C'mon people. Why all the hostility towards religion and religious coverage in the media? To each his own. Too many people harbor under the (misguided) "belief" that all religions are false, worthless, irrational etc. Sadly, these indviduals do not take the time to learn about the many differing conceptions of faith amongst various people, as well as the many common themes that reverberate throughout all faiths. If a person chooses atheism or agnosticism, they should do so because it is right for them, and in the process, they should not develop a superiority complex, judging inferior in value the religious faith of their fellow human being. To do so is to be as arrogant and cruel as the very religious "fundamentalists" that they criticize.

The last issue involving religion to be covered by Canadian media involved the recent debate over same-sex marriage. The coverage usually pitted an openly gay person talking about equal rights of all citizens before the law, against some religious person saying that the sanctity of marriage was at stake(50% divorce rate notwithstanding)...and that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to legal incestuous marriages, polygamy, and even beastiality. If this is an example to go by, I hope the CBC does not intend to subject viewers to such captivating "arguments".

Judas? Women are still waiting for an apology from an organization whose government remains unchanged since the days of the Inquisition. The same church so carefully re-considering one long-dead man's innocence continues to justify the largest massacre of women in recorded history for witchcraft, a sin that cannot possibly be considered based in fact today.

Media coverage erases the fact that the Catholic Church is the world's largest minority government. That church disposes of the lives and bodies of women without the voice of a single member of the silenced majority allowed in its decisions. All of its policy makers are also barred from men's most common association with women, marriage. Most of its policy makers have been educated from adolescence in specific isolation from women.

Non-representative governments define those without a voice among their ranks not as equals, but as inferiors whose primary value lies in their use to the governing class. If any human beings other than women were as excluded from an organization’s government, it would be the first, most important fact in any story about its activities. Instead, church policies that continue to blame women for the existence of human sexuality, decree women be bred without their consent like farm animals and disposed of as useless husks encasing the only “life” worth protecting continue to be soft-pedaled in the media as valid moral positions without any such consideration.

Such representation of exclusively male-ruled religions sanitizes the harm they do to the world’s women and helps perpetrate the enormous political control they have over women everywhere. There should be more coverage of religion - balanced coverage. A rare example was a very short segment in the "Life and Times" biography of John Paul II, which gave this quote by His Holiness as his justification for the suffering of Bosnian women forced to bear their rapist's children: "Women are never really innocent of rape".

To experience faith is a profound moment for any person. As a photojournalist, I had the opportunity to cover many "faith" stories. I lived in the Southern US and saw just how corrupting a misinterpretation of faith could be. Thank you for a wonderful insightful presentation of the dilemma that confronts a journalist on facing this issue. Too often the debate is framed in terms of dogmatic observance of ritual and tradition rather than an exercise in comprehension. Even here in a country known for its views on religious expression there is a trend to the simplistic solutions for what in reality is a desire to place personal meaning in a universe that is very large. Keep up the good work.

May I suggest that you read "Christ and the Media," by Malcolm Muggeridge, the late ex-editor of Punch Magazine. He worked in media all his life and has some very pithy insights about Christian faith and the whole media industry.

Perhaps more consideration of irreligion should be permitted inclusion in the debate. All religions are founded on irrational or otherwise impossible myths that require blind faith for acceptance, however much impressive theology, textual analysis, and 'philosophy' may have accreted around them. Most are used to give specific groups pretensions to special status, including superiority or even power over others.

The world would be immeasurably better off, though some authors would lose their chance to make millions from ignorant credulity, if we could dispense with all of these nonsensical edifices.

One of the fundamental problems that religion is experiencing is people's interpretation of the sacred texts to their advantage. Whatever religion you look at, you will see that it prones for peace, respect and kindness towards others of other religions.

I think that journalists can delve into religion but facts about the situation must be accurate. I think also that at this point in time in human society, journalist should try to look for the goodness of religion. See how some people's interpretation of religious texts influence everyone around them in a positive light. That is what journalists should strive to look for. The fundamental purpose of religion is to bring out the best in people.

When you look at religious conflicts, it is not the texts of the religious group that tells them to create the conflict but it is when the interpretation of the text conflicts with what others think their religious text is saying. Or when their desire(s) for something is infringed upon. We often confuse desire with need.

One also must remember that moderation in all aspects of ones life is needed, and that goes as well for journalists.

Freedom of expression is important and that freedom come with responsibility to everyone that might come across our views. We should not forget that. We live in a global village, and if we want to live in that global village, we need to try to respect others feelings in doing so.

I will thank you to omit religious perspective from journalism. They have that in Iran, and right now Canadians are being shot at by those, in Afghanistan, who would love a return to media with a religious perspective. Or do you mean Journalism with a Christian Slant? Oh very well, please do report on how Noah fit all the dinosaurs onto the ark, and how there is a spot for all 6 Billion (and counting) of us in heaven, if we will only accept his free gift of salvation. And please don't leave out the Mormons, How's the search going for those magical tablets from Joseph Smith? We need more news about weeping statues these days, and how about the shroud of Turin? or the Ossuary of Jesus' brother, James?

I believe that placing any religious spin to any current affairs story is to cater to those holding the beliefs. Sticking to the facts sans religious or any special interest context must be paramount for the media.

When we allow religious belief to enter political or current affairs debate, we have crossed the line of non-partisan reporting to editorializing.

Unfortunately many people either lack the ability or refuse to enter into critical thinking thus making opinion fact in their minds. When this happens, the Fourth Estate is no longer a nuetral voice but instead becomes a proponent of "popular" opinion. Our own press in Canada has been guilty of this in the past and will again in the future.

This is a dangerous road when viewed from the aspect of Freedom of Speech and of the Press. Dissenting voices can be quickly extinguished and the press can become a propaganda machine.

Think this is far fetched? Look to the south to see how the media has taken the safe road rather than challenge the religious and neoconservative right. Look to countries like Iran where the press is a tool of government which is controlled by the religious. Now look to the European countries where the press is standing up against religious opinion, Denmark comes immediately to mind.

Canada needs to maintain its nuetrality and safeguard the Fourth Estate at all costs. Anything less will lead us into a potential propaganda machine. Debate is essential for growth, understanding and mutual benefit for all.

Religion has no place in the free press whether it is print or electronic. As a Canadian public organization, the CBC has to remain nuetral and lead the way for objectivity, thus preserving one of the most revered tenets of democracy. Keep it up!

The difference between science and religion is that one is at least open to falsification. True, scientists can be dogmatic. True, there are research traditions (and granting agencies) that guide what questions are deemed worthwhile as puzzles-to-be-solved. But, over time, an anomalous unsolvable puzzle stops being the problem of individual scientists and instead becomes the problem of the collective science. Then the science turns philosophical and questions its own existence, usually solving the puzzle by changing its assumptions about what the puzzle was: for example, is an individual quanta of light a wave or a particle?

Is it even possible for such a thing to occur in religion?

I would much rather see a crisis of faith, leading to the detailed and critical reexamination of assumptions (and reaffirmation), than the continued upholding of blindness as a virtue. The journalists -- in reporting on the Judas Papers -- have raised an important issue into our collective consciousness. It's now up to the faithful to demonstrate their wisdom and rationality, as individuals, to those who occasionally wonder.

If not this, then what would have to happen to cause a crisis of faith? (Martians?) There has to be something, or else you might as well believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster for all the difference it's going to make.

This Quote by Isaac Asimov says it all "Imagine the people who beleive such things and are not ashamed to ignore totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated,the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force thier feeble and childish beliefs on us: who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly"

If we had not ignored religion in the past the world would still be flat. But here we go again afraid to make light of all these stupid, stupid beliefs. Hey you know someone has to be wrong, I think it is silly to have all these religious groups meeting together, and agreeing the that each going to each others version of Hell. I mean christians eat pork right, does that mean that rabbi's and imans believe that christians are going to hell. And do christians beleive that Muslims are going to hell for stoning women for adultery. The media does everyone a great favor when they ignore religion. Cheers Val

To have strong spiritual beliefs does not mean that one has to impose them on others. My co-workers know my religious persuasion and periodically ask me about how I view certain issues, which I then explain. I am neither embarrassed nor ashamed of my religion, but neither do I attempt to force it on anyone else since by my faiths very nature, to do so would be contrary to God's plan for mankind.

Problem with the media reporting on religion arise when reporters with very little knowlege of the faiths they are examining present the views of people of faith. They often hastily generalize and over simplify issues they have very little grasp of, then present their impressions to the public as investigative reporting. A persons faith pervades every area of their life, and to try and filter out of the public square for fear of controversy is to keep many people from ever being able to express their opinions on a wide variety of subjects. Just as we would not have an arts and culture columnist report on advances in the field of medicine, so too reporting on faith related issues requires that the reporter be specially qualified for the job.

We must not let areligion become the dogma of our culture- if a person does not hold any beliefs in meaning beyond their immediate needs that is in and of its self a theological position, and that position should not have any more sanction in our society that those who do believe in meaning beyond the empirical.

The media should therefore take peoples faith-informed opinons as seriously as they do for any other opinion. Many Canadians hold faith in the supernatural, and to include their views- informed by faith or not- would allow the media to more completely present the views of all Canadians, not just those with no faith or a "faith" that does not shape their perspectives.

I can appreciate the sensitivity of this issue. One need look no further than the Danish cartoon riots to see potential conflicts between freedom of the press (often used to legitimize sensationalism to sell media corporations' products) and respect for religion (which often means muting any criticism).

If religion were covered more in the media, how judgemental would coverage be? I fear the current dogma of "everybody's opinion is legitimate" would prevent criticism of even the most ridiculous and hateful aspects of religions. If a religion were to involve ripping the heads off chickens, praising the Mighty Pink Elephant In The Sky, and predicted a dolphin-led revolution in 2017, ... would media be able to call it stupid? Or would it provide balanced coverage so as not to offend anybody? After all, one person's "values" are often repugnant to someone else. Would it be fair to criticize religion as a whole? Many atheists (me included) believe the world would be a more logical, peaceful place without religion, even though many religious people themselves are intelligent and thoughtful. But, like religious views, the atheist perspective is avoided by most Canadian media.

I hope for a Canada in which citizens have a deeper, critical understanding of all religions (including atheism). Ignorance breeds hatred.

This raises some very interesting questions for this writer. Our 21st century is arguably troubled because of the 'in your face-ness' of the differing cultures and countries. It is truly a smaller world today than yesterday. That this brings differing religions, races, and cultures face to face is no surprise. It is a good thing for our planet. We now all have to ask questions that were parked at the door of good fact-based news institutions and thank you for raising them consistently.

Of course the 'growing debate over values in our society' is interesting, but is it where we should be letting the debate stop? The 'debate' is being led by the political right, whose conservative base always has been mired in 'traditional values'. That is simply not deep enough nor is it of any value in today's world. We do not need to pit religion vs. religion. What we do need is to pit religion vs. the alternatives. Religion leaves one relying upon an irrational faith, beliefs that cannot be tested, and a knowing that cannot be questioned. The alternatives point the way to an interpretation of religion which would bring all persons together in a way which would allow those who subscribe to a religion to continue doing so without being 'in your face' with other religions. We could lead the way here, but only if we get off the political right platform of 'traditional values'. Traditional values trumpet more of the same, and that is exactly what we do not need. Thank you.

Values and morality exist independent of religion. While discussion of those topics is worthwhile, it can and should be done without reference to faith-based ideas.

"Journalism operates far more comfortably in the realm of fact than of faith."

What a terrible understanding of good and ethical journalism! Faith is of course founded on fact and Journalism, when done properly, is the investigation of these facts (i.e. discovering the validity and relevance of the manuscripts in question and of the claims of people) and not stating or attempting to reinforce some ideology. A religion stands or falls on the veracity of its facts. These facts can be tested! Furthermore, I do not have to believe in something in order to be able to report on something - it is my job as a journalist to present the facts. What you are suggesting is a false dichotomy!

While I favour the idea of giving the role of religion more coverage, and most importantly, context, into the media, we should be careful of where concepts of values are placed. Discussion of such "values" should be done in a contextual, broad-based forum, lest we slip into judgement calls on them. The addition of "values" into media has unfortunatly come with an evangelical tinge, of the superiority of "values" over a media devoid of them. We should be wary.

I appreciate the effort Mr. Burman makes to unpack the issue of faith in the media, but I think he is quite mistaken on several points.

The programs he points to are exceptional: exceptionally good and exceptions to the rule. But Tapestry and Man Alive have been around for years and are - like it or not - niche programs with little or no impact on public discourse. A truly positive development for faith in the media would see issues of faith discussed intelligently in mainstream programs, rather than being relegated to specialty programming for those who "like that sort of thing."

"The growing debate over values in our society intersects profoundly with religious practices," but the majority view in Canadian public life is not just to opt out of the conversation, but to deny that such a conversation exists. God forbid that a politician should make reference to his or her faith, or that multiculturalism should mean anything more profound than colourful costumes and exotic foods.

Finally, the coverage of the Judas story was due not only to its topicality, but also to its safety. As Mr. Burman points out, alternate portrayals of Judas are not new. More to the point, though, is that Canada’s Christian community is reliably meek.

Should we expect the Globe and Mail front page to feature a topical story on the origins of Islam anytime soon?

More religious coverage in national media?! Oh golly! And you'd really impress me if it was educational, factually based, and balanced. Now, you'd really push the boundaries if you decided to honestly and intelligently critique religions other than that of the majority - if that's legally permitted in Canada, that is.

I found this article on religion an interesting one. I am not sure how I would feel about the media covering religion. I am not sure how unbias or fairly this topic would or could be covered. I see the media now as already showing a huge bias in favour atheism and humanism, and a bias against Christianity in particular. Media is such a powerful tool. It has the ability to shape it's audiences thought and opinions, somehow I am not convinced that the media-newsmedia in particular- could present this issue fairly. The media in my opinion already has an agenda that it promotes. The media-news media- is often nothing short of a propaganda tool for promoting these agendas.

I am very skeptical of the newmedias ability to cover basic news with unbias

Religeous belief is a construct of Man.....All the worlds religeons are the ideas of some long dead Man, A man whom has been given (by other men) great wisdom or powers....Perhaps this all came about by the ingestion of a Mushroom, or other halucinogenic plant....How else to account for the tremendous diversity of belief?

Perhaps I am overly agnostic, but I just cannot get my head around all the disagreement that results in so much bloodshed, hatred and fear permeating the world, Only the insanity of belief in something that cannot be proven, or that which makes no sense in our modern state of knowledge can acount for the utter stupidity of our blind adherance to religeous dogma....."Homosapiens"-Wise man? We do not deserve that title! We cannot even agree on one most fundamental fact- That we are all of one species!....Enlighten me, If you can, I defy you!

I could be mistaken, but I believe that "The Israeli/Palestinian dispute" is not religious in nature.

I find it difficult to understand that the media, so quick to analyze, criticize and summarize the ideas and beliefs of politicians, are so reluctant to actually examine the beliefs and principles, the ideas and intellectual understandings that are there in abundance wherever a story involves religion.

The media always has to look for power, or ethnicity or some sociological factor that are secular forces, however important, but avoid facing up to what it is that religious practicioners say actually motivates their actions.

Mr. Burman comments about stories involving religions, "These clashes involves issues of power, clash and ethnic rivalries." Yes, but they involve first and foremost the actual ideas, beliefs and opinions of those who will continue to use religion as a cloak unless and until others, the media in particular, actually begin to analyze and dissect the often quite easily falsifiable and erroneous ideas that such leaders and their followers use in exploiting religion for their own purposes. Is it not better to look at the most immediate, presenting factors, the ideas and beliefs of human beings involved in events, rather than trying to always invent some other underlying issue, some "story behind the news", in explaining a phenomena. Let's give agency (and responsibility) back to those who act in the name of religion.

The ideas of religion have to be open to the same quality of critical thought that is applied to ideas of politicians.

You should check out our Abraham Festival. We can't get over how much Jews, Muslims and Christians have in common. If the average guy on the street knew this, we'd break down many barriers of fear and ignorance. It's a happy, articulate group.

It is a shame that one aspect of many people's lives is rarely covered in the media. In a world where so many people view freedom of religion as freedom FROM religion, it means that others feel their beliefs and, as a result, opinions, are devalued. For example, is the reason that your coworkers do not know of your Latin-speaking background because the topic never came up or is it because you feel that they may judge your opinions as imposed on you by a higher power? Unfortunately, the prevailing mindset seems to be that you can't have faith or religious beliefs and your own opinions at teh same time. That is a shame because, beyond fundamentalist groups, many faith systems encourage study and questioning of what it is we believe. As a result, many beleivers have very well-thought out opinions that just happen to coincide with their selected faith groups.

If Judas was in fact doing the Master's will by "identifying" him (but certainly not betraying him), then why did he try to give back the blood money, and why did he go out and hang himself?

Over the past few months I have been disturbed to hear news reports ascribing very right-wing fundamentalist views, opinions and attitudes to "Christians", with no qualifier. That's like saying the views of Islamic fundamentalists represent the views of all Muslims. As a practicing Christian within the very liberal, progressive theological and social tradition of the United Church of Canada (not exactly a fringe group) I feel embarrassed at having this reactionary mantle cast over me and my community. I respectfully request that future news stories more carefully qualify the source of quotes, attitudes and opinions from within the Christian community.