Those “Crazy Christians”

Aaron Sorkin must figure that conservative Christians won’t watch his show anyway.

On a tip from a colleague, I watched his new show, “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,” last night on NBC (going back and forth with Monday Night Football). It’s about the making of a fictional sketch comedy show like “Saturday Night Live.” The dialogue is fast, hip and rings of the dialogue on Sorkin’s last show, “The West Wing.”

A key plot on last night’s episode centered around the planning of a sketch called “Crazy Christians.” A Christian magazine (called “Rapture”) leaks word of the sketch and local network affiliates in a few small markets go running. The network chairman wants the sketch pulled, but Amanda Peet, as the courageous network president, stands up to the Religious Right.

We won’t find out until next week how the sketch goes.

Of course, conservative Christians have made a fuss about a few TV shows over the years. They helped get “The Book of Daniel” off to a bad start early this year, arguing that the drama about a disheveled Episcopal priest offered an insulting portrayal of Jesus (he was in the show) and was pro-homosexuality.

Is Sorkin goading the Religious Right? It sure looks that way. An actress on his fictional show ended her relationship with Matthew Perry’s character because of his secular ways.

One interesting point: The show’s characters are shocked to find out that “Rapture” magazine has a much larger circulation than “Vanity Fair.” It seems to be Sorkin’s way of admitting that the liberal elite, like himself, are out of touch with much of mainstream America.

The ratings will show if anybody cares.

Live on Al-Jazeera: Benedict XVI

You have to love Pope Benedict XVI’s opening statement at his meeting this morning with Muslim diplomats: “The circumstances which have given rise to our gathering are well known.â€?

Very direct. Very Benedict.

I’ve spent the past few hours reading reactions to the pope’s comments and talking to Catholics and Muslims about what this strange episode — centering around the pope’s use of a 14th-century quotation — will mean for Catholic/Muslim relations. Of course, nobody knows.

There are more than 1 billion Catholics in the world and more than 1 billion Muslims. The two groups have a long, sometimes violent, history. Four decades ago, Vatican II called for Catholics and Muslims to work “for peace and freedom for all people.” And yet, they seem to be in the early stages of trying to reach some sort of modern understanding.

It promises to be a very long haul, in part because the Muslim world has no clear leadership. The Vatican is accustomed to developing official “dialogues” with Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Jews and others. These talks move along slowly (and sometimes not at all), but everyone knows who they’re dealing with.

That’s why the pope’s meeting with 22 displomats from Muslim countries was striking. He greeted them one by one and urged an end to violence. Whether he apologized — or apologized fully — seems to be open to interpretation. At least some diplomats went away satisfied.

Interestingly, Al-Jazeera carried the pope’s speech live. And the Vatican issued a translation in Arabic.

Monsignor Ferdinando Berardi, pastor of Holy Family Catholic Church in New Rochelle, told me that today’s meeting was a “wonderful” symbol: “We will have misunderstandings, unfortunately. But if we keep an open mind and respect others, we can work out our difficulties.”

Sounds good. But what happens next? Will the pope continue to reach out to the consortium of Muslim leaders? Will Muslim leaders condemn the firebombing of churches in the Palestinian territories after Benedict’s initial speech?

Will today’s meeting go down as the start of something good, a sign of bad things to come or something in between?

Getting started

Welcome to my blog. “On Religion,� I’m calling it.

I approach the whole thing with trepidation.

Why? First off, I’ve grown quite comfortable writing in the detached, pseudo-objective, third-person voice of a newspaper reporter. An article may have my byline on it, but I’m removed from the words. Like a narrator you hear but don’t see, I suppose.

Now I’m blogging. I still have to write what I see and hear and observe. But I can no longer pretend I’m not there. I have to be part of it. Like a host or a guide. Gary Stern in first person. “I. I. I. Me. Me. Me.�

Second, writing about religion, as a journalist, isn’t always easy. I’ve been on the beat for almost 10 years, trying to explain and interpret events in the religious realm. I do so while trying hard not to (unintentionally) offend any group, denomination, movement or sect.

I have a feeling that it will be easier to offend by blog.

If I write in my own voice while trying to make sense of some conflict, I can see partisan-types taking my observations as signs of bias or an agenda.

But maybe not. We’ll see.

Journalism evolved from the keeping of journals, right? Maybe a blog is just a modern journal. That’s how I’m going to look about it.

I’m writing notes and thoughts in my journal. But instead of translating them into newspaper-ese, my notes – succinct, pithy and insightful – become this blog.

The world of religion is an awfully big place. I’ll try to touch on events and trends, people and ideas, that are important or interesting (or even, on a good day, both). Let’s see how it goes.