Anyone notice how the press is lifting up Islam while smearing Christianity?

[King]

Also look at the past century. More Christians were killed for their faith than in the previous 19 combined. In the last days there will be those who in killing you that they think they are doing God a service.

There has been open persecution of Christians even here in the united states. Do I need to remind you of 4/20/1999.

If 4/20/1999 (last century, BTW) counts as persecution of Christians, then the Black Plague has this century beat in the "persecution" department.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

what happened on 4/20/99?

[King]

what happened on 4/20/99?

Columbine.  According to two witnesses, on girl shot was asked if she was a Christian before she was shot and said yes.  But when pressed further, the first witness incorrectly identified the girl who was killed and the second had her in a completely different location than where said girl actually died.

Such a persecution.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I think Buddhism will win in the end.  It's the tortoise in a race full of hares.

Technically speaking it's the only one that probably wouldn't encourage competition.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

columbine?!  lets try to stay in our swimlanes

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

 However, in your identification of Mystery Babylon with the United States, how do you square that with the explicit identification of Mystery Babylon as a city that is repeatedly made in Revelation 17-18.  I could possibly see an identification being made between Mystery Babylon and New York City, but not with the United States or any other country.

cities are often used to symbolize countries in the bible

That symbolism is used when those cities serve as the political, cultural, and economic center of said country.  There is no city that can be said to be that of the United States.  New York City, because of the UN, could be said to be the center of the world in those three areas.

In any case, Rev 17:9-10, argues strongly against identifying Mystery Babylon with the United States.  There could not have been at the time Revelation was written five prior and one current ruler of the United States.  If one wants to get abstract, Mystery Babylon as a personification of the center of world power is a possible interpretation.  However, that too argues against an identification with the United States.  The seventh king is identified as reigning but a brief time, and the United States has been the preeminent power in the world for too long now.  A United Nations that gains real power could fit the bill as the seventh king.

[anvi]

These are the Qur'an verses you quoted, jmf, putting the two from Sura 9 together.

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” Sura 9:73

“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostle have forbidden and do not embrace the true faith until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” Sura 9:29

“Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” Sura 48:29

Regarding the first two quotes, it's quite clear that the entirety of Sura 9 is about people who have been "idol worshippers" (9:1) who "entered into a peace treaty with you (Muslims) at the great masjid" (9:7).  If these "idol worshipers" abide by the terms of the treaty (9:7), recognize the salat prayers and pay the zakat charity tax (9:5) and do not "confess their disbelief inside of mosques," (9:17), then Muslims are enjoined to treat them well.  If however they abandon the terms of the treaty and "attack" Muslims, then Muslims are enjoined to fight them (9:11-15).  The "idol worshippers" ("unbelievers") that are the subject of in this sura are the residents of Mecca who had formerly fought wars against Muslims in Medina and who, after being defeated in the battle of Badr, surrendered and entered into the treaty being spoken about.  The instructions about fighting unbelievers in the sura are therefore historically specific, and even whether Muslims are supposed to fight against them is contingent on several factors.

The verses in sura 48 are also about specific sets of people, namely "the Arabs who are sedentary" and "stay behind" (48:11, 15-16) and "those who would fight against you" (48:22) and "those who barred you from the sacred masjid (in Mecca)" (48:25).  The whole of verse 29, which you didn't quote, makes reference to, in contrast to the first two groups, "believers" who "prostrate," examples of whom are not only Muslims, but people spoken about "in the Torah" and "in the Gospel."  The passage once again is taking aim at dissident Arabs in the time after the Muslim takeover of Medina, and specifically distinguishes Jews and Christians as being believers and not unbelievers.    

I think all these verses are addressed quite directly to people in a specific historical context.  Now it's certainly true that there have been and continue to be Muslims who believe they are general directives, and who use these verses for all kinds of terrible purposes.

As far as I'm personally concerned, jmf, the historical Muhammad was an Arab trader who entertained political ambitions of uniting the Arabian peninsula and himself. of his own invention, propagated a generic form of monotheism to unite a society both politically and militarily around his causes.  I don't have any dog in the fight of defending Islam as a religion (I don't have a dog in the fight of defending any religion).  But I do think their religious literature should be read, like everyone else's, with respect to its many contexts.  And I know that there are billions of Muslims around the world, and only a considerable minority among them believe that the whole world should be converted to Islam and forced to obey sharia everywhere.  The ones who claim that it should, and take up arms to try to achieve that goal, are going to be a problem for us and everyone else who isn't Muslim.  Those who don't believe such a thing shouldn't be treated like they do.  That's all I'm saying.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And I know that there are billions of Muslims around the world, and only a considerable minority among them believe that the whole world should be converted to Islam and forced to obey sharia everywhere.  The ones who claim that it should, and take up arms to try to achieve that goal, are going to be a problem for us and everyone else who isn't Muslim.  Those who don't believe such a thing shouldn't be treated like they do.  That's all I'm saying.

I disagree with your interpretation of the Koran, but this is not the place for that, if you want we can start a new thread in on the religion board (i don't want to give the moderators reason to shut down this thread)

...BUT, I will take to task your claim I quoted above, because:

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

and the majority of Muslims in Muslim countries want sharia law:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/features/news/poll-most-muslim-countries-want-sharia-law/

and the stronger the Muslim majority, the stronger the acceptance among Muslims of Sharia law...so, expect the percentage of Muslims who want sharia law to grow as the percent of Muslims grow - maybe "only" 40% of UK Muslims want Sharia law now, but as they become a bigger proportion and the possibility of sharia law becomes within their grasps, expect a higher percentage of Muslims to want it.


but, hey, you're arguing yesterday's comments.  Today is a new day, and on this 27th day of March, we can celebrate the third day of this thread by reading yet another new story from CNN of how Muslims are mistreated by nasty Christians:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/27/in-key-american-muslim-enclave-alienation-is-growing/?hpt=C2

once again, it doesn't matter if a group is advocating homosexuality or advocating sharia law that would kill homosexuals, as long as it is against the New Testament, CNN is going to uplift it while at the same time making Christianity out to be the bad guy.

[anvi]

Well, with regard to the first poll, my original claim was that a considerable minority of Muslims want sharia law to be adopted the world over.  The fact that majorities of Muslims may want religion influencing politics and determining some law in their own countries is not surprising.  

There are some important qualifications in the second poll you posted too.  

It's 40% of British Muslims who want sharia introduced "into parts of the country," not the whole of it.  It's also worth noting that, when the British colonized India, they allowed Muslims and members of other religions to set up "personal law courts," where Muslims could have civil matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and so on decided according to their own customs and laws, while everyone was subject to the same criminal law.  I don't know for sure, but because there is precedent for this kind of thing in British jurisprudence, maybe British Muslims want something like that.  Now, I'll admit that it's true that British Muslims are as a group more radicalized than American Muslims.  But British Muslims make up about 3% of the entire British population, and it's less than half that group that wants sharia "in some parts" of the country, which all means that "British sharia" isn't very likely to ever be a reality.

But, I understand that the criticism that you're raising in this thread is against media portrayals.  If the complaint is that Muslims are treated favorably by some in the media who at the same time are hostile to Christian beliefs, I'm sure that's true.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

 However, in your identification of Mystery Babylon with the United States, how do you square that with the explicit identification of Mystery Babylon as a city that is repeatedly made in Revelation 17-18.  I could possibly see an identification being made between Mystery Babylon and New York City, but not with the United States or any other country.

cities are often used to symbolize countries in the bible

That symbolism is used when those cities serve as the political, cultural, and economic center of said country.  There is no city that can be said to be that of the United States.  New York City, because of the UN, could be said to be the center of the world in those three areas.

In any case, Rev 17:9-10, argues strongly against identifying Mystery Babylon with the United States.  There could not have been at the time Revelation was written five prior and one current ruler of the United States.  If one wants to get abstract, Mystery Babylon as a personification of the center of world power is a possible interpretation.  However, that too argues against an identification with the United States.  The seventh king is identified as reigning but a brief time, and the United States has been the preeminent power in the world for too long now.  A United Nations that gains real power could fit the bill as the seventh king.

the woman (babylon) sits on a beast which has seven heads and ten horns (17:3)

The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. The hills also represent seven kings (17:9-10)

the woman also sits on many waters (17:1)...

the sitting, whether it be over many waters, many lands (hills), or many kings, is simply symbolic of having dominance over, it displays her dominance of being the lone superpower...
...she has power over kings and thus the lands (hills) that the kings represent, and power over the seas (the waters, or if you want the waters to represent the masses of the people, that works also)...
the meaning of the imagery is simply that her influence straddles the earth

...it does NOT symbolize that the those kings she is sitting on have originated from her, so I really don't know how you're claiming the kings have to arise out of her.

...but, if you want to continue this, then you should make a thread on the religion board, because really this thread was only intended to:
1) show that CNN is taking up the Muslim cause and portraying them as victims of Christians
2) to explore the possible motives for CNN doing so (mainly, their outright hatred of New Testament Christianity)
3) to explore the political implications of Muslim ideology on the future of religious freedom in the West

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, with regard to the first poll, my original claim was that a considerable minority of Muslims want sharia law to be adopted the world over.  The fact that majorities of Muslims may want religion influencing politics and determining some law in their own countries is not surprising.  

[falls out of chair]

with their comparative birth rate, they don't have to conquer the world by force, all they have to do is wait a generation or two and Muslims are the largest group in Europe, then it will be "their own country" and then sharia law will be instituted and freedom of religion will be gone, and with it, freedom of speech and press.

it's already affecting our politics as schools are pressured by Muslims not to teach about the holocaust.  IN fact, the way pols prostitute themselves, it doesn't take a large segment of the population to hold vast influence on national policy.  The Muslims realize this.
 
Now, all this doesn't mean I think we should kick them out of the country, but we should be HAMMERING home the idea that freedom of religion/speech/press is the very fabric of Western society and that Western society will not tolerate anything contrary to those freedoms.  That's why Obama is so dumb in his handling of the ME revolutions, attempting to
decide which side he is on.  How about being on the side of FREEDOM?!  Why not speak to both sides by saying, "To the dictators, we think you are mass murderers.  To the people in the street, understand we are with you all long as you support freedom, which means freedom of religion/speech/press/assembly/etc.  If you gain power and then do not allow these basic freedoms, we will not accept you and we will call you out and view you as bad or as worse as the dictator you're trying to overthrow.  America is on the side of freedom, for it was founded by people yearning for freedom.  Freedom is the root of the idea that is America, that democracy without freedom can be worse than tyranny.  And the American people understand they don't have the right to take away the rights of those they disagree with.  so, to the people in the street, I tell you if you can't accept someone you disagree with as your neighbor, then America will not accept you as a neighbor among the world's nations.  and to dictators we say, Let your people live in freedom, and again to the people we say, Let your neighbor live in freedom.  For if you do so, you have our friendship, otherwise we have nothing in common and we are destined to be enemies."

[hawkeye59]

Well, with regard to the first poll, my original claim was that a considerable minority of Muslims want sharia law to be adopted the world over.  The fact that majorities of Muslims may want religion influencing politics and determining some law in their own countries is not surprising. 

[falls out of chair]

with their comparative birth rate, they don't have to conquer the world by force, all they have to do is wait a generation or two and Muslims are the largest group in Europe, then it will be "their own country" and then sharia law will be instituted and freedom of religion will be gone, and with it, freedom of speech and press.

it's already affecting our politics as schools are pressured by Muslims not to teach about the holocaust.  IN fact, the way pols prostitute themselves, it doesn't take a large segment of the population to hold vast influence on national policy.  The Muslims realize this.
 
Now, all this doesn't mean I think we should kick them out of the country, but we should be HAMMERING home the idea that freedom of religion/speech/press is the very fabric of Western society and that Western society will not tolerate anything contrary to those freedoms.  That's why Obama is so dumb in his handling of the ME revolutions, attempting to
decide which side he is on.  How about being on the side of FREEDOM?!  Why not speak to both sides by saying, "To the dictators, we think you are mass murderers.  To the people in the street, understand we are with you all long as you support freedom, which means freedom of religion/speech/press/assembly/etc.  If you gain power and then do not allow these basic freedoms, we will not accept you and we will call you out and view you as bad or as worse as the dictator you're trying to overthrow.  America is on the side of freedom, for it was founded by people yearning for freedom.  Freedom is the root of the idea that is America, that democracy without freedom can be worse than tyranny.  And the American people understand they don't have the right to take away the rights of those they disagree with.  so, to the people in the street, I tell you if you can't accept someone you disagree with as your neighbor, then America will not accept you as a neighbor among the world's nations.  and to dictators we say, Let your people live in freedom, and again to the people we say, Let your neighbor live in freedom.  For if you do so, you have our friendship, otherwise we have nothing in common and we are destined to be enemies."

So you believe that religion should not be separate from state if the religion is christianity, but if the religion is Islam, that religion should be separate?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So you believe that religion should not be separate from state if the religion is christianity, but if the religion is Islam, that religion should be separate?

instead of unperceptive being the antonym of perceptive, they should just replace unperceptive with a picture of you

[anvi]

Well, according to Wikipedia, Muslims have the following population percentages in European countries:  Austria 4%, Belgium 3%, Czech Republic .1%, Denmark 2%, Finland .2%, France 6%, Germany 4%, Greece 3%, Ireland .5%, Italy .1%, Netherlands 6%, Norway 1%, Sweden 2%, Switzerland 4%, U.K 3%.  In Canada, Muslims make up 2% of the population, and in the U.S., less than 1%.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

Do you really think that their population growth in the next few generations, relative to the population growth of people of other religious or secular persuasions, will increase their numbers sufficiently to impose sharia on any of these countries?  Even when only percentages of these groups believe such a thing should be done?  Won't happen.

I had thought that the thread topic was portrayals of Muslims vs. Christians in the media.  But, now that the topic has turned to U.S. domestic and foreign policy, what you are saying is that we should tell Muslims around the world, whether they are in power or revolutionaries, that, if they incorporate any portion of sharia into their legal and political institutions, we will...do what exactly, not enter into diplomatic relations with them, cut off trade with them, go to war with them?  And domestically, we should tell Muslims here that they should...not express their views, especially when their views are horribly wrong, as in the case of holocaust denial?  What was that again about freedom of speech?  And no school board in the U.S. is going to succumb to pressure from anyone who wants their curriculum not to include teaching about the holocaust. Free speech for everyone means that such views will be roundly and loudly refuted and denounced.

I don't know, jmf.  I wouldn't want to live in a Muslim country that represses individual freedoms, and I agree that, where such policies exist, we should express our firm opposition to them, whether it's Iran or China or anywhere.  I also would oppose anyone calling for the curtailing of the basic human liberties that I too believe in here.  But, on the international stage, we are not masters of the universe and we can't control everything; if we tried to, we would sink ourselves.  And, on the domestic front, I don't feel like my freedoms are being threatened by this particular cross-section of less than 1% of the populous, so I guess I'm just not as worried about it as you. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

anvikshiki

there is already mounting pressure being brought by Muslims in Europe to drop teaching about the Holocaust:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/muslims-in-france-are-underminin.html

---

and what we should do with countries that institute Sharia law is continually call them out on it and truthfully state that they are not a free society and that we don't accept them as friends of freedom.

Instead, Obama didn't say a word about Iran out of "fear" of his words being misused by the Iranian government.  But the Iranian government is going to lie whether you speak up or not, so why not have the courage to speak the truth?  Now, he's picked sides in Egypt when the vast majority on that side he has picked wants Sharia law.   Obama is supposed to be a leader of Freedom, not a leader of democracy without freedom.  And the truth is that those who want Sharia law imposed are no more interested in freedom than the ruthless dictators they're trying to overthrow, so why cant we just come out and call a spade a spade and speak for the sake of truth and freedom, because, trust me, words do mean something.

[Sbane]

Well, with regard to the first poll, my original claim was that a considerable minority of Muslims want sharia law to be adopted the world over.  The fact that majorities of Muslims may want religion influencing politics and determining some law in their own countries is not surprising. 

[falls out of chair]

with their comparative birth rate, they don't have to conquer the world by force, all they have to do is wait a generation or two and Muslims are the largest group in Europe, then it will be "their own country" and then sharia law will be instituted and freedom of religion will be gone, and with it, freedom of speech and press.

it's already affecting our politics as schools are pressured by Muslims not to teach about the holocaust.  IN fact, the way pols prostitute themselves, it doesn't take a large segment of the population to hold vast influence on national policy.  The Muslims realize this.
 
Now, all this doesn't mean I think we should kick them out of the country, but we should be HAMMERING home the idea that freedom of religion/speech/press is the very fabric of Western society and that Western society will not tolerate anything contrary to those freedoms.  That's why Obama is so dumb in his handling of the ME revolutions, attempting to
decide which side he is on.  How about being on the side of FREEDOM?!  Why not speak to both sides by saying, "To the dictators, we think you are mass murderers.  To the people in the street, understand we are with you all long as you support freedom, which means freedom of religion/speech/press/assembly/etc.  If you gain power and then do not allow these basic freedoms, we will not accept you and we will call you out and view you as bad or as worse as the dictator you're trying to overthrow.  America is on the side of freedom, for it was founded by people yearning for freedom.  Freedom is the root of the idea that is America, that democracy without freedom can be worse than tyranny.  And the American people understand they don't have the right to take away the rights of those they disagree with.  so, to the people in the street, I tell you if you can't accept someone you disagree with as your neighbor, then America will not accept you as a neighbor among the world's nations.  and to dictators we say, Let your people live in freedom, and again to the people we say, Let your neighbor live in freedom.  For if you do so, you have our friendship, otherwise we have nothing in common and we are destined to be enemies."

Even if the crowds want a theocracy, it's none of America's business.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Even if the crowds want a theocracy, it's none of America's business.

 

well, it may not directly be our business, but it is our right to call a spade a spade and to be a voice for freedom

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/25/libya.islamists/index.html

wow, this one is a complete embrace of the muslim brotherhood without a single hesitation

[Gustaf]

I'll just note a few minor quibbles with Anshiviki's points:

1. There aren't billions of Muslims in the world. There might be 2 or so by this point, but I think even that might be a stretch (last time I checked they were 15-20% of a world population of about 7 billion)

2. When one talks about Muslims in Europe there is also immigration to take into account, combined with much higher birth rates. When one considers the ageing population of Western Europe (and we're in worse shape than the US there) it seems as if immigration might have to increase in the future. Would still take more than a couple of generations for them to become a majority, obviously, but I think Jmf makes a fair point that this wouldn't be required for it to change national policy.

And as regards support for sharia law my understanding is that it is commonly argued that sharia law should be applied for Muslims, but not for non-Muslims. I believe this is the case in at least some Muslim countries, like Malaysia.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think ur being very optimistic if u think it will be limited to muslim communities...  even setting aside population growth, what does it say about us if we're willing to embrace those who want to end religious freedom ?

[Badger]

To all of the people involved in the no quote:

Are any of you Christians?

I am.

Ditto. Deacon in my church to boot. Forgive me if I keep wearing that fact on my sleeve, but I think its important to remind the world that many of us Christians are decidedly not of jmfsct's variety.

[Badger]

I'd hardly say that it's rooted in nothing. Several people were actually able to intelligently disagree with it, after all. In an increasingly global world these kind of issues will become more and more important to deal with and I would think disagreeing would be more appropriate than dismissing in this case.

Besides, if you really think it's better not to respond then not responding would seem better than just displaying some kind of mob behaviour by quoting a post that had no content to begin with. At least in my opinion.

If you read my post correctly, I just stated why the responses were like they were and that some people shouldn't have responded, I didn't attack the OP. That aside, I do think that it's incorrect to assert that Christianity is more attacked than Islam.

More attacked is one thing, judged by different standard another.

There is a Swedish artist who made a work of art that could be viewed as offensive towards Muhammed. He has been subjected to death threats and been physically attacked. In Swedish media this has been debated. Whether it is right to let him speak in public, whether the reactions can be understood and so on. Now, granted, the vast majority have been defending his right to free speech but there have been a lots of ifs and buts.

On the other hand,  a few years back there was an art exihibition made by a Swedish artist which, among other things, depicted Jesus having sex with men. This was put on display in churches. And while controversial among Christians had very solid support in the media and on the left. And that artist has interestingly said that art offensive to islam shouldn't be displayed or defended.

Obviously, there is more to the debate than what I just presented but I think a snarky "no" is a pretty ridiculous reaction.

Gustaf, no one here supports the reaction to the Danish cartoons. I would simply note that attitudes in Europe, both on the street and in the media, are vastly different than here. As jmfsct is clearly referring to US media (as few other sources seem to appear on his world vision's radar), the summary and terse reaction is utterly justified. One couldn't watch US cable news--especially Fox, of course--for a week without realizing what an utterly silly assertion he's making.

Kudos for objecting to a pile-on out of principle, but when the argument presented is so inducing, there's little more appropriate reaction.

[Badger]

I'd hardly say that it's rooted in nothing. Several people were actually able to intelligently disagree with it, after all. In an increasingly global world these kind of issues will become more and more important to deal with and I would think disagreeing would be more appropriate than dismissing in this case.

Besides, if you really think it's better not to respond then not responding would seem better than just displaying some kind of mob behaviour by quoting a post that had no content to begin with. At least in my opinion.

If you read my post correctly, I just stated why the responses were like they were and that some people shouldn't have responded, I didn't attack the OP. That aside, I do think that it's incorrect to assert that Christianity is more attacked than Islam.

Making analogies between American religious conservatives and Islamic religious conservatives is one reason that the hypocrisy of white “enlightened” liberals is rather galling to many.  Sayyid al-Qutib found 1950s America to be a culturally liberal cesspool, there is no comparison. Especially because nearly all people on the Left would prefer to live in a standard Western Judeo-Christian/secular country as opposed to a Muslim country.

The reality is that Muslims Americans have views, which if they were white Protestant Christians would get them labeled as slack-jawed inbred cretins. Here's something that will blow your mind: The average US Muslim is probably around where jmfcst is with more melanin.

They are “people of color” so their beliefs get a pass.

I can see people on the Left holding criticisms of some Islamic views but fear being considered “Islamophobic,” at best or "racist" at worst. This going on while defending criticism of Christian conservatives as Gustaf's example illustrated earlier.

For example I made a thread about US doctors here:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=133714.0
Nearly 3 out of 4 Muslim doctors believe in ID over Evolution, nearly 40% higher than the highest Christian group. I want a liberal to come forward and say that they are the most backward on this issue. But all debate on the ID/Evolution debate is concentrated on Christianity and less so on any other religion.

I'am a strongly against against racially-driven bigotry against Muslims and support equal rights for all. But defending the rights of religious freedom of a minority does not mean that you need to pretend they are not objectionable. Yet I agree Muslims can positively contribute to reducing many social ills in urban communities such as out-of-wedlock births, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, etc. Maybe if 9/11 hadn't occurred it would have been a "colored" people's Mormonism.

Phkn, I actually agree with much of your assessment, including fundamentalist Islamic views getting an undeserved pass in some situations. Personally I believe it stems as much out of overreaction to anti-Islam sentiment---that any critique of such views is joining in the Beckian nativist chorus--than due to differing skin color, though the latter may be a factor too. Whatever, this particular liberal has been more than willing to come down on anti-women or homophobic views and actions whether its orthodox religious source is fundamentalist Islam in Pakistan or fundamentalist Christianity in Alabama.

My biggest quibble with your post is comparing the amount of naked--and increasingly socially acceptable--bigotry Islam faces in this country, both on the street and among the media elite, is a much much more prevalent and growing problem than the rationalizations made to wrongly excuse neanderthal views on women and gays among some fundamentalist Muslims (a diverse community, of course).

Simply put, comparing these two wrongs isn't comparing apples to oranges; currently its comparing watermelons to raisins.

Still, I'm glad to see your input here. Particularly as IIRC you're Muslim yourself, right? If so, just curious: Practicing or not? What sect/branch (Suuni, Shi'ia, etc)?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

badger, the slant of foz is not an excuse to be slanted in the other direction...and r u saying there is something inately wrong with me having a problem with those who want sharia law?  if so, then name the problem

[Badger]

badger, the slant of foz is not an excuse to be slanted in the other direction...and r u saying there is something inately wrong with me having a problem with those who want sharia law?  if so, then name the problem

That is exactly what I'm not saying, Jim. What I am saying is the 'threat' of Sharia law in this country is both VASTLY overstated in the media--even outside Fox--and consistently misused to promote jingoism against Muslim-Americans and Islam in general. Hence, no, I don't think your impression of "the press lifting up Islam while smearing Christianity" is based in reality.

And yes, despite Fox driving the narrative for much cable news---they hammer on a story like the Ground Zero "Victory Mosque" and the ensuing buzz forces other networks and print media to devote much more coverage to the issue---I believe your assertion would be no more correct if we hypothetically removed Fox from the media equation.