This week's column: Articles of faith
A reader wondered the other day why the News & Record's letters column had become so "overrun" with pronouncements (and/or denouncements) of religious faith?
Why not publish all that stuff on the religion pages?
He's hardly been the only one to complain.
If I said Pat Robertson makes us do it, I'd only be half-kidding.
The fact is, the line between politics, public policy and religion has become increasingly blurred.
Consider some of the recent issues — some legitimate, some ginned up as political diversions, some the products of vacationing good judgment — that have fanned the flames of editorial opinion:
• Gay marriage, often decried — and sometimes even affirmed — with lengthy quotes from the Bible.
• Prayer in public schools.
• The controversial placement of a Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of Alabama's state judicial building. Or, closer to home, by a congressional candidate, Vernon Robinson, who plopped his own granite monument at the doorstep of Winston-Salem's City Hall. Of course, the national media descended on cue.
• The never-ending debate over the words "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. We're not done with this one by a long shot, and neither is the U.S. Supreme Court.
• New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin's suggestion that "God is mad at America" and is punishing the United States with natural disasters for an unjust war in Iraq.
• Pat Robertson's observation that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's life-threatening stroke was divine retribution.
• Robertson's comments that "we really ought to go ahead" and assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
• The Rev. Jerry Falwell's claims that the Sept. 11 attacks were partly the fault of "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians."
• North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones' concern that Army chaplains are being discouraged from invoking Jesus' name in prayers.
• The recent debate in Greensboro over whether the Quran should substitute for the Bible during courtroom oaths by Muslims.
• The debate over creationism and intelligent design versus evolution, which has seen a longer run on these pages than "Cats" on Broadway.
• And, of course, the "War on Christmas," which was waged on the bloody battlefields of our letters columns during the season of peace on earth and good will toward men.
First and foremost, we respect and recognize that faith is an important aspect of our readers' lives. So it seems only natural that these topics would find their way into discussions on the town square.
But which town square?
Arguably, all of these issues belong on the editorial pages, in columns, letters, editorials and often all three.
Arguably, there also is a place for them on our religion pages. We often consult with Nancy McLaughlin, who covers religion for the News & Record, to determine the best home for guest columns about religious issues.
It's an inexact science, and sometimes the decisions are more practical than philosophical.
For instance, if there is a backlog of weekly Faith Matters columns in the religion section, then the opinion pages might provide a quicker turnaround for publication.
We typically don't publish letters that almost exclusively contain lists of biblical quotes. Otherwise, we've generally erred more on the side of inclusion than exclusion.
It's not always an easy line to toe.
For readers who are not Christian, such letters occasionally have been seen as offensive or condescending.
That can be hard to control in the cases of letters that discuss whose faith is the true faith. This is, after all, a matter of individual belief.
As for letters and columns that deal exclusively with more deeply personal views on religion, they're usually not published on the editorial pages.
This is not to dismiss those views. It's simply to say that the letters columns aren't the proper forum for them. They may be better suited to Nancy's Web log, "The Front Pew."
All that said, we take all of these letters seriously and try to handle them with as much thought and care as we can.
Sometimes we get it right.
Perhaps not with the wisdom of Solomon but always in the quest to be sensitive and fair.
And always in good faith.
Contact Editorial Page Editor Allen H. Johnson at ajohnson@news-record.com
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Mr. Johnson, Although I often get perturbed at the foolish remarks by people who have some influence over what others may think on religious topics, I believe the News & Record should run them on either the Section A or the Commentary section as you have been doing. The public really needs to know where the Religious Right, that is gaining influence in the political arena, is being directed by their leaders.
Posted on January 29, 2006 9:27 AM
Allen, in reference to "religion" fanning the flames of editorial opinion, how about: "Educational and income descrepancies in this country today are directly caused by active plotting by WASP parents and business leaders to continually screw over others." The religion: AT&T 'ism.
Posted on January 29, 2006 11:04 AM
The debate over religion and politics is important. If you look at Europe today you see what they refer to as a "post-Christian" society emerging. Alot of what is written off here as right wing rantings about supression of religious expression reflects what already is happening in the EU.
A sense of historical context is needed. Every society is informed by it's values and in most those values have come from diverse religious viewpoints. If too much care is taken to keep these views from public discourse there will be something that fills the vacumn, mostly likely a very rigid secular humanism full of new laws enforcing acceptance of what, to many, is offensive.
Now, some might like the society that is built on those views. But, will the nation be better off? And what of democracy? Will some groups supress conflicting viewpoints by labeling any conservative viewpoint as originating from religious conviction? This is already happening with the McCarthyistic questioning of Supreme Court candidates about their religious views.
The 'separation of church and state' is not in the constitution but it is waved like a bloody shirt by the left to cow opposition to a whole range of views. We are great as a nation because we have, and tolerate, conflicting opinions many of which relate to religious and social questions. What we are seeing is a new era of intolerance masquerading as inclusion. We will not be the better for it.
Posted on January 29, 2006 11:10 AM
Dudley: I agree that such discourse has a place on the editorial pages, as I wrote.
I do have a pair of concerns: One, that the discourse is based on disingenuous political posturing; two, that many of the letters on such topics do more preaching than listening or reasoning.
That, of course, could be said about many letters, and some would argue, many editorial writers.
Posted on January 29, 2006 10:53 PM
I agree (he said, getting down off his soapbox). I'd like to hear more about why people who use religious quotes feel the way they do as opposed to just putting the quote out as the last word. When they do that they actually strengthen their point.
Posted on January 30, 2006 9:36 PM
Agreed all citizens have the right and should have an opportunity to voice their opinions, no matter how poorly reasoned.
Religious dogma masquerading as discourse has long been with us. The genius of the Framers was to set up strong boundaries between the running of government and the personal religious views of those elected or appointed: to wit, there is NO OATH required to serve in any office (Section 6). This implies an atheist would be equally qualified to serve as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist (some of whom are, in fact, atheist).
What offends me...no, frightens me...is how the rhetoric of the Right is used to obscure the fundamental SECULAR nature of our system of laws and Constitutional rights. There is enough space for all, as long as no one seeks to impose their ideological twisted logic upon everyone else.
Posted on February 3, 2006 10:25 AM