Religion and the Media.


What does Rowan Williams think of it all?


For a celebrated secular society such as the UK, why do religious leaders automatically get media air time when they have an opinion they wish to express? What is it about ‘men of the cloth’ such as Rowan Williams that the media find so worthy of attention when they wish to wade into an issue in the public domain? Williams’ most recent foray into the public sphere is his concern over any potential “downgrading” of religious education in schools. One can argue that it makes sense that his view be reported on since this is a public issue that directly relates to the perpetuation of religion. I, for one, have no problem with religion being taught in schools, but it must be taught honestly. If the likes of Williams want religion to remain in schools it is only reasonable that any such class should teach every belief held within that religion and every ‘word of God’ should be mulled over. There is no room for cherry picking information in an educational situation. So, not only should children be taught about how Jesus was a super guy (with super powers) but children should be told about how Jesus’ father (who was also himself) thought it was perfectly reasonable to burn two children to death for the lighting of incense against his wishes (Leviticus 10:1-2). If it is to be taught, then teach it all, no holds barred, with the obvious caveat that it should not be sold as fact but rather ‘This is what this religion believes’ and of course there is never any room for creationism being touted as an alternative to evolution.

Getting back onto topic, Williams has a track record of getting airtime for his political opinions, despite not being an elected political figure but rather an appointed theological one, which, might I point out, doesn’t make him an expert in any realm other than the word of his ‘God’. His opinions are often as progressive as is likely to be found in any leader within a religion, for example he defends equality for women and homosexuals (both the favourite piñata of the religious zealot) in the sense that they should be allowed to hold positions of influence within the church. Naturally this does not extend to a potentially gay bishop having a partner. Even Williams’ liberal sensibilities have their limits. Beneath these almost reasonable positions lies less acceptable opinions in a secular society such as the UK. Williams advocates the introduction of sharia law in affairs of marriage, in effect having separate laws for one segment of society, while he simultaneously holds the view that the UK is fixated on ‘identity politics’ – things such as gay rights and feminism – and now is the time to focus on what is “good for all of us” . To me it looks like he wants two things at once. Separation and unity. Perhaps this is merely being consistent with the contradictory nature of the bible.

So here we have a man getting airtime for his opinions on subjects as diverse as sharia law (despite not being a representative of the people who wish to see it come into effect) gay rights (where he has also been reported as saying the government have no right to change the law to allow gay marriage; see here for a rebuttal to anyone who agrees with him), feminism and what gets taught in the classroom. Again the question has to be asked. Why? Is he an expert in political theory regarding the rights of minorities such as Muslims in the West or the gay community? Is he an expert in the struggle of women seeking equal and fair treatment in a patriarchal society? He gets air time for none of these reasons. It seems he gets airtime because of tradition. The tradition of the religious advisor. This hails back to the time of total rule by the monarch where a ‘man of the cloth’ was always on hand to advise the ruler. This was a time when it was believed that Kings and Queens were chosen by the God of the land and appointed to rule and therefore it was quite natural to have a representative of God on hand when making decisions. Somehow this tradition of valuing the opinion of the church has carried over into current society, but perhaps for more than traditions sake. It is likely that as the UK has become more secular there is a vocal religious minority that kicks up a fuss when there is any indication that their biased, religiously fuelled views are not being taken seriously. In essence the media is almost afraid of being accused of being discriminatory or unbalanced in their coverage by not including the likes of Williams in reporting of an issue. It all seems so utterly insane and arbitrary.

Now that Williams has stepped down from his role as Archbishop he will likely slowly fade into the background scenery and his replacement will begin to pop up in any realm to rant about his position on any issue that piques his interest and so the circus of taking seriously the opinion of a man who is informed by a Bronze Age book as the source of moral guidance in 2012 continues.


Tags: , , , , , ,

About docconcoct

A wandering mind in a sea of noise. All photographs used on Hubris that are taken by me are copyrighted.

4 responses to “Religion and the Media.”

  1. Peter Ferguson says :

    It does boggle the mind that news organisations will allow anybody airtime if they hold the title of Father or Reverend. With these titles one can comment on any aspect of society regardless of how woefully ill-informed that person may be. Why don’t the news organisations apply the same rules to priests as they do to the rest of society: if you want to publicly comment on a particular aspect of society you must be an expert in that field. However, with priests, every facet of society is apparently their specialty. I find it particularly interesting how they invest so much time on education. Is this due to the fine job they have done over the generations or is it because they realise that without forced religious instruction at a young age children might develop into free-thinkers and skeptics who won’t blindly follow religious doctrine.

    • docconcoct says :

      I get the impression that a lot of people don’t question the exposure the religious leaders recieve. It seems to be a case of it has always been done and therefore is normal and/or appropriate. In reality, of course, it makes very little logical sense for them to recieve this kind of attention. I’d like to hear from someone who believes it is apropriate and why they deem it so.

  2. ryanyllek says :

    One might take the view that Williams’ opinion is worth noting because he is representative of a sizeable religiously-inclined-demographic, but I take your overall point. In essence, the church is an inherently political machine.

    One might also want to explore how it is not just religious figures that are lacking in expertise, but also democratically elected politicians. We might want to re-examine who we accord a mandate and how.

    • docconcoct says :

      There is a tendency in the media to give climate change deniers a platform in the name of ‘balance’ but this is equally bogus since a lot of these deniers are anything but expert in the field and generally have obvious biased agendas.

      With regard to the elected politician it is indeed fair to say that they are often left lacking in the relevant experience department. The number of business men who turn to politics is not only hard to stomach, embarrassingly transparent and arguably unethical it is shocking that they tend to get the votes required.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: