That’s really the best, and overlooked, part of the whole story.
O’Keefe wanted the headline to be “NPR funded by Mooslim Terrorists” and what he got was “NPR guy has personal opinions”.
Of course, even if the headline had been “NPR guy uses wrong fork at lunch meeting” the “Usual Suspects” would still point to it as a perfectly cromulent reason to defund all public broadcasting.
CMC fnord!
You mean undercover journalism?
Well, not really. He got was that the NPR Vice President for development has deeply held prejudices against conservatives. Plus, in relation to a Zionist influence “I don’t actually find it at NPR, the Zionist or pro-Israel, even among funders. No. I mean it’s there in those who own newspapers, obviously, but no one owns NPR." The ADL thinks Schiller should apologise.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110309/pl_dailycaller/adlcallsforanapologyfromnprexecutive
Diogenes the Cynic, your comments HAVE been homophobic and if you ever post something similar in Great Debates or defend your actions further in this thread, you will be Warned.
The notion that telling a male that another male is his “loverboy” or that he “has a crush” on another male is not a classic example of making accusations of homosexuality as an insult is just ludicrous.
Stop it, now.
[ /Moderating ]
His recordings do not reflect what really happened, nor do they say anything revealing or even true about their subjects. Murphy’s do. The difference is respect for, and interest in, reality. By this point in the thread you should be able to realize that simple point.
Now, one for you, if you can: What makes defenders (or at least justifiers) of O’Keefe, such as yourself, try to handwave his actions away while desperately drawing false equivalences to investigative journalists, bloggers, and entertainers? Is there anything more to it at all than rank, reflexive partisanship?
This is an incorrect definition. “Muslim” indicates religious belief and nothing more.
If they identify and practice as Jews, they are still recognized as Jews. The “Jewish mother” rule is more about who’s definitely in, not who’s definitely out.
This is debateable.
No there aren’t.
Those latter identifications actually are ethnic and indicate someything other than religious belief. Those groups are analogous to Jews in that regard, that’s true, but “Muslim” is not, and “Ummah” just refers to the world community of Muslims. It still doesn’t have a non-religious definition of “Muslim.”
No there aren’t. Islam is a religion. If they don’t believe and practice the religion, they aren’t Muslim. I believe you that they may use the term loosely as a cultural (or as you say, “tribal”) identifier, but they aren’t Muslim.
What does ummat al-mu’minin mean in Arabic?
On a previous discussion many conservatives did not even bother to comment on the other Acorn tape that was released by O’keefe, I wonder why?
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160023
I wonder if the OP will notice what is the difference.
To me the difference is that other media does basic checks to verify if the information gathered is accurate, of course many times those checks can be innadecuate, but then the reporters who make mistakes that discredit the network are canned.
No such ethics are seen coming from the “mature” people in charge of the right wing media networks.
Can we just can the crap about whether or not Islam is homophobic, move it to a new thread maybe. It has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.
That is certainly not true. Reform and Conservative Jews, even those who go to Temple every week are not seen as Jews by Orthodox Jews if their mothers weren’t Jewish.
As far as they’re concerned, if your mother wasn’t Jewish, then you have to make an Orthodox conversion to be recognized.
Similarly, they don’t recognize Reform or Conservative Rabbis as Rabbis.
No, it’s not. Leviticus clearly says gays are to be killed.
It’s also ludicrous for you to claim that the Quran explicitly calls for the killing of gays while the Bible doesn’t, because the Quranic passages are clearly inspired by the Biblical passages on the subject.
Ok, now you’re making utterly no sense. You’re claiming that the Druze, Yazdis, and Mandaeans are “ethnic groups” but that Muslims aren’t.
Sorry, but people in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, or Palestine would laugh at your suggestion that “Mandaeans” and the Druze are ethnic groups, while Muslims aren’t. In the Middle East, the Druze, Mandaeans, Muslims, Jews and others are words that have been seen as both tribal markers and religious markers.
If you want to persist in insisting that “Muslims” aren’t an “ethnic group”(which is a simplistic western term that doesn’t really apply to the Middle East) then go ahead, but by that standard, then neither are the Yazdis, Druze or Mandaeans.
In the Middle East, as far as people are concerned, if you came from a Muslim family then you are a Muslim. As far as other Iranians are concerned, I am a Muslim. Not a terribly good Muslim, and some would use terms like apostate to describe me, but I’d still largely be viewed as a Muslim.
To Muslims, religion passes from the father to the child(similar to the way Judaism passes from mother to child) which is why Islam does allow for Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women which was why my father was able to marry my mother while a strict Christian family would have had massive problems with their son marrying a Jewish or Muslim girl.
Similarly, you’ll notice that many prominent Muslims, including both Yasser Arafat and King Hussein of Jordan married Christians.
By contrast, Muslim women are, traditionally, not supposed to marry non-Muslim men.
Ok, now you’re merely denying that water is wet. The fact is there are massive numbers of people all over the world who identify themselves as Christians but who don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus.
If you wish to disagree with them you can, but as far as I’m concerned, if they claim they’re Christians then they are.
Now, if you want to keep on insisting that I’m not a Muslim even though I come from a Muslim family on my father’s side and identify myself as one because I don’t go to Mosque, pray five times a day, and don’t hate gays then you can, but most Muslims will find what you say to be laughable.
I’m definitely reminded of the no true Scottsman fallacy.
Cite, please.
This is not true.
This is a religious distinction for them, not an ethnic one. They still see them as Jews, they just deny they are practicing religious Judaism.
It’s debatable whether it was really talking about homosexuality or whether it was talking about pagan Temple practices (basically male Temple prostitutes) common at the time.
No question Muhammed was informed by the Bible. That doesn’t mean his interpretation of the Bible is accurate, though, and his statements on homosexuality are less ambiguous.
If you want to still insist that the Bible is homophobic, though, that’s ok with me. I don’t care. I’m not a Christian. It doesn’t mean Christians are necessarily homophobic either. Christians ignore a lot of abhorrent stuff in their Bible.
That is correct.
What marker does “Muslim” have other than religious? Are Indonesians, Kurds, Bosniacks and Somalians all of the same tribe?
Incorrect. Those other groups match the definition (which I’m not sure you understand), while Muslims do not.
What is the definition of "Muslim??’ Saying it’s “somebody from a Muslim family” is just begging the question. What is a “Muslim family?”
And if the chilld rejecys that religion, the chilkd is no longer Muslim.
As long as you raise that point, though, is Barack Obama Muslim?
[quote]
Ok, now you’re merely denying that water is wet. The fact is there are massive numbers of people all over the world who identify themselves as Christians but who don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus[.quote]
No there aren’t. Not “massive numbers,” that for sure. I don’t know who you think you’re talking abnout, but Christianity, probably more than any other religion, is defined by belief. It has no non-religious meaning at all.
If you don’t believ or practice that relkigion, then your are not a member of that religion. What other definition of "Muslim is there (and please don’t say "from a Muslim family)?
You didn’t answer my last question in my last post. What does ummat al-mu’minin mean in Arabic?
Please provide evidence that Orthodox Jews will recognize Reform Jews(with gentile mothers) as Jews without making Orthodox conversions.
Why are the Mandaeans and the Druze ethnic groups while Muslims are simply religious groups?
For those not familiar with them, the Druze and the Mandaeans are communities of religious believers in the Middle East.
Dio,you appear to think that Muslims are merely Christians who believe Muhammad was God’s last prophet. That’s not how they view themselves in the Middle East.
Yes, the Muslims of all those groups listed are as much from the same tribe as Yemeni Jews, Ethiopian Jews, American Jews, Persian Jews, and Russian Jews are members of the same tribe.
O’Keefe is more closely aligned with the “To Catch a Predator” type shows than the news. You know they are not news, You also know Briertbart and O’Keefe are not doing news.
No, of course not. He doesn’t claim he’s a Muslim, has never practiced Islam, and is a practicing Christian.
Like Judaism, Islam doesn’t conform to the “rules” we think of ethnic groups having.
For example no one(or at least no serious person) argues that Caspar Weinberger, Wesley Clark or Bill Cohen are Jews even though they are of Jewish descent because they don’t identify as Jews and practice religions other than Judaism.
The same is true of Madeline Albright. Yes, both of her parents were Jewish, but they converted to Catholicism, raised her to be Catholic, and she later converted to Episcopalianism. And, of course, she doesn’t consider herself Jewish.
By contrast, the children of Italian immigrants are regarded as Italian-Americans even if they don’t speak Italian and the children of Mexican immigrants are regarded as Mexican-Americans, Hispanics, or Latinos even if they don’t speak Spanish. Similarly, I can’t speak Farsi but people certainly don’t insist that I’m not Iranian.
Furthermore, most traditional understanding of what an ethnic group is would prevent people from merely joining. I.E. you can’t learn Spanish and be viewed as Hispanic. However people who convert to Judaism are viewed as Jews.
The concept of ethnicity or nationality, as I mentioned earlier, is a rather modern concept that doesn’t deal very well with the way people view themselves in the Middle East or with how Jews or Muslims view themselves.
Wasn’t the “To Catch a Predator” was conducted by Dateline NBC. Now, you can argue that it’s not “news” if you want, but if so I think you’re falling into the no true Scotsman trap.
Uh hu, before I go on assuming that you like to avoid evidence, what do you have to say about O’keefe and the media that reported on his other ACORN tape? (Post #106)
I already said I thought O’Keefe was a scum bag on multiple occasions on this thread.
As to O’Keefe’s actions in that case, yes I was familiar with it since it was detailed in Harshbarger’s report. IIRC, she also called the police after they left.
I’m not sure what you’re asking, but if the question is do the Dateline people who do To Catch a Predator do anything remotely like that, the answer is no.
I do think that what To Catch a Predator does is perhaps ethically questionable since it strikes me as a clear case of entrapment but no I don’t think it’s remotely as despicable as what O’Keefe does.
But you are still missing one big difference, and this applies to the Media organizations that continue to support scum like O’Keefe, when do you expect to see a scum bag pushing his “news” still after being discredited 3 or more times in the past?
There is no pause to the fact that he is still being funded in his endeavors while others are canned by more serious news sources?
Where have I ever said I saw O’Keefe as being a journalist or part of a “Media organization”?
He’s a political activist who uses rather unethical tactics to try and discredit people he doesn’t like.
I think comparisons of him to Michael Moore are perfectly fair (though Moore is considerably cleverer) and I don’t think anyone, or at least no serious person, views Moore as a journalist as opposed to an activist who pretends to be a journalist/documentary filmmaker.
BTW the other ACORN taper demonstrated that O’Keffe was only on the equivalent of a fishing expedition when going to the ACORN offices, if the angle of ACORN tolerating prostitution did not work, by golly then the one where ACORN hires criminals would, That O’Keefe still had to use editing to make it look worse should be a good reason to dismiss what he continues to produce.
The other ACORN tape showed that indeed O’Keefe and FOX did not bother to check if what the tapes showed was accurate, clearly the reports included at least one tape that showed to all that this “reporter” could not be trusted. But good luck on getting people on the right to demand better from their sources.
An investigation has concluded that the NPR tapes were highly edited to make things look much worse than they really were.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/