Media: The Moral Police of a Secular State

In the recent successful campaign to introduce the same sex marriage act in New Zealand it was impressed upon me the need to call into serious question the role of media in the whole process of engineering public opinion. We as Christians ought to recognize the myth of secular neutrality. Almost immediately after the change was victoriously announced to the world an opinion piece by James Robins caught my attention, the following is an excerpt from Yahoo News, April 13, 2013:

If you think I’m sticking the pike in, you’d be right. Because the fight is not over, I’m afraid to report.
Questions still remain over the validity of amendments made to the bill respecting the rights of the religious. The law claims that no church or religious institution would be forced (or bound and gagged, if you like it that way) to perform a gay marriage.

It’s all under the guise of religious freedom, but when two lovely lads, or two blushing brides, line up contenders for a wedding venue, hostile territory won’t look so appetising. Would gay couples really push for a celebrant that despises them – not for what they do, but for who they are? Their very nature is under attack!
So the ship rights itself in that regard , but churches are once again allowed to discriminate.
I would suggest that we remove the right of the religious – let’s make them blaspheme! They certainly can’t claim power from the ‘almighty’, especially when the record shows a historical hatred for many sectors of society – gays top a seemingly endless list.So let’s go out and revel in the sunshine under the “big gay rainbow”, enjoy the victory, and relish yet another triumph over the boorish reactionaries and their maladaptive ways. (emphasis mine)

Clearly he has drawn the battle lines, and will not be satisfied until the rights of Christians are removed. There is an increasing push, and it is not merely local, but a sustained global swing to marginalize Christianity. I believe that we, the Church have sat on our laurels for far too long and, to take a leaf out of the homosexual lobbyists book- we need to come out of the closet. To put it in perspective:

 Christianity is about as popular as smoking cigarettes inside a public building is- and for much the same reasons. The same social engineering that has made smoking cigarettes socially unacceptable (and which we all applaud) is now at work to ensure that being religious is not socially acceptable. 

Media spin is such a problem that it seems very difficult to find a credible news source- media neutrality is a thing of the past. I came across this graphic recently in a website dedicated to posting petitions (Change.org) Look carefully at the graphic- I would like to give personal credit to someone for this effort but don't know who- its a classic:

 Christianity is very tolerant and that tolerance has sustained society in the West for centuries but now the time is ripe to recognize that tolerance without limits leads to the  worst forms of intolerance.

The other thing to notice is in the phrase: "Their very nature is under attack!" It seems that in the popular mind homosexuality is a part of human nature, at least for some humans. But this flies in the face of the latest in scientific findings which accord the human brain with remarkable plasticity and an ability to change habitual ways of thinking and behaving which have become second nature to us. And I use that phrase because what has become second nature, although it got there by habit, it appears to be actually part of who we are. I again repeat the words of Francis Collins, one of the worlds leading geneticists and one time leader of the Human Genome project:

"An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not pre-determinations." (Emphasis mine)

Regarding the contributions of genetics to areas such as homosexuality, Dr. Collins concluded:

"Yes, we have all been dealt a particular set of cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. But how we play the hand is up to us."

But even if, rather than by choice, people were enslaved to homosexuality by a depraved nature, so that the choice of a homosexual lifestyle was inevitable, does that make it any the less wrong in God's sight? We have the words of scripture that testify that we are sinners both by choice and by nature. So that admittedly we too, while we sin willfully and are therefore responsible also we are sinning in accordance to a sinful nature and cannot (without God's grace) act otherwise but must act according to that fallen nature. As as has been often said- we at once have all the overwhelming empirical evidence we need, to recognize the universal depravity of human nature but it is- at the same time- the most hotly denied.

 "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:3

In another article a familiar line seeks to glaze over the reality with his no-punches pulled propaganda-
Yahoo News May 7,2013:

Sufficient time has been allowed to thank the almighty lord for not sending the sky down upon our heads for sustained blasphemy, and we now have to peer back over our shoulders and wonder how on earth these men in collars, robes, and tall hats managed (or were allowed) to get their way.This is because the uber-religious have been allowed a free ride on their concocted excuses – they’ve invented the idea that homosexuality is a choice to cover their willful blindness. But lest we forget: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.That leaves us with an uncomfortable reality borne from political expediency.The amendment ‘respecting’ the rights of the religious was a last minute addition before the gay marriage bill passed last month, inserted without thought for any moral implication, and we have now enshrined hate, of all things, in to law.To remain clear: the New Zealand parliament, at the behest of a money-driven clergy, have legalised discrimination against homosexuals for their nature.This is not a petty objection –a church can refuse a marriage ceremony on whatever grounds they fancy, be it race, religion, economic status, political affiliation, marital-status or sexual-orientation despite gay marriage now being legal.This is dangerous because there is no safeguard against it. For reasons I can’t quite fathom, religious institutions in this country are not subject to the Human Rights Commission. This is why the ‘regular’ folk will be allowed in to the halls of a church to have their marriage solemnised, while the poofs and dykes are left to wait outside in the cold. (emphasis mine)

So we are not only bigoted, and hate filled but dangerous through willful blindness. By the way this guy saw it fit to characterize religious education as "vile muck" and we are accused of hate speech?
People like Robins seem to be able to bandy about with the word "bigot" and make it stick in the minds of a gullible populace when really he either seems to have no idea what the word means, or even that it may fit him better than the ones he wishes to label. It just so happens that this is widespread among those who support this cause- here is yet another sample of a Christian having to remind or educate someone about the meaning of the term. This is an excerpt from M&M the blog of Matt & Madeleine Flannagan.  Matt is a Christian philosopher, theologian and apologist with one of the most widely read Christian blogs on the internet, and a Kiwi.

'But note also the definition of bigot: a bigot is not someone who believes same sex unions are not valid marriages. A bigot is someone who holds any belief on the basis of (a) prejudice: ie irrationally without any grounds or basis and (b) are obstinate: that is they hold to that belief obstinately in the teeth of evidence or reasons to the contrary and (c) this motivates them to consider there[sic] own position superior and to be intolerant towards the views of others.
So for example claiming without any evidence or argument that same sex marriage is just, that those who disagree are ignorant bigots ( i.e morally inferior) and who should be legally prohibited from acting on those beliefs ( intolerant) and clinging to this position obstinately when others point out the purported arguments for it fail, would count as bigotry under the definition of the term.'

Here is my own take on it published in the Northern Advocate:

After a self congratulatory nod towards the media for influencing government to ban K2  editor Craig Cooper asks retailers to take a preemptive  "moral stance" and not sell these products. Good, but…

One wonders on what moral basis the media makes decisions to give the thumbs up or down to any social issue?  No doubt the media is extremely influential and accountable for shaping a society but who or what shapes their views? If the media have replaced the church as the moral watchdog of culture what about Saville at the BBC, phone hacking at the News of the World? Try suggesting that these were isolated, maverick one-off lapses, and listen to the hollow laughter echoing round the country.  

The media want to be the guardians of public morality and so are very quick to point out hypocrisy in the church- it makes it easier to sustain the fiction that the journalists have taken over as the nation’s moral police. The church does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy, it is part of the universal human condition and therefore will be found in any human institution. What are we to think of media agendas when every opinion monger the papers employ take delight in bashing Christianity on not too infrequent intervals. Is it just to sell a rag?

“Something is wrong. Dreadfully wrong. Our definitions are at an all-time confusion, our values at an all-time low, our fiscal policies at an all-time danger, our beliefs at an all-time peril, and yet we want to tell our young people that we are building for their future… When hate can laugh, decency is crying and we stand at the crossroads of choosing the path of Right or else to bury what is right in the ever-shifting quicksand of so called “rights.”

“We have confused what is lawful with what is legal.”

Chesterton said it well: “For under the smooth legal surface of our society there are already moving very lawless things. We are always near the breaking-point when we care only for what is legal and nothing for what is lawful. Unless we have a moral principle about such delicate matters as marriage and murder, the whole world will become a welter of exceptions with no rules. There will be so many hard cases that everything will go soft.” My thanks to Ravi Zacharias, Tom Wright and G.K. Chesterton from whom I have drawn these various thoughts.

As an addendum to the ongoing global ideological battle we see a familiar theme. An evangelical Pastor now political leader who has spoken out against homosexuality (12:50m into the video clip from CBN news) has been taken before the courts in Ecuador and looks set to be tried for hate-speech. He has been stripped of all political rights for a year, for saying that homosexuals can change. This is a disturbing global trend. He faces a possible prison sentence for up to three years and a several thousand dollar fine  "for committing a hate crime".

As the late Francis Schaeffer said  "I  may disagree strongly with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it". Once again we see the disturbing trend of the right to "free speech" being eroded for one sector of the community while another minority can speak with impunity. Is this merely political expediency? It certainly looks that way in the case of the evangelical political leader in question, it's a very convenient way to remove the political opposition, and score points and gain votes from the homosexual minority all at the same time. Politicians are notorious for their use of demographics. Is it about justice or has this happened simply because the number of homosexuals now outnumber the number of evangelicals, and are therefore more important as voters?

Or does it go deeper than this?

On April 28th, 2013   John Blake, CNN wrote the article:

"When religious beliefs become evil: 4 signs"  (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/28/when-religious-beliefs-becomes-evil-4-signs/)

I found the article interesting and agreed with some things about religious extremism, but I do disagree firmly with his first sign of religion becoming evil. Presumably his first sign was either the most prevalent or the most important- or both.

What is the first sign?

1. I know the truth, and you don’t.

There is an inherent problem with this and I hope you can see it. Here is how I responded in a comment:

Is there not a problem here? Is this article not saying that they know the truth about extremist religion? BUT according to their own terms they label anyone claiming to know the truth is in danger of extremism. So should I ignore this article because it claims to "know the truth" about religious extremism?

Danger number one is actually absurd. Almost the moment one opens ones mouth one is supposedly making some sort of meaningful statement. And if meaningful, then one is claiming knowledge, and if knowledge, it is a claim to truth, and if a claim to truth, it claims the opposite statement must therefore be untrue, therefore it is an exclusive claim, and if an exclusive claim, then according to it's own claim- it is itself extremism! Or are we to believe that it's alright for an exclusive truth claim to be made, so long as it isn't a religious truth claim? 

But isn't that discrimination?