Tuesday, February 1, 2011

More Media Tolerance

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but just when I think the disdain shown by the MSM and the liberal talking-heads might slow down, I get another jolt. Say nothing bad about Islam, say anything bad you want to say about Christianity, but whatever you do, don't say anything good about Christianity.

This post concerns the latter media bias--saying something good about Christianity and something negative about Islam. Washington Post columnist and theologian Dr. Willis E. Elliot is the current offender against political-correctness and one-sided multiculturalism. In essence, after hearing Christianity slammed as violent and Islam praised as the religion of peace, Dr. Willis had just had enough.

In essence, he plainly stated that Islam is violent and Christianity practices peace. The picture accompanying this post represents a period of time when Christianity did commit violent acts--about eight hundred years ago. The left, MSM, and Islamoliars act as if the Crusades and the Inquisition were happening today. In a way, they are right, only it isn't the Christians committing the barbaric acts.

The Post pulled the article, as did Salon.com which had reprinted it for their online edition. Here's what Dr. Elliot said that brought on the vitriol: "Jesus said, love your enemies. Islam is hostile in the extreme to 'the infidels.' Calling evil good is bad news, but the worst news is violence done in the name of God, such as Mohamed Atta's theological justification for the [9-11] attack he led. Blasphemy is currently in the news only when Muslims become violent, or threaten violence, when they feel offended. When we Christians feel offended, almost never do we become violent, and almost always suffer the disrespect in silence or peaceful protest."

Not so, says Salon's Alex Pareene. He was quick to point out a "monster" anti-abortion Christian fanatic who murdered abortionist Dr. George Tiller and the ravings of the Westboro Baptist Church. Pareene failed to note that in both cases he was talking about the rare Christian extremists while Elliot had produced a long litany of nearly-daily Muslim outrages. Dr. Elliot had dared to speak of Islam's recent violent, sadistic history and present day bloodshed against America and Israel, along with Islamic brutality toward and murders of Christians in Iraq, Nigeria, Egypt and Pakistan. He noted that Pakistan, an alleged ally of America's, refuses to do anything about jihadist murders of Christians and Hindus and at the same time enforces blasphemy laws against anyone who even mildly questions Islam.

Pareene couldn't even bring himself to be civil, despite the pleas of the Obamassiah. Rather than produce solid arguments or refute Elliot's facts, he simply called him "stupid and insulting." Dr. Elliot had also pointed out that Muslims continue to practice jihad to advance dar es salam (the peaceful world of Allah) and to make war on dar es harb (the world not yet pacified by Allah's warriors). The Christian West, Elliot further points out, will not cease seeking religious freedom throughout the world. That sent Fareene and the Post editors into paroxysms.

Dr. Elliot had told a story of attending a so-called Christian service at a church which had invited an imam to speak from the pulpit. After the goody two-shoes, ain't we tolerant services, the imam met with the congregants outside and declared "God has no son." He did not say "We Muslims do not believe that God has a son." Dr. Elliot called the imam "blasphemous" for making such a statement on the grounds of a Christian church. But nobody threatened the imam's life or threatened to charge him with a hate crime. That brought on Pareene's "stupid and insulting" remark.

It was bad enough that a brave doctor of theology at a Christian assemblage dared to say "blasphemy," but relating that story in a Washington Post article was more than the tolerant lefties could handle without sputtering and launching ad hominem attacks. For the Post and Salon, religious freedom and tolerance are basic human needs, unless you're talking about Christians.

Let's leave the Post and Salon to their crazed opinions and take a brief look at how Christians have been treated outside Islamic lands when they criticized or disrespected Islam. Since the reaction to a Florida pastor threatening to have a Koran-burning to memorialize 9-11 last year, here are a few examples.

In East Lansing, Michigan, police offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the person who left a charred Koran outside a Michigan mosque. The individual actually surrendered and was jailed. But since he had not actually committed a crime, other than a possible littering charge, the prosecutor ordered his release saying "there is no criminal offense that I can charge under Michigan law." Would the same absurd overreaction have occurred had a Muslim burned a Bible and left it in front of a church? Or a Jewish synagogue?

Last December, a man in Tulsa, Oklahoma was charged with a hate crime (yes, even in Oklahoma) for allegedly sending an "intimidating" letter to a mosque along with a video in which a Koran and pork chops were grilled, put on a bun, and fed to a dog. The man was arrested, held for arraignment, then transferred to a psychiatric hospital based on the prosecutor's charge that the video "intends to produce violence directed to others because of their religious beliefs." Well, he wasn't exactly beheaded, but it sounds a lot like the old Soviet Union imprisoning dissidents in mental facilities. Meanwhile, imams continue to preach and print the Protocols of the Elders of Zion without being charged with anything. Oh, and by the way, the charges were dropped.

Overseas, it's no better. After being arrested, jailed and held for days, so-called "English nationalists" were finally charged with inciting racial hatred by way of allegedly posting a video of them burning a Koran behind a pub in Gateshead. They were subsequently released for lack of any evidence other than the word of a local Muslim. Meanwhile, sharia law, which calls for death for apostates and defamers of Islam is alive and well in many sections of London. No prosecutions pending.

A Frenchman was arrested for an online video showing a man tearing a page out of the Koran, making a paper airplane with it, and throwing it into two glasses allegedly representing the World Trade Center. He then burned the page and urinated on the ashes. He was charged with promoting racial hatred. The charges were dismissed, but the prosecutor is planning on resubmitting an amended version. Meanwhile, unidentified "Asian youths" in Paris and Marseilles continue to deface Jewish houses of worship and burn cars in the banlieues with little or no action being taken against them. Shouting "death to the infidels" didn't assist the gendarmes in determining which religion the "youths" represent.

There are two more nearly identical cases in England regarding speaking ill of Islam combined with Koran-burning. Both defendants were charged with "using racially aggravated threatening words or behavior." Both cases were ultimately dismissed, but not before two people exercising free speech were threatened, jailed and humiliated. None of the cases here or abroad have yet resulted in convictions, but why were they arrested in the first place? Bad taste and poor judgment used to bring a little clucking and some social estrangement, but we didn't put people in jail for it. On the other hand, we used to prosecute actual desecration of Jewish synagogues and cemeteries. Those were the days before leftist, unilateral political correctness.


22 comments:

Tam said...

Here is my question...when the left, particularly the media-ites, clearly HATE Christians and Christianity, why do they insist that Obama is Christian?

LL said...

I am not suggesting that we ignore fundamentalist Islam -- but I find it interesting that we give ANY weight at all to what their high panjandrums say in this context. It's a broken record of hate, abuse, venom and intolerance.

Zilla/MJ said...

Excellent piece. Is the original article posted anywhere that I could read the whole thing? I know you said those leftist rags pulled it, have any outlets allowed it to remain published?

Tennessee Jed said...

The media has become oh so obvious on this. Particularly when we look at the difference between how the Fort Hood shootings were handled compared with Tucson; "let's not jump to conclusions about his motivations."

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

This is willfull blindness. Deliberately ignoring dangerous actions and strong-arming people who are simply standing in opposition to those actions is insane.

Thankfully, more people are on to the MSM's insanity. Despite the Media's attempts at hiding Islam's institutional hatred at all things Western, Islam's depredations are getting out.

As to why they are doing it? Notice that the Media hates all things Western. To the Media, Islam is a kindred spirit more deserving of it's sympathy and help than the purported constituents they serve.

Thanks. Keeping an eye on these bastards is a daunting task.

LimeyLibertarian said...

Room for a foreign perspective? Regular reader but 1st time poster.

IMHO Islam is at the same stage Christianity was in the Middle Ages, Intolerant, sectarian, and ruthlessly expansionist. Christianity has grown up and achieved a level of moral maturity and a large degree of tolerance. Unfortunately we have to suffer Islam’s violent adolescence in a world of instant communications allied with the availability of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. May you live in interesting times indeed.

StanH said...

Double standard doesn’t even begin to describe the disdain of all things Christian spewed by the MSM. Point of fact, they see Christianity as a direct threat to the power of the state, and if the left has to align itself with Islamic goons to achieve their egalitarian utopia, so be it. You know the old meme, “the enemy of my enemy…”

You truly have a hawks eye for this hypocrisy Lawhawk - - if information is power, your articles make us strong indeed. Keep the bright light shinning.

AndrewPrice said...

Limey, A foreign perspective is always welcome! :-)

I agree with you entirely. Islam is right now where Christianity was when it was engaged in the crusades -- violent, extremist, intolerant. Christianity grew out of that and I supposed (probably) that Islam will too. Unfortunately, as you note, with the existence of modern weapons, Islam's temper tantrum is a lot more potentially destructive that Christianity's was.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tam: I've mentioned before that consistency and logic are not the strong suits for leftists. They hate Christianity, but at the same time they know that this nation is heavily Christian, so they try to have it both ways.

LawHawkRFD said...

LL: The problem is that we take them at their word because they are regularly followed by acts. The MSM considers what they say to be harmless rhetoric because they're so busy focusing on us dangerous Christians.

LawHawkRFD said...

Zilla/MJ: Your wish is my command. For the full post, go here: On Faith. Welcome to our site, and I hope we'll continue to see your comments. The part of my article about actions being taken by police against Christians is from other sources, so you won't see them in Dr. Elliott's post.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: I know what you mean. If shouting "Allahu akbar" before opening fire doesn't tell them the motivation behind the slaughter, what would?

LawHawkRFD said...

LimeyLibertarian: Welcome! We're delighted to have comments from outside the US. Your comment is right on the money, and your comment about Islamists being where Christianity was in the Middle Ages is exactly right. Sadly, you are also right about them acting barbarically with the capability of using modern nuclear and biological weapons.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: All very true. The MSM elite are very much like the imams and ayatollahs, pronouncing the will of God after receiving divine revelation. Ptooey!

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: That's absolutely right. The New York Times skewed the news in favor of the Soviet Union (all in the name of "fairness" of course) as far back as the lies of Walter Duranty in the 30s. And they are in league (consciously or unconsciously) with the big government left and the Democratic Party simply because they all think they have a monopoly on intelligence and wisdom. We peasants are just grist for the mill.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: We've both touched on that subject in the past. Limey Libertarian got it just right. A sword or a bow could do some damage, and both sides were utterly ruthless and lacking in human sympathy for anyone but their own during the Crusades. But a nuke in the hands of people who haven't made any advancements since the Middle Ages is truly a terrifying prospect.

Amos said...

I agree with most of the info that is in that article. However I do disagree regarding the crusades. They were a defensive action, that was used only when all other means were exhausted, to prevent the eradication of Christians and Christianity itself, as the Muslim hordes pushed farther into Europe. A great book on this is Robert Spencer's 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades'. And his 'The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran' is very good too.

Joel Farnham said...

LimeyLibertarian,

Why did Christianity advance and mature faster and better than Islam?

Also, from the Crusades, they were in response to Islamic aggression. This isn't the first time in history that Islam has threatened western civilizations. It isn't the first time that it hasn't been opposed. It isn't the first time that supposedly older and wiser heads recommend that we lay down and submit to Islam.

The only first here is that Islam might have a nuclear bomb in it's arsenal.

Clearly Islam is a dangerous religion as organized currently. We used to be able to allow Islam its peccadillos because it didn't directly threaten the west. It only influenced local regions.

Now, it won't be satisfied unless the west is either submitting to Allah or in flames. The media is flirting with disaster when they ignore Islam's true nature. Not just for western civilization, but themselves as well.

I don't think the people in the Media have thought this through at all. If they have, they would be calling for Obama to nuke-em til they glow.

LawHawkRFD said...

Amos: While the ignorant pseudo-historians of the MSM natter on about "Christian aggression," they neglect to notice that most of northern Africa and the Middle East were Christian until Mohammed and his followers began to convert them at the point of a sword. The "they were there first" argument for Islam is an historical lie.

Those who want to know the real nature of Islam should read Spencer's book and visit his blog. Ditto for Daniel Pipes.

That there was massive Christian excess during the Crusades is a fact, though it occurred on both sides. But the real point is that Christianity has advanced toward its original goals of peace and brotherhood (imperfect as it may be) while Islam has retained its warlike combination of religious intolerance and political savagery. We pray for tolerance, they demand submission.

The word to describe advancement in understanding of faith in a civilized world is "exegesis." Christianity and Judaism both embrace it. Islam ruthlessly suppresses it.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Until Islam adopts exegesis (as I mentioned in my reply to Amos), it will be a constant threat to world peace and civilization. Islam is both religious and political, and unlike most other religions, it cannot separate the two. When the politics are supported by religious zealotry that has remained unchanged since Mohammed emerged from his cave, reaching a decent accommodation is well-nigh impossible. Until those phantom "moderate Muslims" become a strong vocal majority, capable of enforcing tolerance and eschewing jihad, the West will be under perpetual attack.

Amos said...

I highly recommend, for anyone who has not read the speculative fiction piece by Dan Simmons from 4/2006, to go out and read it at...
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm

and then the follow-up discussion at...
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_05.htm

It's a really great theoretical story about what is, and what should never be (IMO).

LawHawkRFD said...

Amos: There's plenty of interesting stuff in that link. I'd have to do some more reading by the author to get a complete picture, since he does refer to former posts and critical comments. We seem to be on a similar thought path from what I've seen so far.

Post a Comment