Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- I Haven’t Deserted You
- Can You Relate?
- Tis Better To Give Than To Receive
- Commander-In-Chief
- Got A Minute?
Recent Comments
- ~J~ on Can You Relate?
- ~J~ on Happy Thanksgiving
- Piano Girl on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- David M. on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- David M. on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- ~J~ on Bar-B-Que
- ~J~ on Taking The Charity Out Of The Church
- ~J~ on Back In The Swing Of Things Soon..I Hope
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
Muslims are from Mars, Christians are from Venus
Last weeks news in national print dailies revealed that there’s no obvious blue or red state pattern to reporting on the mix of religion and politics. It looks like the papers with the larger national readerships, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, do more reporting this topic. But we’ll have to wait and see in coming weeks whether this holds true.
Another pattern is how the print news reports on Islam in comparison to Christianity. There were 23 stories reporting on Christianity, or some particular denomination like Catholics or group like Evangelicals. There were 11 stories on Islam, a couple on Judaism, one on Atheism, and five about religion in general.
It’s no surprise that there would be more coverage of Christianity than Islam. 76.5% of Americans are Christian. Only 0.5% are Muslim (from adherents.com) We could even be surprised that there would be so much reporting on Islam. But it’s less surprising when we look at the kinds of stories written about Islam.
As I reported earlier, many of the stories about Christianity and politics are related to the presidential campaign. Others are about particular issues that are debated among Christians and the populace at large, issues like evolution and gay rights. In contrast, almost all the stories about Islam are about violent conflict and terrorism. The Washington Post reports the arrest of five suspected al-Qaeda Islamic militants in Singapore and General Musharraf’s crackdown on opposition parties in Pakistan, including the Pakistan Muslim League. The New York Times reported on the same incident along with stories about the Indonesian government’s offer to mediate the violent disputes between Shia and Sunni Muslims in Iraq and about a Bagdhad gallery owner’s effort to use art to resolve Islamic factionalism.
Likewise, the Christian Science Monitor (here), the Daily News (here), the Los Angeles Times (here), and the St. Louis Dispatch (”DIGEST” June 7 2007: A2) Thursday, THIRD EDITION, NEWS; Pg. A2,) carried stories that refered to Islam in terms of conflict and terrorism. In short, articles about religion and politics typically make Christianity a matter of debate, and Islam a matter of fear.
But not all are grim. Michael Gerson, formerly President Bush’s speechwriter and now a columnist at the Washington Post, gives us a thoughtful perspective on tension between secularists and Islamicists in Turkey, and the Christian Science Monitor reports on the ways that religion, language, ethnicity, and a colonial heritage are shaping Algerian national identity.
My prize for the most provocative commentary on religion and politics to appear in last week’s news goes to Niall Ferguson, the Brit who thinks the US could be a good empire if it would just work at it harder. Check out his June 4th column in the Los Angeles Times on “The temptation of Africa.” He compares ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair with William Wilburforce (of Amazing Grace fame), arguing that both pursued laudable goals in Africa but neither was able to reconcile “God’s work” with politics.
Written by Ayschlay



Big Mo Says:
June 14th, 2007 at 11:21 amVisit Big Mo
Interesting survey you have going here. Thanks!
“In short, articles about religion and politics typically make Christianity a matter of debate, and Islam a matter of fear.” That sums it up in the proverbial nutshell.
Side note: Niall Ferguson is fastinating. I read his The Pity of War: Explaining World War I, which isn’t all that popular in England because he blames England for taking a continental war and needlessly (his concept) expanding it to a world war.
Ayschlay Says:
June 14th, 2007 at 4:58 pmVisit Ayschlay
I read Empire but not the Pity of War, Big Mo. I’ll have to check it out.