Generalizations about “The Media” are risky because they are so diverse.  However, whether you are inside it or an observer on the outside, you are brain-dead if you don’t have plenty to criticize.

 Much of the press, of course, suffers from pack journalism and pack thinking. There is safety there.  Being a business dictates far more than is realized in what the media takes on. Investigative journalism is noble but costly, and certainly plenty of rascals and rogues run free in their insidious schemes. There are too few watchdogs to sniff them out. How much serious wrongdoing goes on in the East Valley alone for lack of media investigators  and the resources to give the time to probe? 

Then there is the media’s arrogance and refusal to give any semblance of credibility to “conspiracies.” It goes something like this: Nothing major could be pulled off on the grand scheme against society or civilization because: 1) someone would snitch or fumble before it could happen; 2) a big project of evil cannot be pulled off because of the ineptness that accompanies big planners, especially when they are G-men, people at the public trough; 3) people are genuinely good and would never do something vastly unthinkable to hurt others, except the occasional Hitler or Pol Pot; and 4) God protects us from such evildoing.

 “Corporate media” is more than a descriptor. It’s more than the fact that companies own hordes of media of all sorts and all at once. They, in fact, are gatekeepers often full of blindspots and biases as to what rises to the level of reportable issues. Certainly there are sacred cows that keep a slew of issues from being looked at.  The Web has gone a long way to counter established media’s set of priorities for coverage.

UFOs, JFK assassination (that Oswald didn’t do it) and the 9/11 terrorist attacks and report are subjects that the media, for the most part, treat as too far out to legitimize with coverage outside of what’s already “settled.”  Our government would not cover up reports on unidentified flying objects because they defy conventional thinking. And it’s foolish to suggest there was a rush to judgment about the terrorist attacks, despite a raft of inconsistencies and conflicts of interest.

Comes Blair Gadsby,  an adjunct faculty member in religious studies at Mesa Community College and Chandler-Gilbert Community College, who apparently intends to begin a hunger strike on Monday – Memorial Day – “to bring national attention to the 9/11 truth issue.”  It will begin at the office of Sen. John McCain, R.-Arizona, and the apparent GOP presidential candidate for 2008. Gadsby intends to put the spotlight on McCain because of his “avowed support for the official account of 9/11.”

In a press release, Gadsby is described as a Phoenix activist who “will fast until McCain agrees to give him and the Phoenix 9/11 Truth group two hours of time – one hour for presentation  of evidence and facts followed by one hour of debate between leading investigators and scientists on both sides of the issue.”

Truth groups in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and New Mexico plan to hold events in solidarity with Gadsby’s hunger strike. McCain is partly singled out because he wrote the forward  for a 2006 Popular Mechanics book, “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.”

Then they are capitalizing on McCain’s reputation as a man who is a maverick who doesn’t so readily go along with conventional positions. “He has stood up to corporate influence in campaigns and to the very powerful military industrial complex in the past,” the release said.  

The truth group says Gadsby will begin his hunger strike at 5 p.m. Monday at McCain’s office, 5353 N. 16^th St., Phoenix.

 Trying to get a meeting with a man totally consumed with being elected president of the United States is daunting, in itself.  But then targeting a presidential candidate with a protest of  potential starvation may draw its own attention. Given the media’s deadly predisposition of discounting, dismissing and marginalizing issues they label “conspiracy,”  the 9/11 controversy may not get much, if any, new traction for the Gadsby effort to whet anybody’s appetite. 

Church leaders wished they knew why people change churches and what motive they could tap to attract people to their pews and to their membership rolls.  And keep them there.

 They won’t find decisive answers in a worship-pattern study released Thursday by  Phoenix-based Ellison Research. People change churches for sure, but they are not consistent in what sorts of congregations they are drawn to – be it to larger or smaller churches or whether to ones that are more contemporary or more traditional in worship styles.  So outreach and evangelism workers in churches are left guessing on best strategies. 

Ellison queried more than 1,000 adults (including  517 regular church-goers) in all 50 states and carefully sought diversity by geography, race, household income and gender.   “Observers may worry about people leaving small congregations and going to the mega-churches,” said Ron Sellers, Ellison president.  “But they need to realize there are about as many people moving down in size as moving up.” 

Still, there is a lot of movement and church changing  – more about Protestants than Catholics. Most Americans who are regular church-goers have changed the place they go during their adult lives. Sixty-nine percent of all Americans who currently attend worship services have gone to more than one house of worship during their adulthood.

 Yet 31 percent said they kept to a single church for regular attendance since age 18.   The percentage rose to 78 percent for people 55 or older. For adults under age 35, half switched.  Protestants were more likely to change.

Some 76 percent of them have switched churches, compared to 52 percent of Catholics.  In most cases, that stems from their moving to different homes.  Among those who changed where they live, 65 percent were Protestants and 80 were Catholic. 

 About half find new places where they have found a noticeable theological difference from the previous one. Just short of half of them move to churches closer to their homes, and more than a third changed denominations altogether.

 The study seemed to find there was no “consistent preference for larger or smaller congregations,” and 43 left for a larger congregation. 

  Finally, Protestants noted they were more likely to detect theological difference from one church to another (52 percent) than Catholics (25 percent). “The findings show a lot of individual change, but not a lot of broad trends,” Sellers said. “Most people go to a place of worship that’s a different size, but there’s no strong trend toward finding smaller congregations or larger ones.” 

  As a one-time church newsletter writer and editor and still a regular contributor to our church newsletter, I am immensely ambivalent about the call to save paper and move to electronic, or on-line, church newsletters. 

The computer is not the cure-all for escalating costs of a paper society. My church is exploring going to an electronic newsletter, and I have misgivings about such a move. 

Clearly, there would be great cost-savings in postage (albeit it already relatively inexpensive because of periodical rates vs. first-class postage). And there is the paper cost, the copier ink and the wear and tear on a copier.  There’s also that savings in time in running it off and getting the newsletter folded, addressed and sorted and finally delivered to the post office.  Many churches are now producing a newsletter in its regular format, then turning it into a PDF file online so that someone can read the text on his or her computer or print it out to read. 

That gives them the option to read it either of two ways.  And if they want to read the paper version, they pay the paper and printing costs, not the church.  That way they could have something to read in bed or have to file away.  They may also choose to print out only certain pages of a newsletter.

The move raises some concern about too much internal family news like health issues being put into the public domain. Some churches require passwords to read their newsletters and thus control access to some information. 

Some churches never mail the newsletter/Sunday bulletin, but simply put it online weekly and leave communications to that. That is especially true of Catholic parishes. I would be interested in research that examines habits and preferences as this conversion takes place primarily in the name of cost-savings.

I confess I cannot get interested in reading electronic newletters from groups I am associated with.  Possibly because I read computer stuff all day long already.

Churches seek to be environmentally responsible and save paper. As they explore converting to an online newsletter, they should move smartly and judiciously.  To move cold turkey from paper to online versions, they should keep in mind that it is critical their information does not become ignored because it is too much hassle to find online. 

The ideal option would be to tell a congregation the two ways they can access the newsletter. Invite them to try getting it online and getting use to finding it there.  They might learn to love it and to want the information that way.  Some members who don’t have or use computers would be able to continue to receive the paper newsletter.  The mistake would be to announce, “If you want to keep getting the hard copy or paper newsletter, let the church office know. Otherwise, only those requesting the paper newsletter will get one.” I underscore: That would be a mistake. 

Members should, instead, need to request stoppage of their mailed newsletter because they are getting it online.  Without that procedure of choice, many people in a congregation will just stop reading a newsletter altogether because they won’t be intentional in stating any kind of a preference. If you want people to have information, you work to keep the communications open.

To cut them off  from news because of their inaction and, in essence, to require them to, in a sense, re-subscribe may lose them altogether.  Old patterns and habits die slowly. Make it too easy for things to just go away, and too many people won’t notice or care. And if you aren’t reaching them, you’re losing your grip on their interest in you.

The story came and went in March, with seemingly little public discussion.  The Vatican came up with a new list of “seven deadly sins” that fit modern life.   Humankind has come a long, long way from the time of distilling the original set of sins, and it makes all the sense in the world to police misbehavior and actions never anticipated in the early centuries of Christianity.

Like who, back in earlier times, would have fathomed that fouling up the Tiber River in Rome would be a gross indiscretion?

The original seven deadly sins are sloth, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride. Those terms themselves conjure stuffy, staid, onerous, old-fashioned misbehavior – and not much fun, really. Tens of thousands of sermons have been rendered on each one of the sins.  Together the sinful seven have made for tidy seven-week sermon series. 

Whose stomach didn’t grow during a sermon on “gluttony”?   Did you have to worry about bringing the kids to church on the Sunday when lust was showcased? And didn’t the sermons also have the obligatory presidential candidate Jimmy Carter quote from a 1976 Playboy interview in which the good Baptist  said he had found himself looking at women with “lust in his heart.”

So after 1,500 years, the Vatican has looked around and determined 21^st century sin looks different.  But the old seven sins aren’t going away. It’s just that new no-nos need to be elevated to Roman Catholic-level vices of impiety.  Pope Gregory the Great, in the sixth century, laid down the seen deadly sins, On the new list are these: 1) polluting the environment; 2) genetic engineering; 3) being obscenely rich; 4) dealing in drugs; 5) abortion; 6) pedophilia; and 7) being an agent of social injustice.

Every one of them is the center of much misery, suffering and controversy. Now clergy can develop new sermon series on the modern sins.   Richard Owen, the New York Times’ Vatican reporter, gave a rich review of the changes in a March 11 story. This is the compelling beginning of the article: “Drug pushers, the obscenely rich, environmental polluters and  ‘manipulative’ genetic scientists, beware – you may be in danger of losing your mortal soul unless you repent.”  He said Pope Benedict XVI released them to point to a “decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “secularized world” and the ever-decreasing number of Roman Catholics who choose to regularly go to confession.  One finding noted by the Vatican was that 60 percent of Catholics have fallen out of practice with confession. 

Owen explained how the church has divided sin. There are the “venial,” or less serious, sins and the mortal sins that threaten the soul with “eternal damnation unless absolved before death through confession and penitence.”  The mortal sins that are regarded as grave violations of the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes. Among those are murder, contraception, abortion, adultery and lust, Owen points out. 

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that ‘immediately after death, the souls of those who died in a state of mortal sin descend into hell.  Meanwhile, Christians have historically been urged to adhere to the seven holy virtues:  chastity, abstinence, temperance, diligence, patience, kindness and humility.

 The newly designated sins point to a great global focus and on matters that have wide social consequences, unlike the “old sins” that were more about individual failings.

Said Bishop Fianfranco Girotti, the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, “You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbor’s wife, but also by  ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or  compromised embryos.”

Abortion’s place on the list would be expected. Not surprising is pedophilia, with all the damage wrought on Catholics especially.  My favorite is “being an agent of social injustice.”  Now that would be an amazing multitude of offenders.  What is “obscenely rich”?  Is it OK if the filthy rich give away billions as well? And is this an indictment of making mountains of money (i.e. capitalism), or just not distributing it to others at acceptable levels? 

One thing certain. It gives a whole new perspective on sin.

 A reader emailed me this week angry that I would be so disrespectful to call the Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted, bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix,  as merely “Olmsted” on second reference in a news story. 

Here’s the comment, which, incidentally, was sent me in all capital letters (something that is always a nuisance to the eye): “I am appalled at your referring to our Most Holy Bishop by last name as editor for religion please show respect for our bishop as you would no doubt show for our friendly Muslins.” (sic)  By the way the email subject was titled: “Reporting news with accuraticy.” (sic).  And I think, the writer mean “Muslims.” 

I responded that I meant no disrespect. I was following long-established “style” or rules laid down by the Associated Press, which leads the way in standardization for the full range of news-writing issues – spelling, capitalization, titles, hyphenization and so much more. Thus George Bush becomes Bush the second time he comes up in a story.  

 Meanwhile, we often only say “Christ” on first reference – never starting out saying “Jesus Christ.”  Is it offensive to just say “Christ”?   Is just writing “Bush” rude? Is it disrespectful that we don’t say “George Bush” or “Mr. Bush,” as in the longtime New York Times tradition? 

Titles, of course, are vanishing. How often do we still address mail with “Mr.” or “Mrs.” titles. We just use names.  Besides, with women’s names, we don’t have to be afraid if “Ms.” may not sit well with women who find it too “feminist” or that “Mrs.”may unnecessarily make reference to a woman’s marital status, unlike “Mr.,” a distinction I have always found strange. 

This was my full response:

 Thanks for the e-mail. I respect your comment.  The routine practice of news-writing, applied by virtually all media, is to call a person (man, woman or child) by the last name the second time the person is mentioned in an article. (Sometimes we will use a child’s first name). There is absolutely no intention to demean people by referring to them by their last names with a second, third, etc., mention. We won’t be changing our policy. I am certain Bishop Olmsted understands this and is not offended.  Changing the policy for the bishop would cause us to need to re-examine doing so for other people in authority, from Sheriff Joe Arpaio to school superintendents, and others in positions of respect. Where do we draw the line?  I hope you understand.

A cynic could look at the American presidential campaign scene and be nauseated by the endless religious subtext. There are endless efforts to keep alive the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy with Sen. Barack Obama. And there is debate whether the Rev. John Hagee’s anti-Catholic commentaries go largely free of media scrutiny and leaves Sen. John McCain unscathed despite their association.

 There’s the rule that clergy cannot advocate for politicians from the pulpit. They can invite politicians to speak, but are not to show a preference.  (Like how often do they invite those politicians’ opponents to speak?)

 Scottsdale-based Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative issues advocacy group, announced on Friday it was fighting back at groups that it says are sending the Internal Revenue Service after churches and pastors with claims they have politicized the pulpit to steer their brethren to the right places on the ballot.

Such IRS scrutiny, they fear, could jeopardize congregation’s tax-exempt status. The ADF wants such intimidations to stop. “Pastors have a right to speak about biblical values from the pulpit without fear of punishment,” said Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel. “No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights.”  Stanley said the government is not permitted to demand to give up its tax status “because the pastor exercises his First Amendment rights in the pulpit.

Groups like American United intentionally trigger IRS investigations that will silence churches through fear, intimidation and disinformation.” The IRS rules went into effect in 1954 when then Sen. Lyndon Johnson, D-Texas, successfully got national legislation passed to add the threat of IRS action again religion institutions, including churches and synagogues, if clergy mentioned the positions of specific candidates from the pulpit.  

Truth is this is such a deregulated world that even the watchdogs of pastoral politics get little or no attention or respect if they cry foul.   The ADF laments that churches are more restricted than other groups and argues that it is the role of churches and other faith groups to evaluate candidates’ positions based on the values that are important to them. 

 “Organizations that are tax-exempt but do not have the same speech restrictions  the IRS places on churches include civic league, labor, agricultural or horticultural associations, business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, boards of trade, professional football leagues, clubs organized for pleasure, recreation and other nonprofit groups, fraternal beneficiary societies and cemeteries,” they say in a press release. 

The ADF is calling on pastors to get behind Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Sept. 28 – not coincidentally five weeks from the big November election. www.telladf.org/church.

There are good reasons why the pulpit should have political restraints and restrictions.  First, it is out of respect for a congregation that is there for spiritual teaching. To let politics run free compromises purpose – and may drive away people. Mouths of politicians would water if they could freely make the rounds of pulpits to pitch their candidacies and press pastors and congregations to support them.

Given the massive amounts of money that the faith community can raise and spend tax-free, it seems a fair trade-off. Fact is no one is keeping track, really.  Politics in the pulpit is hardly disguised. With a wink, those who seek to use the religiously faithful to get on their political bandwagons find a way.

Fund-raisers can soar, and they can flop. Or flip-flop, as in footwear.    We are 3 ½ weeks away for “National Barefoot Sunday” when people of faith are being literally asked to leave their shoes at the altar at the end of their worship service.

A charity, which is called Soles4Souls, has developed a campaign to “demonstrate God’s love to hurting people across the world with the simple gift of shoes.” Explaining that  more than 300 million children around  the world routinely live barefoot, the organization has a plan get shoes off us folks or out of the closet and onto people too poor to get shoes for themselves. 

People can be astonished when they start to tally the numbers of pairs of shoes that fill space in their closets.  Too often they are weeded out and  tossed. After the cyclone that ravaged Myanmar, once called Burma, on May 2, a call went out for shoes – 25,000.  A appeal has been made for $50,000 to ship those news shoes and boots to the region.

 “We need to do our part to help the victims of the disaster,” said Soles4Souls founder and CEO Wayne Elsey. “It’s horrible to see what the people of Myanmar are going through right now. Many of them have been left with nothing, and we urge all Americans to donate to any charity helping out the people of Myanmar.”  Elsey said he is asking the footwear industry to donate 250,000 pairs of shoes to the victims who live along the western edge of the Indo-China peninsula facing the Indian Ocean. 

Meanwhile, National Barefoot Sunday is part of  Barefoot Week June 1-7.  Soles4Souls, based in Nashville, Tenn., plans to stage it the first week of June each year – a good time when the weather in parts of the country gets so nice, one wants to finally run barefoot through the grass. 

Part of the thrust is to convince people to not discard their shoes but to  recycle them to people who don’t mind they may be scuffed or show heel wear. “A sad fact is that there are 300 million children in the world who have never owned a pair of shoes, while the same number of shoes were tossed into American landfills last year,” Elsey said. 

 Actress Scarlett Johansson, who had previously given 2,000 new shoes from her own Reebok footwear line, said she was lending her name to publicizing the special week.  Another actress and fashion designer, Lauren Conrad, gave her support  to promoting recycling used shoes. “I will be cleaning out my closet on their behalf for the second year in a row and urging all of my friends to do the same,” she said. 

On Barefoot Sunday, churches are encouraged to have a moment when people can go to the front of their church sanctuaries during worship services, take off their shoes and leave them, as well as others they may cull from their closets.

 The shoes are to be shipped to the closest warehouses. So far there are three: one in Las Vegas, and the others in Alabama and Virginia.  GospelShoe and MitzvahShoe are two related charities that are partnering with Soles4Shoes.

Congregations are urged to stage shoe drives, adopt individual countries to help, hold 5K walks, take part in relief trips, adopt countries where shoes can be sent or be willing to host a shoes drop-off site.  

 “Changing the World One Pair at a Time” is the mission of Soles4Souls.  When we walk in other people’s shoes — or they walk in ours — we take steps for more common humanity.

What faith community is not nervous over the downturn in the economy? The surge in the cost of gasoline, for example, causes families to reevaluate travel and whether they may cut down on their long drives to church once, twice or three times a week.

Dare church leaders venture into new programs or building projects while the future remains so uncertain?  Increased food costs drive down what families buy to donate to food banks, not to mention ramifications for ministries to the poor and homeless. Dream projects, staff pay raises and refunding programs are approached with hesitancy. 

The Phoenix Sky Harbor Interfaith Chaplaincy’s spring newsletter laments that some of it steady and reliable givers aren’t sending donations. “As I look over the list of givers who made gifts in 2007, I notice that the names of several business, churches and other organizations that made donations in previous years are missing this time,” wrote Chaplain Al Young.

“I personally value these connections.” Young noted that often he meets people, for the first time, who have been regular donors. “When I hear the name, I recognize it from among those that I see on gifts we have received,” he said. “It is a good feeling to meet a person who has been a supporter, sometimes for many years, and be able to talk with them about the ministry of care their gifts make possible.” 

Recently the March of Dimes and American Lung Society recruited me from national offices to mail out letters to my end of the block, urging donations to be returned to me.  I have done it before over the years with mixed results. Only a fraction of my neighbors ever respond, typically those living closest.  I remember a time when we did a pass-along envelope.

Each household popped in a buck or two and delivered it to the next house until it made the rounds. There might be $15 or $20 inside the envelope. But these are different times, and the money can be easily “lost.” Who wants to confront a lazy or suspicious neighbor for $12 that seems missing?  Sometimes when the response to mailed letters and a personal note has been poor, I just write a check for $20 or so.

We aren’t asked to make direct follow-ups to our mailings to neighbors. With the flaws of the fund-raising method, I suspect the charities still do well – at least enough to keep following those procedures.

 As for Sky Harbor Chaplaincy, its partners helped its 2007 income of $124,363 versus expenses of $115,491. It closed the year with $25,359 balance. Young and his roving ministry of 13 volunteers reported 1,726 volunteer hours. They gave help to 28,897  people who traveled through the airport. Traveler assistance was given to 612 people in 376 cases. Among them were 157 “stranded” people, 54 homeless people and 205 related to domestic violence cases – women and children typically getting out of town to safer places.

 The chapel, provided by Sky Harbor Chaplaincy in one of the terminals, had 10,550 drop-ins, with 463 attending Christian services on Sundays during the year, followed by 57 at Baha’i prayer. Some 13,083 prayer cards were given out.  For more information, call Young at (602) 244-1346 or http://members.iinet.net.au/~holloway1.

  Thursday – May 1 — was National Day of Prayer.  The observance falls on the first Thursday of each May, and it typically is a grassroots project by anyone in any communities to take the initiative to organize an event that might bring people of various faiths together for a period of prayer.  It can be as simple as providing a place where people can gather for supplication. Over the years, as I have covered religion and spirituality in the Valley, I have seen interest in the National Day of Prayer wax and wane. A lot of that has depended on who was in charge of the Arizona organizing for that year.  Some years, I got full media packets about it.  Or there was a website precisely listing where celebrations would be held morning, midday and night.  James Phillips was the Arizona National Day coordinator. The Web site  (www.ndptf.org/custom/events/eventSearch/searchResults.cfm?state=AZ) listed 53 events around the state.  Organizers of just two specific observances made contact with us at the Tribune to publicize their events.  One of them was Howard Morrison, who for many years has been the leader of the Town of Gilbert’s event. It was noon to 1 p.m. at the Gilbert Municipal Center, 50 E. Civic Center Drive.  Meanwhile Gateway Life Church in Chandler held an event at a private home, with a video about the National Day of  Prayer. Alas, organizers of others in the south East Valley never bothered to make their events more known.  In Mesa, the Shield of Faith Christian Center, 540 W. Iron Ave., Building 3, Suite 118,  was open for prayer for five evening hours. The same went for the Mesa Convention Center, 120 N. Center St., where people gathered on their own for an hour at night.  A juvenile probation officer, Russ Goemaat, announces he would lead prayer and group singing around  the flagpole midday. at Mesa Detention School, 1810 S. Lewis. At the Arizona State Capitol, 1700 W. Washington St., there was a prayer walk for an hour in the morning. Guy Chadwick coordinated  that, as well as a prayer and worship activity midday in the Old Senate Chamber. Plans called for a  valleywide prayer service for Christian singles  that night  at Scottsdale Bible Church, 7901 E. Shea Blvd. The theme of the 57^th annual National Day of Prayer was “Prayer! America’s Strength and Shield,” which is based on Psalm 28:7: “The Lord is my strength and shield; my heart trusts in him and I am helped.”