A new study by Media Matters for America shows that when the topic is religion, the media looks disproportionately to hard-line right-wingers for comment.
...
How is it possible that political reporters routinely and without irony refer to people who have no moral qualms about bombing another country as a matter of choice rather than necessity as "values voters"? How do those same people wear the "values" label even while supporting one of the last death penalties in the industrialized world? How is it that self-proclaimed "Men of God" can call for the assassination of foreign heads of state, blame the 9/11 attacks on Americans' promiscuity and lobby to keep vaccines against deadly cancers out of the hands of young women and still claim to represent the moral compass of spiritual America?
More here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I generally disagree with the central premise of the article... that the left is just as religious as the right, and it is a failing in the media that this isn't reported. From my perspective, looking at the liberal and conservative camps (or rather, I'll use the terms left and right), I'd say that neither side is particularly religious. The difference lies, I believe, in that many on the right have openly campaigned to be recognized as religious, and many on the left have openly campaigned to be recognized as not.
I think that the view that the right, as a group, is religious is one that not only have key members of the right tried to spread, but one that key members of the left have been equally enthusiastic to embrace. From the right's perspective, life is much easier if you could convince your neighbor that you are acting according to a religious standard. Most of the key players that I've observed play the game well... when a religious tenet is of value to their agenda, they claim the path of religious righteousness; however, when a religious tenet stands in their way, they let their religious beliefs fall away, favoring their agendas, and claiming that they are "giving to Caesar that which is his", and so are again able to claim the religious high ground. Of course it has nothing to do with religion, but with pushing agendas. Religion makes a fantastic rallying call, and so the PR machines are out in full force to lead and beguile those who don't have the inclination to investigate things for themselves. As the right does this, certain key members of the left are all to willing to let them have the "religion angle". Given that it is easier to fight an opponent if you could apply a set of slogans and stereotypes to them, the "religious right" becomes as good a target as "the communists", "the terrorists" or even "the czarists".
On the other hand, I think that the view that the left, as a group, is religious is also fallacious. As a group, the left is more interested in its "progressive" politics than it is in religion. Take, as examples, the various factions formed within more organized religions based not on theology, but on progressive political opinion. Additionally, many times when progressive ideas are founded in theology, the PR associated to the ideas portray them as "anti-establishment", as opposed to simply viable theology. Thus, when we see something like the liberation theology developed in Latin America (built on defensible theology) and the teachings of the black churches here in the US (that were built upon this theology), we see them "advertised" by the left as social movements and not as religious ones. Many on the right, of course, are happy to let these labels stick, because then they don't have to address the theological points raised. Again, politics and not religion.
This goes back to a comment I made on an earlier post regarding orthodoxy, that I believed that problems increased as orthodoxy was abandoned. Key members, in both the left and right camps, too easily abandon religious orthodoxy to preserve their political agendas, and too quickly turn on those who preserve their orthodoxy when it conflicts with these agendas. Take, for example, the "dignity of innocent life" viewpoint; the left, as a camp, disregards this under certain circumstances (e.g., abortion) while the right, as a camp, disregards it under others (e.g., providing food and shelter to starving illegal immigrants). Each camp is tolerant of the religious, so long as orthodoxy gives way to political agenda.
I've never been one to buy in to the talk of the "religious right" or of the right wanting a theocracy... religion isn't truly being advocated, it is just being used as smoke and mirrors to get folks to follow. By the same token, I don't believe in the "religious left" either... religion has thus far been a convenient bugaboo and talk of the "religious left" only comes due to the success the right has had in its PR campaign. Of course there are very religious members of both camps, but I believe that the more orthodox the individuals, the less satisfied they would have to be with the leaders of whatever camp they belong to, and in essence choose one camp over the other not out of agreement with principles, but as the lesser of available evils.
Ok, got wordy again :) I was going to go on a tirade against the "religious right" and the question of religious authority (particularly the Evangelical lack of it), but that has potential to run a couple hundred more paragraphs :)
You put that all very well. Yes, both "sides" use religion as a tool to further agendas. And, if there were no religion, then something else would take its place to accomplish these same goals.
Unfortunately, the sheeple are easily manipulated, and our "leaders" ("You can call yourself leader till your ass bleeds but that doesn't make it true." ~ Eric Cartman) know this and use it to their advantage to further their particular agenda. Throughout history, this has always been the case. And yes, it always will be.
So, should the blame be laid at those who use religion to further agendas or at those who allow themselves to be manipulated so easily? Seems to me both are to blame.
Anyway, good post. Thanks.
Post a Comment