Mosques, Religion, and Objective Media
I'm sorry, but calling yourself a "religion of peace" when some of its more radical (i.e., pissed off) adherents go out and blow stuff up isn't fair, to say the least. Maybe fair isn't the word I'm looking for. I will, however, be fair and say that Christianity can't call itself a "religion of peace" either. Unless, of course, one doesn't count events such as the Crusades, etc. I don't think there really is a "religion of peace," politically speaking. Theologically speaking, they are all intended to bring peace to the individual believer.
Erin mentioned in the last post that no one's objective, certainly not the two of us. I get paid to be unobjective, for crying out loud. But to me, and this may just be my opinion, but the media (thank you, Dr. Watt, for pointing out that media is plural, singular -- medium) should at least try to maintain some standard of objectivity. Leave the opinions to the op/ed writers (such as myself), bloggers, and talk show hosts. Below, I give you fair readers here two covers of the attack on the Golden Mosque in Baghdad. There's just something about the language -- and I'm not talking about the Arabic, which I'm leaving for Erin. There's just a difference between "gunmen" and "militants" to me. It's different to the dictionary too: militant means "Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause." Aren't the Iraqis always called militants? I forgot, this is Fox, which supposedly represents American interests. They only like white people. That's not "fair and balanced." That's "racist and bigoted."
Now I'm white and I suppose I benefit from this, but that doesn't make it right!!!! Bigotry is just wrong all the way around because, eventually, it will come back to haunt you. In these situations, I often think of this quote by Rev. Martin Niemoller: "First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." Speak up for those who have no voice, or you may find that you will no longer have a voice.
But back to the point (how ever did I get a job at the DM?), the media tend to stereotype whole groups of people. If I pulled some of these stunts on my academic work, I'd either fail or get cursed at. The media are paid to relay facts to us, where we can make up our own minds. America isn't as stupid as you might think, give us a chance.
Wait, many of us did vote for George W. Bush in 2004....
Links:
CNN's coverage of the attack on the mosque
Fox News' coverage of the same attack
Erin mentioned in the last post that no one's objective, certainly not the two of us. I get paid to be unobjective, for crying out loud. But to me, and this may just be my opinion, but the media (thank you, Dr. Watt, for pointing out that media is plural, singular -- medium) should at least try to maintain some standard of objectivity. Leave the opinions to the op/ed writers (such as myself), bloggers, and talk show hosts. Below, I give you fair readers here two covers of the attack on the Golden Mosque in Baghdad. There's just something about the language -- and I'm not talking about the Arabic, which I'm leaving for Erin. There's just a difference between "gunmen" and "militants" to me. It's different to the dictionary too: militant means "Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause." Aren't the Iraqis always called militants? I forgot, this is Fox, which supposedly represents American interests. They only like white people. That's not "fair and balanced." That's "racist and bigoted."
Now I'm white and I suppose I benefit from this, but that doesn't make it right!!!! Bigotry is just wrong all the way around because, eventually, it will come back to haunt you. In these situations, I often think of this quote by Rev. Martin Niemoller: "First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." Speak up for those who have no voice, or you may find that you will no longer have a voice.
But back to the point (how ever did I get a job at the DM?), the media tend to stereotype whole groups of people. If I pulled some of these stunts on my academic work, I'd either fail or get cursed at. The media are paid to relay facts to us, where we can make up our own minds. America isn't as stupid as you might think, give us a chance.
Wait, many of us did vote for George W. Bush in 2004....
Links:
CNN's coverage of the attack on the mosque
Fox News' coverage of the same attack
posted by Lacey Holley at 10:34
5 Comments:
Yeah, I now know the true meaning of redemptive suffering.
Devotees of any religion tend to screw everything up. A lot of my problem stems from the tendency of many Muslims to respond with violence (like the attacks on Sunni mosques now) while proclaiming the whole time that they believe in peace (burning buildings and cars looming the background).
I don't think I intended to say that the religions themselves called themselves anything. But it's when people get their grubby hands on it, that the religion (and God, by extension) suddenly take on the believer's voice, opinions, etc.
You make an argument similar to that which Karen Armstrong makes in "A History of God," part of which I agreed with (especially concerning fundamentalism), but personally I think that God is eternal. I also believe that there is only one God, not necessarily in the sense of Islam, but in the sense that all world religions worship the same deity, but call it by different names. There will always be followers of any given religion, and if I'm as right as I think I am, God will never die because everyone who follows a religion believes in Him. Fundamentalists do not a religion represent, remember that. I consider myself a "peaceful adherent" of Christianity. That I do not hang my head in shame about.
What I said was that the fundamentalists aren't everything. Yes, they are a part of the faith. It's a bit twisted, certainly. I think fundamentalism is the wrong interpretation of religious teachings, especially when they, in their own way, reject the peaceful teachings of their own faith. In the media, they are the poster child for their religion. But that's not the case. Fundamentalists are the reason that many people don't subscribe to those faiths. They're scaring people away with their intolerance. Gandhi said in response to why he wasn't a Christian that "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ." Fundamentalist Christians are not like Christ -- at all. That's why I don't think they represent Christianity. They do, however, represent a false Christianity -- that you have to do certain things, not do other certain things, in order to be a good Christian.
The way I see it, the way most people who call themselves Christians these days see it, all Christianity is is the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, who died to bridge the gap between man and God, which happened in the Fall of humanity. To bridge the gap for yourself, you trust that Jesus did the things I mentioned above. Then you begin to live your life according to those teachings found in the Gospels (I haven't made my mind up about the non-canonical ones yet) with the help of the infamous Trinity.
I think that the real Jesus was a peaceful Jesus, though anger in itself is not a bad thing. It's just what you do with it.
I distrust a lot of Paul's writings, since they are so contradictory. So many of the problems between Christian denominations stem from the writings of Paul. I think you'll at least agree with that.
You're going to find that I either can't or won't be able to logically argue my faith -- because it is my faith. I accept a great many things to be true, but you know that I'm the greatest seeker there ever was.
There are nice fundies. Few, but they do exist. They're the ones that would be just as good or better than me. The crazy fundies, I believe would go to heaven, because they did what was required to get a ticket. As for the rest of the package, I don't agree with them at all. I can't say that I am or am not willing to die for my faith because I haven't been faced with that choice. I've been harrassed and persecuted to a degree, but my life hasn't directly been in danger. The threats were from kooks, I've decided.
I don't know if I'm a less literal believer. I consider myself to be a more reasonable believer. I'd say logical, but Jesus coming back to life defies logic. That and my logical capacity is greatly diminished by illness.
The canonical gospels, to the best of my knowledge, don't contradict themselves when it comes to Jesus being a religious leader we should follow. I don't recall Jesus ever saying he was the messiah, he lets others do that for him. To me, Jesus dying, coming back to life, and redeeming my sins is infinitely more important than whether or not I should cover my head to keep the sons of God from getting horny and coming to earth to get me. I don't care for many of the details. I'm a big picture person.
But anyway....
Jerry Falwell is always a good topic for mockery. I'd suggest Pat Robertson, but he'd call down the wrath of God on us, and I really don't want that.
Post a Comment
<< Home