The following is a question asked of Daniel Dennett, and his answer which was in the Washington Post the other day. My comments are below *.
Q: Is there widespread media bias against Christianity? Against evangelicals such as Brit Hume and Sarah Palin? Against public figures who speak openly and directly about their faith? Against people who believe as you do?
There is no media bias against Christianity. If it appears to some people that there is, it is probably because after decades of hyper-diplomacy and a generally accepted mutual understanding that religion was not to be criticized, we have finally begun breaking through that taboo and are beginning to see candid discussions of the varieties of religious folly in American life. Activities that would be condemned by all if they were not cloaked in the protective mantle of religion are beginning to be subjected to proper scrutiny.
There is still a lot to accomplish however. We need to change the prevailing assumptions in the same way that public opinion has been reversed on drunk driving. When I was young, drunk drivers tended to be excused because, after all, they were drunk! Today, happily, we hold them doubly culpable for any misdeeds they commit while under the influence.
I look forward to the day when violence done under the influence of religious passion is considered more dishonorable, more shameful, than crimes of avarice, and is punished accordingly, and religious leaders who incite such acts are regarded with the same contempt that we reserve for bartenders who send dangerously disabled people out onto the highways.
I also look forward to the day when pastors who abuse the authority of their pulpits by misinforming their congregations about science, about public health, about global warming, about evolution must answer to the charge of dishonesty. Telling pious lies to trusting children is a form of abuse, plain and simple. If quacks and bunko artists can be convicted of fraud for selling worthless cures, why not clergy for making their living off unsupported claims of miracle cures and the efficacy of prayer?
The double standard that exempts religious activities from almost all standards of accountability should be dismantled once and for all. I don’t see bankers or stockbrokers wringing their hands because the media is biased against them; they know that their recent activities have earned them an unwanted place in the spotlight of public attention and criticism, and they get no free pass, especially given their power. Religious leaders and apologists should accept that since their institutions are so influential in American life, we have the right to hold their every move up to the light. If they detect that the media are giving them a harder time today than in the past, that is because the bias that protected religion from scrutiny is beginning to dissolve. High time.
By Daniel C. Dennett | January 12, 2010
Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. His most recent book was Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
A few notes by Neece*:
My first reaction is to disagree with Daniel Dennett. I think there is a definite bias towards religion in this society, which carries over into the media.
For example, watch a football game with the crybaby Tim Tebow playing. They never fail to mention how pious he is and how his parents are ministers, or some other such dreck. What the hell does that have to do with him throwing the ball down the field? Nothing. But the commentators (and whoever decides on such content) feel the need to share a heartwarming story. It’s biased. I’ve never once heard them mention godlessness in a sport, only how religious sports people are. It’s nauseating. Like that makes them better people. Watch their behavior and you’ll see they are no better than anyone else, or often they can be worse.
I agree with Mr. Dennett. It’s about damned time that we hold religious people and institutions accountable when they lie and cause hurt, either directly or indirectly through propaganda and hate-mongering.
I think indoctrinating children with religion and lies is harmful and often abusive. I have no idea how we can even tackle this though.
We also need to work harder on stopping quacks and pseudoscience proponents like Oprah, Jenny McCarthy and anyone else who lies to the public to promote their own agenda. We do so little to stop this sort of harm. So much more needs to be done to hold people who lie for a living accountable. Of course, this includes the religious, including the pope who is just as human as the rest of us, and whose lies are deadly to people in Africa and around the world.
Unfortunately it’s true that religious institutions and many religious leaders are powerful in America and around the world. Why should they be given carte blanche to do whatever they like, even if it is to molest children, or to spread hate, fear and lies, all while not paying taxes?
I wonder how much we really do scrutinize religion, the religious and their institutions, though. Not nearly enough, I’m afraid. But at least we’re getting somewhere. Now, let’s make them pay taxes. If they can bilk people of their hard earned savings while lying to them and using their pulpit for political agendas, shouldn’t they have to pay taxes too?
(*My personal opinion, not necessarily the views of Morgantown Atheists)
I have a slightly different take about the accountability of religious leaders. It would be unfair to take away their free communication of their beliefs. The adults who follow these people are free to use their brain and disagree if they have the inner strength. Children eventually become adults who can think for themselves. I grew up in a Christian household and made my way through it. I agree that intentional misinformation given by religious leaders needs to be stopped, but government intervention is a form of unjustified coercion. The situation is best remedied by providing unbiased, factual information to the masses and leaving the choice up to the individual.
I also dislike the face time given to Tebow due to his faith. I find it totally unfair that Tebow is portrayed as being a more respectable guy because he fervently practices Christianity while Pat Tillman’s atheism is seldom mentioned in media reports of his heroism. Tebow believes he’s going to a paradise when he dies, and all he does is play football. Pat Tillman held no illusions as to his fate if he were to be killed in action. Tillman’s sacrifice seems greater to me than that of a religious soldier because of his lack of belief in continued existence.
Taxation is supposed to follow the same principle as all other legislation: equal treatment under the law. Granting tax-exempt status to religious organizations while denying it to secular ones seems akin to giving all Cowboys or Red Sox fans legal immunity to theft.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
January 24th, 2010 at 1:07 am
I agree that you can’t legislate morality or how people raise their children (besides making child abuse illegal, of course). I don’t think I said that we needed to do that, but if I gave that impression I didn’t mean to.
Thanks for bringing up Pat Tillman and his atheism. That is never mentioned, even though he’s a true hero. I agree with you completely about Tebow. How you explained the difference between the two men was striking and accurate.
Reply to This Comment