Archivehate

The Media vs. Religious Freedom!?

In my statement yesterday as an expert in human rights for the parliamentary human rights committee of the German Bundestag (Federal Parliament), my observations on the role of the media and its negative effects on religious freedom were widely discussed. I am publishing this in advance, from that section of my opinion. The comprehensive report will be published together with all the statements and the minutes of the Bundestag committee in November. Six experts gave their opinions on the future of religious freedom in Europe and the role of Islam in it. I was nominated by the MPs of Chancellor Merkel’s party, the Christian Democratic Union.

Media reports are only available in German yet:

• Press release by the federal parliament: www.bundestag.de
• Christian Media: www.pro-medienmagazin.de
• Press service of the Humanist Union: hpd.de
• Baha’i press service: iran.bahai.de

“Far too little attention is paid to the way in which the media, in a broad sense, will determine whether or not the discussion on the integration of Islamic faith communities into Europe will lead to a constructive result. The media talk about the book by Thilo Sarrazin and a phrase in the speech of the President have just proved this again.

An example is the crucial the role of the international (and German) media in dealing with a crazy, isolated preacher in the United States who announced the burning of a Koran. In a world of 2.5 billion Muslims and Christians of numerous varieties, this would be a totally meaningless event, if the media were not involved. People wanted to finally see peaceful evangelicals pulled into a culture war with Muslims – fundamentalists against fundamentalists- since such an event would make the media ratings fly high. (In retrospect, a profound commentary in Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, provides a crown jewel of evidence.) Very quickly people expected violence from Muslims in Afghanistan and in other countries as well. If such acts of violence really related to the threatened Koran burning, no one could know with certainty, but the media was already certain. No one seemed to care that the media took the risk of causing murder and manslaughter. The 420 million-strong World Evangelical Alliance had long spoken out vehemently and loudly against public Koran burning (and also took concrete preventive steps).  And no one from WEA has ever burned a Koran.  Meanwhile, at the same time, the media did not think it was worth a report that worldwide Bibles, churches, and sometimes even Christians, are being burned. Nor did it merit a report that in Iran Baha’i texts were burned and in India Korans were burned.

The media are not contributing to social peace among religions, but for the cheap effect of audience and readership, the media promote emotional confrontations between religious groups. The work of the media in Belgium, in Orthodox countries, and in Turkey provides many further examples that the media like to inflame or exploit religious conflict, and then later to play the role of the moral judge.

The media will play a major role in determining whether religious tensions between the great religions increase or decline, as well as in the treatment of religious minorities. Violent attacks on other religions generally follow malicious misrepresentations or generalizations which have been disseminated and used against people. In such false generalizations, all the people from the highly differentiated Islamic (or evangelical) world are all thrown into one pot and discussed as if they were all the same. On this topic, Germans should study the history of Jew-baiting, which preceded the extermination of the Jews.

Whenever evangelicals as portrayed as violent, the Yezidis as “worshippers of the devil,” Catholic priests as child abusers because of celibacy, Muslims as authorized to lie “against unbelievers;” and if every time the word Islam is on TV pictures of 9/11 appear, or if with evangelicals a picture of George Bush and the war in Iraq is included; then someone is preparing particular religious groups for societal exclusion by means of constant repetition of slander against them.”

A Society of Hate

In addition to the newspapers to which I directly subscribe, every couple of hours I go on the internet and look at a number of newspapers and magazines for the newest news stories. Additionally, via a number of keywords Google-Alert supplies me with links to current reports and events.

However, when I read the commentaries and blog discussions under these headings, I shudder. Next to the many subject-specific articles or good-natured use of freedom of expression, I find the most disgusting gutter language, hateful language, abusive language and verbal slugfests. The mist of anonymity appears to allow everything that language can produce. People judge others, about whom only the last commentary on a blog is known, and they come to the conclusion that others are empty-headed, incorrigible, egoistic, or dangerous.

While one anti-discrimination law follows another, the result is that a more respectful – much less more loving – behavior towards others is nowhere to be found. Discrimination appears to be gaining momentum on web discussion boards. In theory, the netiquette for many blogs and media say something else, but in reality bloggers give the evil in their heart free reign.

When a pastor or bishop preaches about the Ten Commandments and holds up a ‘mirror of confession’ in front of people (and in particular when he does not choose words that display respect for human dignity as he certainly has learned), the press jumps all over him. However, measured against the language used in commentaries and blogs, in particular those which are associated with the press media, everything that the pastor or bishop can possibly have said is a friendly piece of advice.

Hundreds of thousands of writers of commentaries do not use the new technological avenues to promote discussion in democratic society and to enable (almost) everyone the opportunity to participate in public discourse. Rather, it enables verbally lashing out at everyone who has a different opinion. Side questions in which one truly can believe one thing or the other become the cause for denying someone their personhood. and in the friendliest case a reason for calling on them to go ahead and emigrate – a well-known form of request in discussion pages and blogs.

Is that democracy, where every person can insult everyone else at will? As time goes by, will the hatred that is shown towards those who think different politically stay in the web, or will it at some point influence the actual daily interaction people have with each other? Can those who watch over the virtues of our country, who are paying attention to political correctness everywhere, but who themselves dish out evil on web discussion pages and blogs fail to address this hatred?

Jesus said in Matthew 24:12: “Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold . . . “ On the internet we are increasingly experiencing how people allow their thoughts free reign, and the absence of law and prohibition is leading to boundless lovelessness which one day could spill over into our democracy. Democracy as a freedom of expression is bid welcome. However, democracy, when it is principally lacking in respect and takes away others’ dignity, is not a political structure that is worthy of human dignity. It is precisely the democratically elected politicians who are role models for hate bloggers and slanderers in the way they speak about each other.

The frequent warnings in the Bible against slander and rumors are indeed age-old, but at the same time they are more up to date than ever. People could by all means simultaneously be committed to the truth and make themselves controversial by being on a search for it, and at the same time through love get along respectfully with each other. See in this connection my essay “Putting Rumors to rest”, chapter 5 in my book “May Christians Go To Court” (Download under iirf.eu).