Jewish group wants Mormons to stop proxy baptisms

This is an incredibly interesting article. I had no idea that this went on. I had to read it more than once, just because I didn't pay much attention to anything (meaning journalistic techniques) but the content the first time (since it was so new to me).

The article does seem pretty balanced, with both the side of the Jews and of the Mormons represented. It also answered my questions as they came up, although not all of them. What is the "International Genealogical Index"? I'm assuming it's the records the Mormons keep, but is it strictly for those who have been baptized? Is it for all the names they have? What goes in this record?

I feel like "In May, the Vatican ordered Catholic dioceses worldwide to withhold member registries from Mormons so that Catholics could not be baptized," was a kind of random interjection. This is about the disagreement between the Mormons and Jews. Where and why do Catholics come in?

I was glad to see they specifically said that their authority on whether or not the Jewish names were re-entered didn't have complete access to the records -- "said Radkey, who acknowledges that she has limited access to the records."

This is a very well written piece. It's quite possibly the best piece I've read so far, and I find the topic it specifically addresses very interesting. I really enjoyed it, although I would like to see more religion pieces done by non AP reporters.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-11-10-jewish-baptisms_N.htm

"American Muslims relieved, hopeful at Obama's election" by Nicole Neroulias

Overall, this article is quite well done. The timeliness factor is incredibly easy to locate: Obama just won the presidency. And this article was actually not an AP article, it was done by someone with the Religion News Service.

There are great uses of statistics throughout the piece, such as "70,000 Muslims voted in Virginia, a state that had not backed a Democratic president in more than 40 years, and which Barack Obama won by fewer than 160,000 votes," or "Early estimates indicate that between 70 and 90% of Muslim voters supported Obama this year."

I found it interesting that Judaism came up in an article about Muslims supporting Obama, shown here: "about 78% of Jews supported Obama." I feel like that whole paragraph is unnecessary. Why are Jews being talked about, and why does it talk about their support for John Kerry? What does this have to do with the piece? Is it just showing minority support for Obama in general? If so, the title should indicate that. I feel like the 10-12 paragraph are unimportant, and like they had to be specifically tied in to the rest of the piece (instead of just flowing).

"After months of balancing their support for the presidential candidate with concerns that their allegiance could do more harm than good, millions of relieved American Muslims cheered the election of the son of a Muslim immigrant whose middle name is Hussein." Who is saying this? How does she know this? I want attribution or something to back up this claim... it seems opinionated to me. How does she know it was a balancing act? How does she know what the concerns were? And how does she know they were relieved?

I found it interesting that although there was overwhelming Muslim support (70-90%) for Obama, they were still frustrated by parts of his campaign, such as removing two woman with head scarves from the background of a picture of a rally. I didn't know that that had happened. And I had never thought about the fact that while Obama said he was a Christian, he never said there was nothing wrong with being Muslim.

I really liked the ending, "There's an emerging coalition within the Muslim community that will have significant impact in the years to come."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-11-06-obama-muslims_N.htm

"Students face punishment for 'Hit a Jew Day'" by Jim Salter

This is a well written, if short, article. And this article is once again AP.

The lead was good. I was definitely hooked. I immediately wanted to know why there was such a day as "Hit a Jew Day" and how the kids got away with even starting it.

I want to know what the kids thought of it. Are there laws against interviewing kids without parental permission? Did he even try to find out what the kids thought about all of this. How about the kids who planned it; what was their intent?

I don't know about your school, but in my school whenever anyone tried to create days like "Hug a Friend Day" it never worked out. It would take agreement between the students and some organization. Even for 10 of the 35 Jewish kids to get hit is an amazing amount for junior high kids to organize. It would have never been accomplished in my junior high school. And were all the days planned out at the beginning of the week or did they go day by day? How did they spread the word about what every day was? How many tall kids were hit on the previous day? Why was this not stopped after the hit a tall kid day? Seems to me that any hitting should not be going on, whether it's based off of physical appearance or ethnicity/religion. Where were the teachers for all of this?

I feel like there should be more than 2 sources. I understand that there is a "district spokesman", Paul Tandy, but how do parents feel about this? Parents of the kids who got in trouble and the parents of the Jewish kids?

"Karen Aroesty, St. Louis regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, said this was more than a case of bullying." How does she know what these kids were thinking? Can one really put the intentions of adults on children? Sure, they should have known it was wrong, but I honestly think they viewed the "Hit a Jew Day" as no different than "Hit a Tall Person Day" They didn't think about the implications it would have. If Christians or atheists were the minority, I believe these kids would have chosen them. I don't think they viewed the Jewish kids as lower than them, any more than they view the tall kids that way.

"Officials from the group plan to discuss the matter with school leaders," is a good ending. It allows us to know what is happening from here. I would be interested to know what punishment the kids involved do get.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-10-23-jewish-students_N.htm

"Prayer leads to work disputes" by Emily Bazar

I found this piece quite well written. I liked the use of statistics to supplement the story, such as "2,880 complaints of religious discrimination" in the 9th paragraph. I really liked the table at the end that supplemented the piece, and gave me an idea of how religious discrimination complaints are broken up.

I would like to know how the non-Muslim employees of these factories felt, more than just that it was "preferential treatment."

Explaining was something is, such as, "complaints of religious discrimination were filed with the EEOC, which enforces federal employment discrimination laws" explained right in the middle of the piece. It helps me to just keep reading without wondering what's going on.

Is not letting Muslims have breaks for prayers a trend? Several factories are mentioned that don't give breaks, and only one that does, which gives "all employees, not just Muslims, two 10-minute breaks instead of one 15-minute break. The additional break 'roughly coincides with prayer times.'" Which is more common, companies that give breaks or that don't? Are special accommodations made for Jews or Christians, other than giving them Saturday or Sunday off for worship? Do Muslims get Friday off for worship?

The ending is a great quote, "'We are refugees to this country," he says, "and now we are made to be refugees within America.'" I feel it really captures how the Muslims who were fired feel, especially since a lot of them were from Somalia.

This piece was written by a USA Today reporter. Most of the religion pieces have been done by AP reporters, so it's nice to see a USA Today reporter doing a religion piece.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-10-15-Muslim_N.htm

"First mosque in former East Berlin opens to protests"

I don't like how this article is organized. I feel that it is haphazard and done quickly. What is a minaret and why is it an important enough part of the mosque to put that fact in the lead?

In the second paragraph, "the Ahmadiyya Muslim community" is mentioned, but not explained. I personally didn't know who they were, or how they were different from Sunni's or Shiite's. I was wondering about them the whole article, and it is not until the very last paragraph that it is explained. At least it is addressed though.

In the third paragraph, "a grass-roots group called 'We Are Pankow.'" is mentioned. Who are they? What exactly are they protesting? Islam? The building of this mosque? This denomination of Islam? What is the purpose of this group? Just to protest this mosque? Or do they have a larger purpose and this is just part of it? Luckily, I don't have to wait long to find out. Only 6 paragraphs later it tells me some about this group... that is the third to last paragraph for those who are counting.

Ehrhart Koerting is mentioned. Should I already know who this is? Because they don't tell me. Although it wouldn't have meant much to me if they had told me (I looked it up); he's Berlin's state interior minister.

And once again, those minarets come up. What's up with those? Why are they important? Why is it so important to people?

I feel that the last paragraph is just stuck in there because they didn't know where to put it. It has information that I found informative, but it just doesn't seem to be a good way to end a piece. And I would have liked to have had that info sooner.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-10-16-mosque-germany_N.htm

France bans immigrants wearing burqas in state language classes

This article had straightfoward reporting of the topics in question. I feel like the hotel owner who was fined for not allowing a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf to stay was kind of just thrown in. It was part of the lead, but then only had one paragraph. I feel like the author doesn't like the law at all and wants the readers to view it as crazy too, so they point out how the laws seem disagree in the lead.

I would have liked to hear from one of the women (or the family of one of the women) who can no longer attend these classes. What were her reactions?

I also feel that the last paragraph was unnecessary and could be cut out. It can stay, it just doesn't really add anything to the piece.

It was a good, if short, presentation of the facts.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-10-09-burqa-ban_N.htm

Bible publishers go niche in hopes of gaining readers

It's a nice scene setter opening, and it piques my curiosity on what all those things have in common, which keeps me reading.

Again, there is opinion in this piece (although this seems to be fairly common for big newspaper reporters). "It's not the good book some may remember." Says whom? What's his source for it being different. "It's difficult to capture how many different versions of the Bible are sold each year." Says whom? His research or one of his resources directly? Is this his personal opinion? Could others find this information? "These "gateway Bibles" — those intended for the secular crowd — seem to be the latest frontier in Bible publishing." I don't know that I see the word seem too often in articles. Does that imply it's his opinion but it's okay because he says "seem" or is he unsure because he couldn't get the sources, or did one of his sources actually say this statement?

This is my opinion, but I think Skidmore should have gone to the average person more. I relate more when I hear the opinions of my peers or someone I can identify with. The experts give us a lot of information, but what do the people in Sweden think of their new Bibles? How about someone who has pre-ordered online... why did they? Do they already own a Bible, or are they one of the customers from "that next circle is what we are after"? How do Christians who have traditional Bibles feel about this change? How about the secular world?

Overall, I like the article and found it interesting. There are some great quotes, such as, "'Contrary to popular belief, I think most Bibles are published for people who are already in the club," Gutjahr said. "Publishing for people who are outside the club, I don't know how much luck there has been with that.'" That gives people the idea that not everyone is completely on board with this idea. The numbers and statistics such as the "sales of "Bible Illuminated" in Sweden, where an estimated 60,000 Bibles are sold each year, reached 30,000 in its first year," supplement the piece well.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-10-07-gateway-bibles-publisher_N.htm

"More important than Dead Sea Scrolls? Quest on for holy text"

This article was an investigative article, and must have taken a fair amount of time to research. It's not breaking news, but I still find it interesting. And while Christians may be interested in this article, it is an article about Jewish relics (very little focuses on Judiasm in USA Today, since they are a minority in the U.S., Christianity being the most dominant religion in the U.S. currently).

The importance of these missing pages was well explained from a Jewish viewpoint. As the article says, "Judaism sanctifies each tiny calligraphic flourish in the Bible as a way of ensuring that communities around the world use precisely the same version of the divine book. That's why the Codex is considered by some to be the most important Jewish text in existence, and why the missing pieces are so coveted."

While overall the piece is good, there seems to be some of the writer's own opinions present. "He divulged few details lest he compromise the effort." Is that really why he didn't say much, or was that a way to embellish the story? "There it was guarded as the Jews' most prized possession and talisman." Who said that it was their most prized possession and talisman? Is that just how the author viewed such close guarding?

The timeline on the side of the article is helpful so one doesn't have to go back and find past dates and what they mean. It helps for understanding of the article.

I really like the way the article ends, "'My guess is that there's a bigger piece somewhere else, waiting to be found,' he said." It just seems to end on a hopeful note, which I personally like.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-09-27-jewish-crown-aleppo_N.htm

"Analyst: View of heaven shows 'real level of religious tolerance'"

Once again, an interesting article. It talks about how religions are coming to more of a "middle ground," and that they feel this is a good thing. More people of one religion believe that people of another religion can go to heaven than was believed 50 years ago. It also gives some nice little facts about church attendance and tithing at the end as a nice ending. I feel that the reporting does not have very much depth, but that could be due to a certain word limit (only a certain amount of space in a paper).

And once again, it leaves me with some questions. When it says "researchers found that while 72% of respondents said at least half of Christians will make it into heaven, the figures were lower for other faiths: Jews (46 percent), Buddhists (37 percent) and Muslims (34 percent)," how were the religions represented? Were there 22% Christian, 22% Jews, 22% Buddhist, 22% Muslim, 11% no religion (no religion statistic was actually given), and 1% other? Were there trends among religions, such as Buddhists seeing more people from other religions making it to heaven?

Was heaven defined, and if so, how? Different religions have different views of heaven. Was it just will people of these religions make it to your view of heaven?

How do religious leaders feel about these things? This article shows an increase in numbers for tolerance, but are the fanatic becoming more fanatic?

What do other studies indicate? Are there other studies?

There are good statistics and reasonable sources in this story.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-09-18-baylor-heaven_N.htm

"With Wall Street in turmoil, some in suits turn to religion"

While overall this is a good article, there are a few critiques of it. Kearney tells about more suits going to church from the religious leaders' perspectives, but what about the individual's perspective? I think that the story would have benefited from an interview with someone who had just started attending services due to the finacial difficulties. There are more people attending overall, but has anyone stopped attending religious services because they feel God has not answered prayers concerning their job? How do those already in these congregations feel about people who didn't come before coming to them and asking for financial help?

The sources do have the credentials to be interviewed, but again, what about the individual people in the religious organizations? We are told that Lou Janicek, works as a financial adviser on Wall Street, but is his job in jeopardy? What does he have in common with those who are now attending the religious services?

I think it's a positive for the story that there are are comments from religious leaders from a Protestant church, a Catholic church, and a Jewish temple. They even mentioned that they tried to interview someone from the mosque, but got no response. It shows the diversity present at Wall Street, and that the turmoil is affecting everyone.

View the article at http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-09-22-wall-street-churches_N.htm