There’s a genesis of a discussion beginning at the Shotgun over an article that asks Why Don’t Journalists Get Religion?
I think the premise is wrong. I think that journalists think they have it all nailed. They get religion just fine, thankyouverymuch. Nice religions have shaved heads, smiling non-judgementalism and celebrity endorsements. Or brown skin. You can be as judgemental as you wish if you have brown skin. It’s why Yassin stubbornly held onto his description as “spiritual leader” all through his years inciting terrorism and hatred, and why Al Sharpton is held to a different standard than Pat Robertson. Journalists also like victim religion, which goes a long way to explain why the deferencial, self effacing pedophile Woody Allen is pardoned while a naked Ariel Sharon is featured in political cartoons tearing the heads off of Palestinian babies with his teeth.
You don’t quite agree, do you? Well, let’s take a look at this fawning hero worship article in yesterday’s Toronto Star;
The Dalai Lama wrapped up more than ten days of public appearances in Toronto today by completing the initiation of thousands of devotees into the spiritual teachings of Tibetan Buddhism. About 7,000 people, including dozens of robe-clad monks, attended the ceremony marked by prayers, chants and teachings from the Tibetan spiritual leader.
Complete with quotes from the devoted;
Tina Petrova of Toronto, a practising Tibetan Buddhist, travelled to southern California in 1996 to take teachings from the Dalai Lama. Her reaction to seeing him in Toronto was summed up in one word: “Wow.”
“I mean just to be in his presence, he feels like an ocean of love and peace and grace,” she said. “He just instils in one a sense of deep calmness and serenity, and you can just feel his purity of heart.”
…
In the final rite of the ceremony, the sand was to be poured into Lake Ontario, allowing “the perfect peace” of Buddhist philosophy “to flow with it into the everyday world.”
Today marked the final day of public appearances for the Dalai Lama, who arrived in Vancouver on April 17 for his first visit to Canada since 1993. In the two-and-a-half weeks since, he has become the first Tibetan spiritual leader in history officially welcomed by a Canadian prime minister, been honoured and entertained by several of the country’s luminaries and feted by celebrity devotees from south of the border, including Richard Gere and Goldie Hawn.
Now step back from this scene for a moment, and imagine a different one:
The American evangelist wrapped up more than ten days of public appearances in Toronto today by completing the initiation of thousands of born-again Christians. About 7,000 people attended the ceremony.
Tina Brown of Airdrie, a practising Baptist, travelled to Illinois in 1996 to take teachings from his institute. Her reaction to seeing him in Toronto was summed up in one word: “Wow.”
“I mean just to be in his presence, I feel the power of the Lord working through him.”
In the final half hour of the ceremony, on the shores of Lake Ontario, prayers were held that “the world will learn to live in harmony and peace” and to “preserve the lives of the unborn”.
Today marked the final day of public appearances for Billy Graham, who arrived in Calgary on April 17 for his first visit to Canada since 1993. In the two-and-a-half weeks since, he has welcomed by Leader of the Opposition, Stephen Harper, been honoured and entertained by congregations across Canada and feted by celebrity devotees from south of the border, including Mel Gibson.
Tell me, and be honest. Would such an article have been written without alluding to the “Passion violence/anti-semitism contraversy” or “right-wing conservatives” ?
Or would it have been covered from the perspective of the placard carrying pro-choice protestors and gay marriage advocates on the sidelines?
Could Stephen Harper even afford to be photographed with Billy Graham in an election run-up?
Shotgun Loading
The Shotgun, the group blog of the Western Standard, seems to be progressively loading. Many Canadian bloggers are now contributing to it and among them are Jaeger (Trudeaupia), The Meatriarchy, Nicholas Packwood (Ghost of a Flea), Damian Penny, Rick H…
I follow (and agree with) your general point, but I feel compelled to note that the Dalai Lama’s generally OK.
I in no way intended to imply otherwise. 🙂
Also, I’ve made a correction to the original. For reasons unknown, I brain farted and substituted the intended “Yassin” (recently vaporized Hamas leader) with “al Sistani”. (Shiite spiritual leader in Iraq) Now revised to show my original intent.
You will learn much more about the religious attitudes and opinions of the average person by listening to a country music station than you ever will by following the media’s reporting on religion.
I can’t speak for other religions, but with regard to Christianity it’s always bothered me how the media generally gravitate to the high-profile, high-visibility figures like Billy Graham and Pat Robertson and lend credence to the idea that these men somehow speak for Christendom in general. I suppose it’s to be expected. However, we who dwell within that sphere on a daily basis, who read books and listen to sermons and teach Sunday School classes and are generally involved in church life as part of our larger life in the world, know that there is a vast array of people and resources of which the media could avail themselves, when reporting on religion, if only they took the time and effort. Within my own corner of the Christian world — the Presbyterian/Reformed corner — we have people like J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, and Michael Horton…intelligent, erudite, and eloquent, and probably more representative of the theologically conservative position, as it is generally held, than a Pat Robertson or even a Billy Graham. Among Catholics, I know of Richard John Neuhaus of First Things, or Deal Hudson of Crisis Magazine, and I’m sure there are many others.
But I’ve learned to just lower my expectations of the media as much as I can, and that way I don’t get too disappointed.
“I can’t speak for other religions, but with regard to Christianity it’s always bothered me how the media generally gravitate to the high-profile, high-visibility figures like Billy Graham and Pat Robertson and lend credence to the idea that these men somehow speak for Christendom in general. {…} Within my own corner of the Christian world — the Presbyterian/Reformed corner — we have people like J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, and Michael Horton…intelligent, erudite, and eloquent, and probably more representative of the theologically conservative position, as it is generally held, than a Pat Robertson or even a Billy Graham.”
Ah, but Curt, we Reformed folks are a minority within conservative North American Protestantism – the evangelicals far outnumber us, and so the media are aware of Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell, etc., who reach hundreds of millions, but have never heard of R.C. Sproul, Mike Horton, J. Ligon Duncan, and so on – they’re only high-profile within our circles, generally speaking – that’s still millions in North America, but not the hundreds of millions which constitute evangelicalism. (Some of our own, like J.I. Packer or the late Francis Schaeffer, have penetrated the larger societal consciousness, but only to a limited extent.) It’s mostly just about numbers, and unless the Lord increases our proportion, I can’t see that changing any time soon…
May I compliment you for the thoughtful commnets? Nice antidote to a few of the others that have fluttered through…