Biased Media On Religion

[Papasito]

When we discuss the 9-11 hijackers, we are not allowed to label them Muslims or religious fanatics, because it offends Muslims and they feel we are grouping them together as radicals.

Today a man with a bible hijacked a plane, and the media was quick to throw every label in the book at him that is off limits to apply toward the 13 people who flew planes into the World Trade Center and killed thousands of Americans.

A Bolivian religious fanatic briefly hijacked a jetliner from the beach resort of Cancun as it landed in Mexico City on Wednesday, police said. All passengers and the crew were released unharmed.

The Bible-carrying hijacker used a juice can he said was a bomb to hold the 103 passengers and crew on the tarmac for more than an hour.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...slHOgD9AK39H00

Bible reading nut jobs are allowed to be called out on their religion, but Koran toting nut jobs aren't? All nut jobs were created equal and should be treated equal, reguardless of skin color, religion, nationality, ect.

[Ray1936]

All of which reinforces my deep belief that ALL religion is bunk.

Apologies again to Henry Ford.

[Lorax]

Since when have we been "forbidden" from mentioning Muslim terrorists? This is a false argument.

We have mentioned the Christofascists who blew up the OK city federal building all over the place, and this bible thumper on the plane today is no different.

You're trying to gin up an argument where there is none.

Just start teaching your children to make their own decisions regarding having a "faith" when they are 18, and see how much religious zealotry diminishes.

[sarge]

When we discuss the 9-11 hijackers, we are not allowed to label them Muslims or religious fanatics, because it offends Muslims and they feel we are grouping them together as radicals.

Is this a joke?

[Jimaz]

Is this a joke?

It seems an attempt to rationalize offending Muslims who are not radicals. The sentiment isn't very well disguised.

[Bobl]

Papasito:
Your post is wrong, both in the number of hijackers and the supposed lack of criticism of the muslim terrorists.
There were more than 13, and I have read plenty of criticism of the fanatics who carried out the attack.

Organized religion, by it nature, leads to atrocious behavior. We would all be better off without it, but it will not soon go away.
I agree that in each instance, regardless of the faith involved, bigots and fundamentalists who harm or encourage harm to others should be criticized and challenged. It doesn't matter if they are muslim, christian, hindu, or whatever. All have performed evil acts.

[humanmachinery]

Bullshit.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

There is so much anti-Muslim hysteria in this country it's sickening, and that certainly applies to the journalism biz.

But if you want to know who's really discriminated against in the PR biz, talk to an atheist. Atheists are villains in fiction, and dangerous radicals in the media narrative.

Recall that Pope Benedict XVI made a solemn declaration in recent years that there is truth in all faiths, but only the Catholic Church represented the "whole" or "complete" path to god.

Newspaper headlines went with banners such as "Pope reaches out to all faiths in benediction."

One could easily have written the headline "Pope declares non-Catholics to be followers of flawed beliefs."

Both treatments of the Pope's statements are true in part.

The nuance was usually placed on the former, more positive interpretation. If the Pope says something utterly stupid, it will generally be repeated verbatim and without critique on the nightly news and in your local paper. Even those holding rival religious views will act with "appropriate" deference and respect for the office of the pontiff as they cover what he says.

Example:

"The leader of the world's billion Catholics issued a statement today condemning the distribution of condoms by relief groups in Africa, suggesting that it promotes sexual promiscuity and results in untold suffering by increasing the spread of AIDS on that continent."

Utter bullshit thus becomes normative.

Counter example:

"Controversial scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins told BBC reporters today that he is opposed to the position of Catholic leaders, including Pope Bendict XVI, and argues that pro-abortion organizations such as Planned Parenthood should receive an equal share of government money for their operations in Africa."

Such is the framework in which we operate.

This is because the Pope is treated with respect in a de facto fashion, regardless of what he says or does.

I say, no such automatic respect should be accorded anyone. The content of one's words and deeds should be scrutinized.

Otherwise, we are behaving as less than thinking persons.

[UFO]

Bullshit.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

There is so much anti-Muslim hysteria in this country it's sickening, and that certainly applies to the journalism biz.

I will not be pawed at thank you.

[humanmachinery]

paw:
1. To strike with the paw or paws.
2. To strike or scrape with a beating motion: The bull pawed the ground before charging.
3. To handle clumsily, rudely, or with too much familiarity.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pawed

So you think it's a sign of hostility or a threat of physical violence that I say Muslims have become hounded and vilified in this country?

Talk about a symbol of insecurity.

Let me ask a question. Do you believe this country is at war with an entire religion? That would be a disturbing violation of the first amendment.

[UFO]

paw:
1. To strike with the paw or paws.
2. To strike or scrape with a beating motion: The bull pawed the ground before charging.
3. To handle clumsily, rudely, or with too much familiarity.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pawed

So you think it's a sign of hostility or a threat of physical violence that I say Muslims have become hounded and vilified in this country?

Talk about a symbol of insecurity.

Let me ask a question. Do you believe this country is at war with an entire religion? That would be a disturbing violation of the first amendment.

As a non religeous muslim I was agreeing with you and basically saying that we, and other religions have been pawed at by the media.


It was a line from the movie TOMBSTONE> lighten up

[humanmachinery]

Aaah. My bad.

I apologize.

edit: I still need to see Tombstone, but I've seen a number of good westerns over the years. My favorite is probably still McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

[UFO]

Aaah. My bad.

I apologize.

Not at all, we all have misunderstandings from time to time. Thank you for setting the other poster straight.

All religions are vilified in the news. The media is the devil.

[humanmachinery]

On the contrary, I would argue journalists give too much deference to Christianity, but that is probably because the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians, and fake populism is easy to sell. It's much harder to ask uncomfortable questions that the majority of your viewing audience don't want to hear, and all religions forbid certain kinds of knowledge. It is their most debasing quality, the commandment of "thou shalt not question."

On the fringes of the media radar, Judaism is given a certain amount of token lip service. This is largely because it contains the origins of Christianity, and most Jews appear white and have an easy time culturally assimilating in this country. There remains a sizable amount of anti-Jewish sentiment in this country's interior regions though, and Jewish culture remains largely misunderstood by the masses.

All other systems of religious belief are typically either ignored or viewed with suspicion by popular culture and the media. American culture is in a state of rapid change right now, and many respond to that change with a mindset of threatened tribalism. They are afraid of the future, because it means losing the world as they understand it. This is most often true of older people with money and power, as they have the most to lose.

[UFO]

Now I didint say the vilifying was equal but never the less, they are all vilified to a certain extent

Yes, you are correct in your statements but I can see why people are afraid.

The president does have racists in and around his life.

No one likes racists no matter what color wrap they carry.

[ccbatson]

I fall a bit on the other side here...the issue is not to castigate all members of a religion for the actions of a few, or a minority.

[rb336]

All religions are vilified in the news. The media is the devil.

what complete and utter bullshit. religious extremists of all ilks are, rightly, vilified [[except, of course, when they are pat robertson saying we should "nuke foggy bottom") mainstream religion is coddled by the media, fawned on by the media and put upon a special pedestal to which no shit sticks

[ccbatson]

To some extent, everyone involved in politics is afraid to speak openly about religion because voters are still overwhelmingly somewhat religious.

[Detroitej72]

I fall a bit on the other side here...the issue is not to castigate all members of a religion for the actions of a few, or a minority.

I agree 100% with that.

Now, if only we could get AM radio comedians to stop castigating anyone who doesn't share their narrow views.

[ccbatson]

Different...views are held [[or not) by choice and are therefore subject to direct debate. THe degree of religious belief is most often not outwardly known so that stereotyping all ...fill in the blank religion..as radicals is not justifiable.

Liberals, if they believe in that philosophy are what they are, it is not a gradation. Either you believe in redistribution of wealth, or you don't...there is no middle ground.

[Detroitej72]

Liberals, if they believe in that philosophy are what they are, it is not a gradation. Either you believe in redistribution of wealth, or you don't...there is no middle ground.

What if you believe in some redistribution of wealth based on Christian teachings of being your brother's keeper, or a man for other's, as I do?

[elganned]

Nope. In CC's world view, that's like being a little pregnant. Any redistribution adherance puts you solidly at the end of the continuum [[a continuum which he doesn't recognize).

Kinda like the old laws concerning percentage of "negro" blood--as little as 1/128, and you're black--period.

[rb336]

Different...views are held [[or not) by choice and are therefore subject to direct debate. THe degree of religious belief is most often not outwardly known so that stereotyping all ...fill in the blank religion..as radicals is not justifiable.

Liberals, if they believe in that philosophy are what they are, it is not a gradation. Either you believe in redistribution of wealth, or you don't...there is no middle ground.

ahh, what a cozy little black and white world you live in Bats. Must be nice to not have to think, you just shove everything in clearly delineated boxes, and if they don't fit, mangle them up beyond recognition to make them fit. You clearly believe in wealth redistribution -- from the working people who actually create value to the paper-shufflers and speculators, therefore you must be a liberal...

[ccbatson]

No redistribution is moral. Of course, a person can voluntarily give his/her property to someone else morally. The reason is that if a third party redistributes wealth, they are taking by force/or threat of force from a supposed free individual and violating the primary right of said individuals.

[elganned]

So your ideal world would be one without taxes, I take it. Support your reduced government by voluntary subscription, like PBS or NPR?

[ccbatson]

With voluntary taxes determined by individuals desiring services from the government and in fair exchange for said services [[constitutionally limited services BTW).