Thursday, June 30, 2005

Prediction outcomes 

Ok, so the Louisville Courier-Journal wasn't as condescending as I thought she would be. The basic point that still grated but was telling came from their quotation of Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion.
She questioned why some in this nation would seek to force these issues, when other countries have suffered from being riven by religious strife.

Far better, she concluded, to keep faith "a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat. . . . Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?"

basically, Mrs. O'Connor and the paper see that religion is primarily a private matter that only divides and antagonizes in the public square. This is true because far beyond the surface squabbles seen by the paper, is often a wrestling for truth. For instance, Christians say that Jesus was and is the son of God. Jews and Muslims both fiercely and sometimes violently reject that claim. They all can't be right. That is just one example of the kind of battle Mrs. O'Connor would seek to avoid. The Truth will win out and Islam will fall away to ash heap of eternity where it belongs.

Mrs. O'Connor and most of the papers I have read just don't get it. A person's religion defines who they are and what they are made of. Issues of life, death, justice, truth, peace and so on are all that is at stake (even for secularists like Mrs. O'Connor). Religion is not strictly a private matter to be kept in some discreet box when it is convenient to do so. That is the truth the papers have all missed out on for a long time. That is why they are distrusted and sometimes hated. They treat true heartfelt belief as though it was and is some kind of mental disease or disorder.

The paper took a couple of weeks, but it finally swerved into arrogant condescention and comparisons of Christianity and Islam that were ignorant at best and slanderous at worst. The ignorant/slandering editorial, published on the 6th of July, by saying that Ed Whitfield's comments supporting the posting of the Ten Commandments as a "conservative Christian" failed to take into account liberal Christians, non Christians or atheists in our midst. The paper then asserts that Mr. Whitfield would sing a different tune if non Christian displays were posted. Finally, the paper pulled a seemingly innocuous statement from the newly "elected" president of Iran about peace and prosperity only coming from religious people. The implication of this last rhetorical slight of hand is to draw a paralel between the extremists in charge of Iran and Mr. Whitfield's comments. It is this kind of falacious understanding of religion in general and Christianity in particular that drives a wedge between many Christians and the mainstream media. The fact that it was done on the editorial page further demonstrates the paper's hostile intent towards orthodox Christianity.

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?