No one knows what the word “evangelical” means, including evangelical leaders. It’s like defining fog. At the same time, this is a word that describes a movement of religious believers, not a movement of registered GOP voters. It’s time to stop treating it like a political term. Meanwhile, the word “fundamentalist” has a meaning and it can be found in an accurate reference in the Associated Press Stylebook. Many journalists still need to look that up.
A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:
Random Ramblings of a Stay at Home Mum – Better off without you
CIFWatch – What the Guardian won’t report: Christians in Iran, Syria face rising persecution
Religion and the Media – Religion = Religious Affiliation?
ListVerse – Top 10 Suicidal Writers
Francis Sedgemore – Nutter on mushrooms
A Minor Friar – The Indifference Within
Dr Jim West alerts us to an exciting new project connected with the University of Sheffield, called: Religion and the Media.
Here’s what they say about the project themselves:
This new blog is going to be dedicated to all things media and religion, usually with some connection to issues relating to media freedom, linked as it is with the Centre for Freedom of Media at the University of Sheffield. In addition to news and updates, there will be regular analysis from a variety of people both linked to the Centre in someway and guest bloggers. For (marginally) more detail see the About page.
And this from their “About” page:
This blog is part of the Centre for Freedom of the Media (University of Sheffield) which reflects a developing research collaboration between Jackie Harrison and James Crossley. The blog will be dedicated to updates, news and analysis of a wide range of issues relating to religion and the media.
I’m thrilled so see a new project of this ilk, as the interplay between religion and media is an ongoing source of frustration interest. I’m often surprised anew at the lack of religious knowledge some journalists and mainstream media platforms exhibit, and that’s not to mention the sometimes glaring bias.
There is only one other website dedicated to religion in the media that I know of, and that is the excellent GetReligion blog, which specialises in highlighting errors, generalisations, and lack of context and balance when reporting on religion. We really do need more resources in this important area.
So, I shall be watching this new project with interest and am with Dr West in looking forward to what they can offer as a corrective to poor religious reporting.
As from 30th April this year, nestled amongst adverts featuring sweet meerkats and tasty morsels from M&S, we will be treated with adverts from abortion clinics.
Of course, the new rules issued by the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) and The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) are couched in friendly terminology, as according to them, this is really just advertising: “Post-Conception Advice Services (PCAS)”. Now doesn’t that sound better than advertising “Abortion Services”.
We’re duly reassured that PCAS is all about offering a wide range of services such as: Advice on health and well-being, provision of ultrasound services and so on. Well what decent person would argue against advertising these innocuous sounding services?
We’re assured of sensitive treatment of the subject and appropriate scheduling.
Of course, the crux of these new rules is to remove the prohibition on commercial PCAS advertising on TV and Radio. Welcome to our living rooms Marie Stopes and British Pregnancy Advisory Services.
And let’s be brutally honest for one moment. Organisations such as Marie Stopes and British Pregnancy Advisory Services may well camouflage themselves, but when we boil it down, they are in the business of abortion, evidenced by the fact that they are Britain’s biggest abortion lobbyists.
And let me reveal the really sinister anomaly in these new rules.
Those PCAS groups that do not refer women to abortion services, i.e. pro-life groups, must declare this fact in their adverts; however, those groups that do refer women for abortion, do not have to declare this fact, and further, they are under no obligation to declare a financial interest in women opting for termination!
How sinister is that? And this particular rule is devised under the concept of transparency. How ironic is that?
These new rules are also being legitimised in that commercial pro-life pregnancy services will now be able to advertise also. One problem with that, there are no commercial pro-life pregnancy groups in the UK. They’re all not-for-profit and so will never be able to afford to advertise on TV and radio in the same way as the hugely wealthy abortion providers.
These adverts will be subject to the rules in the Code requiring advertisements not to be harmful, offensive or misleading.
Well, I certainly think abortion is rather harmful to the baby. I find the prospect of abortion providers advertising on TV and radio offensive. And the legitimisation and desensitisation which comes through advertising on mainstream TV and radio is certainly misleading.
A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:
Deacon’s Bench – Best. Fingerpainting. Ever.
The Thirsty Gargoyle – The Pope and the Diplomats
Mail Online – BBC sex education video ‘is like porn’
Accepting Abundance – Cognitive Dissonance and Geocentrism
A Grain of Sand – God is the Issue
The Atlantic – What’s Wrong With the Phrase ‘In Real Life’
Science and Religion Today – Why Might Our Minds Be Better Suited to Religion Than to Science?
FutureShapeOfChurch – Nothing Good
National Catholic Reporter – Five myths about anti-Christian persecution
The pope is a Catholic; perhaps it’s in the nature of the news business to be freshly astonished by this fact every couple of months.
Some members of the Catholic Bloggers Guild – Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma- are getting behind US presidential candidate Rick Santorum and have proposed a Rosary campaign. Remarkably, news of this has spread as far as Spain!
On the topic of Rick Santorum, I was among those disturbed by an article written by Mehdi Hasan in the New Statesman entitled: 10 things you didn’t know about Rick Santorum. Item number eight was:
When his baby Gabriel died at childbirth, Santorum and his wife spent the night in a hospital bed with the body and then took it home where, joined by their other children, they prayed over it, cuddled with it and welcomed the baby into the family.
This was deemed by many as inappopropriate for this list and much criticism was levelled against Mehdi Hasan. Hasan has now responded to his critics and there is a superb analysis of this controvery written by Dr Petra.
This is the headline that caught my attention in the local Coop emblazoned on the front page of one of my local newspapers:
Church Man in Attack on Wife
This is a grim story of a man who physically attacked his wife in the street, who it seems, was delivering clean washing to him and picking up his dirties. From this it does seem that they were living separate lives and the article notes she was his second wife.
His attack was only stopped by a passing firefighter who intervened.
She’s was left with PTSD, badly bruised face, damaged wrist and broken finger. She’s currently not able to work and he was given six months, suspended for two years, with twelve months supervision.
Right that was a few facts.
Now, the very first words of the article are: “Church Elder” and the very end of the article ends with a quote from a reference given by one of the man’s friends:
….”he had been a postman, union official, church elder, blood donor, qualified first aider, St John member, and a volunteer worker for a political party”.
Given this quote I’m left unsure as to whether the man is currently a church elder. Irrespective of this, is it not interesting that the newspaper leads with “church elder” and includes “church man” in the headline.
Of course, the newspaper could have led with “postman” or “union official” but it didn’t.
Despite what you may think right now, I’m not about to turn this into a post on media bias. If the man cites the fact that he was – or is – a church elder, then the newspaper has every right to highlight this particular fact. Of course, the media loves to broadcast on Christians behaving badly and why shouldn’t they? Why shouldn’t Christians be held to a higher moral standard? And why should we be surprised if the media lap up Christian immorality?
Us Christians have a duty to set an example and when we fail, we bring shame on the Church, and ultimately, God Himself.
The eyes of the world are upon us and their gaze is intense. The way we operate in the public sphere – and behind closed doors – shows the world not only how much we value God, but how much those watching should value him.
This newspaper article served as a reminder to me that the manner in which I conduct myself, is paramount. Whether we like it or not, our Church and our God, will be judged on our behaviour, in the world’s eyes.
A bit of Saturday lightheartedness.
The producers of this beer commercial borrowed a small 150 seat cinema playing a popular film, and filled 148 of its seats with rough-looking, tattooed bikers, leaving only two free seats in the middle of the theater. They then allowed theater management to sell tickets for the last pair of tickets to several young couples.
What would you do? Watch till the end …..
Even more interesting was Mark Mardell’s report from Iowa in which he described Rick Santorum as an “evangelical Christian.” Rick Santorum is of course a devout Roman Catholic.
This could be seen in two ways. It could, like the previous example, be in line with the cultural bias of the BBC and be an attempt to label Santorum with a denigrating label. In the BBC mindset evangelicals are really foaming at the mouth fundamentalists who wish to stone homosexuals and force everyone else to wear chastity belts. If they are Americans they also speak in tongues, marry their sisters and handle snakes. Scary or what?
