Freedom of religion confronts journalism

While it is inarguable that religion has always played an important role in shaping history and society, it has gained new attention in recent years in the press, particularly in a post-9/11 world.

Although the First Amendment allows for religious discourse and coverage in the United States, the precedence of separation of church and state and the often very personal nature of religion itself have stigmatized the focus on religion in journalism.

In such a religiously diverse nation as the United States, many feel that freedom of expression does not entirely apply to the sensitive topic of religion. As a result, how the media handles the varied institutions of religion has often created much controversy, particularly since it can be difficult to find an acceptable line between upholding freedom of speech and respecting and defending what many people deem to be sacred.

On Saturday, the Boise Center of Boston College and Eastern Nazarene College sponsored a conference titled "Blasphemy, Free Speech and Journalistic Ethics," which addressed such issues. The conference included a keynote address by Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, and two panel discussions.

The first, titled "Religious Perspectives on Blasphemy and Free Expression," consisted of scholars representing different religions, and the second "Journalistic Ethics in Religion Coverage," was comprised of a panel of journalists.

Haynes began the conference by discussing the history and importance of freedom of expression in the United States and its relation to the freedom of religion in his address "The Lively Experiment: Why Religious Freedom Requires the Right to Offend." Referring to Roger William's foundation of Rhode Island as a haven for religious tolerance, Haynes explained that this necessitated a need for freedom of expression.

"Freedom of expression and religion were joined at the hip at birth and remain inseparable today," said Haynes.

While there have been many controversies as some religious groups have been offended by the manner in which free speech has been utilized, he explained that religious freedom itself depended on protection of speech, even speech, which some groups may view as hateful or blasphemous.

"Religious groups should remember that the very power that protects them today can be used against them tomorrow," said Haynes. "What is blasphemous to one group is sacred to another; we don't want the government deciding which it is."

What exactly is considered blasphemy can vary between religious groups and people, which may be why 43 percent of Americans do not think people should say things in public that might be viewed as offensive, said Haynes. Additionally, Haynes said 40 percent of Americans believe the press has too much freedom.

This may be one of the reasons the controversial issue of religion is largely under-reported, as journalists try to maintain a delicate balance between being respectful of religious beliefs and differences, and upholding their ethical duty to report the truth.

While religion may have been largely ignored in the past, incidents such as sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and the attention to Islam after Sept. 11 have led journalists to cover issues of religion that may be controversial.

"Newspapers have come to the conclusion that religious institutions are big enough players in our lives that they deserve the same scrutiny we give to other institutions," said Michael Paulson, a religion reporter for The Boston Globe.

Haynes also discussed this, saying that the idea of separation of church and state has evolved so that religion in the press seems to be a generally taboo subject, and therefore one that is ignored, despite its impact on the lives of individuals.

"It's as though we have a secular lens we interpret all news with, but people of religious faiths have a lot to say about these topics," said Haynes.

The fact that there are many, varied, and sometimes vehement opinions that are derived from one's religion, however, is precisely the reason why reporting on religious topics can be difficult. Monica Brady-Mayerov, a correspondent at WBUR radio, explained that, as a reporter covering religion, she is often worried about that particular religion's reaction to her coverage.

She said that the first question often asked was about her personal religious choices, and that people wanted to interpret her story in light of that.

"People want to know what faith you are because they feel it's theirs, and unless you're a part of it, you can't understand it; you're going to get it wrong," said Brady-Mayerov.

Many speakers echoed the idea that lack of understanding between and about religions further complicates issues.

They explained that America as a whole is simply not well-educated enough about the religions that comprise it, and thus avoids the issue as much as possible in order to escape controversy. "Media reflects society, and I think society avoids looking at religion as an issue, as well. We don't have an open dialogue about religion," said Brady-Mayerov.

Haynes said that this is a problem because increased religious education is necessary. He explained that the news media would have to take religion more seriously if we were better educated.

"We live in what is one of the most religiously diverse places in the world. Americans need to be educated about religion; I think it matters," said Haynes.

"The grounds of intolerance and hatred is ignorance."

Even when handled with respect and tolerance, issues of freedom of expression and freedom of religion can certainly be fraught with ethical dilemmas and controversy. "It is a messy arena," Haynes said.

"But I would say, what a glorious mess it is in the end." n