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

[Badger]

No.

[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)?

[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.

[Badger]

badger
so then, you have no problem with taking the side of a mob that wants sharia...and you have no problem with 2/5 of uk muslims wanting sharia...as long as it doesn't impact u?  wow, what a nice person u r

No, Jim, I oppose laws imposing fundamentalist religious mores on society at large, regardless of whether the religious inspiration is orthodox Islam or orthodox Christianity. I simply believe that labeling all or even most Muslims in America as a threat to national security or a lobby for imposing Sharia law is simply incorrect, as is saying that the media is unfairly "pro-Islam and anti-Christianity" in its coverage. And the evidence you've offered of the latter has been decidedly weak.