Or that the American media tips its coverage in favor of things happening in America.
Not so. Last night, my local news carried stories about the poor state of DC’s subway system. They systematically ignored the stories about corrupt selection process of a new FIFA president.
It’s yet another example of the pro-soccer corruption bias of the American media.
How is hating on a religion any different to hating on a political affiliation? As long as one is integrated (which would require one to be vaguely secular and drop Islam) then there shouldn’t be a problem. I believe the goal is to stop the spread of Islam, like the spread of the far-right.
Conservative Hinduism in it’s pure form would be against all sexual relations probably (straight or gay), since homophobia arrived during British colonialism. The right-wing in India follow a mixed ideology invented during the British Raj, pure-hinduism mixed with homophobia from British Christianity.
But either way, I expect liberals to promote secularism or athiests, not a minority religion (and I mean a minority religion). I’m complaining that Islam receives too much good press, not that Hinduism recieves too little!
Burned … by other Christians, it’s worth pointing out.
Civilrighte - what is your evidence that Islam receives too much good press? Don’t give us your impressions - how are you defining good press? how much is too much? Do you have numbers or citations to back any of this up?
Here’s an interesting article from Kuwait: Saudi Writer Asks How Muslims Would Act If Christian Terrorists Blew Themselves Up In Their Midst
Yowsuh!
Read some of the left-wing press. Liberalism is about being secular - not about promoting a certain religion or pandering to voters; show me which other religions get as much positive discrimination as Muslims do? How many ethnicities and cultures are being sidelined for pro-muslim racism?
Why don’t you show us these “liberal media” stories that are pro-Muslim? I really think this is a figment of your imagination, and unless you can show us a few examples of this alleged pro-Muslim bias, I’m pretty sure most people are going to conclude that you’re just anti-Muslim and you aren’t happy that not everyone shares your bias.
“Islamophobia” does not mean offering reasoned criticism of Islamic practices. It means unreasoned bigotry against Muslims. For example, trying to ban Muslims from the US, advocating that Muslims must register and be under police watch, or desecrating a Mosque.
All you have offered here, as in your other, identical thread, is some vague notions that people don’t like what you’re saying about Islam. Tell us what you’re saying, and we’ll clue you in.
It’s your claim-Quote some of this left-wing press you’re talking about.
To be fair, they don’t have to imagine. They see the violent destruction of our unmanned sky-man-o-wars and liken that to Christians blowing up innocent people.
(Of course, we’re aiming for the bad guys and usually killing them but the collateral damage often includes innocent civilians.)
Liken? They do not have to liken anything. That is Christians blowing up innocent people. Sure, it’s not on purpose, but that’s some pretty cold comfort, wouldn’t you agree?
Totally false? Really? So when he littered his 1500 pages of manifesto with declarations of his Christianity and included references to his Christian beliefs in the various notes he left at the scenes of his crimes, those were actually inserted by unnamed other persons just to confuse everyone?
I would certainly agree that he did not actually create his odd beliefs based on any Christian denomination that he would have encountered in Norway, but a claim that his identification as a Christian is “totally false,” is, itself totally false.
Published as a profile of the brothers less than 24 hours after they were tentatively identified as the culprits, relying mostly on interviews with those who knew them, the article was published before their actual connection to Islamic extremism had been broadcast to the public.
Rolling Stone is hardly typical of mainstream media, (and if you think that was a “glamour cover,” I can see why you are not in the magazine industry).
Gee. A place of business calls a news conference to make a point that they will refuse to serve a non-criminal fellow citizen at a time when such a topic is being discussed widely in the U.S. gets covered by the news media while longstanding laws in other countries are not. You are comparing apples and icicles.
If there is a “pro-Muslim” bias in the media, you have done nothing to demonstrate it.
To the extent that there might be a pro-Muslim attitude among current news media, it probably has more to do with their attempts to refrain from re-instituting the idiotic Red-baiting in which the media engaged the the U.S. for 90 years.
I can hear the screams of Muslim men. How dare she a woman say such things. She has and she has spoken truly
May the God of Abraham watch over her and protect her so that she can continue to speak our against the tyranny of Islamism.
I am straight and a Christian and that is where the difference stops because everything else you have written in this post I agree with
Instead of using the label “pro-Muslim”, one might ask if there is a tendency in major news media to bend over backwards and engage in bizarre contortions to downplay the threat from radicalized Muslims.*
Earlier this month a Muslim from Guinea went into a restaurant in my area and began hacking at patrons with a machete. He wound up seriously injuring several people, fled and was ultimately shot by police after lunging at them.
Salient information: the attacker had been in the restaurant shortly before, asking an employee where the owner was from and was told the owner is from Israel (the owner is a self-described “Israeli Arab Christian”, and his restaurant has both an Arabic greeting and an Israeli flag in the window). The attacker returned a half hour later and started hacking at people. He was also on an FBI terror watch list for making radical Islamic threats.
We get this from the Washington Post:
*"So far, little about the attack seems to fit any recognizable mold…
“He yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ and then he attacked them with the machete,” Baransi told pro-Israel news website The Tower, apparently relaying messages from his employees, who actually witnessed the attack.**
“He had a look on his face that was [indescribable],” (a victim) told NBC4. “And it was just a lot of hate and anger, and I have no idea where the rage is coming from.”…
“Although the shooting ended the nightmare, it also ensured that questions would linger about Barry’s intentions. Did the quiet immigrant suffer a mental breakdown? Or was the attack an orchestrated act of international jihad, as claimed online by a host of anti-Islamic groups?”*
Gosh, maybe it was just a “mental breakdown”, sort of like the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 people was engaging in “workplace violence”. Or could it have been an homicidal Islamic radical who decided to kill a bunch of people for the crime of going to an Israeli-owned restaurant? Seeking vengeance on non-Muslims in individual acts of terror? No, no, shhhhhh! Can’t suggest that.
I’d also like to see news media not running to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for self-serving/inaccurate commentary, or at least treating CAIR’s claims with skepticism. CAIR recently told reporters after a Philadelphia man (who had pledged allegiance to Islamic State) ambushed and shot a cop that they didn’t think he was an observant Muslim and that their check of local mosques showed he didn’t attend any. Shortly afterwards it came out that he had ties with two mosques and frequently attended one of them.
*as opposed to reasonable caution about reporting unconfirmed details.
*I have not seen an account of the guy yelling “Allahu Akbar” (either at customers/staff or police) come from anyone other than the restaurant owner.
Can you link to the WaPo story you quoted? News reporting doesn’t usually ask questions like that. Opinion pages, sure.
First of all that sentence is so poorly constructed that it’s incomprehensible. “Their” is the possessive case of the pronoun “they” but it lacks a logical antecedent to which it refers, so it’s hard to understand what the hell you’re trying to say. Who is “they”? Muslims? Islamophobes? “Articles and posts”? But articles and posts don’t have rights, people do. Perhaps you mean the writers of articles and posts. Let’s make that guess, then we can proceed to answer the question:
Because bigotry is an ugly plague, a cancer on society that persecutes the innocent based on the beliefs of the ignorant. Yes, writers do enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of religion. So it seems to me that writers who indiscriminately condemn Islam as a whole are trying to trample on the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment or its equivalent in other first-world democracies. They can’t be prosecuted for it, but they can be called out for it. Which is what we are doing here in response to your irrationally prejudiced and uninformed posts. Freedom to engage in bigoted speech is not freedom from the consequences.
Congratulations! There is more ignorance and prejudice crammed into those few crapulent sentences than I’ve ever seen anywhere on these forums in such a short paragraph. Beginning with a gratuitous denunciation of Pakistanis who you apparently hate, it moves on to call Africa a country – it’s actually a continent with a lot of different countries and cultures, but never mind. We then learn that Muslims “tend to be” from this “country” of Africa (or worse, Pakistan!), and “a proportionately high percentage” are either in prison, living on welfare, or “heavily involved in crime”. If it’s “proportional”, what’s the problem? But I assume you meant “disproportionately”. Funny thing is, of all the Muslims I know or have ever known, and not a single one was doing any of those things. And then you throw in “Blacks” (capitalized) and Latinos, thus managing to denounce and insult, in total, more than half of the entire world population. Which doesn’t exactly bolster your credentials as an arbiter of social justice.
Are they doing so in the name of Christianity, though? I think that’s what would make the difference.
Probably not. Both are political violence, regardless of the individual trappings.