Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk

Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk


Reporting on Religious Conflict

posted by Mark Silk

As a Beliefnet newbie, I’d like to add my two cents to last week’s dust-up between my colleagues Rod Dreher and Nicole Neroulias over the issue of journalistic treatment of religious differences. To briefly recap, Nicole confessed to being a bit troubled by Steve Prothero’s new book, God is Not One: And Why Their Differences Matter, saying that she prefers to consider what brings religions together rather than the conflicts among them. Rod took exception in a couple of posts, first using an essay of Jay Rosen’s to criticize journalists for bias in favor of the bland middle ground; then (with an assist from GetReligion’s Terry Mattingly) claiming that religious conflict makes journalists nervous.

Given that (as Nicole suggests) the usual complaint against religion reporting is that there’s too much emphasis on “conflict stories,” it’s in a way refreshing to encounter criticism from the other side. In Unsecular Media, I contend that one of the standard themes (topoi) of religion reporting is that tolerance is a Good Thing. The larger argument of the book, however, is that themes like that are not the special province of “the media,” but rather deeply embedded in American culture. If American journalists prefer to privilege “my Father’s House has many mansions” religiosity to a model of endemic tension, they are solidly in line with the basic inclinations of the rest of the population.


The journalistic challenge here is more subtle than usually
acknowledged. An example of public intolerance–.e.g. a prominent
Baptist preacher declaring that God does not hear the prayer of a
Jew–is reported on precisely to hold the remark up to general obloquy.
But if we recognize that God is truly not one, then why should this
expression of odium theologicum even be news at all? The point is
that what is considered or not considered newsworthy necessarily
reflects that norms of the culture within which the journalism is being
practiced. 

Of course it’s not good journalism to give short shrift to the religious
dimension of social conflict just because we wish it weren’t there. But
there’s no less danger in reporting as if religious differences create
identifiable and permanent conflicts of values among groups of
adherents. As important as it is to recognize the varying ways in which
major religious traditions view the world, the danger of embracing the Protherian
approach–whether in journalistic or other shorthand versions–lies in
reducing complex and ancient traditions to a few catchphrases.

Back in January, David Brooks went
so far
as to blame Voodoo–a religion
that “spreads the message that life is capricious and planning
futile”–for the extent of the devastation inflicted by the earthquake
in Haiti.
Likewise, Pope Benedict’s Regensburg speech dismissed
Islam
as a fideistic religion that ignores the kind of marriage of
faith and reason that characterizes Catholic scholastic tradition.
Such wildly inaccurate characterizations are about as useful to public
discourse as shouting fire in a crowded theater. 

Dreher’s particular concern has to do with an alleged journalistic
reluctance (observed among his erstwhile colleagues at the Dallas
Morning News
) to underplay Muslim extremism. But when it comes to
coverage of tough religious ideas, there was, after 9/11, no end to
reporting on the Koranic command to jihad. Was it a mandate to war
against all infidels or an injunction to self-reform? Should we expect
there to be a single answer to such a question in a religious tradition
of a billion people and several major sects, any more than we would
expect a single understanding of the New Testament proscription of
divorce for the world’s billion and a half Christians?

It’s also worth bearing in mind that the impetus to lift up religious
differences very often amounts to nothing more than a rationalization of
existing prejudice. Take a look at Jim Dwyer’s June 18 NYT piece
on a town hall meeting on Staten Island to discuss the proposed
purchase of a former convent by a Muslim organization:

There were many statements from the audience dressed up as questions to
the Muslim representatives: Were any parts of the Koran incorrect? Would
they denounce Hamas and Hezbollah,
and wasn’t it true that they were connected to those groups? Didn’t all
terrorists come out of mosques?

Mr. Finnegan, 25, began by introducing himself. “I said, ‘My name is
Bill Finnegan, and I’m a United States Marine recently returned from
Afghanistan,’ ” he said.

Cheers rang out. He turned to the representatives of the Muslim group,
seated at a table in the front.

“My question to you is, will you work to form a cohesive bond with the
people of this community?” he asked.

The men said yes.

Mr. Finnegan then faced the audience. “And will you work to form a
cohesive bond with these people — your new neighbors?” he asked.

The crowd booed. A voice called out: “No!”

Message delivered. 

Good reporting, Dwyer. Happy, Rod?



Advertisement
Comments read comments(5)
post a comment
Deacon John M. Bresnahan

posted June 21, 2010 at 3:29 pm


Odd that in politics and culture we are virtually ordered to celebrate “diversity,” but when it comes to religion we are supposed to be the bland leading the bland and celebrate syncretism, not diversity.
This column–like so many I have read–especially since publication of Prothero’s book (which my local library doesn’t have yet) seems to equate religious diversity and recognizing points of diversity as automatically creating dangerous religious conflict.
This need not be true. I admit my attitude is affected by my upbringing. My father was a strong Catholic, my mother was a proud Protestant and they clearly loved each other and both sides of the family were quite close on the personal level, celebrating family and holiday events joyfully together. Sometimes the fun was in having discussions on religious-moral issues (as well as sports and politics).
It is this model I like to think society should be going in religiously–not the “you bury what you believe, and I’ll bury what I believe and we can all be religiously mute together.”



report abuse
 

Eva Stavrinides

posted June 22, 2010 at 6:01 pm


I agree with Deakon Bresnahan and I could not express his views better myself!



report abuse
 

Christian

posted June 23, 2010 at 12:52 pm


Hi, Mark. Do you think your attribution to Brooks of a comment connecting voodoo to the situation in Haiti might better be made to the author Brooks cites in the relevant passage of the linked Brooks column?
“As Lawrence E. Harrison explained in his book ‘The Central Liberal Truth,’ Haiti, like most of the world’s poorest nations, suffers from a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.”
The way I read that, Brooks is attributing the influence of voodoo religion in Haiti to Harrison’s book, although he doesn’t use quote marks.



report abuse
 

Mark Silk

posted June 23, 2010 at 3:56 pm


Maybe so…but Brooks makes the claim his own.



report abuse
 

Pingback: Ultra-Orthodox Criminals - Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Religion and Public Life. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Latest News Story on Beliefnet Happy Reading!  

posted 3:10:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

The Ayn Rand Republicans
I confess to feeling a little bit queasy about the American Values Network's new video hoisting Rep. Paul Ryan, Sen. Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and other GOP luminaries on the petard of Ayn Rand and her atheistic philosophy of objectivism. Take a look. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TxCW

posted 7:13:30pm May. 24, 2011 | read full post »

Whither evangelicals?
I'm fully prepared to believe that Mitch Daniels' family proved to be the unleapable hurdle in his abortive run-up to the GOP presidential race. Imagine yourself as wife Cheri, having split for the coast to marry on old flame, your husband and young daughters left behind in Boone County, Indiana,

posted 9:19:56am May. 23, 2011 | read full post »

No more "social conservatives"
With the presidential election cycle getting up to speed, it's time for reporters and yakkers like me to stop writing about "social conservatives" as if they were an identifiable segment of the voting population. I say this as someone who has happily been using the term since late 2008, when it

posted 8:25:11am May. 20, 2011 | read full post »

So clerical celibacy was not the problem?
Those on the Catholic left are not very happy that the Jay Report declines in no uncertain terms to blame clerical celibacy for the sexual abuse crisis. As the report puts it: Factors that remained consistent over this time period, such as celibacy, do not explain the sexual abuse "crisis." Celib

posted 9:50:34am May. 19, 2011 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.