All Comments (27)

unhallow channel revaccination acicularly prologize substantialness zonoplacental eponymy
MP4::Info
http://rampsodia.com

"[Clergy pedophilia] only became a debilitating fiasco on the one occasion where the American people needed their churches to resist the government's ill-conceived invasion effort."

Ralph, I doubt very many people were expecting churches to do anything about Iraq.

Jacob Jozefz,

What are you always on about and what on earth are you smoking?! Come on dude, no one's really reading your dribble; come up with something constructive buddy. Your constant ramblings about, to be quite frank, sweet blow-all, is getting quite irritating and annoying.

Some people have said it takes a scandal the size of the Roman Catholic church sex abuse scandal to make the media report anything negative about organized religion. This of course gives me the opportunity to voice again my belief that the timing of the scandal, which occured at the very moment when our government in Washington was invading Iraq on false and falsified intelligence, was suspicious.

There have been ongoing scandals of pedophile clery for decades. It only became a debilitating fiasco on the one occasion where the American people needed their churches to resist the government's ill-conceived invasion effort.

When all branches and levels of government are overwhelmed with the hysteria that their inaction created, then who other than the media and their churches can the people turn to?

I guess you can see why they will take their lumps with the pedophile scandal than to sit down to what I am serving up.

Brambleton,

Have you ever turned on your TV when a Papal visit was in progress or during a Presidential prayer breakfast?

Regards.

In the final analysis, all issues are ecomomic. So what is it about religion that UK media doesn't understand reverand? I mean, what are the issues?

Ray,

Ruth Gledhill (from the London Times) is an absolutely appalling religion correspondent. When, in the light of the intelligent design controversy, the Roman Catholic Church issued a press release re-iterating their position that there is no contradiction between evolution and Christianity, Gledhill wrote an article with a title along the lines of "Roman Catholic Church decides that certain parts of Genesis aren't true". That is the worst reporting of religion I have seen in a long time.

"There are really only two or three 'religion' stories they want to tell: (a) religious people in general and clergy in particular are actually hypocrites; (b) religion in general and orthodox Christianity in particular is based on a mistake and bad for your health/society in general, not least because it is obsessed with outmoded sexual morality; (c) old-fashioned fuddy-duddies make church boring and unattractive; (d) silly happy-clappy modernizers make church embarrassing and unattractive."

The problem with your complaints here is that:

(a) Unlike in schools or old people's homes, within the church there is a belief that priests will always be kindly people who, through their dedication to God, will be honest and ethical. This makes the exceptions more shocking when they occur in the Church than when they occur in a school or old people's home (though the other institutions get their fair share of media coverage too).

This example is made even more disturbing in cases like the scandal in Roman Catholic Church where it turned out that the Church was actually trying to 'cover up' the problem rather than positively tackle it.

(b) The extent to which religious beliefs are in question is not often mentioned by religious authorities (though those who study theology and Biblical criticism often discuss these issues without any such illusions of certainty). People are actually very shocked when they discover that many writers in the Old Testament did not believe in an afterlife, or that the serpent was not originally identified with Satan - or even a demon, or that evolutionary theory rules out the possibility of a literal 'first man and first woman', though I think people generally realise that if everyone kisses the same statue it will spread disease.

The fact is that people are generally convinced by religious organisations that religion is always beneficial. That if you truly follow God you will be happier and more moral. So, to my mind, religious organisations only have themselves to blame for the extra attention when they don't live up to their own standards.

As for (c) and (d) they clearly do not cancel each other out. Some are trying to keep the Church traditional and it is seen as boring, others try to make it happy-clappy and it is seen as ridiculous. I'd suggest that the reason for this is not the enthusiasm or lack of it from the Church, but rather the framework of the religion itself. That would explain the rise in Wicca where rituals are more creative and less prescribed, and also allow for the 'return to nature' which a lot of people long for these days.

I notice that the one thing you haven't blamed them for is getting the facts wrong. That's the thing about religion these days. Religious organisations now feel like political parties. Rather than recognising the problems and insisting they will tackle them, they are more likely to try to hide these problems, complain when the problems are recognised, and moan that all the good things they do are being ignored.

Tons of people and organisations out there are making good contributions to their communities, and they don't get any media interest either. Religion is not getting any bias against them in that department. This is an issue for the media in general, not just for the way the media reports religious issues.

As per Ken's comments Professor Wright, what sayest thou about the Church of England and its wayward founder Henry VIII and his "rap" sheet??

Ah, the anglican church. Got a little story to tell about the anglican church.

Years ago, when I was to be married, my fiancee wanted the wedding to be held in the anglican church in her small town in the middle of Wales. I agreed, because religion didn't play a part in my life (despite my upbringing in a jewish household) and because I wanted her to be happy.

I had a previous marriage - a very short one - and the vicar in my fiancee's hometown church said he couldn't - and wouldn't - marry us. When I arrived a week before the wedding, she told me of his refusal to marry us. I asked to go see him. When I asked him if the reason was because I was jewish, he told me that the reason was because I had been married before.

I looked at him and reminded him that the anglican church was created by Henry VIII as a DIRECT result of the catholic church refusing to allow Henry to divorce his wife. So I asked him why a church which was FOUNDED on divorce would refuse to hold a marriage for the reason that one of the parties had been divorced. He had no answer for me. Gee. What a shock.

Since I have always been sort of amused by religions of all types, this just cemented my belief that ALL religion is founded in lies and hypocrisy.

We had a civil ceremony.

Joe and Bryson,

Any discussion of sexual morality or any kind of morality ought to focus on what helps or harms others, as well as people taking responsibility for their actions. Christianity doesn't automatically equate to morality, and other belief systems don't automatically equate to immorality. A person can have a sense of morality and responsibility without being a Christian. I've never understood the attitudes of Christianity and Islam regarding sexual morality - while they rightly condemn adultery and irresponsible promiscuity as harming others, they also condemn homosexuality which does not harm anyone.

Bishop Wright,

Henry VIII, your thoughts?

ROBERT tells us: Intellectualism and intellectuals in general are, with only rare exception, almost universally viewed as being godless, immoral atheists and/or communists barbarians. Anyone who questions any aspect of Christianity is well, considered to be Satan's foot soldier by most Christianists.

ANN O. replies: I think that is might true in some areas of the U.S., but not all. Even cities differ as to tolerance. New Orleans has historically been more tolerant of differences than some other cities. I think that's probably because it's background is not Calvinist but Catholic. When Katrina hit, some fundamentalists loudly proclaimed that God was because us we tolerate sin so easily.

Anyway, I do think that areas, even churches within one denomination, can differ widely.

Complexity, complexity. (I think American culture is actually *against* complexity -- and that's one reason why there are so many anti-intellectuals here. Just look at its art -- from the beginning it has tended towards a lovely sort of simplicity. Well, the real world is very, very messy. Sigh. But I digress.)

Joe Campbell

Orthodox Christianity (?) (some Christians, all Christians, the Bible, Jesus, Paul, Mother Theresa, The Pope, Billy Graham, William Wilberforce, Bob Dylan, who exactly?) has an obsession with sex.

May be its a reflection of the fact that society is obsessed with sex. You wouldn't want the church to be irrelevant, would you?

Let's see, what's there to deny? Pornography, Fornication, STDs, Rape, Incest, HIV, Divorce, Marriage, Infanticide, Abortion, Domestic Violence, Poverty . . . ?

"religion in general and orthodox Christianity in particular is based on a mistake and bad for your health/society in general, not least because it is obsessed with outmoded sexual morality;"

And?

All of my life I have been hearing about what christians believe, what they should be doing, and what everyone else is doing wrong. And a large majority of it concerns sex. Christians are so obsessed with sex. They can't stop talking about. Denial?

---Many of the Christians who protested "Monty Python's Life of Brian" had not seen the film----

And unlike so called offence in Islam...no one died, there were no world wide riots and no burning embassies.
Even Christian nutters pale next to Islamic ones.

And you have to laugh at this anyway...in the UK the media (esp TV news) goes to laughable lengths not to call a spade a spade...or a Muslim a Muslim.
Whenever yet another Muslim is arrested for terrorist actions/plans based solely on them being a Muslim...they are described as (as alsmot all of them are Pakistani...like it or not) "A British man" (!!) Or " A British man of Pakistani origin"!

In fact over the 'plane plot' recently the BBC indeed used the term British men of Pakistani origin" despite it being a total LIE because one of them was a White convert, who was in fact "A British man of British origin"!

The PC media goes out of it's way in the UK not to anoy religion.

"You'd be amazed at how much hate mail Bill Moyers received for producing and airing his very insightful series."

I suspect the mail writers weren't representative of most Christians, or even of most Biblical literalists, but were simply people who felt strongly enough to write in.

Many of the Christians who protested "Monty Python's Life of Brian" had not seen the film. Although the film doesn't attack Jesus or Christianity directly, I can understand why a Christian might be put off by Graham Chapman telling the crowd that "you don't need to follow anybody...you've all got to work it our for yourselves." As John Cleese described it, the film is really about "closed systems of thought, be they are political, theological, religious or whatever. Systems by which whatever evidence is given to a person, he merely adapts it, fits it into his ideology."

Ann O.,

While you might welcome detailed public discussion, intellectual debate regarding religion's worth and conversations regarding theological diversity and divergent religious perspectives as being both useful and stimulating, I have to tell you that many of your fellow "Christians" who are literalists, consider such things as being absolutely heretical, blasphemous and even Satanic. Not too put to fine of a point on this but, you're one of only a few remaining Christians who doesn't view being an intellectual and a Christian as incompatible. To most Christians these days, the two concepts are mutually exclusive, you're either or but not both. Intellectualism and intellectuals in general are, with only rare exception, almost universally viewed as being godless, immoral atheists and/or communists barbarians. Anyone who questions any aspect of Christianity is well, considered to be Satan's foot soldier by most Christianists. The reason you don't see more programs like Bill Moyers' series on faith is that there simply isn't any place in the public media where such programs are willingly accepted or even tolerated by most Christians. You'd be amazed at how much hate mail Bill Moyers received for producing and airing his very insightful series. If you want to blame anybody for the lack of intelligent and insightful media reporting or discussion about religion, look to contemporary Christian intellectual intolerance for your answer...

BISHOP WRIGHT tells us: In particular, though many newspapers have 'religion correspondents', the latter seldom if ever report interesting and 'good news' stories about the millions of fascinating and encouraging things that are happening in churches -- but if a clergy person is caught taking money, or running off with someone else's spouse, they pounce and give it a big headline.

Hello, Bishop,

I agree. Last year, when you and Domonic Crossan appeared together here in New Orleans at the Baptist Theological Seminary it event was duly announced in the local paper. I waited for the paper to report on what you two opponents *said* to each other. But the event was not covered. (I didn't attend because I'm deaf.) I was quite disappointed.

Besides what you two had to say to each other, there was another story, a culturally big story that was not covered: Dominic Crossan (whom we all know and love from his participation here on this blog :-) was actually *invited* onto the Baptist campus! Didn't the reporters and editors have any idea what he was likely to say? Didn't they realize that many, many of the Protestants in the City (especially the fundamentalists) would have found it very interesting that he was defending a non-fundamentalist viewpoint at that bastion of fundamentalism, the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary? And that the powers that be there had actually *invited him* to do so

It's a pity that management doesn't realize that it's missing an opportunity to up circulation by covering such stories. Newspaper readership has been declining for a long time, and if the papers reported more about what we're really interested in -- theology abd moral issues, not just clerical sins, they might up their circulation. For instance, interviews with visiting theologians at the various universities (both religious and non-religious ones) would interest many people. Book reviews of theological and other religious and ethical works by competent reviews would also be of interest.

I say three loud cheers for the Washington Post for realizing that people are interested in more than the sins of religious clergymen. (I wish the New York Times knew that. Sigh. But I doubt their reporters would even know which questions to ask if they interviewed a major theologian like Crossan or yourself.)

We rarely see any theology or moral issues covered except in an occasional feature about some exotic sect or about the good works of a particular group. Oh, the reporters will report that this politician or that one is pro- or against abortion or the death penalty, but I have yet to see any politician asked for the ethical/religious *reasons* for his/her views, his/her *arguments* for their positions. Much is said about "the abortion debate", for instance. But the fact of the matter is there has been NO public debate about the issue. There is only reporting of the conclusions (or pragmatic decisions) of the politicians concerning the question.

In other words, as you say, the newspapers don't seem to even understand what is important to us. And the same is true of TV, except, perhaps, for public radio and television. Bill Moyeres, for instance, had a series on faith not long ago which got into some writers' *reasons* for their beliefs and non-beliefs. But such programs are rare even on PBS.

Ann O.

Here is the recipe for a "Clappy Duddy Soup"

Grandma-SUN, Space-Ship-MotherEarth, SisterMOON, BrotherMARS et al will also one day go POOF-TIME. (Those of you who read my TIME (not clock knowledge) Philosophy WILL KNOW that: They will not be fore-ever either. Fate will also fall upon GrandPa-MilkwayGALAXY too. :-('

My Religion is "T.R.A.N.S.F.I.N.I.T.Y" (IT) IN YOU& You in IT (A NOT He or She G-d) EQUALS R.E.A.L.I.T.Y! SO Here LIFE IS A MIRACLE and there is Nothing-Zero Sin or sinfull about SPACEFORTHing out of the MAGMA-TRICULATION, Contrary to ALL those Pre-Apocalyptic faiths or belief SYSTEMS.

Thus: The FIVE-Major Religions; ((((( Jew,Christian,Islam) (Hindu/Buddah ))))))

will all DIE and go POOF via ECLAT's TIME-Machine (thee Ying n Yang between the two points of a universal HEART BEAT, thus ushering a new age of FAITH EXCHANGING for a HEALING of the NATIONS, WORLD PEACE & HAPPYNESS, With ng Long LIVES & CA ASHLESS SOCIETY. This is your sor their APOCALYPSE Now, towards a NEW SONG for a NEWAGE with a REALITY RELIGION based on Transfinity (Your Spirit (MeMe) keeping up with Temperature (a/k/a/ TIME) (Which is what this :This BEAUTIFUL LIFE is all about).

An Apocalypse for Correction of SIN, is NOW. And the Forests of the Humates MIND is understanding the PHOTONS more clearly like going FROM> Caterpillar >TO: Butterfly & ?>

Oh, Forgot: Under C.O.M.M.U.N.I.S.M., especially the 5 major ones mentioned above here, considers them "ENEMY of THE PEOPLES"! Or as Karl Mark correctly taught: "Religion Is The O.P.I.U.M. Of THE PEOPLE. (Remember how addicted ti heroin they was & the trade of it was back not long ago.

Does Henry VIII ever get lambasted in the UK press? And to think he is the founder of the Church of England. Strange, strange indeed!!!

I'm sorry to see Bishop Wright generalizing and stereotyping newspapers' religious correspondents. The Times of London employs one of the best--Ruth Gledhill--and she is very fair in her reporting and is a practicing Anglican. This is not like the Bishop to lop together everyone in the same bucket. He is usually more discriminating than this. It sounds as if he got "burned" in an article and is trying to get revenge. Too bad. I hope he will change his tune and take back some of his words.

JK.
JK
Homosexuals, Hetrosexuals and bi-sexuals could ALL be rapists and child molesters.
But that they ARE Homosexual, hetrosexual or bi-sexual is not the reason why they are child rapists.

Homosexuals can also be robbers and muggers.
As can hetrosexuals.
Nothing to do with actually BEING homosexual or hetrosexual though is it?

Its just as easy to compare hetrosexuals to rapists (in fact most rapists ARE HETROSEXUAL) and child molesters!
Idiot.

Gays aren't rapists and child molesters? Do tell...

Well the only thing you religious nuts have been doing in the Uk recently is screaming your so called holy right to be rabidly homophobic and deny Homosexuals the same rights as anyone else.

And even saying (showing that Godly love again) that you will close down adoption agencies if you're not allowed to carry on being bigots to those 'dirty queers'.
Nice!

Your lovely Black/African Anglican Bishops went so far as to compared to Gays to rapists and child molesters.

So i think The Church (just as those fetied Islamic Clerics) has itself to blame for making the news people report.
And I'm glad it does get reported!!!

Norrie,

I will admit that watching TV, including local/national news, is very limited in my household. But I'd be interested to know, specifically, what media reporting you've seen that paints "religion" in such a biased manner.

Now Bishop Wright,

You know that good news is not news - encouraging things happening in the Churches don't qualify as news. That's why they're not reported.

Religious reporting in the United States is evidently very different from what it is in the United Kingdom.

Here, our national media fall over each other to be first in line to kiss the hind ends of the golden calves of the organized religions.

It takes an earthquake of the magnitude of the Massachusetts priest scandal before you'll find the slightest hint of criticism of religions in our media.