Another View for February 16, 2006
By David Briggs
Religion News Service
Religion News Service
A Protestant and a Catholic murdered in a pub because they were friends having a drink together. A young woman killed in her bed. A journalist assassinated. All crimes committed by loyalist paramilitary forces in Northern Ireland who are fervent in their self-identity as Protestants.
Acts of Christian terrorism?
A teenager, upset about the planned evacuation of Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip, empties his gun on a bus in an Israeli Arab town, killing four Israeli Arabs.
An act of Jewish terrorism?
A man and his two young sons in eastern India are burned to death in their Jeep by a mob shouting Hindu slogans.
An act of Hindu terrorism?
No, no and no.
Each of these acts was committed by an individual or group acting out its own political and religious agendas. To associate an entire faith with the word “terrorist” because of the actions of a few radicals is no more fair than to use “Islamic terrorist” for a Muslim who blows himself up at a market.
Yet that term survives in the media, a reflection of poor journalistic practice and inconsistent ethical standards that give tacit approval to treat the latest noticeable religious minority differently from other religious groups.
The journalist’s role is to give readers a fair and balanced understanding of events. That is why, in reporting on acts of terror, we describe the individual or the group responsible and the complex motives that often are behind the actions. It is necessary to report the religious motives behind actions, but it is unfair to brush an entire faith with the label “terrorist.”
If use of the term were justified, then logically it should apply to individuals from other religious groups who commit acts of terror. But it doesn’t.
In a Nexis search of general news outlets, the term “Islamic terrorist” came up 611 times in the last two months. ‘Christian terrorist” came up 13 times, largely in opinion pieces. “Islamic terrorist” is regularly used in “straight” news stories.
No one would argue that religion is not, and historically has not been, a motivating force in acts of terror. But that does not give journalistic license to associate an entire faith such as Islam with terrorism. Nor would it justify twisting the complex role of religion in contributing to both good and evil in a society to serve as a warrant for moral superiority for those who are not religious, or using it as a club to keep religious voices out of public-policy debates.
When one considers individuals who are arguably the most destructive of the 20th century—people such as Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong in his later days—what they have in common is an antipathy toward religion. They became their own gods, justifying genocidal acts in the absence of any transcendent moral principles.
Does that make Stalin an atheist terrorist?
No, he was an individual tyrant who no more represents atheism than a suicide bomber represents the millions of our Muslim neighbors living in the United States.