3.29.2005
zoo
I try not to delve too deeply into my own stance on religion or politics, except to say that I am an evangelical Christian who happens also to be a Massachusetts Liberal. In that respect (and in others, no doubt), I am an anomaly. I'm an academic liberal egghead but I also have a profound faith in Christianity. So i was a little put-off by this story in the news today:today's Boston Globe features a story with the title "For Family, Religion Shapes Politics". This is not a fringe newspaper. It's not some whacko publication that is produced a country away or from another era. This is the Boston Globe - my hometown newspaper. And that article was really stupid, bordering on offensive.
It tells the story of a nice, albeit bland story, of a couple from Ohio (that dastardly state which cost Kerry the election. y'know, so did every other state didn't vote for Kerry - Ohio was just the one where it was close). The Wilkersons are evangelicals who voted for Bush, side with the Republicans on every single issue, and who tithe, sing in the choir, and pray before meals. The Boston Globe chose to show these people off as if they were caged animals in a zoo. As I read the article, I found myself finding the tone of the article to be condescending. This was a grade-school report on Chinese people which might read: these are Chinese people. They eat rice and pray to buddha. They celebrate the moon festival and give each other money in red envelopes. None of these is specifically untrue, but it takes very little effort to present these facts in a way which doesn't sound like Christians are an endangered species or a lost civilization from far away.
Do I agree with their views? Most of them. Do I share their values? Most of them. It would be difficult for me to say otherwise. And yes, a lot of Christians voted with the Republicans this time, not because they agree with the Republicans on everything, but because the Republicans tended to embody their vision of the values of America, the Anglo-Saxon, Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman whatever values of America. These are people who very often also voted against their economic interests, their interests as international travellers or as patients in hosptials. But at least they agree that gays shouldn't get married. I'm angry with articles which exploit the rift in religious and secular America. This was idiotic reporting by someone who should know better, by an institution that should know better, and in a country that, theoretically, should know better too.
I'm not opposed to the crossing of cultures, nor am I opposed to the free exchange of information. I wrote a few months ago that I was sick of blue America saying that evangelicals were ignorant fools, and that I was simultaneously sick of red America saying that liberals are smug and out of touch. Newspapers should be writing articles which expose each side in a fair and respectful way. But when they produce this drivel instead of actual journalism, that's when I have a problem. There is such a need for understanding that when newspapers actually miss the opportunity to do so by so far, the result is such that it'd have been better if they hadn't tried, which is really pretty sad.
It tells the story of a nice, albeit bland story, of a couple from Ohio (that dastardly state which cost Kerry the election. y'know, so did every other state didn't vote for Kerry - Ohio was just the one where it was close). The Wilkersons are evangelicals who voted for Bush, side with the Republicans on every single issue, and who tithe, sing in the choir, and pray before meals. The Boston Globe chose to show these people off as if they were caged animals in a zoo. As I read the article, I found myself finding the tone of the article to be condescending. This was a grade-school report on Chinese people which might read: these are Chinese people. They eat rice and pray to buddha. They celebrate the moon festival and give each other money in red envelopes. None of these is specifically untrue, but it takes very little effort to present these facts in a way which doesn't sound like Christians are an endangered species or a lost civilization from far away.
Do I agree with their views? Most of them. Do I share their values? Most of them. It would be difficult for me to say otherwise. And yes, a lot of Christians voted with the Republicans this time, not because they agree with the Republicans on everything, but because the Republicans tended to embody their vision of the values of America, the Anglo-Saxon, Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman whatever values of America. These are people who very often also voted against their economic interests, their interests as international travellers or as patients in hosptials. But at least they agree that gays shouldn't get married. I'm angry with articles which exploit the rift in religious and secular America. This was idiotic reporting by someone who should know better, by an institution that should know better, and in a country that, theoretically, should know better too.
I'm not opposed to the crossing of cultures, nor am I opposed to the free exchange of information. I wrote a few months ago that I was sick of blue America saying that evangelicals were ignorant fools, and that I was simultaneously sick of red America saying that liberals are smug and out of touch. Newspapers should be writing articles which expose each side in a fair and respectful way. But when they produce this drivel instead of actual journalism, that's when I have a problem. There is such a need for understanding that when newspapers actually miss the opportunity to do so by so far, the result is such that it'd have been better if they hadn't tried, which is really pretty sad.
