Lowell begins the discussion. At Article VI Blog, we like to tease through the issues that arise as secular journalists try to figure out, and report on, the activities of religious people in the public square. We do that from a politically conservative point of view, recognizing that there are many other perspectives. Here are some of our latest musings and observations about that, beginning with some thoughts by my Evangelical Christian (and Presbyterian) blogging partner. John Schroeder.

Journalistic Wishful Thinking, by John Schroeder

Dan Gilgoff, over at USNews' God & Country blog, reports that reports of the demise of the Religious Right may be 'slightly' overstated:

In this moment of widespread speculation about the Christian right's disintegration, I'd like to expand on this cautionary note.

Now that all by itself makes Gilgoff's reporting here head and shoulders above the rest, but his argument falls short of the mark.  Here it is in three parts:

First, the transition of leadership from Falwell to Robertson to Dobson wasn't as seamless as is often portrayed.

.Second, for a movement on the verge of collapse, the Christian right ain't doing too bad so far as influencing policy goes. 

.Finally, to Silk's question about whether white evangelicals will be as "mobilizable" as in the past: If 2008 is any indication, they're more mobilizable than ever.

These are all good points, but I think they miss the forest for the trees.   The biggest problem the Religious Right has had is the appearance of a monolithic leader like Falwell, Robertson, or Dobson.  Such leaders coalesce a movement, but they also limit its growth.  Could the coalition that passed Proposition 8 here in California have survived if such near-fundamentalist leadership were significantly at play?  The Dobson organization did in fact send quite a bit of money this way (three times more, in fact, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did - but that is another story) but Dobson remained fairly low profile.  Given his ham-fisted handling of Mormon-related issues in the past, I doubt the coalition would have survived had Dobson taken a more active role in the Prop 8 battle.

As the conservative, religiously motivated movement is gaining in influence, it must expand beyond the boundaries that can be defined by a single leader, particularly one as wedded to a theological understanding as a Falwell, Robertson, or Dobson.  Forget Mormons for a moment; there is deep hesitation amongst the most theologically conservative of the Evangelical movement to partner with the "heathen" Roman Catholics - something which, as big portions of Evangelicalism liberalize, is an absolute necessity.

Journalists love to portray groups like the Religious Right as a monolithic movement; that makes their job really easy.  "Call Dobson's office, get a quote," and their job is done.  But, like everything else, the religiously motivated conservative movement is settling into the new media age quite nicely.  Heavens yes, they are still effective on policy issues and are mobilizable.  That is what new media does best - mobilize at a very grass roots level.

Gilgoff's later two points kind of “get” this, but his first points seems to indicate a longing for the old media days and the easily obtainable quick quote.  Those days are, I believe, long since gone.   There will be no " charismatic leader whose organization provides the movement with national infrastructure ," there will be coalitions of Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Catholics, Mormons, Mainlines and Emergents that form around an issue or a candidate.  The internet will be the infrastructure, and the network will disappear into cyber space as soon as it is no longer needed.

I for one have never liked being pigeonholed, either by the news media or by monolithic movements.  For example, I am deeply opposed to abortion but Jerry Falwell never really spoke for me - nor did Pat Robertson or James Dobson.  In that regard, I am far from alone in the world of politically engaged Evangelicals, and Catholics, Mormons, and . . . you name the faith group.

It's a new day, and the old media best wake up to it or they will find themselves looking for work somewhere else.

What Do The New Media Find Interesting About Religion? by Lowell Brown

"Man bites dog" will always attract a reporter.   This is a few days old now, but we had to say something about it.   Utah Valley University (a state institution, not to be confused with Brigham Young University ) held a symposium called  " Mormonism in the Public Mind."The Boston Globe's religion reporter, Michael Paulson, was the keynote speaker. The sessions available included these:

• Richard Bushman, Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University and author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling and Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism; 
• Jana Riess, author of Mormonism for Dummies and American Pilgrimage and former Religion Book Review Editor for Publisher's Weekly; 
• Terryl Givens, Bostwick Professor of English at the University of Richmond and author of Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy and The Latter-day Saint Experience in America ; 
• Claudia Bushman; author of Contemporary Mormonism: Latter-day Saints in Modern America, and Building the Kingdom: A History of Mormons in America

I would have loved to have attended all of those discussions.

Michael Paulson's writing about the Church seems to me very thoughtful and fair. In this blog post, for example, he reports on the most recent General Conference. But it is this post, “ Reflecting on Mormonism and the media,” that interests me. He writes:

It is easy to see how a reporter like Paulson could interpret Church members' desire to make sure they did not hurt the Church by their comments (or be taken advantage of by a reporter) as evidence of central control over the members' speech. So it is not surprising that Paulson was attracted to a session entitled  " What's It Like to Be A Mormon Progressive ?" There he heard from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who appear to be swimming upstream culturally and politically.

For example, a member of the Church named Morris Thurston spoke about his Proposition 8 experience - not as a supporter of the measure, an activity for which Mormons are now either famous or infamous, depending on one's view, but for opposing Prop 8 even though he is a Mormon.  What Mr. Thurston did, in essence, was write a rebuttal to a controversial and anonymous pro-Prop 8 piece that sought to list some negative consequences if Prop 8 failed.  

So why is that so interesting to the Boston Globe religion writer?  Mr. Thurston billed himself on his written rebuttal as an "adjunct professor of law at Brigham Young University ."  It's my understanding that Mr. Thurston is an intellectual property attorney who retired from a large international law firm and has taught (or perhaps still teaches) a patent law course at BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School.  I don't think he is a legal expert on anything related to Proposition 8, and in terms of professional credentials and experience is no more qualified to comment on that measure than anyone else.  

But that BYU faculty connection made him terribly interesting to the news media, and throughout the debate over Prop 8 we heard the measure's opponents refer repeatedly to "the BYU professor of law who opposes Prop 8."  One must admit that such a description does catch one's attention.  (Note:  Morris Thurston and I have corresponded.  He has been unfailingly kind and polite to me and I do not doubt his sincerity.  I suspect that when he wrote his rebuttal piece, he did not intend to become a center of controversy.  Mr. Thurston later issued a press release stating that his claim to a BYU connection appeared in an early draft of his rebuttal that was not authorized for publication.  I am not commenting on Thurston's actions, but on Michael Paulson's journalistic instincts.)

Thurston's platform allowed him to express these views in Paulson's Boston Globe blog:

Now, lots of Church members would like to describe an opposing view of the Church's Prop 8 efforts in California , but Thurston's the one who got the Boston Globe platform. Why? Because he was the non-conformist, the “man biting the dog.”

That's how you attract news media attention to religion story.  Anything that emphasizes internal dissension among religious people, or outright whackiness, may well make you famous.  We saw that often lot during the Mitt Romney presidential campaign.   Remember, for example, the bizarre news media interest in Governor Romney's temple garments?  

As we've said many times, we don't think the news media "gets" religion.  I think Mr. Paulson tries very hard, but his apparent fascination with the story , rather than the substance , gives us further evidence of that.

Lowell C. Brown is co-author of Article VI Blog, http://www.article6blog.com, which is devoted to discussion and analysis of the religious issues surrounding the 2008 presidential election. Lowell is also a Los Angeles-based attorney who is a partner in Arent Fox LLP, where he practices corporate health law for institutional health care providers. He describes himself as an active, committed, convinced Mormon and has served in a number of callings in the Church, his favorite of which was Scoutmaster. The views expressed here are Lowell's own.