Biased Media On Religion

[Rideron]

If popular media is biased against Christianity it's Christianity's own fault for embracing a philosophy of pacifism [[i.e if your enemy strikes you on the left cheek offer him your right).

Islam, on the other hand, defends itself against such attacks like disrespectful depictions of Muhammed in newspaper cartoons, or books negatively depicting Islamic prophets [[Satanic Verses) , by standing up and offering death to those who so critize Islam.

In the new movie '2012', the director states he left out scenes depicting the destruction of Islamic Holy Sites for the very reason that he knew such disrespect would not be tolerated by Islam:

"For "2012," Emmerich set his sites on destroying the some biggest landmarks around the world, from Rome to Rio. But there's one place that Emmerich wanted to demolish but didn't: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped structure located in the center of Mecca. It's the focus of prayers and the site of the Hajj, the biggest, most important pilgrimage in Islam.
"Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit," the filmmaker told scifiwire.com. "But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, 'I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.' And he was right."

Conclusion? The Media would obviously treat Christianity with more respect [[i.e. fewer depictions of men urinating on portaits of Christ such as in the recent episode of Curb your Enthusiasm) if such disrespect was met with the violent death of the offenders.

[Lorax]

Has there been evidence that Saddam sponsored terrorism?

We sure didn't have a problem with him when we were supplying him with weapons years prior.

Either way it wasn't worth of nation-building. Our country doesn't have money to waste on this bullshit right now. No one is a threat to our oil supply. When they are, we can then bomb the shit out of them.

And the liberals need to stop whining about us drilling here. You all drive cars and use up energy too. Deal with it.

No, there was no evidence of Hussein sponsoring terrorism. In fact, he quite often crushed extreme religious activity as a matter of record. He was a SECULAR dictator, not at all religious.

And no one is "whining" about drilling for oil. What people are upset about is lying about why we're there. If Tush and Cheeseny had leveled with us and said we're going into Iraq to waste the lives of Americans, Iraquis, and our treasury so American oil companies can suck the oil fields dry- then we'd have the honest reasoning.

BTW, just like "drill baby drill" over here, any oil stolen from Iraq was sold on the open market, so we never benefitted from lower oil prices. Remember gas costing 4.50 a gallon? Most middle east countries that have oil sell gas to their consumers at 45- 80 cents per gallon. Thanks for playing.

[Detroitej72]

The right wing radicals here hate the fact that they have no defense of Bush for invading Iraq under false pretenses. Therefor they pull the tired line of "well, other people thought Saddam had WMD too".

[elganned]

If popular media is biased against Christianity it's Christianity's own fault for embracing a philosophy of pacifism [[i.e if your enemy strikes you on the left cheek offer him your right).

Islam, on the other hand, defends itself against such attacks like disrespectful depictions of Muhammed in newspaper cartoons, or books negatively depicting Islamic prophets [[Satanic Verses) , by standing up and offering death to those who so critize Islam.

In the new movie '2012', the director states he left out scenes depicting the destruction of Islamic Holy Sites for the very reason that he knew such disrespect would not be tolerated by Islam:

"For "2012," Emmerich set his sites on destroying the some biggest landmarks around the world, from Rome to Rio. But there's one place that Emmerich wanted to demolish but didn't: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped structure located in the center of Mecca. It's the focus of prayers and the site of the Hajj, the biggest, most important pilgrimage in Islam.
"Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit," the filmmaker told scifiwire.com. "But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, 'I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.' And he was right."

Conclusion? The Media would obviously treat Christianity with more respect [[i.e. fewer depictions of men urinating on portaits of Christ such as in the recent episode of Curb your Enthusiasm) if such disrespect was met with the violent death of the offenders.

That's not respect you're talking about. It's fear.
Nobody respects a bully even if they don't talk back to him.

I wish they had blown up the Ka'aba for the movie. Muslims need to get over themselves. That's what free speech is all about.

[Detroitej72]

I wish they had blown up the Ka'aba for the movie. Muslims need to get over themselves. That's what free speech is all about.

Not going to happen any time soon. This is either a classic case of PC going way overboard or a major fear of Islam.

[ccbatson]

A movie about an absurd myth is as far from reality as you can get...only a fool would take offense.

[rb336]

precisely why no one was ever offended by any Ayn Rand - based movie. well, maybe they were, but just because of how god-awful they were from every standpoint

[Detroitej72]

An absurd myth would be the concept of a free market system, since one never has nor never could exist in the real world. Its just a myopic pipe dream embraced by the Cult of Randiology.

[rb336]

there is no god but the invisible hand, and ayn rand is its prophet

[ccbatson]

The only book that was made into a movie was "The Fountainhead" in the 40s...it was very successful.

The existence of G-d depends on how it you define it. There is no doubt that the proper definition of what the word G-d refers too exists.

[elganned]

There is, however, every doubt that you are capable of properly defining it. Nice try.

[ccbatson]

Objectively and rationally defined is the only valid way of doing it. Nothing mystical about it.

[elganned]

But Rand is neither objective nor rational, so whatever definition she endorse is a priori suspect.

[ccbatson]

Care to give compelling arguments in support of your argument? Or would you rather just concede now?

[elganned]

Since I haven't heard any compelling arguments from the other side, there really is no contest to concede.

[ccbatson]

I have done it before, but, for completeness, as you have forgotten.

God is a word coined by ancient men that symbolically refers to existence in total. Because the methods of communication of the time came in the form of stories [[written and spoken) or mythology, the word transformed the concept into a semi anthropomorphized character [[or person). The purpose of this was to frame a guide to build a cohesive and functioning society based on moral imperatives that were appropriate to the time. The result was the very thing that was desired...a framework for human behavior specified in various stories and characters in the scriptures.

In this context, as G-d is existence, and existence exists, G-d exists....irrefutable.

[elganned]

I have done it before, but, for completeness, as you have forgotten.

Must have been while I was in the bathroom.

God is a word coined by ancient men that symbolically refers to existence in total. Because the methods of communication of the time came in the form of stories [[written and spoken) or mythology, the word transformed the concept into a semi anthropomorphized character [[or person). The purpose of this was to frame a guide to build a cohesive and functioning society based on moral imperatives that were appropriate to the time. The result was the very thing that was desired...a framework for human behavior specified in various stories and characters in the scriptures.

In this context, as G-d is existence, and existence exists, G-d exists....irrefutable.

I will concede that "in this context" as you define him/her/it,G-d [[are you Jewish, by any chance?) exists--but only if one accepts your definition. [[You forgot that last little all-important qualifier.)

However, your definition is far from universaly accepted, so don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. I have my own definition and understanding of the situation, which is not congruent with yours. So, no concession will be forthcoming on the broader point.

Thanks for playing, and come again anytime.

[rb336]

Actually, bats, the word "god" comes from a root meaning "to invoke" religiously, it is akin to the old norse "gothi" which was a pagan spiritual leader, and that is probably where the word enterred into anglo-saxon

[mrrichard]

Yes Saddam Hussein heavily supported terrorism and terrorists.
If he did not, the democrats who voted to invade must surely be voted out of office for looking so stupid.
He stole money from his people and gave up to $25,000 to Palestinian terrorist bombers whose mothers had their kids strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent civilians.
He gave millions over the years to the PLO, ALF, Abu Nadal, etc etc.

Why can't the muslim loving american hating president Obama
just say two simple words
Muslim Terrorist.
Just say it Barry Hussein Obama.............. Muslim Terrorist.
The politically correct losers in the media are afraid to upset them I guess, maybe they think a
muslim terrorist will blow up their building.

[elganned]

So now I'll give you my take on it...not that you'll care.

God is a word coined by ancient men that symbolically refers to existence in total.

"god" [[no capital) is a loose analog of many terms from many different languages which basically refer to the same thing--a being of greater than average human power who can be addressed and/or supplicated under certain circumstances to the supplicant's favor. The concept of a God who symbolizes "existence" is a relatively new and sophisticated idea, one which the ancients would have been puzzled by; "existence" isn't a phenomenon to them, existence simply exists. Study up on animism and shamanism if you need to know more.

Because the methods of communication of the time came in the form of stories [[written and spoken) or mythology, the word transformed the concept into a semi anthropomorphized character [[or person).

You seem to be specifically referring here to God as currently understood through Judeo/Christian and Muslim mythology. Other cultures have quite a different understanding of what a god is. Your viewpoint might hold some truth regarding the Big 3 Book People, but it is hardly universal, and I would submit that the God of the Pentateuch is far from "semi-"anthropomorphic, though He is non-corporeal.

The purpose of this was to frame a guide to build a cohesive and functioning society based on moral imperatives that were appropriate to the time.

Unjustifiably deterministic. You seem to think that "god" as a concept was merely developed to justify the formulation of a moral code. I submit that's backwards; the idea of God came first, the moral code was a derivative of what certain men--priests, prophets, shamen, medicine-men, what-have-you--discerned or stated as that which would best placate God and prevent Him from striking us all dead on a whim. It was one element of a cohesive and functioning society, but not the sole nore even the primary element.

The result was the very thing that was desired...a framework for human behavior specified in various stories and characters in the scriptures.

Again, seemingly centered on the Judeo/Christian/Muslim concept of God. For a completely different--and alien to our minds--formulation, see the Australian Aborigines.

Every society we know of has the same basic set of rules: Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't mess around with women/men or stuff that doesn't belong to you. Respect and obey the authorities/elders/leaders. They are not applied uniformly in all places, but they are present.

Since every social group, regardless of faith structure, has developed the same basic set of rules for living and surviving in a group with minimal conflict, I submit that they are human rules, derived by human thought. And the fact that they are universal in nature is a function of evolution--those societies which did not develop such rules didn't survive.

In this context, G-d may, or may not, exist. In the absence of solid, empirical evidence, the question cannot be answered.

[elganned]

Yes Saddam Hussein heavily supported terrorism and terrorists.

Suspected, but not conclusively proven.

If he did not, the democrats who voted to invade must surely be voted out of office for looking so stupid.

Let's not forget to vote out all the Republicans who also supported it. In fact, let's just throw all the bums out.

He stole money from his people

Nothing new. Half the countries in the world have leaders that steal money from their people, including Afghanistan and Iraq. Should we invade them, too? Oh, wait--never mind.

and gave up to $25,000 to Palestinian terrorist bombers whose mothers had their kids strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent civilians.
He gave millions over the years to the PLO, ALF, Abu Nadal, etc etc.

Your source for all this info is...?

Why can't the muslim loving american hating president Obama

Undemonstrated assumption.

just say two simple words
Muslim Terrorist.
Just say it Barry Hussein Obama.............. Muslim Terrorist.

Just say it with me, mrrichards, four simple words: Toys-for-brains poster. C'mon, you can do it.

The politically correct losers in the media are afraid to upset them I guess, maybe they think a
muslim terrorist will blow up their building.

Or maybe they think not all terrorists are Muslims, and not all Muslims are terrorists--a much more rational approach than the one you seem to advocate.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Just say it Barry Hussein Obama.............. Muslim Terrorist."

He cannot. We aren't ready to crank up the stalags here just yet, where we cherry pick citizens based on their race, religion or rhetoric. The shooter was a US born, US educated full fledged citizen with high rank in our military. To classify him a Muslim terrorist heads down a very slippery slope. This is the USA, a free country, with free speech and expression. Is that potentially dangerous sometimes? Yes. Am I willing to see it changed to appease a few trying to make their fight ours? No way in hell.

Quote: "Yes Saddam Hussein heavily supported terrorism and terrorists."

This has been hardcore debunked by EVERYbody, same for your claims that Saddam was paying Palestinians to blow up their kids. Just propaganda and lies that were used to get OUR kids killed in a senseless global goose chase.

[gibran]

Please Mr. Richard don't drink the koolaid of mythology and manipulation....

[Detroitej72]

It seems a new troll has appeared on the boards at DY.

[ccbatson]

Look how weakly the libs on Dyes try to defend the indefensible.

Quick hint [[as I feel a bit sorry for the libs who fall into these traps). Try not to leap to the defense on a technicality when the gestalt of the message is so overwhelming. It makes you look like you agree with the alleged infraction. Example in reverse...."GWB is in favor of genocide in Iraq"...weak defense "He never personally killed a race of people"...See the problem, it looks like the defender is in favor of genocide because he argued the wrong point even when the premise [[in this case) is wrong in the first place...a no win scenario libs.