If I were a betting person (and I'm not) I would bet that the single most divisive topic ever in the history of human kind is religion. Wars have been fought for religious reasons throughout history and continue to this day. I'm not about to discuss my personal beliefs or anyone else's religious beliefs. That's a line I will not cross. However, I do believe passionately in the separation of church and state as outlined in our constitution. For me that entails keeping my religious beliefs in one of my buckets and my political beliefs in another. I do know that for others that approach may not be the same. There's no right or wrong approach, just differences. Religion has and probably always will be used as a flash point in political elections and governing. The reason I bring up this topic is to illustrate the desperate need that country has for it's citizens to be more critical thinkers.
Recently I was sent an article from a friend. It was not from a news site that I typically read. I have always felt that particular site to be a little too right leaning for my taste. HOWEVER, it the spirit of trying to practice what I preach, I read the article and also read the attached report that sited statistics used in the article. The article was about the decline of religion under the Obama presidency.
For the sake of saving myself from future arguments, I'm not going to attach links to this article or the statistics report. I want to make a point about critical thinking and not argue the particular aspects of religion which is what the article was about.
The title of the article was not completely inflammatory but you could tell it was meant to appeal to those whose political and religious approach is probably more mixed than mine. Titles of on-line articles are the hooks that grab people as they are consuming information. News organizations know this. I find that inflammatory titles are less noticeable in long-term more main stream media publications. Titles should always be a clue as to how closely you need to examine what is being stated in the article. If it looks like something that you might see on a tabloid at the checkout stand in the grocery store, MAYBE it's not an article you should take seriously. However, some headlines are not so obvious as was the article my friend shared.
This article began by quoting statistics from report that basically said that the biggest change under Obama was the increase in the number of people who don't identify as being religious. I immediately looked at the report sited by the article. I had 2 semesters of statistics in college. They were required classes and I did find them interesting. BUT, that was a million years ago and I do not work in that realm so I am just an average citizen when it comes to statistical analysis. But as an average person looking at the referenced statistics even a non expert could see that there may be a problem. In this particular report, religion was the ONLY area where the analysis ONLY covered the 8 years of the Obama presidency. All other areas including demographics, politics, global views, technology, and social media were analyzed in larger time periods. Some areas contained graphics that provided data as far back as the 1950's. Hmm. Shouldn't this be a clue as to maybe this article is omitting information? What was the trend regarding religion for the 10-20 years before the Obama administration?
The article went on to site several other reports about religion and clashes with government regulations or policies. If I'm trying think critically about the article, I need to really think about cause and effect. Just because the article sites a report with statistics in it does not prove cause and effect. It's kind of like saying that oatmeal consumption decreased during the Obama administration, therefore his presidency must be to blame for this. Cause and effect regarding issues as large and complicated as religion and politics is a tricky slope. We must all be mindful when we start to believe in these articles without thinking about the details.
So while the article my friend shared did not in my mind support it's title it was still a good exercise in critical thinking. In addition, reading articles that don't conform with your normal views is always educational. Your views might not change but what if you were able to at least understand the thought process of others better? Isn't that a win? One of the great side effects of writing this blog is for me the way it makes me a more critical reader of news. In this day and age of information overload, taking the time to really examine articles is vital. We cannot allow ourselves to become a nation of lemmings that will simply believe whatever headlines appeal to our normal belief system and discount the education that comes from a reading and thinking about the world outside of our own comfort zone.
No comments:
Post a Comment