two thousand years didn’t bother to either expunge or disown the anti-gay content found in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament – religions in general and the Catholic Church in particular are astonishingly resistant to admitting even the least of errors, and this one is rather large.
The best thing that I can say about Christianity is that Christ put a decidedly gentler twist on what had been an otherwise angry and brutal God story. The God of the Old Testament isn’t the same as the one presented in the New. Pity that more Christians don’t catch that drift…
Should anyone think that fundamentalist insanity is only a problem in the context of Islam, please consider the hateful, bible-based teachings of this effing idiot.
Then there’s this guy. He’s every bit as psychotic as any extremist Islamic imam. Both of these crack-brained jackasses should be flagged to prevent any firearms purchase.
And this bat-shit crazy minister. Same deal. The bible has turned him into a hate monger, and he’s out there spreading the good word in the name of Jesus—whose teachings he understands to about the same degree that he understands nuclear physics.
@Greg #8:
Thanks for sharing those links. They provide living, breathing, foaming-at-the-mouth proof of how far the lunatic fringe of the evangelical right can run with the homophobia promoted by the Bible in the name of God. While the majority of Christians recoil from such naked expressions of hatred, Trump’s popularity among the mindless masses (that includes YOU, Redteam…) proves that hate-mongering is alive and well in America, and that it isn’t the exclusive property of Muslim extremists.
I am amazed that the lefties here compare the actions of Christians to the mass killings of radical Islam. I do not remember many mass killings by Christians in recent history. People can rant, but it is the follow through that makes the difference.
@Randy, #10:
Refer to the Bosnian genocide, circa 1992-1995, and the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995. If you want to go back a few years further, refer to the Holocaust, from January 30, 1933 to May 8, 1945. Most Nazi’s were brought up Christian, and the tolerance of the Nazis by many German churches members during Hitler’s rise to power is an uncomfortable reality most people don’t like to think about. This site will lay it out unflinchingly—and possibly to excess—because it’s pro-atheist. Still, the pictures are worth a thousand words. They’re glimpses of a time and place where many Christian people got caught up in an extremist leader’s insane delusions, and let their nation be led down an evil path to its moral and social destruction.
In any case, the point of post was not to bash Christianity, but to point out that Islam has no monopoly on bat-shit crazy religious leaders. We’ve got our own home-grown variety, right here in the United States.
@Randy #10:
There are fine lines between “rants” and “hate speech” and “inciting to violence.”
Often enough the only REAL distinction between these angry forms of rhetoric comes in the results they produce – thus your point about “follow through” making the “difference.”
You might find comfort in the fact that the “CHRISTIAN” Hitler-want-a-be’s Greg linked us to don’t SEEM to elicit the same degree of self-sacrificing Jihadism in American Christian listeners that certain violence-inciting Imams have achieved among THEIR Muslim audience, but I don’t, and the argument can be made that the “difference” is simply that Muslims are more devoted to THEIR religion than WE are to Christianity. Both the Quran AND the Bible prescribe death to homosexuals, and Greg’s evidence exposes Christian preachers who, while careful NOT to tell their listeners to go out and murder Fags (which would likely result in THEIR incarceration) none-the-less celebrate the murder of gay Pulse patrons.
HATE would seem to be so anathema to the teachings of Christ, but there it is, “ranted” as you say, proudly to boot, by CHRISTIAN purveyors of violence no less complicit than Hitler was with the crimes against humanity perpetrated by his followers.
How much pain and suffering – how much DEATH – do these angry GODS – Christian OR Muslim – require?
Me, too, Randy.
For instance, @George Wells: in comment #12 had to reach back 71 years to make a tortured comparison between the racist known as Adolf Hitler (as IF he did all his murdering in the name of Christ) and Islamic terrorism of today.
And when I say ”today” I really mean it.
These have been 51 jihadi attacks in this week (June 11 through 17) with 427 dead and 288 injured.
Since Ramadan started (16 days ago) there have been 122 attacks with 938 dead.
No Christian attacks at all.
No Jewish attacks at all.
Well, unless you count the fact a rather high civilian body count resulted from the Iraq War. We’re also presently bombing the hell out of ISIS—with very good reason—but no doubt doing our share of unavoidable “collateral damage.” That probably looks a bit different from what we see, from Middle Eastern Muslim point of view. Some no doubt view this more as a war being waged by Christians than by Western democracies. They may focus more on the words they’re hearing from our side that have a Christian vs. Muslim slant than on our statements of political position.
I wish I could say I believe the world is headed for better days, but the truth is it seems like it’s getting darker. I keep thinking that this must be what the world felt like in the 1930s. Many people could see the outlines of an approaching disaster, but couldn’t figure out how to forestall it. Since then the world has gotten even more complex, but we’ve gotten no smarter.
@George Wells: It may be that the religions actually are different.
The only thing I have read that shows you are right about something is the fine line between hate speech and incitement to riot, but you went from rant to hate speech to inciting violence. That is where the Christian religion and the radical religion practiced by Moslems.
@Nanny G: Now the lefties want to blame the collateral deaths of Moslems during a shooting war on Christians. Could this be because they have no valid argument that a reasonable person could even consider let alone accept?
I wonder if the lefties understand that the collateral deaths of civilian were mostly a result of bombings by terrorists?
Not true, Greg.
The American forces are carefully using very expensive ”smart bombs,” against ISIS.
Collateral damage is thus rare and limited to those human shields ISIS uses for cover.
Also, American bombs are preceded by leaflets warning ISIS to get away then only destroying the physical assets such as stolen old trucks and appropriated buildings.
But going back to Hitler: recall, the Allies were all Christian nations.
(Except for the USSR which was attacked by Hitler.)
Those Christian nations quickly rose up against the racist Nazi aggression and ended their reign of terror in less than 10 years!
Political correctness today has prevented our ending the Islamist terrorism war that is raging all over the place now.
This warring has gone on for nearly 25 years (1st World Trade Center bombing) while PC forces a ”law enforcement” approach instead of a war designed to win.
It has nothing to do with our being ”Christian.”
It has everything to do with PC.
PC is a paralyzing force that we have used to paint ourselves into a corner from which we cannot beat jihadism.
@Randy #15:
The argument is often enough made that the Bible’s OLD TESTAMENT is in tenor the same as the Quran, particularly with respect to punishing homosexuals and with not tolerating different beliefs. The distinction between them is left to Christ (and the scriptures that followed him) to develop, but that distinction does not exclusively resolve as a simple matter of dogma.
Not only do the Christian and Muslim perspectives on life differ profoundly, but so do the character of the adherents of both faiths. The principle difference in this context is the fact that the majority of Christians follow the guiding principles of Western Civilization, while the majority of Muslims follow the rules, customs and philosophies of Islam. The two cultures are fundamentally different, and the two groups of people think differently. (The rules of their logic are different from ours.) These differences extend beyond simply scriptural, subjective ones, and the difference in the amount of violence observed in these two cultures cannot be explained away by simply observing that the two “religions actually are different.”
There is more to it than that.
With that minor correction I agree with you.
Western logic with it’s deductive and inductive reasoning as well as it’s cause-and-effect are contradicted in Islam but revered in Christianity: See, for example 1 Thess 5:21.
While the God of the Bible set examples to allow people to get to know him and his son, the writer of the koran made even trying to figure out allah’s ways a form of apostasy and set a death sentence for those who inquire about why things are done the way they do them.
Quite a major set of differences.
@Nanny G: Good response, but do you often think you are wasting your time
@Nanny G, #17:
I’m sure that helps a great deal, but I think it’s also a matter of there being essentially no detailed news coverage of what’s happening. What little news we get is totally sanitized. We are, at least, taking far greater pains to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties than the Russians.
@Nanny G #19:
We BOTH recognize that there is an essential cultural AND religious difference between East and West, but the principle difference between YOUR perspective and mine is that you place more importance on the influence that Christianity had in the development of Western Civilization than I do.
You DID articulate well the difference in THINKING that I alluded to. Thanks for taking that thought and running with it.
I DO think that you are having a “what-came-first,-the-chicken-or-the-egg“ problem, however. Christianity” only BEGAN to develop as a different direction from the “Angry God” religions of Judaism and Islam AFTER Christ’s death. BEFORE that, “Christianity” didn’t exist, right? Well, Western Civilization took root in ancient Greece and Rome, WELL before Christ’s birth.
Your transposition of “Christianity” with “Western Civilization” in the text of my #18 post was rhetorically clever but factually inaccurate. The principles of logic and reasoning and the appreciation of cause-and-effect relationships so fundamental to Western Civ. predate Christ by many hundreds of years. Aristotle had quite a lot to say about both subjects. While he was not an atheist, his discussions on both natural and philosophical topics were expressed in a secular sense far more than in a religious one and, in that sense, mirrored the predominant texture of the corpus of Greek philosophy that was so crucial to Western Civilization. By the time, some four hundred years later, that CHRISTIANITY… BEGAN to think and breathe, the philosophical foundations of Western Civilization, including the Greek and Roman theories of governance, were all well in place. Christianity didn’t INVENT them and BARELY influenced them other than from the cosmological perspective.
I’ll graciously forgive your chronological error if you slap Randy. After conducting himself admirably for a spell, he’s evidently given up the effort to hold his own and has reverting to issuing pointless insult. Pity.
@Nanny G #17:
I find it odd that you are so hostile to PC. “Political correctness” seems to me to be an outgrowth of Christian grace, and in that sense I would expect some sympathy for it to come from you. Personally, I’m not at all enamored to PC – I have no use for it – but I wonder at the hostility coming from the right toward turning the other cheek and not hurting the other guy needlessly.
@Randy #20:
Here I have graciously given you the benefit of the doubt, conceding that you MIGHT have erred out of simple ignorance of the facts rather than out of an intentional design to deceive.
Here I give you an opportunity to correct your mistakes and continue your argument in good faith, rather than retreating cowardly in the face of proof that you are wrong.
I didn’t accuse you of maliciously lying, and I did not insultingly demean the position you took. In short, I answered you with the respect, dignity and grace that YOUR Christ championed, and look at how childishly you responded. Who do you think you are impressing?
Your angry attacks on Americans who are different from yourself should be an embarrassment to your Republican Party, but sadly they are not. Your sentiment is unfortunately symptomatic of the malaise that is currently gripping the GOP and that threatens to destroy it. What combination of constituencies do you think you can ally to realistically challenge the Democrats if you don’t at least begin by NOT alienating the GOP? Uneducated evangelical white males aren’t enough and, incredibly, they do everything that they can think of to repel everyone else. You are taking a course that leads to failure. Don’t complain when you get there in November, and remember that in so many words you asked Nanny G back in June: “Why bother.” Those were the words of an uncaring loser and a quitter if ever there were such words.