Nice essay, but as you pointed out, we're not used to the discourse, we don't know when were getting snowed, when we're getting too personal, and then how to go about having a dialogue on things which might be beyond discussion.

So, if you could, start. You could describe at arm's length how to have such a discussion--but in your essay you said that's part of the problem, keeping religion at arm's length. If you touch the palm of your hand to your chest, that length, please begin the dialogue.

Interesting! Could this be a cause of the degradation of popular culture and of social life? Because nobody knew how to say "hey, these changes are not good". Because to say that was to embark on a religious discussion, and nobody knew how to have a religious discussion, in the public square? So a vacuum was left, and the profit motive had a field-day, and unimpeded by disapproval, and sold people debasing stuff  - stuff that at first only a few marginal people liked. But then it became available and was advertised, pushed. Then, more people came to like it, because of its attractions, and because there was no discussion against it. Any discussion against it sounds prudish and stupid. Because ... without religious discussion, there is no reason not to do whatever they are selling this week. Religion is the engine of disapproval and it gets in the way of commerce.

So now nobody can explain exactly WHY anything is good. Nobody knows what good is.

Therefore, the only remaining good is youthfulness, because youth is the time of innocence. So, to be good, nobody grows up. Ever. There are people who are in their middle and late twenties, grown women and grown men, vigorous adults, who stay "kids".They dress "kid", they drink "kid", they talk "kid", they listen to music "kid", they have sex "kid" and they kid themselves they haven't really left youth. These pseudo-kids don't want to be bad. They are afraid of becoming The Man. They haven't left youth, but they are young adults: adults, do you hear. Not kids. They have no idea what "adult" means. It is not their fault and I am not mad at them. Somebody stole it in the night.

Of course, they are under orders not to define their parents as old, by growing up, and that is part of story, too. Old age and death cannot be faced without religion. And, as you say so well, there is no way to discuss religion. So, they freeze the clock.

Interesting essay, and important points. But one thing you leave out: for all these slick urban reporters to cover religion more effectively, they'll have to accept that loving Jesus or fearing Hashem doesn't make you a brick-stupid ingoramus dipshit.

"Not so much what the candidates believe, but what Americans believe --
remembering, also, that no belief at all is still a belief in something."

Atheism is a belief if clear is a color. This is a valuable call to journalists of the world, but lets not start off on the wrong foot by saying that our picture of Americans is wholly incomplete because one piece of the puzzle goes unreported.

I'm not a United States Citizen but I stumbled upon your site and took a moment to read your article entitled:

"Why Journalists Get Religion Wrong; It ain't easy covering the God beat".

In it you refer to the American people as desirous of or, in need of, insight into the religious beliefs of their electoral candidates to guide their vote. I am puzzled by this as I am familiar with your constitution and I believe that Article VI says:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

If I am wrong or have misquoted I would appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. But it seems to me that if this truly is a part of your constitution then it might be that reporters are not covering the candidates religious views in depth because it would be unconstitutional to sway the vote on religious grounds.

It remains your right to cover and speak about the religious beliefs of your candidates, but if anything I think the people should be dissuaded from using a religious barometer to guide their vote. Religious beliefs tend to cloud the important issues like economic growth, scientific advancement, health care advancement, care for the poor, crime and punishment, and a myriad of other extremely important issues which always seem to be overpowered by the untouchable faith.

Religion has its place. As you say it is a great way to "get inside" the head of a candidate. In the political arena however, your founding fathers chose to keep Church and State separate, and it is my humble opinion that they made the right choice.

Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Cameron
andrew.cameron@mac.com
Google: andrewDOTcameron