Transcript for Monday, Feb. 11, 2002
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I am Alan Keyes.
This weekend I saw the opening of the Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, with all of the pageantry and fervor that we have come to associate with the Olympic ideal. Of course the Games are meant to represent our ability to unleash the desire for achievement, the competitiveness of the human spirit, but in a way that brings folks together and increases understanding and comity among peoples and nations, instead of leading to conflict.
Unfortunately, in the context of this winter‘s Olympic Games, we have also seen something else in the coverage running up to the Olympics that‘s not quite consistent with the wonderful ideas and ideals that the Olympics represent. In some of the coverage, some of us have noticed what appears to be an anti-Mormon and anti-religious bias that has crept into the coverage.
And that is illustrated, for instance, in the headline I saw over the weekend in “USA Today,” in which they said, “Utah much more than Mormons Sports stars say state‘s natural beauty, city‘s cleanliness will alter perceptions.” Almost a way of saying, well, there are those Mormons in Utah, but there are some good things too, so you all should come. I mean, I wonder if the person who wrote that headline understood how patronizing and disparaging that implication was. They probably did, because that headline and its implications aren‘t the only kind of disparagement that we have seen in the run-up to the Olympics and as they have pursued.
Here are some of the ways that Utah has been described in the media: “The strangest state in America,” they say, “Puritanical, a theocracy, holier than thou, Hicksville, Dullsville. There is a beer called the “Polygamy Porter,” which refers of course to what has been a practice in Utah, long abolished, of polygamy, but still you‘ve got the folks who are making fun. Their catch lines: “Why just have one?” advertising this beer, and “Supplement your workout with a little polygamy,” and so forth. And then, there is the ad for a ski lift that holds four people and says “Wife, wife, wife and husband.”
Now, obviously, things like that are meant to poke Utah in the ribs, but they are also meant to stigmatize a group of people and a religious belief that has been characterized by a fervor, by an evangelical fervor that is not, of course, restricted to Mormonism. We are going to be examining this evening some key questions that have to do, not only with what appears to be this coverage, but with the more general question of whether we are seeing an increasing anti-religious bias in American culture and life.
First question: Is there an anti-religious bias in the coverage of the Salt Lake City Olympics? Where does it come from? And what are its implications? We will be looking at this with our panel in the second portion of the program.
But to start with, I have Hugh Hewitt, who is a syndicated radio talk show host out on the West Coast. He is in California, but he has been following the Mormon story closely, not just in the context of the Olympics but even before, and can help us to give us some background, both on the question of the media‘s coverage of the Mormon aspect of the Olympics, but also on the larger question of how the media and American society in general is handling the coverage and attitudes toward religious faith and belief.
Hugh, welcome to the program. Thanks for joining me tonight. Have you noticed — have you noticed a bias in the coverage running up to the Olympic Games?
HUGH HEWITT, SYNDICATED RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Absolutely. In fact, there is a regular segment on the radio program. We have covered Mormon bashing. My favorite, thus far, in the “Los Angeles Times” came on January 13, where the word “theocracy” was used in the sub-headline. Of course, theocracies are associated nowadays with the Taliban and with Iran. So that in itself is a not so subtle slam at what Utah is, which is about 78 percent Mormon, but it goes back many, many years. PBS has had me in Utah before. I know a lot about the Mormons, though I am not myself a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I am a Presbyterian. But the history of bashing Mormons in American journalism is long and rich and very shameful.
KEYES: Well, what do you think are some of the characteristics of this kind of attitude? Obviously there is some name calling, but what characteristics have elicited this kind of response in terms of Mormons and folks in Utah?
HEWITT: Well, first, Mormons are very unflagging in what they believe. They will tell you, and they will tell you on your doorstep, and they will tell you in conversation exactly what it is they believe and how their gospel calls them to act, and more importantly, they are very evangelical. It‘s one of the most rapidly growing denominations of any sort of faith all over the globe. And it‘s because young Mormons go out on missions for two years at a time, and that kind of zeal unsettles secular America. It‘s the kind of zeal that calls forth a great deal of discomfort among people who like their relativism constant, and who don‘t want to be challenged with the idea that there are absolutes for which people will give up everything for at least a couple of years and live with great disciplines, which are spiritual in nature.
KEYES: And of course, the evangelism you are talking about, Hugh, that spiritual fervor, is not just a characteristic of Mormons. I mean, there are other elements of Christian denominations, there are Jehovah Witnesses and others. I mean, that kind of fervor, which seeks to go and spread the gospel and preach the word is not just a characteristic of Mormons. Does that mean that what we are seeing here is part of a more general phenomenon?
HEWITT: Yes, I think it is. In fact, wherever you find an evangelical approach to faith, whether it‘s in Jesuits going to the Iroquois or whether it‘s more modern evangelicals seeking to preach the gospel on street corners or on beaches or at crusades like Greg and Laurie‘s Harvest Crusade, you will find a sneering agnosticism among elites, especially among journalistic elites. I have been in a lot of newsrooms, as you have, Alan. They are not particularly churched places. They are suspicious of faith. It‘s not something that can be written down, objectively proven, and more often than not, it is associated with a more conservative politics, which calls out a lot of ire.
In fact, sociologist, Peter Berger, said “If India is the most religious country in the world, and Sweden is the least religious country in the world, then America is a nation of Indians governed by Swedes and almost every journalistic operation is Swedish.”
KEYES: Well, tell me something. There are those who would make the case that poking a little fun at somebody, as is done on “Saturday Night Live” or wherever, is just good, clean fun. And obviously, there is a sense in which all of us should be ready to have a laugh at our own expense. To what extent is this just kind of an exaggeration of what at the end of the day is just the usual phenomenon of satire and poking a little good, clean fun in the direction of folks who are a little vulnerable? Doesn‘t that happen with all kinds of groups, politicians, lawyers, everybody else?
HEWITT: Well, yes, it does. Sometimes it‘s OK. In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are poking fun at themselves. They have got little green Jell-O pins that are being traded in Salt Lake City, and they are very aware of their eccentricities or idiosyncrasies, and they are fine with that. No one is saying stop that. But there is a much more pervasive anti-religious bias. And the public square be has been swept clean over the last 30 years, and folks are standing guard, like Barry Lynn at the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and other places, to make sure that no manifestation of faith in a serious way is allowed back in.
And so folks like Al Mueller at Southern Theological Seminary or Michael Novak at the American Enterprise Institute, these people must be kept out of the public conversation, because they are awfully persuasive. So this mockery, yes, there‘s a little bit of poking fun, which is very much of the American tradition, but the attempt to paint all believers a sort of Elmer Gantry (ph) updated to the 21st century has got a very much of an agenda behind it, which is to keep faith out of the public square.
KEYES: Well, I think it has also, though, gone a little bit beyond poking fun at times. I was reading not long ago an article about a little five-year-old girl in school, who wanted to say grace over her lunch and had invited some of her colleagues to do so. And her teachers came over and told her to stop, that that wasn‘t allowed, and actually prevented her from doing so. This sense that somehow or another open display of religiosity open efforts to talk to people about or convert them to your religion is illegitimate is actually starting to work its way into our understanding of law and legal limitations, isn‘t it?
HEWITT: Oh, yes. In fact, there is a great deal of self-censorship among all public institutions, because they have got such a strange idea of what the establishment clause in the United States Constitution says. Over and over again, the United States Supreme Court affirms equal access, affirms free exercise rights, affirmed the right of a vigorous and full public debate on all matters of questions by people of faith operating from a perspective founded, for example, on biblical truth. But over and over again, secular society has been trained, Pavlovian almost, to respond with horror to the idea that someone might hold their position based upon a revelation as opposed to mere reason or perhaps even both.
KEYES: Well, but what has happened to the tradition in America that we were supposed to have free exercise of religion? Obviously, if you are going to do that in the context of religions that have proselytizing and evangelism as some part of their core belief, don‘t you have to tolerate a certain amount of inconvenience, even a little annoyance, in order to maintain that free environment? Doesn‘t anybody care about this anymore?
HEWITT: Well, I don‘t think they do, or I think they are intimidated. There is a great deal of mockery, and primarily mockery is the weapon of the secularists against those people of faith. And it‘s hard now to even conceive of the old days. I don‘t know if you can recall Archbishop Fulton Sheen, Alan, but there was a time when you could celebrate a very articulate defender of a religious world view on the public airways once a week and doing so with a great deal of diversity and tolerance. No one would think of having mocked Bishop Sheen.
Nowadays such a program is inconceivable, because all the producers and television networks all across the country think, A, no one would believe it or watch it, and, B, it‘s just sort of strange.
KEYES: Now, do you think, Hugh, though, that that is still true even in the wake of the events of September 11? I mean, a lot of folks noticed that there seemed to be a rising wave of spirituality, interest in religion, church attendance. Do you think that that is, in fact, having an effect to sort of act against what had appeared to be this anti-religious trend?
HEWITT: There is always a traumatic event followed by a great increase in spiritual attention. It happened after Columbine. It happened after Oklahoma City, and it happened in great measure following the attack on America on September 11. But the snap-back, the recovery of this pervasive secularism is almost immediate, and very soon you will see the producers didn‘t change, the journalists didn‘t change, the editors didn‘t change. And the fact that that agnosticism still going, it rises to the top very quickly, is as predictable as the initial turning to God.
I did a show, where I read Lincoln‘s 1863 Proclamation about a day of mourning, a day of repentance following the September 11 attacks, and most of my callers were amazed that a president could ever say something as explicitly faith-based as President Lincoln did in 1863, because we are so trained not to permit it. So I think we are back to where we were pre-September 11, all too short I would say.
KEYES: Hugh, thanks for — I appreciate your insights and your joining me on the program. I should tell folks that Hugh Hewitt and I have known each other for many years. You were actually a student of mine at one time.
HEWITT: I learned Tocqueville from you, Alan, and I still know it well.
KEYES: I was pleasantly surprised when they said you would be able to join us today — appreciate you coming.
HEWITT: Thank you.
KEYES: And I hope to see you again.
HEWITT: Thank you.
KEYES: Next we are going to be joined by a very, very special panel of folks, not all of whom agree that this is even a serious problem or that we ought to care about it very much. We‘ll get to the heart of the matter, next up.
Later on a personal note, what is honor made of? I‘ll be talking about that a little bit
First, does this make sense? There is a young girl in Maine, who had a little project she had put together, to try to raise money to get bulletproof vests for the canine corps, because she loves dogs and wanted to protect them. It turns out that they have a law up there that says that you can‘t raise money for police agencies or groups. So this effort seems to have made the legislature howl, and she has had to go before the legislature and try to get a change in the law. Obviously, folks up in Maine understand the dangers that are involved in potential graft and corruption among the canine corps. That‘s a real problem. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE HINCKLEY, PRES. CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS: We are not weird. Of course, we are not weird. We are just ordinary people trying to do an extraordinary work. We do not intend to use the Olympics as a means of proselytizing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Joining us now, I have a very special panel. Richard Goldstein, executive editor of the “Village Voice,” also Yaron Brook, the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and Genevieve Wood with the Family Research Council. We‘ll be getting together to chat a little bit about the issue of whether or not there has, in fact, been this Mormon bashing. Is it significant? And what does it mean? What are its implications for our society? Does it represent part of an overall anti-religious bias in American life?
Later on, to get to the bottom line with us, I will be joined by Chris Matthews. But right now, let‘s get to the discussion.
Richard Goldstein, you have had a chance to listen to the program, and you have probably seen some of the coverage. Do you think that this is, in fact, a real issue?
RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, “VILLAGE VOICE”: No, no. I mean, I think there is a broad consensus among the American public that we want our entertainment to be secular, and that religious events ought to be covered, but that they are not news. They are not a news story per se. I‘ll give you an example of what I mean. I have a friend who comes from Birmingham, and he went home to see his parents. He got up on Easter morning to see a banner headline on the front page of a local paper, “He is risen.” Now, you tell me, is that a news event?
KEYES: Yes, but the question we are raising here, though, has to do with an event, the Olympics, that‘s taking place in Utah, in which it seemed that in the headlines, in the coverage, in various other aspects, people were going out of their way to make fun of the Mormons and to portray caricatures of religious fervor and belief. Yaron Brook, what‘s your take on it? Is this kind of bias present in the media?
YARON BROOK, AYN RAND INSTITUTE: I think to some extent there is.
There is this bias against anybody with absolutism, or anybody who feels very passionate about their ideas, including the Christians and the Mormons. But I think that in general, if you look at the media in general, our culture in general is very Christian, including the media-left. They are just left-wing Christians. All of the media is altruistic. The media is all for self-sacrifice. The media is all doubting of reason and doubting of science, and that‘s a Christian heritage. So I don‘t worry about this, because fundamentally, the media still espouses these values.
KEYES: Well, that would be one take on the Christian heritage. But Genevieve Wood, what are the implications of an approach that, for instance, stigmatizes evangelism and proselytization in terms of Christianity? Is that something that is compatible with Christian faith and a Christian walk, with religious belief in the context of Christianity?
GENEVIEVE WOOD, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: Well, I mean, Alan, it comes down to the way they cover just everyday stories. I mean, the fact is, I think as Hugh Hewitt pointed out earlier in the program, they really often try to mock Christianity and mock any religion that really has right and wrongs, absolutes. And in many cases, they may come down the conservative side of the political spectrum. So when it comes to covering the pro-life issue, for instance, the media is often kind of making fun of the side that actually would say pro-life is the right way to be.
I mean, but you know, I don‘t think we ought to be surprised, Alan. I think there is something we ought to look at here. The media by and large — and I have worked at a major network news and I won‘t say which one — but I have been in the news room. And I know that by and large most of the people I worked with not only didn‘t go to church, but really didn‘t have an interest in religion, but yet those were the very people going out to cover the pro-life marches, to cover religion — quote/unquote — “stories.” And I think we shouldn‘t be surprised oftentimes that they don‘t cover them correctly. I don‘t know that they always have this axe to grind, but I think there is a real lack of understanding.
KEYES: Well, one of the things I think that sadly may be misunderstood, especially in the context of people who are poking fun at proselytizing, one of the things that you have pointed out came in for particular attention with respect to Mormons, but which is also a characteristic of many other Christian denominations in particular, is the evangelical fervor, people who are going out with a view to proselytizing, to converting. Now, of course where Christianity is concerned, this is not incidental. It‘s not just a matter of personal taste or preference, because in fact one of the very last things that Christ said to his disciples as a general commission or injunction to Christians in the ages to come, was very clear about the place of proselytizing in the Christian religion. He said: “Go ye into the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”
Now, tell me something. If that is, indeed, the injunction that Christ left, and he also said you have to love your neighbor. And so you have the choice. Your neighbor is either going to be saved or condemned, and it‘s up to you to make the difference. If you are really following the commandment of love, then you must do the work of spreading the gospel for the sake of that salvation. And that means that we are dealing with a phenomenon here that‘s not just incidental. It‘s essential. So if you ridicule that aspect of religious fervor, you have, in fact, ridiculed something that lies at the very heart of Christian faith and belief.
GOLDSTEIN: But, Alan...
KEYES: Yaron Brook, don‘t you think that‘s — go ahead.
GOLDSTEIN: Alan, you know, I am Jewish, you know, and it‘s tremendously offensive to me for people to try to convert me. It‘s in the primary value of my religion not to be converted, and the idea that somehow this should be widespread in the media, and I should be subject to this when I read a newspaper or turn on a television show, it‘s remarkably offensive of you. And I mean, you know, this is something that would make me feel incredibly threatened, and it ought to make a lot of people feel threatened.
KEYES: Well, see...
GOLDSTEIN: Now, just imagine the other way around.
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDSTEIN: Just imagine if, in fact, we got up over and over again on television to tell you that, you know, Jesus was not the Christ. I mean, it would be incredibly offensive. And it‘s the same sort of thing.
WOOD: Yes, but there...
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDSTEIN: We have some standards...
KEYES: All right, hold on, hold on, hold on...
GOLDSTEIN: ... some standard of respect for each other‘s beliefs.
KEYES: It might in fact be offensive to you, which would mean that someone else‘s religion is offensive to you.
WOOD: That‘s right.
GOLDSTEIN: No, no, no. It‘s the conversion. It‘s the conversion.
KEYES: Now, let me finish — let me finish. Because that conversation, that effort, not with any kind of violence, not with any kind of force or anything else, but just by talking, example, persuasion. The mere fact that someone else raises an issue with you is deeply offensive, and therefore to be stopped.
GOLDSTEIN: It‘s the reason...
KEYES: It seems to me — let me finish.
GOLDSTEIN: Yes.
KEYES: It seems to me to suggest that the bigotry here is not on the side of somebody trying to convert you, but on your side, because you find it so intolerable to even hear about someone else‘s view.
GOLDSTEIN: No, no. It‘s a religious value of my religion that we should not be converted. So you are violating a value in my religion.
KEYES: But how?
GOLDSTEIN: And actually the reason my grandparents came here, and the reason I cherish living here, is that we are not subject to that in this country.
KEYES: Well, see, the great problem is...
BROOK: Exactly.
KEYES: ... you are not to be...
BROOK: This country was...
KEYES: Go ahead. You were on — go ahead.
BROOK: It was founded on an idea that religion is private, and not public. And that we should not be preached to, and that we should try to...
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD: Are you kidding? We are preached to...
BROOK: And I find it offensive...
WOOD: Come on!
BROOK: ... that people would — what? I mean, people are trying to convert me into any type of religion.
WOOD: We are preached to — we are preached to every single night. If you turn on network television, we are preached to. The values that the characters on prime time TV display, very, very few, of which I have to say, would be Christian values. I mean, the fact is that the idea that somebody‘s values aren‘t constantly put out there...
BROOK: There is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of values presented on TV today...
WOOD: Well, every single night...
BROOK: ... including Alan‘s show, yes.
WOOD: ... night after night, you have one set of values that are put forward and another are kept back. And the only time they put forward Christian values, and usually religious values, are to make fun of them. And I think that‘s a very serious thing we ought to look at.
BROOK: No, you can have...
GOLDSTEIN: You can put on those programs, but no one will watch them, and that‘s the reason why they aren‘t more of them.
WOOD: That‘s not true! That is not true at all!
GOLDSTEIN: Well, then — but no.
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD: That‘s not true at all. We know for a fact that more G-rated movies...
BROOK: I mean, the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is.
GOLDSTEIN: No...
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD: No, more G-rated movies bring in box office dollars, and we know that for a fact.
GOLDSTEIN: Now, there would be thousands of them if they really did.
BROOK: If that were true, they would only make G-rated movies...
KEYES: One of the things...
BROOK: ... because the studios are primarily interested in making money, just like the networks.
KEYES: One of the things — excuse me — one of the things that I think is remarkable even about this conversation is that both Richard and Yaron have been talking to us as if their sensitivity to proselytization should therefore mean restrictions on that activity, which would mean that basically...
BROOK: Absolutely not.
KEYES: ... basically because they are sensitive, someone else should have something that is at the core of their religious belief shut down and interfered with.
BROOK: Now, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) absolutely not.
GOLDSTEIN: If (UNINTELLIGIBLE) at the core of my religious belief...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Well, let me finish. Meaning no offense.
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDSTEIN: This is my religious belief.
KEYES: In other countries in the world, in Saudi Arabia, even in a country like Israel, there are those who seek to shut down proselytizing efforts on those very grounds in such a way as utterly to interfere with the free exercise of religion. We are supposed to be a society in which people have the right, freely to express, without coercion and force but with freedom, their views in the public square. That‘s the whole idea. But apparently when it‘s religious views...
BROOK: Absolutely...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... when it‘s religious views...
WOOD: That‘s right.
KEYES: ... other people say, well, my sensitivities mean that you must interfere with my freedom of religion.
GOLDSTEIN: It‘s not a sensitivity, sir. It‘s a religious belief of mine.
(CROSSTALK)
BROOK: Freedom of speech in this country protects religious freedom. If you want to have a show on TV that is religiously based, there‘s nothing to prevent you from doing that. You can start your own network as some religious people have done.
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD: ... just call most of the network executives...
(CROSSTALK)
BROOK: You can have the Alan Keyes show — you can have the Alan Keyes show. But the Hollywood executives, it‘s their decision. It‘s private property.
WOOD: Yes.
BROOK: We believe in private property in this country.
WOOD: Are you going to tell me that we both are equally represented on television?
BROOK: We believe that people should be able to choose..
WOOD: Do you think they...
BROOK: But they shouldn‘t be equally represented on television. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) can say that all viewpoints...
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD: Why not? I mean, there are more people in this country go to — come on. There are...
BROOK: Then why don‘t they watch the Christian networks?
WOOD: ... millions upon millions of people in this country...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: OK. Can I — can I once again...
WOOD: We (UNINTELLIGIBLE) represented on television...
KEYES: ... once again — hold on. Once again...
BROOK: You‘re not letting me finish.
KEYES: Hold on once again.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Once again, I listen to the cacophony here, and I am saying to myself, what‘s fascinating about this whole situation is the fact that on one side, we have folks who are pretending that the issue here is whether or not one is going to have this or that movie and religious view that interferes with their feelings. That‘s not the issue.
The issue here is whether or not headlines are going to imply that people, because of their religious views, somehow stigmatize a state, whether or not people who are out proselytizing should be subject to ridicule. And you can dismiss it as good, clean fun, but we all know that one of the most powerful tools that has been used down through the ages in order to persecute people and restrict their activities is ridicule. People don‘t have to worry about whether they are going to be tortured every day, but most people do worry about whether they will be laughed at every day.
So when you mobilize ridicule, you have mobilized one of the most effective weapons against human action. And I think the people who doing it know it.
GOLDSTEIN: Well, please don‘t call it a feeling, Mr. Keyes...
BROOK: The difference between...
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDSTEIN: ... because it‘s not a feeling. It‘s actually a core religious belief of my faith, which is to say it‘s a commandment, a primary commandment not to convert and not to be pushed to convert. It‘s a primary religious belief of the Jewish faith. It‘s not a sensitivity. It‘s not a feeling. It‘s a tenet of the faith.
WOOD: But nobody makes you convert!
GOLDSTEIN: And you violate it...
WOOD: No. No one makes — no one is making you...
GOLDSTEIN: ... when you actually try to convert us.
WOOD: ... convert.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We are at that point — excuse me everyone — we are at that point when we have to go. And I want to thank all of you, Genevieve, Richard, Yaron...
WOOD: Thank you.
KEYES: ... for a very lively discussion.
Next, I am going to be talking and getting into this further, as we search for the bottom line with “HARDBALL‘S” Chris Mathews on this subject. It should be an interesting exchange
Later, what‘s on your mind?
But first, does this make sense? When the faith-based initiatives were first discussed, a lot of religious folks reacted while they afraid that government funding of religious activities, even good ones, would be used as leverage to keep them from their faith practices and interfere with their ability to preach about God and the gospel. They were assured that law would contain protections for them against being pushed in these areas, especially into hiring practices that violate their faith. That has now been dropped from this legislation, and yet those same religious folks are told that this faith-based initiative is still safe for their consumption. Hmm. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
We‘re now going to try to get to the bottom line. I‘m joined now by Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC‘s “HARDBALL” and author of the bestselling book “Now Let Me Tell You What I Really Think.”
Welcome, Chris, to the show.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, “HARDBALL”: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Appreciate your being with us tonight.
Now you‘ve been listening to the discussion. I know you‘re aware of the background in terms of run-up to the Olympics and also the whole question of media bias on religious and other grounds.
Is there a reality here that people are reacting to in terms of the existence of this kind of biased portrayal of certain groups, including Mormons and Christians and others of faith in general, in the media?
MATTHEWS: Well, I‘m reminded of Groucho Marx‘s line, “Are you going to believe me or lying eyes?”
You know, I think it‘s so obvious that the media — I thought it was a great piece in Bernie Goldberg‘s book about the fact that when Peter Jennings made an announcement one night — he was going through all the senators who were participating in the conviction — or the hearing on President Clinton.
And he identified all the southerners — or conservatives as conservatives. But he ignored any kind of ideological tag for all the liberals. He never said, “Here‘s a liberal, Senator Barbara Boxer,” but he said, “Here‘s a conservative, Jesse Helms.” That‘s classic.
Another way that that‘s done in terms of philosophy is you often hear candidates described as pro-life as if they‘re oddities whereas, if a person is pro-choice, takes the other position, that‘s assumed to be mainstream and not worthy of note.
It‘s that kind of subtle bias, I think you see.
KEYES: But in the society at large — because one of the things I find is we look at the media and we think that they‘re somehow responsible for or isolated in a phenomenon like this.
I mean, isn‘t it the case that in terms of things that are happening in the schools, in the general environment, we‘re seeing people moving, operating on the assumption that it‘s somehow OK to drive religious fervor, proselytizing, vangelism, and expression from the public square? Hasn‘t that been sort of a quiet assumption even in our...
MATTHEWS: Well, sure, but...
KEYES: ... courts for a while?
MATTHEWS: ... let‘s go back 42 years to John Kennedy‘s election to the presidency. When he ran — I dug this up tonight — here‘s what he had to say to be accepted as a Roman Catholic as a candidate for president.
“It is apparently” — he said this to the Houston ministers who were Protestant ministers he spoke with. “It is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America where the separation of the church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president, should he be a Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.”
Well, there, a man had to say, “My religion doesn‘t matter in the public square. I have nothing to offer in terms of my values, my training, my beliefs in terms of public policy.” I consider that an embarrassment for our country.
Of course, it matters what you believe philosophically. It should. And I think we should understand what people believe before we elect them. So I think we‘re actually going 180 from where we were in 1960.
KEYES: Indeed. I think we‘ve gone a lot further because what we‘re talking about tonight and one of the things that I think is particularly telling about this situation is that we now have a culture and whether it‘s in the entertainment culture, the fun that‘s poked at people and so forth, in which a certain kind of open religious fervor, even the wearing of religious symbols, like crucifixes and crosses, is stigmatized.
There are cases brought now, as was recently done with respect to the National Library Association, where people are being told that they can‘t wear crosses because that somehow is going to influence people or somehow offend people.
When you have a religion — let‘s just take the specific example of Christianity — where the injunction to spread the faith, preach the gospel, evangelize is so fundamental, it is one of the two great commissions, to love and to preach, that‘s at the heart of the positive Christian ethic, aren‘t you essentially establishing a fundamental anti-Christian bias if you stigmatize that evangelism, which is essential to a Christian walk and a Christian expression of faith?
MATTHEWS: Well, I think so, too, and I think it‘s broader than that. I think the criticism is pretty general of religion, if you notice.
I love Woody Allen movies, especially the earlier ones. He always makes fun of people who are Orthodox and Hasidic, who have strong obvious religious beliefs. Nuns of the old school, the kind of nuns wearing the habits of the 1950s, are — often show up in commercials as sort or absurdities or some comic figures. I think that‘s the norm.
I think the kind of religious figure that people like in public life — and this seems to be the norm — is Episcopalians who don‘t believe anything, Roman Catholics who don‘t believe anything, in other words, in name only.
As long as you‘re mainstream to the point where you don‘t let it get in the way of anything you do, then you‘re OK. If you vary off into a direction where it might influence your conduct or your public policies, you‘re considered weird and dangerous, and I think you used the phrase earlier “You‘re worthy of ridicule,” and I think that is the weapon.
KEYES: Well, it is a weapon, I think, because it‘s also a very powerful weapon. I think we think of persecution in terms of the Roman arena and throwing Christians to the lions and torturing people and so forth.
But I have found that one of the most effective means to modify behavior is ridicule because most ordinary people don‘t fear that, by the end of the day, they will be tortured and thrown to the lions, but they do fear that they might be the subject of ridicule, of something that sets them apart from the group.
MATTHEWS: Well, you know, Alan, the good people don‘t care. Bob Casey, one of the greatest men in public life in this country, was governor of Pennsylvania, was — he was elected by over a million votes the second time he ran. Absolute pro-lifer. He wasn‘t allowed to speak at the Democratic convention that nominated Bill Clinton. There‘s a paradigm of morality. And yet the Democratic Party has never forgiven — has never come back and apologized to his family for what they did to him.
They treated him as an oddity, when, in fact, he was a bread-and-butter liberal. He was a person who believed in human life all the way from the beginning to the end. He was a caregiver and a caretaker of people, and he was treated as an oddity.
KEYES: Right. They didn‘t want to let him speak at the Democratic convention, as I recall...
MATTHEWS: In 1992.
KEYES: ... because of his pro-life views. I mean, they actually excluded him.
I will say on behalf of the Republican Party that that‘s one step that, for all the strong pro-life views in the party, no one‘s ever suggested taking, and pro-choice, pro-abortion people still get the platform at the Republican convention, sometimes in preference to well-known and strong pro-lifers, and I think that that might mark a difference in attitude.
But in the society at large, I do think, though, that the idea of ridicule is mobilized as something that can effectively reach the ordinary person and kind of hold them back from what might be a course of action that either themselves personally stood forward to profess religion or tolerated it in others.
So we get this easygoing assumption, which I thought was expressed in the last discussion, that somehow or another religion is a simply private matter and that it‘s only to be conducted under the bushel basket, so to speak, never hung from the lamp stand. Isn‘t that fundamental...
MATTHEWS: But that doesn‘t square with our history because the abolitionist movement was heavily religious, as you know, obviously, and the civil-rights movement was always in the church. The peace movement and the attempt to bring down the Communists, which was successful in Germany in 1989 — I was over there — it was the vigils at St Matthews Church. Religion has often played a positive role in liberating people, so I‘m surprised that liberals would find it off-putting.
KEYES: Well, they do, unfortunately, and I think one of the sad things is that that record, that positive record, which has, in fact, been a record which has broken chains and opened societies and, in fact, made them more tolerant, is now forgotten in order to lay the groundwork for a society in which the one acceptable form of intolerance is going to be intolerance of real religious faith and of the open profession of religious belief, as if the mere fact that you do that is offensive to someone.
It‘s as if we‘re to treat everybody like little children, so vulnerable to nefarious influences that they can‘t even hear an opinion that is different than their own religious view. Isn‘t that...
MATTHEWS: I think the soldiers...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... people?
MATTHEWS: Alan, I think the soldiers among the 600,000 dead from the Civil War, the guys wearing the blue uniforms, would be surprised to know that religion played no role in that war.
I think a lot of those fellows, although they shared Christianity with the people they were fighting and killing, thought they were fighting, you know, for “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.”
They thought they were fighting for the cause of God. So they would be surprised to know it was a secular war, I think.
KEYES: I think they would be very surprised, and they‘d be very surprised to know the society that resulted now stigmatizes the kind of fervent faith that, in fact, inspired them to their sacrifices.
Chris, thank you so much. Appreciate your coming with me tonight...
MATTHEWS: It‘s great to be on your show.
KEYES: ... and I really appreciate your good wishes. And I hope that your show will continue to enjoy good success.
MATTHEWS: I‘m glad to call you — I‘ve never called anybody this in
my life, but I‘ll call you this. You‘re — I‘m proud to call you my
colleague. I feel like a real grownup when I say that. Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Well, I‘m proud to join you as a colleague. Thank you for being with us.
Later on a personal note, I‘ll be sharing with you some thoughts on a matter of honor.
But, first, I want to hear what‘s on your mind.
You‘re watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
Now we‘re going to look at what‘s on your mind. First, we‘ll go to Brandon in Missouri.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
BRANDON: Hi. It just seems to me that the media has not been very critical of the Mormons, and I think that‘s a great thing.
But I just wonder what you think about — I‘ve had several Christian friends that have lived in Utah that have had failed businesses because of — they exclude others in their own culture. So it‘s more to me now that the Mormons have been excluding rather than the media.
So I just wonder what your thoughts were on that.
KEYES: Well, I think, as we saw this evening, there‘s some clear evidence that there have been in the media characterizations that are hardly favorable to Mormons and on grounds that also are applicable and have been applied, sadly, to other groups that proselytize and that express the kind of fervor for the spreading of their faith which is characteristic, I think, of many people in their strong commitment to their faith, whether Mormons or Christian denominations that are committed to that kind of evangelism.
I‘m always wary of getting into discussions of individual cases where I don‘t know all the details. I will just say that I‘ve been back and forth to Utah a lot over the course of my life and career, and I have found the folks in Utah to be exceptionally committed to a lot of the things I hold dear, including strong family values, a sense of commitment to family and to the integrity that‘s required in one‘s personal life to maintain family and strong community, and I think that‘s very important.
Let‘s go to David in Washington State.
David, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
DAVID: Yes, sir. I think that in today‘s society where we are watching our political correctness and we‘re overly sensitive to the needs of the totally oppressed groups, religion has become one of the acceptable things that we can challenge. The media has a lot of fun because nobody really says that we can‘t make fun of religion, and it —
Unfortunately, having just spent three years in graduate school, I see that professors are probably some of the worst culprits of using ridicule to stop conversation whenever somebody starts talking about religion.
Natural resource management firmly today blames western Christianity for the plight of the western forest, and...
KEYES: It‘s fascinating. I found when I was in college that one of the characteristics, sadly, of a certain kind of academic life was the effort to make people of faith feel ashamed of that, as if — matter of fact we heard it earlier today, someone referring to Christianity as if it somehow rejects the tenets of rationality and scientific thought and so forth and so on, totally contrary to fact because, in fact, there is great respect for these endowments from God and for the reason and common sense that he‘s given us.
Somebody like me, in fact — the whole purpose of this program is to be faithful to those gifts which have come from God in that way. But still folks are stigmatized that way so that that element of shame can be brought into play, which, in the case of some folks, can start to build barriers in their hearts between their conscience and their faith, and sad to say, in some cases, it works.
Let‘s go to Joe in New Jersey.
Joe, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JOE: Hello, Alan. How are you?
KEYES: Pretty good.
JOE: Basically, what I wanted to say — in the beginning of the show, someone had mentioned about the quirkiness, idiosyncrasies that the members of the Mormon church have.
Realistically, it doesn‘t bother most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We know people tease us from time to time. We know that we‘re a little different. But all in all, we welcome everyone to the State of Utah. I used to live there a while back. We welcome everyone to the State of Utah. We love most of the people that come there.
As far as what Mr. Goldstein said before from “The Village Voice,” I‘m not real sure where he‘s coming from. He has the choice to accept any type of proselytizing that might come his way. Also, he has a choice to say no if he doesn‘t want to be preached to.
KEYES: But, see, I think that one of the things that was forgotten in many of his statements was the sense that, if somebody is approaching you with a certain point of view, nobody says you‘ve got to accept that point of view.
But the notion that even to hear an opposing point of view is deeply offensive to you, how could we characterize that as anything but the deepest kind of bigoted intolerance? When you can‘t even stand to hear from somebody who has a different point of view, a different faith, you are then wanting to pretend that you are the victim?
No, I don‘t think so. I think you‘re making others the victim of a really deep intolerance that seems to characterize your own heart and point of view.
Let‘s quickly go to Nicolette from Florida.
Nicolette.
NICOLETTE: Hi, Alan. How are you?
KEYES: Pretty good. Very quickly now.
NICOLETTE: Yes, OK. Do you think there are going to be any new laws enacted in the future where the entertainment industry is going to take into reconsideration the Communications Decency Act censorship laws to change the morality and decency of media today?
KEYES: I wouldn‘t think that it‘s going to be a matter of law, Nicolette. I think in areas like this — and it‘s something I deeply believe in — we shouldn‘t get into legal censorship and all of this.
The most important thing we can do in areas of entertainment and media is what we do with our own choices, what we do with our own dollars, what we do in terms of our own support out there, buying books and seeing movies and supporting cable channels and other kinds of things.
The choices that the people of this country make are going to be the critical influence on the characteristics of the kind of media culture we have and entertainment culture we have, and I don‘t think there‘s any way for us to escape that responsibility.
And in that sense, I think it‘s better to understand that these are the kinds of things that shouldn‘t be done through censorship laws and so forth but rather through our own willingness to exercise common sense and conscientious judgment. We should be able to have that kind of influence on the media.
Next, on a personal note, I‘ll be discussing a matter of honor. Stay tuned. We‘ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: In the context of the present budget consideration, there‘s a dispute going on between folks who have looked at the Medal of Freedom, the civilian honor, and found that it‘s 90-percent gold, and then looked at the Medal of Honor for our military people and found it‘s mainly composed of base metals, and they‘re upset about this, quite understandably, I think, if it were to imply any dishonor of our military folks.
But there‘s one thought I would like to add to the consideration. The real substance of the Medal of Honor isn‘t the metal that it‘s made of. It is, in fact, the sacrifices of our honored dead, of those who have risked and given their lives, and that‘s the real content of the Medal of Honor, which does do honor to those who receive it.
That‘s my sense of it. Thanks.