Media Revealed: Clueless About Religion

Imposing His Morality

Watching some of the coverage of Barack Obama’s edict issued to Catholic organizations, it’s become painfully clear to me that many so-called “journalists” don’t have the first clue why this is upsetting.  They simply don’t understand it.  In their thinking, this isn’t a religious issue at all.  In their view, matters of conscience begin and end at the steps of the church, demonstrating that they not only believe in a separation of church and state, but church and life.  What they admitted in their shocked confusion over the back-lash is what I have always known, and you have likely suspected too:  To these people, religion is a belief system that is practiced behind the closed doors of a church, and the very notion that your beliefs extend to the rest of your life is foreign to them.  While many in the media claim to be members of various churches, one clearly gets the sense that many are not all too serious about it, and this issue has revealed them as insincere.

After all, if you’re a committed and observant Catholic, you hold with the teachings of the Church that contraception (never mind abortion) contradicts God’s will.  These people in media understand this about Catholics, but they are astonished when Catholics and others react badly against a governmental edict that requires them to support contraception through compulsory add-ons to insurance plans, or through tax dollars.  For them, the issue is your private faith, to which they will agree you are entitled, versus your adherence to it in all facets of your life.  In effect, what they suppose is that while you may rightly hold your own beliefs, that when you exit the church you must set aside your beliefs in all the rest of your daily life.  In essence, they believe in a separation of your religious beliefs from practical life.

This is a telling revelation, and it correlates well with this class of bloody hypocrites, who may profess this religious belief or that, but seldom adhere to it in their own lives.  To them, religion is about private professions of a belief in a crowd of like-minded people, assembled at best within the walls of a church, hidden from society and closed in from all the world.  They cannot conceive of the notion that you might adhere to a given church, accept all its teachings, and extend their practice into your daily lives.  You oppose abortion on the basis of religion?  Fine, they will say, but if you’re a doctor, that doesn’t relieve you of the duty to perform one if a patient demands it.  They demand doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmacists, and everyone else to abandon their faith once they exit their homes or churches.

In their view, religion is something dispensable, like deciding whether it is too warm for a sweater, or too cool for shorts on the way to a picnic.  They project their own loosely-defined, carelessly adopted choices of conscience onto every other man and woman in the culture, and expect that all others would so easily drop their beliefs at the command of a President, or any other dictatorial thug, just on his say-so.  It is much like the attitude of Romney over Romneycare in the debate with Rick Santorum: “It’s not worth getting angry about.”   This disconnect in their professed religious views from their daily lives is born of the fact that in the first instance, most of them are liars, and starting with the commandment to “not bear false witness,” they begin very early in their careers to do precisely that.

If you slant a story about a person to make his actions seem worse, or better, you’re bearing false witness.  What has modern journalism become if not a perpetual parade of people trotted out before some camera, or interviewed and quoted in print who bears false witness against somebody else?  When this becomes the touchstone of your profession, and the way to score the lead story, and the above-the-fold headline, you can bet the long-term affect will be to destroy one’s sense of what is a lie and what isn’t.  Mad?  Yes, of course we become angry!  This should offend you nearly as badly as the story in this case, because it reveals something else too:  It is reported that President Obama and some in his inner circle dismissed warnings from some others in the administration that there could be a back-lash, and that they are somewhat surprised now that the back-lash is well under way.   In short, the media is surprised, but so is the President’s inner circle, and for exactly the same reason:  Obama, despite his professions of a Christian faith and twenty years in Jeremiah Wright’s church, doesn’t take his faith all that seriously either.  Like many liberals, it was all about appearances.

This also explains something else, if you’re observant:  The same people who are shocked about this reveal why they hold such naive views about radical Islamists.  Think of it:  They don’t understand that Muslims motivated to terror by radical Imams might well actually believe every word they’ve been taught as they throw themselves into crowded streets with bombs strapped to their chests.  In short, they are willing to act on the strength of their beliefs, whether you and I agree with those beliefs being a separate matter.  In the worldview of the left, this is a confounding issue of politics gone haywire, and it is why they do not understand how the Arab Spring is rapidly undergoing a climate change of a different sort.  In the main, this is either because they don’t hold religious convictions, or at least not firmly, or because they believe that political expedience trumps all other causes.  Either way, what they fail to understand is that a Catholic doctor of Obstetrics and Gynecology may have matters of conscience or faith that prohibit the performing of abortions.

To them, matters of faith are strictly personal, and should have no bearing on one’s dealings or relations with others.  These people have no understanding of committed, observantly faithful practitioners of any religion.  They think “free exercise” is a matter of speech at most, and even then should remain in church at its most public.  Their perspective is that of a shallow faith, not made of actions tied to beliefs, but of words tied mainly to doubts or dis-beliefs. They cannot understand why one’s religious beliefs should matter at all in one’s performance in the workplace, or why they might affect the diligence with which one adheres to the vows of one’s marriage.  In their view, these things are all superficial and transient, meaning that when they seem shocked and confused over how this could possibly be seen by Catholics, or Christians in general, as a matter of the interference by the state in the free exercise of religion, most are not faking it.  They really don’t “get it,” and it’s because they have no idea that faith and religious instruction actually informs the views of many millions of Americans.  They expect you to make professions of faith, but never to act upon it.

In short, they really are clueless.  And besides, “it’s not worth getting angry about.”

 

Like Be the first one who likes this post!
  • http://www.thebookofsarah.com j.a.agibinik

    To be offened, to say the least, the media would have to be taken to task…..take climate change. If there was an attack on that religion, on Al Gore, a law passed, a bill……then you would here the media scream. Makes me think, God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Get rid of all RINO's!!!!!
    Palin/West 2012

  • dnr

    "Faith without works is dead." (James 2:20, 26)

    I had to do a double take at the reference to Obama's professed "Christian" faith and his presence in Jeremiah Wright's church. The two are mutually exclusive. Obama may as well have attended a church of satan. And of course Obama's profession of "Christian" faith is nothing more than taqqiya. There is simply no evidence of Christianity in his life whatsoever. His is evil fruit.

    As for the LSM types, they, too, have no discernible faith other than in man. If they claim any religion, it is not through faith that they embrace it. They are hypocrites in the truest sense of the word. And as you so aptly allude, what is the purpose of faith if not to inform our everyday lives?

    • Terry Spears

      I agree totally. James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

      James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

      Also
      2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

      • dnr

        Amen! Your last Scripture reference can apply to the modern church. I believe it is because of its "form of godliness but denying the power thereof" that our society is in the state it is in today.

  • http://yahoo Susan

    They are not clueless…..They know what they are fostering and pushing into being. Lets just pray there are enough places and countries to flee to when all 'Hell' breaks out. May Almight God have mercy on their souls. It
    aint gonna be pretty folks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1649923542 Thomas Dixon

    I had to read your article three times before I was able to comprehend your view that 'those people' really are clueless to the meaning of life and how it works. At first, I heard what you were saying, but could not conceive that these university educated, society-bred know-it-alls that are so intellectually superior to all of us are truly convinced that if the masses will just fall into line and live our ives the way they design it, then true utopia will arise from mother earth.

    I mean, I realize that I'm just a simple guy that was blessed with a couple of talents as result of mixing chromosomes between a big city guy and a small town gal. Heck, I might not even be here now had my dad been one of those unlucky 30,000 who were shot down over Germany.

    But, through the course of my life, I have learned the meaning of emotion and experienced unconditional love by humans and animals. And, in the interrim realized the value of honor, self discipline, sacrifice, and dedication. None of those virtues made me a millionaire or earned me a number on the Most Wanted list; however, they do make me who I am. Plus, somewhere in there God made Himself known and helped me realize I wasn't just some random set of genes.

    It was the third run-thru of your article that brought it all into focus for me. You see, for years now I've been grappling with a line of thinking that I just couldn't understand. Like you, I've lived in other cultures and fully discern that they view life and the world differently than we do. Yet, there are absolutes in their cultures that you just come to know ~ an example would be the Orient's belief in death before dishonor.

    Though avoided my whole military career, Southern California became my final duty station. During three years in the Los Angeles, San Diego area, I came into frequent contact with people whose lifestyle was inconsistent to a specific set of values. In other words, there might be a bank manager who would refuse loans due to low credit score, yet drive a Ferrari and live in a million dollar home while in debt up to his eyeballs. Or, a police officer, renowned for work with Big Brothers Club, frequenting a strip club before going home to wife and family. Or say a city official who might receive monitary kickbacks from contractors, yet work with a church youth group on Junior Achievement projects.

    I realize those may not be the best examples. Nonetheless, I began to recognize patterns of behavior that Linda and I dubbed 'flexible values.' Obviously, some people felt that their actions or responsibilities did not need to be defined by a single purpose or belief. Instead, they seemed completely comfortable adapting their view to meet current situations.

    That's when I understood who those folks are that feel religion is dispensable ~ nice discussions and socializing on Sundays in church, but nothing that makes any difference other days of the week. They really don't get it Good article. Thanks for the help.

    • http://www.markamerica.com MarkAmerica

      Thomas,

      That's all quite true. This inconsistency between the values people profess and the values their actions express is one of the keys to the character of people that we tend to key on as an indicator of trustworthiness. In your examples, when you see the city official who works with the Junior Achievement projects, but later find he's taking kickbacks from contractors, your mind pronounces a verdict whether you ever give it voice: "Fake, Hypocrite, Fraud, Con-Artist," are among a larger body of words you will thereafter lend to their description.

      These are people who look at the whole world in a way that is jaded by their own existence in it. In the book Atlas Shrugged, admittedly my favorite, one of the book's villains explains to his terrified young wife that he will cheat on her as he pleases, and she will do the same, and the whole of this is what "everybody does" as a way to excuse his own sordid behavior. She subsequently kills herself because she cannot reconcile the monstrous world he describes and she sees with the world she had thought to exist, but did not find.

      Those in media who hold this superficial view of moral standards and religious convictions constitutes the larger number of them. They truly are those who think "do as I say, but not as I do" is a valid worldview, while they struggle to hide the worst of what it is that they do. What they profess as their belief on Sunday in no way impedes or tempers their behaviors on Monday, leading you to wonder whether their professions of Sunday had been sincere. You might wonder what their greatest sin had been, and I would call it self-deception.

      It's one of the reasons they are in such a hurry to propose various forms of compulsory charity through government taxation and redistribution: They cannot conceive of charity born without coercion. To the degree they give to charity, for most of them it is about making a public statement of their virtues, whether they're giving hard cash or giving of their time. It's not something they want to do, but feel they must do for appearances. Many of them hate charities for this very reason, and it's why you see them now carrying out a war on charitable institutions.

      What their view does not permit is that one might give to charity because one wants to do so, as an extension and an expression of one's deeply held values. They view it with scorn, but just as they do not understand that for many people of abiding faith, actions in daily life are an expression of those beliefs, they do not understand why it is that America is the most charitable nation on Earth, measuring solely the private giving of individuals. It is because most American still at least try to live out their beliefs in daily life. Many Americans still see a connection between what they professed on Sunday and the actions they will take on Monday.

      Thanks Thomas!

      Mark

  • Pingback: Mitt Romney and the “Conservatism Quotient” « Mark America()