Osama bin Laden-Jerry Falwell- A Moral Equivalency According to CNN?
This week, CNN is airing a production by their foreign correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, entitled: "God's Warriors". The three part series discusses the so-called rise of "extremism" within Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The quotation marks I inserted in the word extremism is because I can only think of one of these three religions where the word has any real contemporary meaning. It seems to me that Amanpour is trying to draw a moral equivalency among the three religions when it comes to extremism.
First of all, when we talk of Islamic extremism, the meaning is clear. Do we need to rehash all the terrorist acts that have occurred over the past several years in the name of Islam? Do we really need to mention 9-11, the Madrid train bombing, the London subway bombing, Bali, Theo van Gogh, the beheadings, and the suicide bombers in Israel? We don't. Suffice to say that a faction of Islam believes in imposing Islam and Shariah law all over the world, and anyone who stands in their way must be killed. Enough said about that.
So now here comes Ms Amanpour talking to us about Jerry Falwell (She interviewed him a week before he died.), other Evangelical Christian ministers, the so-called Christian Right, a San Francisco Christian youth group and others to show Christian "extremism". These are counterparts to Muslim Jihadists? Excuse me, ma'am, but none of these individuals or groups are setting off bombs, flying planes into buildings, beheading people or calling for death to non-Christians. You have to go back hundreds of years to find people like that. Yet, Amanpour tried to portray Evangelical Christians as extremists, which they are not.
I would also remind Ms Amanpour that people like Falwell and the Christian Right have every right to participate in the political process and make their voices heard. That is not tantamount to imposing Shariah law over the land. They are not talking about imposing a theocracy upon America. They are just trying to defend Christianity from the attacks of the secularists who want it removed from the public arena (and ultimately from public consciousness). Ms Amanpour seems to have a problem with the fact that many Americans are still active Christians as compared to those great secular Europeans.
She also featured some American connections between Christians and Jews, which seems to trouble her. Ms Amanpour should understand that, cases of anti-Semitism aside, American Jews have been able to find refuge, peace and prosperity in America because we are mostly a Christian nation that practices love thy neighbor, practices freedom of religion, and supports Israel's right to exist. I also believe that most of the more recent cases of anti-Semitism in the US have been fomented by American Muslims-especially on university campuses.
Similiarly, what Jewish faction is there that corresponds to the Islamic radicals? Jewish settlers in the West Bank? True, there are some in the Middle East who will take an eye for an eye against those that are trying to destroy them. The young man who shot up a mosque in Israel several years ago comes to mind. Also the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. Correspondingly, I have never been a defender of the US-based Jewish Defense League, nor of the late Meir Kahane, a hate-monger. Yet, how can you compare them with what is going on within Islam? There is no comparison. There is no contemporary debate going on anywhere over whether Judaism is a peaceful or violent religion.
In many ways, I respect Ms Amanpour. As a foreign correspondant, she has put herself in virtually every hot spot around the globe. But I have noticed over the years that there is a bias in her reporting-especially when she does special reports such as this. What she is trying to do is make the point that all three religions are equally culpable when it comes to extremism. They are clearly not.
8 comments:
Hey Gary,
Lance Johnson here (Ingrid's son). I understand and agree that what's going on in Islam today has no modern corrolary with what's going on in Christianity and Judaism. However, I have to take umbrage with the following statement:
"They (The Christian Right) are just trying to defend Christianity from the attacks of the secularists who want it removed from the public arena (and ultimately from public consciousness)."
I'm sorry, but that's a load of genuine, grade double-A, horseshit. Guys like Falwell and the Christian right are out to impose their theocratic will on the entire populace of the United States. They use this whole "defending their faith" tactic the same way that any good propagandist attacks what he hates, by claiming that what he hates attacked first.
I'm sorry, but for Christians to whine that they have some sort of dwindling influence in this country is so absurd that it makes my head hurt. What chance does an atheist or an agnostic (or shoot, even a Christian who doesn't belong to a particular church) have of even getting nominated as President in this country? The vast majority, despite any actual evidence towards this, still equate religious faith with morality and values. And let's not even get into all of the laws banning gay marriage throughout this country. What is that but the will of the religious right? It sure as hell isn't an argument based in reason and logic, that's for damned sure.
Under attack? What a crock! I can't go anywhere without hearing about god or angels or whatever. What is the basis for this? Is it the fictitious "War on Christmas"? Give me a break.
I'd also argue with you that Jews are successful here because it's a Christian country. They do well because of the line between church and state in this country. Thank goodness for that, because many of my heroes are Jews, and if this country was like the rest of the world, I'd probably have never heard of them.
So yeah, Falwell wasn't as bad as bin Laden. That doesn't mean that he wasn't a total douchebag.
Ok Lance, I'll try to address your points one by one.
I do believe that the so-called Christian Right is trying to defend itself from the secularists who want to remove it from the public sphere. I have no problem with anyone who defines him/herself as an agnostic or atheist, and I defend their right to be so and enjoy equal rights. I do, however, wonder about the agenda of so many professional atheists, as I would call them, who are actively trying to combat the traditional religious influence in America.
As for Falwell and the so-called Christian Right, I absolutely do not believe they are trying to establish a Christian theocracy in America. Spread the religion? Sure. But impose it on others? No. I would agree that Falwell, Robertson and others from time to time put their foot in their mouth, especially Robertson, but remember that they enjoy the same rights as us to voice their opinions on public policy-even if it is based on religious belief. It is their right. It is our right to accept or reject it.
In addition, if you consider the consistent attacks on things like Christmas displays and references to God or the Ten Commandments by folks like the ACLU, you have to concede that some quarters are trying to remove Christian influence from our society. Why? Possibly because Christianity, like any religion, has values and tends to be judgemental. Remove religious values and you open the door for much of the liberal agenda, such as abortion, gay marriage and other issues which religious people tend to oppose. As for Gay marriage, it is not just the religious right who are opposed. I for example, am opposed-not becuase I harbor any animus towards Gays, but because I am reluctant to overturn an institution that has stood all over the world for thousands of years, and which was instituted primarily to protect children. Laws defining marriage as between a man and woman predate the existence in this country of any "religious right". Whether you support or oppose Gay marriage, it is not necessary to do so out of religious motives.
If you know our history, Lance, you have to accept that even though we are a predominently Christian country, we have gotten it pretty much right when it comes to freedom of religion. You have to go back to the Salem Witch Trials to find real religious persecution in this country. Do you really believe that Atheists are persecuted in this country by Christians? I don't. The reason Jews have prospered in America is precisely because we have a tradition of freedom of religion-without having a state religion. From my point of view, whatever anti-Semitism that exists today in America is primarily due to certain segments of the Muslim population-especially on college campuses, which is fueled by radical Islamic speakers. My own campus of UC Irvine is a prime example. If you check my blog, you will see I have written several postings on the subject.
I have published your comments on the blog with my responses because I welcome the dialogue. My blog is definitely conservative, but other opinions are welcome.
Thank you for your imput.
Hey Gary, and thanks for responding. I will counter-rebut:
"Spread the religion? Sure. But impose it on others?"
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. From where I sit, things like denying rights to gay people and subverting science education in this country comes from the religious right who have FAR too much influence for my comfort level.
And yeah, they have the right to say what they want. Unfortunately, it's the whole "right to swing your fist ends where my face begins" and they're punching gay people right in the nose. And while they can believe that a higher power created everything, that doesn't mean that they get to redefine science to include their particular philosophy.
And you'll forgive me, but your reference to the attacks on Christmas and the 10 Commandments by the ACLU sounds like it was lifted from Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points." The fact is, the ACLU works to protect religious freedom in this country, but they are demonized by the religious right. Have a look at the following and then tell me that they're attacking religion:
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
As for the attacks on Christmas, I'm sorry, but this is something that got blown completely out of proportion. Sure, there were some random cases of overzealous people who took the whole "church and state" thing to ridiculous extremes, but that hardly constitutes a "War on Christmas." Shoot, some of the things that were reported like the banning of green and red at a certain elementary school turned out to not even be true. I don't know about you, but I can't go anywhere without having Christmas shoved down my throat everywhere I go lately. And don't get me started on how saying "Happy Holidays" is supposedly an "attack" on Christmas. People have been saying that for as long as I can remember.
As for the 10 Commandments, come on, but that has no place on government property. That is clearly a religious document, and posting it is an endorsement of religion. (The whole "No gods before me" is a tipoff.) Also, it seems funny to me that many of the people who want it posted can't even name them. (Stephen Colbert nailed one of the representatives who was for pushing for its display on that one.)
Is it possible that some people are attacking religion? Yeah, there will always be extremists in any debate. However, it seems like some of these Christians want to shove their religion in my face, and then when I protest they claim that I'm the one who's oppressing them! Let's face it, Christians are in charge in this country, and they're a long way away from being as persecuted as they claim to be. Like I said though, it's a great propaganda technique. (And if I wanted to make a cheap shot, I'd say that it also worked well for Hitler - oh crap, I just did!)
Are atheists persecuted? Well, I could probably cherry-pick examples, but that would be just as disingenuous as those who do the same to prove a "war on Christmas." I have read about polls where we're the least trusted group in this country, even behind gays and Muslims. Also, you gotta admit, the term "atheist" is often synonymous with "immoral" in this country. Also, I think that my previous point about an atheist or agnostic having a snowball's chance of being President is still a valid one. We'll see an openly gay black Jew on crutches before we see that one.
As for anti-Semitism, I don't know enough about the situations that you mention to comment. I will however say that I think that Jews should be wary of the buddy-buddy attitude that fundamentalist Christians are taking towards them. They're doing this because they think that protecting Israel for the Jews is all part of their doomsday scenario that will bring Jesus back. It's hardly out of a sense of acceptance and tolerance.
Okay, there's lots more in there, but I think that my response is getting longer than your original blog. Thanks for encouraging debate, and I'll comment on other posts of yours. I realize that this conversation could probably span several debates, and I'll resist the urge to write about why I don't buy your argument against gay marriage. (Ever read "The Lottery"?)
Lance,
Yes, we will have to agree to disagree on a lot of things here...
However, it is not just religious folks who have a problem with the ACLU. Their lawsuits over the years have offended millions of people. I think one area where they go overboard is their never-ending lawsuits over any religious displays in public.
Like it or not, Christmas is a big part of American culture-even if it is not celebrated by everyone. Is it over-commercialized? Sure. But it is part of our culture.
As for atheists, I agree that our presidential candidates tend to pander to the public by portraying themselves as being religious, but maybe they are just being realistic since most folks are at least nominally Christian. Can an atheists be President? Sure, but not openly-not because of any law, but because of public attitudes, which is our right. Look, there are millions out there who are nominally Christian or Jew, but deep inside, consider themselves at least agnostic. The only time they get people riled up is when they wear their non-belief on their sleeve and go out and file lawsuits against anything they deem as being religious. As I said, America gets it on religion. You can be anything you want to be, but we also generally believe that religion is a touchy subject for debate.
We probably have already had more than one president who privately didn't believe in God. We are also rapidly approaching the day when we will have a black, Hispanic or female president. America is definitely ready for that- Obama or Hillary? That remains to be seen.
As for denying Gay rights, there is really only one "right" that anyone is disputing- the right to marry- and for some-the right to adopt. In another generation, we will start to have empirical evidence on the issues children of same-sex parents have. Eventually gay marriage may become reality, but I think we should really think this one out before we rush headlong into revolutionizing marriage. Once the genie is out of the bottle....
All in all, it doesn't sound like we're on completely different pages. Perhaps just different paragraphs.
As for Presidents who were secret nonbelievers, I have no doubt about that. Sometimes I think that people like Pat Robertson don't really believe either, and they just use religion for their own ego and fame. Back to the Presidents though, many of the founding fathers (especially Jefferson) had some serious criticisms of Christianity (while still believing in a more impersonal God). I think that's an ignored part of history on the part of many conservatives. (And again, we shouldn't go the other extreme and pretend that religious faith had NOTHING to do with the founding of our country.)
Lance,
I share your distrust of the big TV televangelists you see in these huge churches because it seems that it is all about business ($$$). There are some who, as you say, use religion for their ego and fame-and wealth-but not all.
What gets overlooked is the thousands upon thousands of modest little churches around the country where modest ministers are really trying to do God's service. They don't live rich lives, and in most cases, keep politics out of the pulpit. They don't get the credit they deserve.
Similarly, the Catholic pedophilia scandal has knocked me for a loop to the point where I can no longer attend Catholic Church (My wife is Catholic-I am Protestant, but for decades we worshipped as Catholics). Yet, that does not lesson my respect for practicing Catholics. I also have to recognize that there are many priests out there genuinely trying to serve the Lord and their parishioners. I don't want to see the Church destroyed, but I want to see it reformed.
In summary, believe what you choose to believe-that is one blessing of living in America. You shouldn't think, however, that all religion is negative. I still think that Christianity (and Judaism) have made great contributions to our society. I also view the secularization of Europe as unfortunate.
Honestly, I don't see all religion as being negative. In fact, I'd hate to think what the world would be like without it - just for its contributions to art and literature alone. When asked the question as to whether religion does more harm or good, I honestly have a hard time deciding. Shoot, I get two weeks off from teaching due to these religious holidays (which is why I have so much time to keep posting to your blog!) so how bad can it all be?
A rather ironic thing is that I really started to get into the Jesus story when I no longer felt that it was necessary to accept it as divine truth. It all finally made sense to me in the context of mythology (a word that I don't use as an insult or to belittle).
So yeah, we both don't like the big-time evangelists out there. I also think that those who want to post the 10 Commandments aren't really getting the message either. Makes me think of Matthew 6:5.
Lance,
I guess we don't know The Truth until we die. That's why they call it faith.
But my initial purpose in writing the article was to illustrate the bias of the mainstream news media exemplified by CNN in drawing a parelell between radical Islam and Evangelical Christians. That may have been appropriate during the Crusades, but not in today's world. One doesn't have to be religious to recognize that.
Post a Comment