Let others dissect the press' mishaps in New Hampshire, overall it has been a good news week: two provocative pieces shed light on politics and religion and, by extension, how journalists' cover candidates' beliefs.
America's piece about Tony Blair's conversion to Roman Catholicism does an admirable job explaining the former Prime Minister's decision to join the Church. It also notes the differences between the U.S. and Britain when it comes to public avowals of faith. “If you are in the American political system or others, then you could talk about religious faith, and people say, 'Yes that's fair enough' and it is something they respond to quite naturally,” he [Blair] tells the BBC. “You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter.”
Actually, a lot of Americans think you're a nutter, too, though it's become a liability to say so. Worse, many who should say “fair enough” turn religious commitments into a battering ram. Ever eager for a pissing match, reporters jump on these stories to the detriment of providing informative coverage.
Journalist Austin Ivereigh addresses this state of affairs, noting that the Blair was wise to wait until he left office to formally convert. If he had not, “[t]here would be a host of questions: How can a Catholic oversee 200,000 abortions a year, appoint Anglican bishops, oversee British experiments on embryos, approve gay marriages? These are not questions asked of Anglican, atheist or Protestant prime ministers, because public opinion assumes they are not beholden in the same way to a higher authority.”
Ivereigh continues—and here's where political reporters can consider how they might have turned John Kerry's 2004 “wafer watch” into a constructive discussion of personal faith and political judgment: “It is one thing to call Catholics in public life to account: to question how Judge Antonin Scalia can be in favor of the death penalty or how John Kerry of abortion. But it is another thing to call them hypocrites. To pretend to know what choices faced them, and why they took the decisions they did. Politicians are not lackeys; they must govern in favor of the common good in a pluralist society. If a Catholic can only serve in a government whose every act chimes with his conscience and with church teaching, he cannot be a politician.”
Noah Feldman tills similar ground in a New York Times magazine piece on Mormonism . Feldman never fully answers his own question: “What is it About Mormonism?” But it would take a lot more column inches on the Church's history, theology and acculturation to penetrate its peculiar place in the American psyche.
Feldman does provide insight into why the Church has a PR problem (its don't ask, don't tell culture of secrecy is ill-suited to the harsh glare of a presidential campaign). Feldman—like Ivereigh—looks forward to a day when voters adopt a broader understanding of religion and politics. “Today the soft bigotry of cultural discomfort may stand in the way of a candidate whose faith exemplifies values of charity, self-discipline and community that we as Americans claim to hold dear. Surely though the day will come when we are ready to put prejudice aside – and choose a president without regard to what we think of his religion.”
Though it has nothing to do with politics, and fairly little on religion, Dana Goodyear's New Yorker article on Chateau Scientology is worth catching. Goodyear waxes lyrical on the historical, architectural and pop culture details of the Church's Celebrity Centre in Los Angeles. Jenna Elfman and Kirstie Alley make cameo appearances, and there's the requisite Tom Cruise citing. But if you have any interest in what Scientology is and what its adherents believe, you're better off looking up an old Rolling Stone story which, for my money, is one of the best sources for this secretive American sect.
