Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Belief Media, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
Still, in the right context, it’s not wrong to discuss Christian or, on an even higher level of abstraction, Judeo-Christian values.
That’s pretty truistic, but there are a lot more contexts where it’s not only unhelpful but actively irresponsible. I wasn’t just making a bad pun about Sunni and Shia Islam; they’re simply not effectively interchangeable and it can be terribly misleading to act as if they are. OK, I’d say that’s more often about ignorance than malice but there comes a point where that’s a distinction without a difference.
And I think we’ve seen the political uses and abuses of treating an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims -- an incredibly diverse population spread across the face of the planet -- as some homogeneous mass of malignant lunatics.
-
Still, the differences between a) Orthodox and Catholic churches and b) Catholic and Protestant are really only of interest if you are debating any of the areas where those churches do not agree.
With all due disrespect, Martin, the next time some freshly-promoted cleric opines in The Herald that a world without gays would be wizard, I'd rather not see it presented as a 'Christian' view.
Not in my name, buddy - and not in the name of a hell of a lot of Christians either.
Though to be fair, it's not only religion where media like creating lazy little Borg collectives. 'Asians' sets my teeth on edge, and (IMO) says a lot more about unclaimed white media privilege baggage than anything else.
-
Hard News: Belief Media, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
Well, what would you call someone who believes in Christianity?
Keep reading, Martin. :) Lazy reliance on collective nouns is addictive for the media (and everyone else), but the Protestant Reformation really happened. I say with some confidence that Anglican Primate William Turei and The Archbishop of Wellington, John Dew, would back me on that.
-
persuade them they are wasting their time and resources.
You’re welcome to try, Ross, just be fairly warned I don't treat unsolicited envangelism with an excess of Christian grace and charity.
(For the record, I’m a Catholic -- not a church with a tradition of lay evangelism so it really doesn’t go both ways. Promise. Any potential convert who wants that kind of spiritual counseling would get my parish priest’s phone number and best wishes. Anything beyond that is waaay above my pay grade.)
-
Hard News: Belief Media, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
But to drag this a few inches back to the original post, is coverage of religion in the media affected and distorted by a more basic structural issue.
Which has got me thinking about some modest proposals for lamestream media touching on matters religious.
1) There is no such thing as a “Christian”. Seriously, folks, it’s been 495 years since Martin Luther wrote his 95 Theses so you’ve had plenty of time to get to grips with the idea that the Christian Church hasn’t been a unitary body of beliefs under one hierarchical authority for a very long time. That’s not only true for Christianity. Sunni and Shia are not the parents of Chaz Bono; it’s a profoundly non-trivial distinction you need to have clear when talking about Islam.
2) Covering religion is like any other round. It’s easy to fill your speed dial with reliably attention-grabbing rent-a-quotes and re-work press releases. Developing expertise and a wide-range of contacts is Journalism 101, bitches.
3) Context and Nuance Matters. Should speak for itself.
4) Authority does not come from having the loudest voice and the slickest PR operation. Ditto.
-
Hard News: Belief Media, in reply to Lilith __,
Perhaps we could follow suit: talk about the issues, not the person.
You know something, Lilith, and someone who is living with a real mental illness which has fuck-all-nothing to do with my religious faith, I’d just like courtesy repaid by Dawkins. Seriously. Perhaps the conversation about using the rhetoric of mental illness to shame and exclude is for another time and place, but I’ll be damned if he’s getting a pass because he’s a fashionable media figure around these parts.
OTOH, I agree very strongly with Emma about the actual and potential harm of assembling a group of men and feeding them Promise Keepers mumbo-jumbo.
Sure, but the other side of that is that some of the most open-hearted and humbling people I came across when coming out were... well, in church. Plenty of douchebags, and nobody even think about trying school me about the profound institutional homophobia in the Catholic Church. You've nothing to teach on that subject.
But to drag this a few inches back to the original post, is coverage of religion in the media affected and distorted by a more basic structural issue. If it bleeds it leads; and if it can't be summed up in a picture and a handful of soundbites, who cares? Anyone remember the shit-storm over that episode of South Park -- there were plenty of outraged soundbites from the usual rentaquotes, but a rather depressing disinclination on the part of the lamestream media to think too hard about questions like "What do we really mean when we throw around words like 'blasphemy'?", what's the cultural and social context?, is there a possibility that "Christians" have a range of views on this?
-
Hard News: Belief Media, in reply to Lilith __,
I’m sure you’re right, but who said these things??
Christopher Hitchens (which I revere, FWIW, but when he got his crank working? Oy and vey.) and Jerry Falwell, who didn't even have the decency to wait a full day after the 9/11 attacks to let loose that spew.
-
Hard News: Belief Media, in reply to Ross Mason,
Craig, doesn’t that behaviour demonstrate Santorum is not all in this world?
I'm inclined to wonder if any part of Mr. Frothy is in this particular corner of the multi-verse.
-
Hard News: Belief Media, in reply to NBH,
I have to agree with Craig here – Dawkins has always struck me as a condescending and unpleasant arsehole.
But, non-bless, he knows how to play the media game like a pro. It probably says a lot that “Folks who go to church are psychos” and “Atheist fags are responsible for 9/11!” will get infinitely more play than (say) Maureen Garing whose death last year left a thoughtful, non-dogmatic, genuinely diverse hole in Radio New Zealand’s schedule where Spritual Outlook used to be.
Garing was one of the hidden treasures of public broadcasting, and it's a shame you didn't do this topic a few years back because she'd have had a very interesting perspective on religion in the media.
-
Hard News: Belief Media, in reply to Lilith __,
It’s always perplexed me that Dawkins gets called militant or strident or aggressive .
Oh, you mean when he equates religious faith to a form of high-functioning (and invariably malignant) mental illness? Gee, I don’t know why anyone would consider that “strident” and “aggressive” – though I’d plump for “110 proof trolling” myself.
And for the record, I’m perfectly happy to call Rick Santorum militant, strident, aggressive and a bigoted panderer who wallows in his ignorance and malice like a pig in mud.
And while Russell is invariably a gracious host, I’ve got to admit one Christmas I came extremely close to losing my shit in the middle of a lengthy harangue from a fellow guest that moved from my personal responsibility for the Crusades (don’t ask, I can’t explain it) to the subject of clerical sexual abuse. Given my experience of (non-clerical) sexual assault while at boarding school I was not in a good head space there for a while.
I’d like to suggest a New Decalogue for too many Atheists and Theists alike in public.
I. Thou Shalt Not Be A Dick.
II. Thou Shalt Not Be A Dick.
III. Thou Shalt Not Be A Dick.
IV. Thou Shalt Not Be A Dick.
V. Thou Shalt Not Be A Dick.
VI. Thou Shalt Not Be A Dick.
VII Thou Shalt Not Be A Dick.
VIII Thou Shalt Not Be A Dick.
IX. Thou Shalt Not Be A Dick.
X. Thou Shalt Not Be A Dick.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 180 181 182 183 184 … 1235 Older→ First