There was an alarming story this past Sunday about the dangers of religious extremism — apparently, religious zealots want to ban books.
In a story titled “Palin treads carefully between fundamentalist beliefs and public policy,” the Los Angeles Times reported that as mayor of Wasilla, the Alaska governor “upset the town’s chief librarian by asking what the process would be for banning books.”
But when I say there was an alarming story about religious extremism and banned books, the Los Angeles Times story is not the one I’m talking about.
The same day, as the Los Angeles Times put Palin’s beliefs under a microscope and recklessly implied that her religious beliefs encourage censorship, an act of religiously motivated censorship occurred.
Three Muslims in London firebombed the home of a British book publisher for publishing The Jewel of Medina — a piece of historical nonfiction by an American journalist about Mohammed’s first wife. By all sensible accounts of the book, it is not a blasphemous work — and even if it were, there’s no reason to suppress it. In America, Random House, which originally purchased the novel, has since — in a cowardly decision — declined to print it.
So with actual religious zealots actually running around bombing publishers, where does the Los Angeles Times get off calling Palin a religious extremist? When the mayor of a small town asks rhetorically about the process for banning a book and then doesn’t actually ban any books, it’s incredibly irresponsible to suggest she’s a censor and that she’s motivated to ban books by her religious convictions. (And why are the Republican vice-presidential nominee’s alleged attempts to censor a library book years ago all that relevant, when the Democratic campaign tries to shout down critical authors, files complaints with the Justice Department against groups that run ads against them, and has drafted public officials in Missouri to threaten legal action against anyone they say criticizes them unfairly?)
While nearly everyone agrees that censorship is bad as a general rule, it’s also an issue of community standards and books get censored for one reason or another all the time. Of course you only hear about it when some yahoo wants to ban Huckleberry Finn or The Catcher in the Rye – you never hear about it when everyone agrees the book should be censored.
Last fall publisher Little Brown dropped Tintin in the Congo from its reissue of the classic kids’ series because it has racist overtones that were regrettably more acceptable when it was published decades ago. Would you begrudge your local librarian’s decision to pull this book from the kids’ section?
Small-town mayors and librarians are at the forefront of making decisions about what’s best for the community all the time. So when Palin inquired about a kids’ book dealing with gay marriage, she was no doubt trying to figure out what to do about the objections of a considerable number of people in the community. Indeed, Wasilla’s former town museum director told the Los Angeles Times, “Sarah brought it up because she knew there was a moral majority in Wasilla who needed their voices heard.” So was Palin acting on her own crazy religious beliefs or merely being the elected voice of the people? In the end, she didn’t push to ban the book.
The Los Angeles Times further quotes a liberal blogger and Palin antagonist — without identifying him as such or otherwise confirming the veracity of his claim — as saying Palin believes dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together. Not that such a belief is out of the religious mainstream, but clearly the purpose is to discredit Palin.
The article quotes Palin, who is the daughter of a science teacher, saying of the evolution/creation debate, “Don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.” It then notes: “Since taking office in December 2006, Palin has made no moves to impose the teaching of creationism or ‘intelligent design,’ the modern version of creationist thought, in Alaska schools.” For the record, saying intelligent design is the modern version of creationist thought is lazy and wrong; then again, so is much of the article.
The article then says that Palin is very public about her pro-life stance; it goes on to note that despite pressure from pro-life supporters Palin refused to call a special session when Alaska Democrats killed legislation related to abortion restrictions. And further, “Palin also did not challenge an Alaska Supreme Court ruling that mandated health insurance benefits for same-sex partners.”
So could the Los Angeles Times please explain how Palin “treads carefully between fundamentalist beliefs and public policy,” when that same article seems to suggest that her personal beliefs don’t really affect her policy stances at all?
In fact, none of her supposedly controversial beliefs are unique to her. She’s concerned about what values are imparted to children, she doesn’t accept evolution a priori, she doesn’t believe in abortion, and she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. The Los Angeles Times just catalogued the beliefs of most mainstream Christians in America, attributed them to Sarah Palin, and then acted as if this were somehow a matter of controversy. It’s only controversial if you don’t know anything about Christians.
And it’s pretty demonstrable the Los Angeles Times doesn’t know anything about Christians. For one thing, Sarah Palin is not a fundamentalist — a word that has a very specific religious connotation. As for its broader connotation, well, here’s what the journalist’s bible — the Associated Press Stylebook — has to say about it: “In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians. In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.”
But it’s clearly asking too much of journalists to understand Christianity. Blogger Ace of Spades flagged the New York Times’s review of Bill Maher’s anti-religion documentary, Religulous. The review noted that when the film “turns from evangelical Christianity to Judaism and Islam, its tone becomes uncertain and its rhythm choppy. An attitude of glib condescension is inadequate to address clashing religions that have turned the Middle East into an ideological cauldron.”
So to be clear: Glib condescension is appropriate for evangelical Christians but not Judaism or Islam — even extremist Islam. When a small-town mayor inquires about a book at the library that’s offended the town’s religious community and ultimately does nothing about it, she’s clearly a dangerous fundamentalist who needs to be put in her place. End of story.
That’s Journalism 101, 2008.
– Mark Hemingway is an NRO staff reporter.