You remember: the blind man feeling the trunk described the elephant to be a snake, the one touching the leg as a tree, the one holding the tail as skinny and frail, etc. The media often perform like the blind men – and not only when addressing religious issues. It is my experience that at least some of the media discriminate against everybody at least some of the time.

More interesting than the question about “if” there is discrimination against religion would be an exploration of how the media utilizes various biased patterns of reporting about religion. While not all coverage is prejudiced, there are multiple examples of media reporters and writers trying to fashion religion into their own image and likeness.

Let me describe the most common missteps that lead to bias in covering religion.

First: Present only one opinion to represent all religion. A bigot usually profiles religion by choosing the least “reasonable” or the least “scientific” opinion possible. The result is a cartoon picture of religion that holds it up for ridicule. The hapless reader or viewer is induced to ask: “How could anyone be so stupid?”

On this Web site not so long ago, the U.S. Civil War was cited as an example of how religion supported slavery. The writer conveniently ignored the significant religious fervor on the victorious side for abolition. The writer’s anti-religious bias conveniently falsified history by providing a half of the truth about religion and slavery. This tactic was used about WMDs to start a war in Iraq, so it can have truly dangerous consequences.

Second: Choose phony spokespersons to represent a complex reality. Catholic League President Bill Donahue is always good for an outrageous quote, as was Frances Kissling of another side of Catholicism. You could also choose Pat Robertson or Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong if you decided to find a Protestant foil. In reality, none of the above speak officially for all religion. You can increase the bias, moreover, by inserting key words like “dissident” or “prophet”. Even if the difference between such categories rests mostly in the eye of the beholder, the message helps persuade viewers to view the spokesperson through the jaundiced eye of media. By extension, everyone in that religion is likewise caricatured.

Third: State facts out of context. For instance, rail against Catholic priests as sex offenders, but don’t mention any other religion. In the statistics I’ve seen, about 4% of all priests have been formally accused of a sex crime. But 8% of Protestant ministers and 11% of Jewish rabbis make similar violations. By focusing on only Catholic priests and omitting the context that the priesthood actually has a cleaner record than similar clergy or professionals like doctors, dentists and teachers, the media can condemn only Catholics. This is the meaning of discrimination.

Fourth: Falsify history by pretending a question is evidence. For instance, ask: “Is it possible that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene?” It doesn’t matter if the sources for such a fanciful question are totally irrelevant, just asking the question makes any response to the contrary sound like a put down. You might as well ask: “Is it possible that Hitler escaped the bunker and made it to Argentina?” Such fictional musing is great for cinema escapism, but it always seeps backwards into a public perception that somehow the question is true and the negative respondents are involved in cover-up.

Fifth and finally: Create new categories like “spirituality” to denigrate religion. For the media, spirituality becomes the vessel of election because it is “voluntary,” while that “old and mean” religion imposes boundaries called commandments. I don’t have any problem with people seeking spirituality if that means “personal commitment,” but I find it hard to understand how individuals can function without human communities. Whence comes what you commit to in spirituality, if not from some meaningful community that is religious?

My Post Script: The media today can be more biased against militant atheism than against religion. While there are still some whose pathological anger (or is it envy?) about faith leads them to ridicule and infantilize all religious believers, they seem to be losing the battle for public sympathy.

My conclusion comes from analysis of the Star Trek series. The shows of the first TV series and many from the first couple of seasons of the spin-off ,Next Generation frequently mouthed the premises of militant atheism. No more! Virtually all Sci-Fi shows today carry story lines cluttered with priests, goddesses, rituals, dreams, miracles, and the like. Gone from the scene are the rationalists who proclaim a brave, new world where only science reigns.

This might reflect growing evidence that atheism is considered a fragile relic of 19th century Positivism and has increasingly less echo among ordinary people. At least, that’s what the media would have you believe.