With all the sharp criticism they're getting right now, I understand why conservative readers are touchy about terminology. And I suppose that's why I'm hearing the question about why so many news articles are referring to members of the Michigan-based Hutaree group as part of a "Christian militia," as in today's story on Page A2.
Well, if you look at the Hutaree Web site, which is registered to Jt Duvall of Morenci, Michigan, the references to Christianity aren't just prominent -- they're clearly the group's defining mission. (I am making the assumption here that hutaree.com is the same group, though I was unable to contact anyone there.)
Mainstream Christian? Definitely not. Maybe readers would prefer that be made clear in references in news stories. I know I've heard similar requests in reference to breakaway religious congregations that identify themselves under a larger group's name.
Parallel Situation
Muslim groups have noted many times that self-proclaimed-Muslim fundamentalists who carry out acts of violence against innocents are not Mainstream Muslim, and do not speak for the majority of Muslims. In fact, many Muslims have gone so far to say that these people are not Muslims at all.
Yet the media has had no problem lumping these fringe radicals into the larger pot of "Islam," thus slyly implying to the uneducated that this is what all Muslims must do.
So it's funny to see such a debate and worry in the media about whether christian militias (of which there have been reported to be 100s in this country) should be labeled as Christian, when the media does the exact same thing without any qualms to Muslims and Islam. Where is the debate then?
Would you point those
Would you point those instances out any time you see them? Yes -- it's just the same issue, and I absolutely agree on principle.
Here’s one.
“But the calls from Damascus and Tripoli - which were later echoed by the Islamic militant group Hamas - to quit peace efforts reflected the depth of frustration and anger over the stalled peace process and continued Israeli construction in areas claimed by the Palestinians, particularly east Jerusalem.”
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/28/1841321/syria-libya-pressure-palestinians.html#ixzz0jh1crt5I
The article could have simply referred to “Hamas” rather than “the Islamic militant group Hamas.”
agreed
"Palestinian militant group Hamas" would have been sufficient. But then why don't we refer to the Israeli Likud party as "militant"?
Interesting word.
“Militant” is an interesting word. It can mean anything from “assertive” or “passionate” to “terrorist.” These days, most people seem to associate the word with individuals and groups who resort to violence. I think Mr. Donovan would get some angry e-mails if the Star referred to the “Israeli militant Likud party.”