History's record and public's perception of the press role differ over events like the Brown shooting

Carl Bernstein, modern reporter of the Watergate fame

Carl Bernstein has said that the media has more difficulty in being objective in the modern world, given the strong emotions surrounding events and the widespread use of the Internet. Journalists in a traditional mold followed the dictum to educate, inform and hold power to account. There is a history and a practice to help consumers decide if the modern media measures up to that traditional mold.  But in the midst of major happenings, opposing factions often blame the media for violence or confrontations, including events related to the shooting of Michael Brown and its aftermath.

Michael Brown, an African American youth, was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson who shot and killed the unarmed teenager some months ago.  The media reported many of the eyewitness remarks made regarding the shooting as well as information received from the businesses, ordinary citizens and politicians of Ferguson, Missouri, where the events took place.  When the media released a video showing someone reported to be Michael Brown stealing from a convenience store in the hours before his death, many maintained the media was one-sided and trying to disparage the victim. After the grand jury announced its decision that Officer Wilson would not be standing trial in criminal court for the killing of Brown, Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch indicted the media for its reporting, hinting at its bias toward Brown as opposed to objectively reporting the events and details in order to present an unbiased account of what happened.

As criticism is consistently aimed at the media during times of heightened emotions, the perspective of history offers us a view of the media's responsibility and its role when bad things happen, or even when good things happen or any time people need to know something of consequence to themselves and others.

The history of journalism in the United States and the notions of the special place of newspapers was best stated by two of America's great statesmen and founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. They believed the press had supreme value in the functioning of a democracy, a need to give voice to the people's need to know and desire to learn, grow and develop through reading, understanding and discussing common concerns and ideas with their peers. Jefferson and Washington had somewhat different accents on what they considered to be the essential role of a free press, but both valued it highly. The following quotes demonstrate their beliefs:
"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."-Thomas Jefferson, 1787.

"For my part I entertain a high idea of the utility of periodical publications; insomuch as I could heartily desire, copies of ... magazines, as well as common Gazettes, might be spread through every city, town, and village in the United States. I consider such vehicles of knowledge more happily calculated than any other to preserve the liberty, stimulate the industry, and ameliorate the morals of a free and enlightened people".- George Washington, 1788.

Both Jefferson and Washington saw in newspapers the notion of enlightenment and the preservation of freedom provided by the press. Could they ever have anticipated the 24/7 nature of newspapers and the notion that anybody can in terms of reporting the news? Of course, we don't know for sure, since they aren't here to tell us; but we can examine their opinions and look through the prism of present experience to determine for ourselves whether or not newspapers today meet the obligations set forth by the framers of the Constitution as being essential in a free country. In short do newspapers benefit democracy as the founding fathers wanted or has news become something other than what was conceived?

Newspapers go back much further than the founding of America, with the first newspapers having been initiated by Julius Caesar with what historians say was the Roman Acta Diurna, which appeared approximately 59 B.C. This was the emperor's method of keeping his subjects informed about political and social events. News was written on large white boards then posted in popular places like the Baths. The Acta was said to have kept the Roman citizens informed about government scandals, military campaigns, trails and executions.

The Gutenberg Press, invented to Johann Gutenberg in 1447, brought modernization of methods in informing the public, allowing the spread of knowledge during the Renaissance. Newsletters were exchanged among the merchant class informing them of relevant news concerning commerce and trade. In the 15th century manuscript newssheets were widely circulated in Germany. These were often filled with sensational ritings. As an example, one of them reported on the abuse of Germans in Transylvania at the hands of Vlad Tsepes Drakul, also known as Count Dracula. It was also in this era that readers began paying a small coin to receive these pamphlets.

Media expanded in the 17th century to include local news in different parts of Europe. With the advent of the telegraph, the ability to transmit information made communication more capable, efficient and faster than it had been before, allowing news to travel to many places.

The "Golden Age" of newspapers occurred between 1890 to 1920, when the titans of print media built huge empires. These individuals included such prominent names as William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, and Lord Northcliffe. The power of the press became in fact real in this era, as the owners of newspapers wielded considerable influence on the political and social landscape. The advent of radio and television brought decline in readership of print media, but not its absolute demise, as the ratio of readership of one newspaper for every two persons dropped to one for every three.

The valiant, the intrepid, the dedicated, the earnest and the tireless reporters are chronicled in a timeline of stories and names of those who have contributed to information in the best of the tradition of news. These are the folks against whom modern media might check to determine if they measure up.

Walter Cronkite was one of those finest journalists in the history of the news media. He was old school, in the tradition of looking good, sounding good, relaying news crisply and writing and speaking with clarity and facts. This was the impression of his peers and his readers over the years. His was the style of straight-talk news. The feature man of media news, Edward R. Murrow, relied on his investigative skills, his ability to deliver information in a dramatic but carefully toned and detailed way so public trust was engendered as a result. These were two journalists most experts consider to be the best in the tradition of news reporting. Both presided over major events in a fashion that folks saw as calm and competent, Cronkite with his reporting of the Kennedy assassination and Murrow his dissection, digesting and disseminating information about Joseph McCarthy and exposure the hysteria in the Senate over communism.

Today the Internet is fast becoming one of the major sources of news for millions of people. In reviewing the history and tradition of journalism, one might look through that prism of information and understanding and ask if name-calling, abbreviated speech, and trash talk that sometimes goes on would be embraced by the greats in the newspaper industry. It is also useful to examine present news from the Internet, including that done by "civilian" reporters, against the demands in a democracy as outlined by Jefferson and Washington, to be fair, balanced and focused on the good of the nation's interests.

It is what the founding fathers maintained their best hope for the country, for the media to be maintained as the hallmark of maintaining freedom for everyone.  However, in the midst of controversy, as has occurred surrounding the killing of Michael Brown, it will be difficult for many people to accept the media's neutrality or even its efforts to maintain it.

Traditional ethics mixed with new media recommended to avoid 'America's Got Talent' news

Arriana Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post

Much of our news today is driven by popularity, by votes and comments.  This means someone who spends considerable money, time or both on social media, or has an agenda that supports many followers, may acquire readership for articles whereas news and information the public needs can be abbreviated and sensationalized to attract attention.  Do we want news that is treated like Americas Got Talent so that serious, ongoing education is interrupted? Or is there a different way to offer news that most especially is critical because of the need for collaboration and solid information as new threats to world security occur?


The Huffington Post consists largely of articles written by hundreds of unpaid bloggers, quoted as reliable sources, which many can be; but like many outlets who's picked for the stable and who stays in it is like  America's Got Talent.   Some of the bloggers, for example, have been chosen from those individuals who have outstanding activity from posting comments and obtaining followers and responses.  But it isn't just large blogs that respond to social media vote-getting activities but other news outlets too, which may negatively impact the traditional role of the press in its role of educating, informing and holding power to account.

 The television show America's Got Talent allows people to rise to the top and perhaps win the contest and receive a recording contract and other perks.  It selects people at each level based on the judge's selections and audience response.  This means a balance of popularity and merit, although the judges also consider audience potential in casting their vote.

The outcome of a given contest might offer a serious surprise, as in the case of 10-year-old Jackie Evancho, when many people believed she would ultimately win on America's Got Talent because of her uniquely gifted voice and presentation on the show, that everyone agreed was special.    She lost, however, to Michael Grimm, a talented fellow for sure but didn't have the accolades and YouTube views that Evancho had had all along.  But America seems to likes being contrary too, a form of defiance that sometimes is used just to upset the odds in a fashion that says "you can't control what I do."  Even when the audience favors a contestant, the person actually picked to proceed may simply be a result of this contrariness that often occurs when there is a dispute and people want to voice their independence.  The same thing occurred in the case of Susan Boyle, who lost the top spot on Britains Got Talent, as people began to find the unpopular or the negative in her personality or simply were contrary in not wanting to conform to any predictable outcome.

Popularity picks may not, therefore, foster the best talent but the most popular for a segment of the culture that happens to vote.  But there are many people who enjoy the talent of those who perform who never cast votes in these contests.  So the potential of picking the best talent is lessened by those who don't participate in the voting process.  The cream may not rise to the top.  Do we want the news treated the same way?  What has been the result?  The press is said to be no longer trusted, as observed by Gallup Poll results in 2012, and divisions in social and political areas are often along the lines of the more sensationalized factions.

The same strategy of using what is popular, or anticipated as vote-getting by readers or news observers, is now used for news sites as well, both citizen and traditional, if we could call the Huffington Post either.  The Huffington Post is a mix of both professional journalists and bloggers with specialties in particular areas, making it difficult for the public to sort out what is fact-checked and responsible information and what is not. Guiding the front page by picking the popular, based on a select few who vote, means front page news, and news that lingers, often focuses on the trivial not the headline material that may be most important.

Picking the popular also means those with enough Facebook friends and other contacts on the Internet have great advantage over those who focus on important news and features and have less time to solicit attention on social media sites.  There are those who write well and those who sell well; and sometimes they are both very different. 

News outlets have editors and America's Got Talent has judges who assess the talent and offer feedback.  But the owners of newspapers, and their investors, look for readership numbers as the evidence that a news item is of value, even as major news stories are sometimes cut short in favor of the details of a recent celebrity wedding, such as that of George Clooney, where days were spent in covering every detail.  This occurred in the midst of weather disasters and terrorist threats, with 10 minutes at the top of the hour devoted to the major news and the rest a narrative of entertainment value.

This tendency to vote for the popular, as it dominates all forms of media, means the petty, irrelevant or simply entertaining, offered as it is in large quantities everywhere, simply overwhelms news that has major information and education.  The need to know is answered by shorter and shorter phrases and sentences, so that even the language of the news is abbreviated like so many text messages.  This is explained away by those who say people are simply to busy to read or listen, yet this negates the fact that books like Fifty Shades of Grey are read by millions.

Traditional news sites are driven by popularity also because of the growing number of citizen news sites where people offer their take on the news.  Some of these sites are managed by editors; others are blogs set up by ordinary folks often with political or religious agendas. These continue to proliferate; and as they do, it simply drives the problem deeper that the important, front-line news may not have either the details or the top tier for public notice.  Search engines also favor the flavor of the month.

The concern in using vote-getting to determine the headlines and what is featured first is that it takes away from the premise most pronounced by those who wrote the protections for the press in the Constitution.  The U.S. Constitution, in terms of its guarantee of freedom of the press, is one form of providing the press its own platform, but other free governments have their protections as well.  Those protections relate to the relevance of the material and the primary role of the press.  That primary role is not entertainment but education and information relevant for living one's life.  This, and holding power to account, were the three main goals of journalism, according to Thomas Jefferson.Polls and popularity votes and cliques that gather together to foster a friend's success do not protect democracy but in fact jeopardize the ongoing, universal education democracy needs to succeed. 

Most people want to find an area where they can succeed and be noticed.  If a child is a budding artist, he or she feels good when the teacher puts the drawing on the wall for all to see.  But is this the way media should be managed?  

This is a simplistic explanation for the problems related to using popularity as the measure of what counts in the news, but the tendency for people to use vote-getting to measure their own success, and for others to assess them as well, means information written by well-meaning, motivated, yet agenda-driven people, who may not fact check sources, nor even write well,  will be read more often than others.  The result is that the popular continues to rise to the top, and the very art of writing with skill, detail and fact-checking may be lost.

.America's Got Talent is surely good entertainment, but too often many people wonder why obviously talented people are chosen over someone with a unique following and an absorbing personal story.  The problem is that when the news is treated in the same way, it is a world of us that suffers from lack of knowledge and quality information, at a time when universal education is important for creating and maintaining free communities and preventing or correcting the major problems around the world..

A new direction might be to re-examine some of the old ways used in the new methods of transmitting news via print, online and other forms of mass communication.  Rewarding quality news material that is in-depth, detailed and fact-checked is important, and that reward means to let investors and owners know by active reading and participation.  And perhaps news outlets need to remove the comments per article and return to the Letters to the Editor methods for reader interaction, so that vote-getting for popularity does not drive the news. Universal education through the mass media might then become a reality, as people learn the sciences, history and other details to help them understand why government leaders make certain decisions.  It can also serve to improve holding power to account, that goal of the press established by Thomas Jefferson's words that are likely as good today as they were when written and that allow the past and present best methods to present news in ways that can make a difference in the lives of individuals and nations.

Is media a way to cope, escape, be informed or none of these

Thomas Jefferson saw the press to inform, educate and hold power to account

 If your world is bleak, you are likely not to want to hear about other people's problems in great numbers, especially if their crisis is yours, according to research.  So what is news for people: a way to escape, cope or be informed?

Or is it just an exercise to claim your rights as a citizen in a democracy, reading how people express themselves, on what and how so that you can respond as well in comments that agree or sizzle with fiery discontent.

For the latter is how it seems, many people say.  Although some have examined the issue more closely through research on reading patterns.


These days everyone has an opinion about the news, it seems.  The political arguments are enticing at times, but at the same time people of all stripes seem to say they are tired of it too.

According to the research people use the media either to cope or to escape, depending on the problem.

A bad love affair is usually seen by most people as a major crisis in their lives. For that reason they may not be interested in reading informational articles about bad love affairs. On the other hand, financial difficulties are less personal in nature; and people often reach for information on to learn how to cope with them.

Results of a  study showed that emotionally -charged problems are the kind many people avoid reading about in the media if they are experiencing similar problems. But those difficulties that carry less emotion, as such as those financial problems, don't create the same responses and therefore people are more apt to want to learn how to cope with the difficulties.

Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, co-author of the study and associate professor of communication at Ohio State University, says, “People want to avoid reading about topics that may bring up unpleasant thoughts and emotions. But people seek out information that may help them find solutions for less personal problems.”

The study was conducted in Germany and the results are now in the journal of Communication Research. It involved 287 German college students where they took life satisfaction questionnaires and five areas that included health, finances, friendship, college and career and romantic relationships. In the second separate study they were asked to evaluate online news and magazine articles which corresponded to the five subject areas they were questioned about earlier.

Students were advised they wouldn't have enough time to read all the articles and to concentrate on those in which they had the most interest. The results of the study showed that people’s satisfaction levels in the life areas influenced what they read about. This substantiated the notion that some people will read or listen to news or information to escape while others will read to cope, depending upon the emotionality of the issue.

Those who write crimes news recognize how popular they are. Indeed many reporters want to cover crime stories for that reason, because they have enduring appeal. Why is that? Linda Heath, a university psychologist, answers the question following her research where she analyzed crime content in 36 newspapers and subsequently analyzed attitudes about crime in interviews. She learned that people enjoy reading about crime more for just the thrill. This is what she says:

"The more newspapers print articles about criminals in other places running amok, picking victims at random, and trampling social norms, the more secure readers feel in their own environments. In essence, readers like the grass to be browner on the other side of the fence, and the browner the better. Far from frightening, reports of grisly, bizarre crimes in other cities are reassuring. Readers are still exposed to some reports of crime that occur locally, but the severity and outrageous nature of such crimes appear to be judged in comparison to one's own life.

Crime is one of those areas of interest that allows people to escape as opposed to cope. Crime stories are often written in New England one wonders why that is. According to publisher Kate Flora in New England people experience long winters. So people there are trapped in close quarters together, which Flora says “can lead to dark, mischievous thoughts. “ Research reveals people use all forms of media for their own purposes. It is more likely than not that certain types of reading material or television news is enjoyed simply because it tells people their own lives may not be so bad after all while others find information they need to make their lives better.

These days many people get their news online.  And what online writers and editors have found is that many people will only scroll through half of an article.  They may read bits and pieces throughout the article, but ordinarily won't finish it, even when it is of special importance for the information contained within it.

And, sadly enough, the Pew Forum found that most people are not influenced that much by current news and information with respect to their knowledge of current affairs.

So when we talk about why people listen or read the news, we must recognize that each person finds his or her own measure of interest satisfied by it.

It seems the answer to the question about the media is that people use it in bits and pieces for coping, escaping or being informed and much too often none of the above and rather simply to reinforce pre-existing ideas.

Who is a journalist and who should you trust with the news?

Carol Forsloff - An article a few years ago in SFGate addressed government's new strategies for defining and restricting who is a journalist.  One of the biggest issues has to do with bloggers vs. journalists.  How do you tell which is which?  Is it just the format they use?What does the law say?

The issue, folks say, has both ethical and legal complications.

It is possible, for an example, as one writer observed, for a 16-year-old to have a press pass and have at it, even on major stories.  Is it reasonable to restrict such an individual who may be able to accurately report an incident very well.

Then there is long-distance, armchair journalism, a writer penning information about something in France, a Frenchman reporting on American politics.  Is that reasonable and is it fair?

There are also legal questions that have been addressed in some recent decisions regarding defamation.  If a blogger claims protection for presenting negative information about an individual, and that same individual loses business or stature, some courts, like recently in New Jersey, will maintain a blogger isn't a journalist and is therefore not protected.

In the history of journalism, the original journalists were pamphleteers who provided local communities information they needed, often for survival itself.  They helped to raise militia during times of crises and warned folks of impending dangers.  They also criticized government itself, leading Thomas Jefferson to maintain that he would rather have a free press than any other freedom, since this alone would impact government and how it did its work.

Therefore the value of journalism has long been entrenched in most countries, but with the advent of the Internet has brought complications as well.

James Kunstler is a journalist who has written for Rolling Stone and the New York Times, among many other publications listed on his resume.  He is a man of strong opinions on the environment and America's dependency on cars and is known in some circles for that.

He writes a blog; his articles are there for people to read now and then, and are passed along on email chains for those who want the best of opinion and news.

The construct of a blog allows Kunstler and other journalists the ease of posting stories wthout the intricacies required by websites where pages have to interrelate in a specific fashion or can't be read.  Most writers aren't webmasters, but writers, they complain.  The blog is a tool for that reason.

These are the ethical and practical issues facing journalists today.

The notions are left to present and debate, as they are in journalism schools and in media departments everywhere.

In the meantime, Bob Woodward, an investigative reporter, has a definition that can give folks pause, given his story that brought down the government of Richard Nixon, thus impact on history itself.  He asserts that for the most part people are attached to what he calls celebrity journalism, either making celebrities through stories and covering celebrities with the same energy, verve and level of importance as serious news stories.  He refers to this as the "Paris Hilton - Kim Kardashian factor."  

At the same round table discussion about the definitions and tasks of journalism, Carl Bernstein challenged the idea of giving equal time to differing political agendas.  He said there are difficult consequences when folks give the same amount of time to Donald Trump's question about the Obama birth certificate and what Hillary Clinton might have said as Secretary of State.  Theme and level of importance of that theme for the news is part of how newsrooms select what to publish.  That issue is wrapped up in the choices of offering what readers want or what they need, especially when those wants and needs conflict.

Bloggers and journalists make mistakes in reporting. When can they be sued? Challenges are often made about defamation, however the complainant must demonstrate harm, usually in monetary terms.  Bloggers, who may offer information in the form of advice, if they portray themselves as experts and an individual is harmed by taking that advice, they may open themselves up to liability.

His is one of the opinions journalists examine themselves, as they wrestle with bloggers, citizen journalists, their colleagues, themselves and sort out who is a journalist now and .  How will that definition impact the dissemination of information in the ways defined by Jefferson or Woodward?

Jefferson's definition was this:  education, information and holding power to account, which with Woodward's appraisal gives parameters perhaps for courts, the federal government and for journalists themselves to examine.

And the courts have decided that bloggers are held to the same standards in the courts when they report news and portray themselves with the same expertise to do it as journalists.  So ethics become a deciding factor in establishing the boundaries, as those boundaries merge and become one when it comes to fairness and balance in reporting.

Oregon region working to remove its red, to be green in race relationships

[caption id="attachment_10684" align="alignright" width="336"] La Grande, Oregon--one of the conservative towns in Eastern Oregon[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — The South has wonderful traditions of courtesy, decorum, family connections, and a friendly way of greeting people that make people smile. It is, however, a region that remains in the shackles of its past, still struggling to cross the racial divides. But it is not the only place where racial divisions continue and where history put an X on the hearts and minds of people for generations, with Oregon being one of those places that many would not know, or remember, with its own racist past.

Oregon also almost became a slave state. There were loud voices from those who saw the potential of the new frontier, discovered for the country’s expansion by Lewis and Clark, sent by Thomas Jefferson following the purchase of the Louisiana territory, extending to Oregon. The expedition brought a hardy type of folks with rough and tumble ways and also a tradition of using slave labor or cheap labor for expansion. That was particularly true of the gentlemen farmers and the new entrepreneurs, who saw opportunity in the new lands. Those new lands promised a level playing field for the new, bright business man of land and cattle and later railroads and the industrial movement, that also maintained a caste system of color throughout much of the Wild West.

The Oregon County provisional government may have outlawed slavery in 1844 but that was to keep African Americans out of the state and was not a voice of the abolition movement.

When Oregon became a state in 1859, the country was divided North and South. The term Yankee often did not reference the Westerner, but the classic country man was not one dedicated to the expansion of human rights in the new territories. And the restrictions on personal affairs continued until the 1950’s, a time when intermarriage between people of color, including Hawaiians, African Americans, Asians, and Native Americans, was illegal under Oregon law. Miscegenation laws were passed in 1866 and remained until 1951, with a number of legislators opposing the law as "unfair to children"

The problem continues in some places in Oregon. While the spotlight often focuses on the South, the rural areas of Oregon retain its racial divides. Portland, the progressive city that folks point to as modern, upbeat, and environmentally friendly, still has a low percentage of African Americans, and most of these people live in defined districts, areas of the city that have been labeled by color for generations. Only 6.4% of Portland's population is African American. And Bend, Oregon, about a three-hour drive from Portland, is one of the ten cities in the United States with populations over 50,000 with the least population of African Americans at .3%. Folks who visit there notice it is a "very white" city, yet still extol the friendliness of the folks.

There have been pockets of enlightenment and the enlightened, dating back decades. Girls Polytechnic, a technical high school that no longer exists, with the transitions of its once active base  in central Portland. Girls came from all over the city to attend the school.  African American girls (as it was an all-girls school) were on the rally squad, student council offers and figured into school beauty contests, albeit not the more prominent one at Rose Festival. That has changed, and many of the high schools have integrated May courts and representation at major affairs. But it has been a long, hard road for the rank and file of African Americans who continue to face problems related to the state’s past in many areas of Oregon. And Oregon as a whole is considered enlightened with most people cringing with notions of racial prejudice and looking forward, not behind, when it comes to the advancement of minorities.

Those government officials and humanitarian groups often focus on the South and sections of the Midwest for racial imbalance, but Oregon is one of those areas in need of education and communication on matters of race. It may be green on the outside, but it has conservative areas and its redness in the areas of race continue to haunt a state known for its enlightenment and yet a place that has had its own struggles with race in America.

 

Should America be 'restored' or 'rebuilt?'

[caption id="attachment_17546" align="alignleft" width="800"] Franklin Graham sits with his father, Billy Graham[/caption]

Carol Forsloff — "I pray that all Christians and God-fearing Americans will put aside labels and vote for principles–God’s principles–that for many years have resulted in His blessing upon our nation." With that statement Franklin Graham put aside any notions of separation of church and state to endorse Mitt Romney for President, reflecting the moral biases of evangelicals in the political process.

Prior to the Presidential election of 2012, Graham said, "President Clinton said that President Obama “has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up.” But God-fearing Americans have no desire to see America rebuilt–but rather restored. To “rebuild it” would be to create a new nation without God or perhaps under many gods. This was never the intent of those who shed their blood for the freedom to worship as “one nation under God.”

This notion of restoring America has been the watchword of the Republican party since Ronald Reagan's Presidency, according to Mark Silk, who is Professor of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College and director of the Greenberg Center. It is the banner upheld during public debates and the reason for some of debates on moral values, as fundamental religious belief hearkens to the good old days of the founding fathers as the way things still should be.

"One nation under God" and "In God We Trust", however, were not the phrases used by the founding fathers, specifically those who wrote the Constitution. Instead the focus was on making sure people had certain freedoms to worship without interference and also to recognize that government and religion were not intertwined in all respects, as the separation of church and state was underlined by Thomas Jefferson as important.

These references to God came later, as many of the founding father were humanists or Deists as opposed to fundamental Christians, as many believe. President Eisenhower initiated the prayer breakfast in the 1950's and Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money during that same decade. "One nation under God" came in 1956, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of this same era, as the writer, Edward Bellamy, had no reference to God in his original composition.

So as Franklin Graham made assertions about the moral consequences of electing Mitt Romney over Barack Obama, using the notion of restoring the nation to its original God-fearing ways, those same ways, at the time of independence, also included women and blacks unable to vote, folks working long hours with little concern for health and safety, and the separation of whites from blacks in every area of community life. Many of these same problems remained during the 1950's when God's name was inserted into political speeches and recitations.

The notion of restoration, referencing the founders intent, seems not be as Graham has discussed; but it does maintain an attitude that maintaining the past beliefs and direction is to be favored over rebuilding a nation in economic distress.

 

 

Church and State: Should religious leaders govern in a democracy?

Carol Forsloff — This year people are headed to the polls in two weeks to decide who will be the next President of the United States, Mitt Romney or current President Barack Obama. At this time, many ministers and their intimate followers are offering election advice, while some actually run for, or hold, political office themselves. But is this the direction the founding fathers envisioned for the country and within the guidelines of religious faith most predominant in this country?

The questions raised in this first paragraph are critical to the direction of a democracy. For those who denigrate some Islamic countries for having intimately combined religious and secular authority, many of these same people offer, or follow,  direction based specifically on the advice of religious authority that designates not just the utilization of conscience in making a decision but that points to one candidate over another as being more spiritual or having more qualities that reflect the grace of God.

These questions have been asked and debated since the beginning of the United States when Baptists at the time sought to include their own set of beliefs, and governance, into the United States Constitution. Thomas Jefferson examined these issues and declared that a democracy would be best served by setting forth a division between church and state so that religion itself would be protected from government and government from the interference of religion.

On the other hand, church services were allowed in the House of Representatives during both the administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. These details are used to combat the notion that church and state be entirely separate. There remained a respect for religion, yet Jefferson was circumspect about religious leaders being secular ones.

Recently, a former classmate at a high school reunion inquired, "Are you voting for the anti-Christ this year?" The journalist demurred, as the question posed a judgment and an inquiry about personal choice. So the answer became, "And who is that and why are you asking?"

The former classmate looked puzzled and said, "Surely you know. My preacher says that we have been living under the anti-Christ and his domination. He tells us we should not vote for this man or in any way accept his direction."

These are the questions and issues put forth by religious leaders, out of their interpretation of belief and their particular religious tenets in a free country where there are many religions and cultures.

A former religious leader, and one still referred to as a "pastor" by some members of his Mormon congregation,  is presently running for President of the United States, in this case Mitt Romney, who was at one time Governor of Massachussetts and had been a Mormon bishop for 10 years. The Mormon Church has a set of beliefs that are somewhat different than mainstream Christian groups. Many of these beliefs focus on building good qualities in people's lives. Some, however, clearly define a different status between men and women in terms of obligations and service. Women are to be helpmates, serving the husband as head of the family. They have an obligation to care for the family. Men have the obligation to lead the family. The church emphasizes the value of both roles, however it is the wife and family role emphasized in the church, as well as the directive to bring souls into the world to become Mormons. This emphasis on women's roles opens up questions on how a former Bishop might respond to women's demands for equal pay for equal work.

Furthermore, it was not until the late 1960's, the Church removed the sanction against African Americans being part of the religious administration, a group that had been relegated to a lesser position in the Church based upon the belief they were inheritors of Cain, with the mark of Cain the dark skin. Although the Church has changed its position on racial matters, the history of the Church has been as controversial as Reverend Wright, whom folks see as a black extremist who influenced the current President Obama. On the other hand, more than a hundred years of exclusion of African Americans as unequal to other races in the church raises questions about the residual issues related to these exclusions.

International ties exist between the United States and Israel, with Christians espousing the need for Israel independence and peace because of its relationship to the history of a faith that began, according to Christians, with the revelation of God to the Jewish people.  However, for Mormons, Jews are the lost tribe of Israel and therefore have a special significance for their protection. How might that impact a Mormon leader's response to a presumed attack on Israel, with the present saber-rattling evidenced by Iran?

John F. Kennedy was viewed with suspicion before he became President, some believing he might take direction from the Catholic Church. However, the difference between Romney and Kennedy is that Kennedy was not a religious leader himself and clearly stated he would not take direction from the Church in his role as a secular leader. Indeed some mainstream publications, such as Vanity Fair,  have discussed the dark side of Romney's style, which is claimed to be secretive and controlling, characteristics ignored for the most part in the political debates and coverage.

So the next time your minister gives you advice on how to vote, consider the consequences. And consider how free men are best served in a democracy where each man is to be treated with dignity and respect and how that might involve a continuing judgment and domination of an individual whose first allegiance is to his faith, being an administrator within it.

Jefferson's stance on that wall of separation between church and state has been debated throughout the history of the United States.   The complex question was debated during the time Jefferson ran for and was eventually elected President. One of his letters, however, reminds us of the risks involved when religious leaders insert themselves into secular decisions, as occurs in some Islamic countries.

In a letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813,  Jefferson wrote. "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

The risks of faith-based politics to religious ideals

[caption id="attachment_14291" align="alignleft" width="242"] Thomas Jefferson, 1786[/caption]

Carol Forsloff - Recently Franklin Graham was interviewed on the topic of religion and politics.  He underlined the importance of faith, specifically Christianity, and when asked if Obama is Christian, answered he believed the President is but that Obama has given Muslims “a pass.”  How does that compare with the American view historically and how has it impacted social and political relationships?

In an MSNBC interview Graham spelled out his concerns that President Obama has been ignoring the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries.   Newsmax reports detailed the contents of the interview.

“Under Islamic law, under Shariah law, Islam sees him as a son of Islam, because his father was a Muslim, his grandfather was a Muslim, his great-grandfather was a Muslim,” Graham said.  He went on to explain, “So under Islamic law, the Muslim world sees President Obama as a Muslim, as a son of Islam. That's just the way it works. That's the way they see him.”

When asked if Graham believes Obama is “categorically not a Muslim,” Graham said,

I can't say categorically because Islam has gotten a free a pass under Obama.

Since the inception of American independence, religion and politics have been uncomfortable sleeping companions, especially during thorny times.    For Thomas Jefferson,  one of the founders of American democracy and a scholar on many subjects, religion was a serious matter, intimately related to individual freedom and belief.  He often spoke of religion and its importance in human experience; and although he didn’t claim to be regimentally involved in any one religious group, he did recognize the concept of God, creation, and man’s need to reach for the infinite.  But he too found the insertion of religion into political debate something that created consternation, controversy and division.  He also believed strongly in the right to question religious belief.

The scholar and statesman, Jefferson, was a man of the Enlightenment, recommending by letter to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

Yet it is the fear expressed by politicians and their supporters that is aroused in many political debates about religion.

Religion has been part of the discussion referencing freedom as much as almost any other topic throughout U.S. history.  It remains part of the political debate in the 21^st century.  It has, however, changed to a sectarian argument, and the issue of who is best, has the right set of beliefs and attitudes, is a major part of the dissension.

Jefferson recognized the fact that Christianity was not alone in its place in man’s array of religious beliefs.  His notion was to protect that individual freedom of belief, especially important given the fact so much persecution had occurred in the countries from which many people had fled.  It was also a part of the religious persecution that occurred in the colonies, to include the burning of “witches,” or those who seemed to hold what were considered heretical views by the majority.  For that reason, the protection of religion became critical in the creation of the Constitution.   Still the debate about that protection continues to be part of the political arguments raised throughout history.  Jefferson’s own views have also been argued, with one side taking the stance that Jefferson was specifically protecting Christianity as the principal religion of America while others believe he had a broader view.  In fact scholars tell us that Jefferson’s philosophy was not specifically Christian and that there is nothing in the Declaration specific to Christianity.

Jefferson’s writings to John Adams, his nemesis at times and later his friend,  reflect his specific view of how distorted the ideas can be of those who describe themselves as followers of Christ and most confidently maintain their specific beliefs referencing Jesus, especially with reference to politics.

“The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."

In the 1960’s, change came not just in technology and the development of advancements in science, medicine, and every domain of human life.  Religion, rather than dying as some predicted and others maintain created aberrations, was vibrant and important in America.  A bigger tent unfolded, however, allowing people to question traditional beliefs and to begin to explore new ways of worshipping that one God so many people believe central to faith itself.   That questioning in some ways reflected Jefferson’s admonition to his nephew, and in that sense became an echo of the value of religious freedom expressed by one of the great founders of the United States.  The 1960’s, according to historians,  represented the birth of new seekers.  But along with it came the renewal of Evangelism and the beginnings of the Religious Right.  Those divisions between those new seekers and the more traditional Christian groups remain today as part of the fabric of politics and faith.