We live in a secular society. As the years have passed, religion has slowly faded into the background. Many people aren't all that interested in going to church or synagogue or mosque or their designated place of worship anymore. Religion has lost major popularity points, and that is evident in the world around us. This story, "Synagogue and 'Spiritual Starbucks'," deals with the apparent loss of faith in the Jewish community particularly. It discusses a Jewish neighborhood in NYC where the synagogues are struggling. Amidst the dwindling numbers of regulars at the synagogues, Rabbi Simon Jacobson uses unconventional methods to summon stragglers into his synagogue's services.
This story contains a lot of information. Vitello used many sources, including several "experts." The only complaint I have regarding sources is that I think he could have contacted more common people, members of the synagogue. He only spoke to two, and one was a former president of the synagogue, and the other was ninety years old. Vitello should have talked to more young people since many of Jacobson's efforts are aimed at the young Jewish community.
Vitello did an excellent job of backing up his information. He did not trust what sources told him at face value; he looked into the information. There were two specific times in the article when he did this that really stood out. One was when he asked Rabbi Jacobson to respond to an evaluation made by the chairman of the Jewish studies program at Queens College regarding the beliefs at the core of Jacobson's program. Jacobson confirmed what the chairman said but was also given the chance to explain the true purpose of his program. Also, Jacobson told a story about a former student, and Vitello contacted the student to verify the story and to see what the student was doing now. This had the added benefit of showing how these programs could potentially change lives.
This story also had some colorful quotes. Rabbi Jacobson described an event the synagogue held as "Spiritually elevating. A transportation for the soul." I thought this quote was entertaining because Jacobson sounded like he was reviewing a movie. "Fun for the whole family! A rollicking good time!" Also, in regards to Jewish practice in the community, Jacobson said that "It is a kind of tundra, and we are trying to figure out how to resettle it." This quote provided for vivid imagery, bringing the state of faith in the Jewish community to life.
However, at times, the story lost focus. The lead was good, but it could have been better if it were more personal. It was a general example of a rabbi, rather than a specific anecdote of one of the rabbis mentioned in the story. Also, it seemed a little irrelevant because none of the rabbis in the actual body of the story had to do what the rabbi in the lead did. In fact, Vitello specifically mentioned that the main rabbi at the synagogue didn't have to. Also, I thought Vitello meant to focus on the spiritual decline in the synagogue, but he interjected little sections into the story about its physical state instead. I think it would have been a stronger story if he just focused on one form of deterioration or the other, preferably the spiritual.
Overall, this story was solid; Vitello checked his facts and used plenty of sources. I just think he could have varied those sources a little bit more, rather than varying the focus of his story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/nyregion/29synagogue.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
My Take on: "Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes" By David D. Kirkpatrick
Abortion. It is a taboo subject in classrooms, at dinner tables, even in political campaigns. People don't like to talk about it because they know that it will bring up fiery arguments on both the pro-choice and pro-life sides. They'd rather just let the issue fester until there's no avoiding bringing it up. However, we all know it's a major issue in both the religious and political worlds. It has the potential to greatly influence the upcoming presidential election. Both McCain and Obama have now addressed the issue of abortion, and the time has come for the campaigns to convince Catholic voters to see things their way.
As a Catholic myself, I've grown up with the issue of abortion all around me. I read this article thinking it would definitely be a one-sided slam on the Catholics who cling hard to their pro-life beliefs. However, for the most part, I was pleasantly surprised. David Kirkpatrick presented the case of both the "progressive" and "conservative" Catholics. While he did show that most of the Catholics he talked to would be voting for McCain, he showed the strong efforts made by the grass-roots campaign of Obama to swing voters to their side. He interviewed both Catholics who vote based on the issue of abortion, and Catholics who look at other issues, rather than voting according to a candidate's stance on abortion. I thought it was fair of him to show how important the issue of abortion is to Catholics, while still presenting the fact that there are other issues that affect Catholic voters.
However, there were some instances when I was confused while reading Kirkpatrick's article. For example, he says that the theological dispute of abortion is "playing out in weekly homilies." He doesn't attribute this claim to anyone. Unless he himself is at Mass every week, how does he know this? I felt that he should have specified where this information came from because it must have come from somewhere.
Also, Kirkpatrick discusses how Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi both brought up different saints without explaining in what context the politicians discussed them. Where and when did they talk about the saints? Most of all, why? Kirkpatrick never explained what significance this information should have. Did those saints teach some doctrine about abortion that would inspire the debates that supposedly arose between the Church hierarchy and Democratic officials as a result of Biden and Pelosi's comments?
Finally, Kirkpatrick included a comment from one parishioner who said that he would not vote for Obama because he is black. While I believe a comment like that is reason for attention and concern, I don't see its relevance in an article about Catholic voters and the issue of abortion. The comment would have been more appropriate if included in an article about race and the presidential election.
One thing I have to add that I thought was funny in a not-really-funny-kind-of-way is that while both parties want Catholics to vote for their candidate, they don't really seem that interested in being associated with Catholics. Kirkpatrick discusses how McCain met with a cardinal and an archbishop, but his campaign called the meetings "strictly ceremonial." However, the campaign welcomed the comments of the two Church leaders about Democrats and abortion and was happy to receive their support. So I guess the message to Catholics is: give us your support, but please, for heaven's sake, keep your distance.
Overall, I thought this article was fair, but its credibilty was weakened by the annoying presence of holes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17catholics.html?ref=opinion
As a Catholic myself, I've grown up with the issue of abortion all around me. I read this article thinking it would definitely be a one-sided slam on the Catholics who cling hard to their pro-life beliefs. However, for the most part, I was pleasantly surprised. David Kirkpatrick presented the case of both the "progressive" and "conservative" Catholics. While he did show that most of the Catholics he talked to would be voting for McCain, he showed the strong efforts made by the grass-roots campaign of Obama to swing voters to their side. He interviewed both Catholics who vote based on the issue of abortion, and Catholics who look at other issues, rather than voting according to a candidate's stance on abortion. I thought it was fair of him to show how important the issue of abortion is to Catholics, while still presenting the fact that there are other issues that affect Catholic voters.
However, there were some instances when I was confused while reading Kirkpatrick's article. For example, he says that the theological dispute of abortion is "playing out in weekly homilies." He doesn't attribute this claim to anyone. Unless he himself is at Mass every week, how does he know this? I felt that he should have specified where this information came from because it must have come from somewhere.
Also, Kirkpatrick discusses how Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi both brought up different saints without explaining in what context the politicians discussed them. Where and when did they talk about the saints? Most of all, why? Kirkpatrick never explained what significance this information should have. Did those saints teach some doctrine about abortion that would inspire the debates that supposedly arose between the Church hierarchy and Democratic officials as a result of Biden and Pelosi's comments?
Finally, Kirkpatrick included a comment from one parishioner who said that he would not vote for Obama because he is black. While I believe a comment like that is reason for attention and concern, I don't see its relevance in an article about Catholic voters and the issue of abortion. The comment would have been more appropriate if included in an article about race and the presidential election.
One thing I have to add that I thought was funny in a not-really-funny-kind-of-way is that while both parties want Catholics to vote for their candidate, they don't really seem that interested in being associated with Catholics. Kirkpatrick discusses how McCain met with a cardinal and an archbishop, but his campaign called the meetings "strictly ceremonial." However, the campaign welcomed the comments of the two Church leaders about Democrats and abortion and was happy to receive their support. So I guess the message to Catholics is: give us your support, but please, for heaven's sake, keep your distance.
Overall, I thought this article was fair, but its credibilty was weakened by the annoying presence of holes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17catholics.html?ref=opinion
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)