Brian Jones

Analyzing McCloud’s Religious Fringe

McCloud’s argument in Chapters one and two of Making

the American Religious Fringe is fairly simple. His study

is used to show that the American media has tried to

maintain the status quo of the nation by discriminating

religion, race, class, gender, and several other factors

which separate the “typical American” from minorities.

For example, the media has defined fringe religions of

the country by first defining America’s “core” religions.

That is to say that, in the post-World War II era, the

three commonly accepted religions in America were

Catholicism, Judaism, and Protestantism; with Protestantism

being the most prominent. The concept behind this, though,

was not to establish any sort of national religion or

religions. This merely set a standard for typical American

religion, as these three religions comprised the majority

of America. By having these three religions – and, as time

went on, a few others – being known as “normal” religion,

anything else was therefore considered unusual or exotic.

This exoticism then became the defining characteristic

of “cults.” It is the same exoticism that caused the cults

to be feared by so-called “typical” Americans; especially

parents of teenagers who became interested in such

religions. To keep the general public from being afraid of

cults, the media portrayed the groups as being harmless.

This type of coverage conveyed a message similar to

coverage of rock and roll: even though it was exotic, it

wasn’t necessarily bad. For example, take the Wisdom,

Knowledge, Faith, and Love Fountain of the World. The WKFL

was portrayed as harmless and even somewhat comical. When

the leader was assassinated by members of his own group –

due to his illegal sexual relations with female members,

nonetheless – these negative details were ignored, as they

would have made the cult seem dangerous.

Some groups, however, were considered “foreign” by the

general public. When these groups came about, such as the

Nation of Islam, the media did everything possible to

connect their foreignness with being un-American. The Cold

War created a nationwide fear of communism, so journalistic

media attempted to connect the Black Muslims to the

U.S.S.R. Apparently, the media’s line of thinking was that

if the Muslims were already somewhat un-American (i.e.

denouncing their citizenship), then they should just be

looked at as being completely un-American (i.e. communist).

It should also be noted the Ku Klux Klan, which

operated in ways very similar to the Nation of Islam, was

portrayed much less negatively as the Muslims. The white

KKK was played off as a mere annoyance. The Black Muslims,

on the other hand, were considered a national threat. The

Muslims were also known as lower-class workers. However,

when it was revealed that the group was just another

“money-grabbing scheme” that fooled uneducated blacks, the

public perception of the group changed. No longer was the

group un-American, but rather very American, by being

nothing more than successful entrepreneurs.

This last bit of information makes McCloud’s argument

most clear. The media has obviously wanted – and succeeded

– to negatively discuss any religious groups that directly

clashed with standard American values. More importantly,

McCloud’s study makes clear the idea of America’s “standard

religions.” To this day, Protestantism is the most

prominent religion in this country, and this is used in

more contexts than simply a religious one. Various

religions apparently represent different groups of people,

and the Protestant majority has made a large impact on

nation as a whole in many ways.

The most recent example of this would be the election

of President Bush. His appeal to Protestant beliefs made an

incredible difference in the outcome of the election. Of

course, the media played a large part in this by placing

much emphasis on the issue. It proves that McCloud is

correct in saying the media is conservative in its ways.

Even if not in the sense of being conservative on

particular issues, the media is conservative in that it

likes to maintain the status quo. Bush had already been

President for four years, so the media liked the idea of

keeping him in office.

At the same time, however, one can only wonder why

Bush has been attacked so much by the media. His policies,

his willingness to declare war, and even his vocabulary

have all been criticized and mocked in the news. If the

media likes to maintain the status quo, why do they try to

cause conflict with the current President? Perhaps it is

just a method to keep the public interested – but if they

have always had the goal to simply cause interesting

conflict, it is interesting that they have made many cults

seem harmless. In short, McCloud’s argument has a good

point, but it still has one or two holes.