Blue Cord

As could have been expected, many conservatives in the media are portraying the Discovery Channel documentary on the so-called Jesus Tomb as yet another attempt by liberals to attack Christianity.  This is being done not only in Christian talk radio, but in secular media as well. This morning, for instance, I heard the guest host on The Mike Gallagher Show making this claim.  It may not have been a coincidence that this was done on a radio station owned by Salem Communications, a media group that promotes conservatism through both secular and Christian radio stations.

The idea that some liberals dislike Christianity is, of course, true.  But it is hardly the case for all liberals, even in Hollywood.  Being Christian is not a defining characteristic of conservatives, nor is being conservative a sine qua non for Christians.  But that is not the point I want to make here.

What I want to point out is the symbiotic relationship between religious conservatives and secular liberals.  While neither is necessary to the other’s existence, both receive nourishment from the other.  It gives religious conservatives great joy to score political points by declaring that a culture war is going on, while secular liberals are pleased as punch to define themselves over against those who are bigoted and closed-minded.

The truth, however, is much more nuanced, as it usually is.  There are bigoted conservatives and there are liberals who attack Christianity.  And while these elements are not the majority in either camp, they make for sensationalistic news bits, so the media has a tendency to focus on them.  But most liberals, even those who are not Christian, are not interested in attacking Christianity.  And most conservatives are not bigoted and closed-minded, and such bigotry among conservatives is not limited to religious conservatives.

All of this brings to mind a piece I read in Time several years ago.  It was an article about an advertisement urging parents to buy a product that would lock their toilets closed and prevent the tragedy of a child drowning in the toilet bowl.  The author’s point in the essay centered on the affect of our access to instant information from all over the world.

In previous times, if you heard about a tragedy, that meant that it had happened to someone you knew or someone in your community.  And that meant there was a very real possibility that this same thing could happen to you.  If a wolf attacked and killed your neighbor’s child, that meant there was a wolf in the area that might attack and kill your child.  You were right to take precautions.

Today, however, we hear about tragedies from all over the world.  But this does not mean that these tragedies are likely to happen to us.  If a wolf attacks a child in Germany, that does not mean people in Massachusetts are likely to get attacked by wolves.  But often, we localize and generalize based on things that we hear.  If a child somewhere in the world drowns in a toilet, we immediately feel that we must do something to protect our children, even though statistically there is almost no chance that such a freak accident would happen to anyone we know.

This is what is happening in America between secular liberals and religious conservatives.  Religious conservatives hear of a few liberals attacking Christianity and assume that all liberals are attacking Christianity.  Secular liberals hear of one bigoted religious conservative and generalize this into the idea that all religious conservatives are this way.  And in the process, both groups are strengthened in their positions by knowing that they have such an enemy, even an imaginary one.

I don’t know if The Jesus Tomb attacks Christianity or not.  It hasn’t been aired yet, so I haven’t seen it.  Of course, neither have any of the people who are claiming that it is an attack.  But merely presenting archaeological information and discussing a possible interpretation is not an attack on Christianity in any way, even if the show concludes that Jesus was not resurrected.  As a nation, we need to learn that just because someone disagrees with your most cherish belief does not mean that they are attacking you.

Having been listening to a lot of talk radio since I got back to the States, I am appalled at the lack of critical thinking exhibited by the hosts on these shows. This goes for shows at both the right and left ends of the spectrum (although conservative / libertarian shows outnumber the liberal shows by a large margin). Since critical thinking is one of the things we are supposed to be teaching in our colleges, I thought I would check on the education of talk show hosts.

To my surprise, I found that quite a number of talk show hosts do, in fact, have undergraduate degrees, and many of them also have done graduate work (most often in law). But the top rated shows are hosted by people with little education. Here is a run down:

• Rush Limbaugh dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University after two semesters. He had failed almost every class and earned a D in speech class.
• Sean Hannity dropped out of college, although which college is unclear. Both New York University and University of California Berkeley are listed in different bios.
• Alan Colmes does not appear to have gone to college at all. It is not listed in any of his bios.

Here is a list of those who do have degrees:

• Al Franken graduated from Harvard University, but he is getting out of talk radio later this week.
• Hugh Hewitt graduated from Harvard and has a law degree from the University of Michigan.
• Neal Boortz earned a law degree from John Marshall Law School in Atlanta.
• Larry Elder also holds a law degree.
• Bill O’Reilly graduated with honors from Marist College.
• Michael Medved graduated with honors from Yale. He later dropped out of the Yale Law School.
• Dennis Prager did an undergraduate degree but dropped out of his masters work.
• G. Gordan Liddy has a law degree, but of course his role in Watergate would suggest he forgot most of what he learned.
• And in the biggest surprise, Michael Savage holds a Ph.D. in epidemiology and nutritional science. If he learned critical thinking during his education, he seems to have decided not to use it on his radio program.

It is not the case, of course, that only those people who have gone to college are critical thinkers. Some people can be self-educated and learn to think critically without a college degree.

But given that so many talk show host do have a college education, the question now becomes “Why do so few talk show hosts use critical thinking in their shows?” Here are some of my guesses at an answer:

• Critical thinking would lead to calmer, more rational debates. This is boring and would lead to lower ratings.
• Critical thinking leads people to see both sides of a debate. Since one of the purposes of talk radio is to polarize people, this would be counter productive.
• Critical thinking leads people to be more moderate. But moderate is boring. The exciting people, for better or worse, are at the extremes of the political spectrum.
• Critical thinking disallows personal attacks (the ad hominim fallacy), while personal attacks are one of the more exciting parts of talk radio for some people.

Unfortunately, radio programs are driven by ratings. Higher ratings lead to more advertisers. More advertisers means more money. Think of how different radio would be if instead of seeking profits, the owners of radio programs sought to encourage a free, critical, and open exchange of ideas to promote the common good. I’m not holding my breath.

Due to my current situation (i.e., not employed in academia), I am thinking that I will need to change my research agenda for the foreseeable future. Because I don’t have access to a research library, I will need to switch to a project that does not require regular trips to a library. Fortunately, an idea that I had two years ago fits the bill.

Since the late 1980s, a number of Christian talk radio programs have begun that focus on political issues. These programs attempt to address political topics from a Christian point-of-view. Research I did in 2005 located twenty-one such programs, although I am sure there are more out there. They include both local and nationally syndicated programs.

Because most of these programs are from the Evangelical branch of Christianity, the Bible should play a significant role in how they deal with questions of politics. Why I would like to do, therefore, is examine the shows to see how the Bible is used in their discussions. Most of the research would be done by listening to their broadcasts, many of which are available online. This would be supplemented by a questionnaire that would be sent to each of the shows, asking them to explain their own hermeneutics and what training (formal and/or informal) their host and program researchers have in biblical studies.

This research program would allow me to make use of my double major from my undergraduate work. In addition to being a religion major, I also majored in political science. I have always been fascinated by the intersection of the two spheres, and this project would allow me to focus on how some very public Christians enter into political debates.

If any of my American readers know of any Christian political talk shows, I would appreciate it if they could let me know. As research progresses, I will share it here on the blog.