talkpolitics | Media, Religion, and You

Putting aside for a moment the questions from the CNN anchor which border on uninformed ridiculousness about what CNN must acknowledge is at least a significant portion of their viewing audience, this video really spoke to me on a level about the religious discussion in this country.

I've written a little about this before when I was writing up recent book reviews on two nonfiction books I recently read, Rapture Ready by Daniel Radoff (about Christian pop culture) and Quiverfull (the author escapes me, but about the "Christian patriarchy movement"), and how a lot of folks, especially the media, appear to view the religious as a quirky bunch and don't even begin to try to understand how to talk to them, with them, about them in ways that they can understand. This clip inadvertently makes this crystal clear to me - the salesman is utterly flabbergasted by the line of questioning in the second half because her questions make no sense to him. Yeah, guess was - 90% plus of people do believe in God here, we could credibly, demographically, be considered a "Christian nation" regardless of one's views on the matter, and her question is "well, what would Jesus do," as if her entire knowledge of religious thought and spiritual viewpoints comes from a popular fad from 10 years ago.

The battles over religion are going to get worse, not better. The right is in full force right now, and it's going to translate to local and state races in 2009 and the midterms next year. I'm not convinced at all that the less religious - or anti-religious of us in many cases - are going to be able to gain ground with these folks as long as we keep acting like religion, spiritual belief, and religion-as-culture is some sort of quirk or oddity. There's secularism - a heady, worthwhile goal in many areas - and there's burning bridges to make some sort of, well, holier than thou point about how wacky the religious folk are.

This piece could have been a great piece on promotional ingenuity that'd make Billy Mays proud, or even turned into a solid discussion as to how religion and patriotism factor into his business plan and how his customers respond. Instead, it's the mainstream media deciding that he's not to be taken seriously, thus meaning that it becomes the mainstream media deciding that a sizeable minority, perhaps plurality, if not outright majority of people are nothing more than a quaint national joke. That's not right.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There's no such thing as Muslim "leadership." In Sunni Islam (which is 90% of the planet's 1 billion Muslims) all Muslims are equal before God. Your knowledge of Islam isn't as good as you think it is, which should also raise doubts on what you know of Christianity.

That's a laugh. In fact that's got to be the most unintentionally funny things I've ever read, and I've read Twilight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_religious_leaders

Okay I didn't actually read Twilight, but it's funnier to claim I have.

Didn't your mama ever teach you that the Greek Genocide is not an acceptable academic source?

Don't be sore just because you said something very foolish and I called you on it. Just because someone says they don't have leaders doesn't make it so. They're only fooling themselves, and anyone gullible enough to listen.

First, the Caliphs are not in theory leaders but placeholders since the death of Muhammad the Prohpet.

Second, the Ayatollah is the Shiah version of the Caliph.

Third, the Mullahs are not religious leaders in the sense of Christian priests, but in the sense of the Jewish Rabbis, who aren't priests either (the closest analogue to that in Traditional Judaism is the Cantor).

Fourth, a Muezzin is not a religious leader any more than the person that calls a business meeting to order is.

Fifth, Sahib is just a term that means revered.

And Sixth....don't you see something the least bit potentially flawed in handing a link to a piece of shit insofar as information is concerned that doesn't even list what nationalistic source it's drawing from? I mean this is the medium that said that the Pied Piper of Hameln was a metaphor for Drang nach Osten based on the writings of a Polish High School Student. So no, I don't trust anything Wiki says.

Blah blah blah you're painfully naive despite your education if you think Islam has no leaders. You're great with theory but you fail at anything practical.

First-explain to me how "Islam" is any more valid than "Christianity." Christians are not hive minds, they've long-running grudges and disputes over theology. How is it that Islam is homogenous and united when the One Holy and Apostolic Church has never been One?

Second-in large parts of the Middle East (including Turkey) modernity has been overlaid in a thin layer that is a real-world version of the Christian Right's fears-practices of the majority religion were entirely outlawed and thus Islamism can viably state that a religion that is outlawed altogether is under threat.

And Third-Under the principles of Islam, in theory every Muslim is equal to every other Muslim. This is essential to understanding the bloody thing, but since most Leftists get their religion from Dan Brown I can understand why understanding those Mediterranean Darkies is too tough for the Left's ideas. /snerkgrowlsnarlmutter.

First-explain to me how "Islam" is any more valid than "Christianity."
Why should I since I have never asserted this?

Second-in large parts of the Middle East (including Turkey) modernity has been overlaid in a thin layer that is a real-world version of the Christian Right's fears-practices of the majority religion were entirely outlawed and thus Islamism can viably state that a religion that is outlawed altogether is under threat.
And what has this to do with whether or not Islam has any leadership?

And Third-Under the principles of Islam, in theory every Muslim is equal to every other Muslim.
So? How does this mean there are no leaders? In America we are all equal (in theory) but that doesn't change the fact that we have leaders. You're so stuck on semantics that it's starting to make you look absurd.

You say "Islam" has leaders. By which you seem to mean that there is one Islam and its leaders are all some kind of hive mind.

Because it's outlawed and therefore has none (at least legal ones) in a good chunk of the Middle East?

And actually, US legal theory does not argue that we are all equal. The original constitution left it to the state legislatures to elect the Federal Senate and counted blacks as 3/5 a person. In modern times, what political equality we have ignores that the US system favors wealth and wealth favors economic inequality.

Even if we presume some nebulous "Islam" has leaders, that no more means that the leaders are all retrograde bearded religious fanatics like Khomeini or Osama Bin Laden than all Christian pastors are like Fred Phelps or the leaders of the Christian Identity movement.

By which you seem to mean that there is one Islam and its leaders are all some kind of hive mind.
I'm sorry if you're incapable of a debate using logic, but misrepresenting what I'm saying isn't going to do you any good. A boss is a leader, it doesn't mean everyone who works for him is a mindless follower.

Because it's outlawed and therefore has none (at least legal ones) in a good chunk of the Middle East?
What is outlawed?

And actually, US legal theory does not argue that we are all equal.
Once again going on tangents because you have no logical ground to stand on. Enough already.

Even if we presume some nebulous "Islam" has leaders
No that's what you're assuming. It's a shame having an education doesn't keep one from being narrow-minded.

There's nothing funny about Twilight. It's too tragic.

Yes, I've read it. I'm worse off because of it.

Haha. Well-played, sir.

The United States doesn't have leaders because all americans are equal too.

In theory there are no true "leaders" in the United States because the three branches of government are all equally powerful. Effectively there are 546 leaders and not 1 leader under the idea of Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers. This in contrast to Parliamentary republics where you have the Prime Minister as at least a single leader.

Media, Religion, and You

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject