Monday, July 10, 2017
556 - Covering the Truth
Spirituality
Column No. 556
July
11, 2017
Common
Christianity / Uncommon Commentary
Covering the Truth
By
Bob Walters
There
was that plainly anti-Muslim “The Perfect Man” billboard on Indianapolis’ east
side last month that listed six pretty heinous deeds from 1,600 years ago.
It was a willful hack job on the
Prophet Muhammad that I think was in poor taste, unnecessarily incendiary,
definitely impolite, and for sure kicked up a short-lived ruckus. In empathy, let me say there is plenty in my own
life I’d rather not see on a billboard.
The media’s immediate reporting and follow-up
of the religious kerfuffle was a routine, contemporary hue and cry of political
incorrectness that was sadly predictable in its uniformly uninformed assertions
and narrative. I doubt anyone learned
anything useful from either the billboard message or the general media’s
misguided reaction to it.
But a deeply teachable moment it
is. Here’s why.
Religion is among the hardest things
to cover because if a reporter is not a believer, he’ll not have empathy for
the seriousness of any religious faith.
If the reporter is a believer, coverage will likely bear the tint of
bias bent toward those beliefs and away from and probably askew to the doctrine
being covered. Even a solidly
“objective” but inexpert reporter can easily miss the nuance of what a
religious story truly means.
So coverage of the billboard went
Internet viral for a few days with declamations of Islamophobia and venom for
the “bigot” who posted it. Indianapolis
media rushed to cover a local ecumenical group-hug photo-op among religious
leaders gathered to proclaim “solidarity” of all people of faith. Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Protestant and
Bible Christians, Muslims and maybe a few others affirmed, “Isn’t that billboard awful!”
But to date, I’ve heard no one in
the media ask the first question that should have been asked. Nor has there been media mention of the
billboard’s glaring non sequitur.
OK, maybe the first question
legitimately is, “Who put up that sign?”
And yes, the media covered that one.
But the deeper, primal, slate-clearing question no media seemingly cared
about, bothered with, or even knew how to ask is this: “Is it true?”
A further “tell” that the media “fix”
was in came a few days later when an IUPUI liberal arts professor penned a
guest editorial in the Indianapolis Star announcing his fight against
“Islamophobia.” Nothing about seeking
truth or doctrinal clarity, just, “Don’t be an Islamophobe!” And my first clue
that the good professor grasps no handle on the historical merits of the
billboard was when his first explanation of it was “The Crusades.”
The “heinous deeds” credited to
Muhammad were recorded by Muslim historians in the 7th and 8th
centuries praising the Prophet’s life.
Yes, praising … some 300 years before the Crusades. Muhammad is a different kind of “perfect” in
the eyes of Islam, but not sinless.
There is in fact a perfect, sinless human claimed by Islam, but it is
not Muhammad. It is an earlier prophet in
the Qur’an whom, you may be surprised to learn, Muslims revere as the only
“sinless” man, who never died, and whom Muslims believe is alive in Paradise. That prophet is Jesus of Nazareth, whom
Christians call Christ.
You can look it up (Holy Qur'an, Sura 3:55), but
for God’s sake, at least ask if it is true.
0 comments:
Post a Comment