Dionne, E.J.

E.J. Dionne -- A Catholic fusing faith and politics Note: My book is on my Kindle, which does not offer page numbers. As any journalist with half a brain knows, the stories one selects are perhaps the greatest indication of bias, personality and background. This certainly rings true in the works of E.J. Dionne, op-ed columnist for The Washington Post. On April 6, 2007, he wrote a piece entitled, “Answers to the Atheists,” about the Easter holiday of that week. In the article, Dionne attempts to answer the question of whether or not Christians really are a threat to society, as new atheists like Richard Dawkins purport. Dionne, however, is not generally one to attempt to enhance any polarity, as John Schmalzbauer points out several times in his chapter. Dionne himself is a Catholic, as Schmalzbauer says. While he does not always champion his faith with a trumpet, he is ready to defend religion with reason. He forcefully answers critics who say Christians are too timid to enter into the arena of ideas or academics and take on the tough questions. On the contrary, he says, "What's really bothersome is the suggestion that believers rarely question themselves while atheists ask all the hard questions,” quoting Brian Novak’s assertion that questions have always embodied the heart and soul of journalism and Christianity alike. Moreoever, Dionne is not afraid to mention the name of Jesus, which is something noteworthy in modern journalism. The word “God” is controversial enough, but the name “Jesus” is cause for pure outrage. And yet, he seems to commend Jesus for his “passion.” Dionne makes it clear at the end of the article that his faith is somehow integrated into the Easter holiday when he says, “That's why I celebrate Easter and why, despite many questions of my own, I can't join the neo-atheists.” Schmalzbauer notes that Dionne’s political ideas stem from his Catholic roots. This is interesting to watch unfold when religion and politics collide. Schmalzbauer highlights repeatedly Dionne’s emphasis on seeking unity among Americans. This emphasis seems to be somehow connected to his faith. Dionne seems to center much of his work on reconciling liberal and conservative thought. Moreover, he seems to almost automatically link right-wing conservatives and Christians. While he himself often juxtaposes liberalism and conservatism, ironically enough, he also discusses a “false polarization” between conservatives and liberals, as Schmalzbauer notices. At times, to be honest, it is hard to tell whether he is highlighting polarization, smoothing it out, or causing it. A somewhat recent article that would support the claim that he is attempting to smooth over polarization is found in something he wrote for Thanksgiving day of 2010, entitled, “On Thanksgiving, remembering our common bonds.” His initial decision to write on Thanksgiving is noteworthy. In writing about both Easter and Thanksgiving, Dionne gives readers at least glimpse his awareness and appreciation of religious institutions. In the article, Dionne criticizes Tea party activists and other conservatives like Rush Limbaugh for over-politicizing Thanksgiving and for criticizing rather watered-down versions of the holiday. While Dionne says he, too, values having the holiday portrayed accurately, according to history, he concludes that other notions like community and others-centeredness are more important than any political themes stemming from the Pilgrims. He pleads, too, that we cannot just pull one particular message out of the day. “Yet putting aside the dangers of allowing ideology to distort the facts of our present and our past, we seem to have lost our sense of balance as a country," he writes. "This argument over Thanksgiving strikes me as a symptom of our failure to acknowledge that the American story is not all one thing or all another.” [Emphasis added.] As Schmalzbauer points out, Dionne thinks Americans have a mixture of both conservative and liberal strains in them. Polarization is something Dionne seems particularly against, and as such, something he seeks to highlight and criticize in American politics and culture. And, though he isn’t perhaps explicit in his religious tone, it’s clear that the values of Thanksgiving are ones he shares. Dionne further fuses his interest in politics and religion in his Oct. 7, 2005 article entitled, “Faith-Based Hypocrisy.” If Badaracco’s second chapter were online and needed a link, he could have linked directly to Dionne’s column to see examples of faith professed poorly in the public arena and politics. Again, Dionne’s story selection attests to his faith-rooted journalism. Though himself religious, Dionne is clearly unsupportive of individuals who take their faith into the public arena rashly or for personal gain. In the 2005 article, he criticizes members of Bush’s administration for using religion to get their way. He writes, “Now we know: President Bush's supporters are prepared to be thoroughly hypocritical when it comes to religion. They'll play religion up or down, whichever helps them most in a political fight.” Dionne highlights that the Bush administration consciously used then-Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’s religious identity as an “evangelical Christian” as a strategy. It was, indeed, their political platform. Dionne says such a strategy intermixing testimony and politics is inappropriate. Dionne’s faith, then, emerges as much through the political stories he selects as how he actually tells those stories.

E.J. Dionne -- A Catholic fusing faith and politics

As any journalist with half a brain knows, the stories one selects are perhaps the greatest indication of bias, personality and background. This certainly rings true in the works of E.J. Dionne, op-ed columnist for The Washington Post. On April 6, 2007, he wrote a piece entitled, “Answers to the Atheists,” about the Easter holiday of that week.

In the article, Dionne attempts to answer the question of whether or not Christians really are a threat to society, as new atheists like Richard Dawkins purport. Dionne, however, is not one to attempt to enhance any polarity, as John Schmalzbauer points out several times in his chapter. Dionne himself is a Catholic, as Schmalzbauer says. While he does not always champion his faith with a trumpet, he is willing to defend religion with reason. He forcefully answers critics who say Christianity is too timid to enter into the arena of ideas or academics and take on the tough questions. On the contrary, he says, What's really bothersome is the suggestion that believers rarely question themselves while atheists ask all the hard questions,” quoting Brian Novak’s assertion that questions have always been the heart and soul of both journalism and Christianity.

Moreoever, Dionne is not afraid to mention the name of Jesus, which is something noteworthy in modern journalism. The word “God” is controversial enough, but the name “Jesus” is cause for pure outrage. And yet, he seems to commend Jesus for his “passion.” Dionne makes it clear at the end of the article that his faith is somehow integrated into the Easter holiday when he says, “That's why I celebrate Easter and why, despite many questions of my own, I can't join the neo-atheists.”

Schmalzbauer notes that Dionne’s political ideas stem from his Catholic roots. This is interesting to watch unfold when religion and politics collide. Schmalzbauer emphasizes repeatedly Dionne’s emphasis on seeking unity among Americans. This emphasis seems to be somehow connected to his faith. Dionne seems to center much of his work on reconciling liberal and conservative thought. Moreover, he seems to almost automatically link right-wing conservatives and Christians. While he himself often juxtaposes liberalism and conservatism, ironically enough, he also discusses a “false polarization” between conservatives and liberals, as Schmalzbauer notices. At times, to be honest, it is hard to tell whether he is highlighting polarization, soothing it, or causing it.

A somewhat recent article that would support the claim that he is attempting to smooth over polarization is found in something he wrote for Thanksgiving day of 2010, entitled, “On Thanksgiving, remembering our common bonds.” His initial decision to write on Thanksgiving is noteworthy. In writing about both Easter and Thanksgiving, Dionne gives readers at least glimpse his awareness and appreciation of the religious ceremony.

In the article, Dionne criticizes Tea party activists and other conservatives like Rush Limbaugh for over-politicizing Thanksgiving and for criticizing rather watered-down versions of the holiday. While Dionne says he, too, values having the holiday portrayed accurately, according to history, he concludes that other notions like community and others-centeredness are more important than any political themes stemming from the Pilgrims. He pleads, too, that we cannot just pull one particular message out of the day.

“Yet putting aside the dangers of allowing ideology to distort the facts of our present and our past, we seem to have lost our sense of balance as a country," he writes. "This argument over Thanksgiving strikes me as a symptom of our failure to acknowledge that the American story is not all one thing or all another.”

Polarization is something Dionne seems particularly against, and as such, something he seeks to highlight and criticize in American politics and culture. And, though he isn’t perhaps explicit in his religious tone, it’s clear that the values of Thanksgiving are ones he shares.

Dionne further fuses his interest in politics and religion in his Oct. 7, 2005 article entitled, “Faith-Based Hypocrisy.” If Badaracco’s second chapter were online and needed a link, he could have linked directly to Dionne’s article to see examples of faith professed poorly in the public arena and politics. Again, Dionne’s story selection attests to his faith-rooted journalism.

Though himself religious, Dionne is clearly unsupportive of individuals who take their faith into the public arena rashly or for personal gain. In the 2005 article, he criticizes members of Bush’s administration for using religion to get their way. He writes, “Now we know: President Bush's supporters are prepared to be thoroughly hypocritical when it comes to religion. They'll play religion up or down, whichever helps them most in a political fight.”

Dionne highlights that the Bush administration consciously used then-Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’s religious identity as an “evangelical Christian” as a strategy. It was, indeed, their political platform. Dionne seems to be saying that such a strategy intermixing testimony and politics is inappropriate.

Dionne’s faith, then, emerges as much through the stories he selects which fuse religion and politics as how he actually tells those stories.