Has Anyone Heard More About This...?
Muslims Riot over No-Nudes Playboy
This I just came across, but haven't seen elsewhere. Usually when a religious group...say CHRISTIAN, protests immorality in the culture and media, they are called right wingnuts, bigoted, ignorant, hyper-fundamentalists, homophobic, etc. When Muslims do it, .... (crickets chirping).
So, someone, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to be cynical about the media. Tell me other news agencies have poked at this Indonesian Islamic group...
posted by Underground Logician @ 8:54 AM
36 comments
36 Comments:
Muslim poking is not allowed. What's the matter with you?
Oops! Does that mean something that I'm unaware of?
OT:
Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 04:10:52 PM PDT
April 14, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two U.S. Marines were killed and 22 wounded -- two of them critically -- in fighting in western
Iraq, the U.S. military said Saturday. It was the biggest number of American casualties reported from a single engagement in weeks.
Shaw:
This particular post isn't about how we are losing in Iraq.
*LOL* at Kathleen's comment. :D
The source (Newsmax) is a little supsect to say the least, I can find little other info on the matter.
Bigotry is bigotry by the way, no matter what religion is sponsoring it.
Newsmax suspect? Come on, they give substance to the pap you've been ingesting lately.
Um, yes, but can't give exact details just yet. There was a 'cartoon' in an Indonesian 'newspaper' which was countered by a 'cartoon' in an Australian newspaper.
Bear in mind that the population of Australia (20 mill) lives in a land roughly the size of the untied states of america, about one hour jet trip away from 280 million Indonesians.
Politics and relationships are a very delicate balance.
Newsmax suspect? Come on, they give substance to the pap you've been ingesting lately.
Seriously.
Come on.
Man, it just goes to show you that people hear what they want to hear and everything else falls by the wayside.
Please do not try and defend Newsmax, it is a famously right-wing news source, so if it is the only source on a story it has to be viewed with caution, Newsmax is not the BBC or Reuters. Some facts:
NewsMax.com is listed on the ConWebWatch, which is focused on "Internet-based conservative "news" organizations"
NewsMax is a featured news provider on conservativeUSA.com, "The Conservative Activist's Home Page"
Hoover's describes NewsMax's content as "news with a conservative slant."
NewsMax CEO and editor-in-chief Christopher Ruddy describes the website as "the leading online news site with a conservative perspective."
Also, it has ads for Ann Coulter which clearly mark it out at the more extreme end of the right-wing spectrum in the US.
So I stand by my facts, also, you suggest I have been ingesting pap when infact I research content from a massive array of sources and usally use US gov stats to back up points, rather than bias news sources pushing half-baked stories.
Show me where I use pap sources and you'll have a point.
DHG:
Gee, Newsmax is bad because they state that they are conservative. Egad! What am I thinking?
Maybe I should go to the NYTimes, eh? They're objective, right? They wouldn't give ANY slant, right?
In case any of you question the validity of a news source, you can always google the headline, right? I mean, if Newsmax makes you sick, go to the NYTimes, or the San Diego News Tribune, or even the Sumatra Times, etc. to get your news source.
And...you'll find that Newsmax was fair. Sorry, Daniel, your attempt to create an issue by "poisoning the well" was too feeble. Try something substantive next time, like facts.
I stand by what I said, Newsmax is a poor news source of un-prejudiced news. And comparing it to the NYT is flawed, the NYT is an internationalyl recognised bastion of good reporting and always has been, even in its regular conservative phases.
The Times is a right of centre paper but that doesn't effect its internationals tanding as a source of repute, newsmax is not in that league and is rather notorious as pushing an agenda.
Now onto the story itself, you are clearly using this story to once again paint Muslims as backward thinking primivatists who are a danger to Western Christian culture.
I'm sure many Christian groups have protested the evil of p0rn, you can't paint one religion as evil and another as tolerent when to an atheist like me Christianity is as repressive a tool as the Islamic faith.
This just in from FOX NEWS: Bush at 33% approval rating.
Daniel:
You seem to be suffering from the same thing I am: assuming meaning in a post that isn't there.
My post is not against Muslims. My post is against news outlets that do not report Islam's disgust with porn of any type. Christians react against the porn industry and we're painted as bigoted and right wingnuts. Muslims do it and of course, nothing much is said in comparison.
So my hunch is that there is gross bias in the media against Christianity. If religious reaction against porn is a negative, then the media would be consistant. But, they are not.
That is my point.
As to Bush's approval rating: it is what it is. The War in Iraq is not the same as in Afghanistan; it's wearing people out.
"NYT is an internationalyl recognised bastion of good reporting and always has been"
UL, I can't believe you let this slip on by. Haven't the BBC and Reuters informed the public about the most recent nominations of the NYT for the best series of "fictional news reports"? I think a "bastion of good reporting" deserves all the credit they deserve. ;o)
Kathleen:
That's why your needed here! Good job!
When anyone protests the freedom of expression, they are wrong.
I agree with you, up to the point that free expression becomes immoral, such as, slander and libel, falsehoods that bring grave effects, etc. The Muslim rioting over "Playboy" was extreme in that they damaged property, and individulas were hurt, yet their outrage is quite understandable. If the press is going to give Islam a pass on this, why don't they remain consistant and do this for Christians as well?
UL: As I've said before, censorship in any form, esp one based on religion, is offensive to me. So what you want is Muslims to be labelled as wingnuts?
BTW, How do you feel about Playboy magazine?
Kathleen: All newpapers, due to their longevity, have periods where they make serious mistakes, that doesn't effect the overall standing and the fact that the NYT is America's national paper.
Well, Daniel, if you apply how the press treats Christians as wingnuts when they call for boycotts, why not Muslims too? At least they'll have the Kahonies to be consistant. As I see it, they are cowards. Why don't they just admit they want to pick on Christians instead of Muslims. Christians won't throw bricks through their windows and set their desks on fire. So the MSM aren't as objective and fair as you they want us to believe.
Is this finally clear now, or do I have to use iddy biddy words for you?
Daniel, okey dokey.
Christians won't throw bricks through their windows and set their desks on fire. So the MSM aren't as objective and fair as you they want us to believe.
Good point.
A great example of this was the outrage over the cartoons. Christians get made fun of to the point of being ridiculous. Not only are Christians being made fun of but Christ and the God of the Bible are the subject of cartoons all day long.
Difference--Christians tolerate this.
You didn't answer my question about Playboy but that speaks volumes.
I don't know what papers you read but you live in the most Christian and overtly religious developed nation in the world, with an overtly Christian President and executive and a Christian influenced government.
What repression exactly, what marginalisation?
As I've said, any relion based oppression is offensive and plenty of newpapers say so, you just want to paint the Muslims as bad guys and the fallacy that Christians in the US are some kind of oppressed group.
Karl Rove trained you well...
Who gets to decide what is immoral? Should it be a collective decision or a religious one? What about those of us who don't believe in god? Are we automatically immoral? Or is it just because we don't believe what you believe.
Daniel, no one here is trying to convert you. No one here wants to kill you. You are perfectly safe in the US as an athiest, a Jew, a Hindi, etc.. In fact, Muslims are probably safer here than in most of the Middle East. I don't attend a church, but if I did, I would not invite you. Fear not, Daniel.
I encourage you to go off on an Islamic blog about their religion as you have here about Christians (only BTW). Show me that you can do that and be as safe as you are here and then I'll buy some of what you are selling. I laugh at your paranoia about Christians. My experience is that they are really not that scary. On the other hand, we have experiences on a regular basis that can lead us to conclude that Muslims are not as tolerant of other religions or those who blast theirs. Heck, look what happened in Denmark. You can disagree all you want, but each time you lose more of your credibility.
In conclusion, you claim that you love the US. Yada, yada, yada. That lets me know that you are not afraid to come here. That is probably because we show you more respect than you show us. But, no matter. That's just the way we are.
Daniel the flamethrower:
I will use small words. The main stream media is very silent about this issue. It's not an issue of Christians being marginalized, er, being treated unfairly. It's an issue of the "Big Media" being inconsistent, er uh, not doing the same thing all the time. They treat Muslims quite differently (not the same) as Christians who raise their voices against bad things. Christians are bad because they complain about sex on T.V. Muslims...ssshhhh! They're all nice people.
Do you get what I'm saying now? Are you going to continue to deliberately (uh, on purpose) misinterpret (uh, make me to be saying something not the same as I said it) what I said?
I hope not. Because that would mean that any more comments would be futile (a waste).
Kathleen:
Your NOT a Christian? ;)
You're probably not that far away. If you ever want to talk, I'll let you bring it up. Fair?
Thanks for dropping by.
Christians won't throw bricks through their windows and set their desks on fire. So the MSM aren't as objective and fair as you they want us to believe.
It was Christians who killed doctors who performed legal abortions.
No, maybe they don't throw bricks through windows--not when murder will do the job.
Shaw: I was trying not to have to get that tit for tat but it seems UL sees only what he wants.
Kathleen: as I think I've said before, you don't know me, if you did you know that I have no fear of religion and nor have I mentioned being converted, nor do I despise it, my wife to be is Catholic and I have no doubt that my children will be raised in Catholic schools.
For fear of repeating myself time and time again, any religion sponsored oppression is wrong, I have often dealt with Sikh, Jewish and Muslim oppression on my blog.
Oppression and censorship is not the sole territory of Muslims, this is the bigotry coming into play post 9/11, Muslims are being demonised, the religion being distorted, it reminds me of the dehumanising of the Jews by the Christians. As for Denmark, I have not the time or the space to repeat my deconstruction of what happened there, needless to say it has very little to do with Islam and everything to do with Saudi Arabia manipulating old news.
Your conclusion is another rambling, factless, personal attack based on a scant knowledge of me and world affairs, luckily I know some Americans aim higher than that.
UL: There is no need to use small words and you know it.
Do a simple web search of major news sources and the majority of them have run stories on the matter, so the basis of your arguement is wrong. If you're upset it's not in constant circulation then I'm afraid rather more important things are happening across the globe.
Your assumption that Christians and Muslims are treated differently is, I'm afriad, not backed up by one shred of fact and as I doubt you spend a lot of time reading international news sources how can you make this judgement?
Daniel, you have got to be kidding!
I have read too many diatribes published by YOU that are anti-Christian to do anything but laugh. No, I don't "know" you, but I know more about you than you suggest about me. One thing is clear through your writings/rants, your life views are lacking experience and are more about trend and peer specific jive than wisdom earned through living. Listening to you about economics, world issues and tolerance/intolerance is like getting sex ed classes from a 12 year old. Your maturity has not caught up with your IQ. You make little sense to honest people who get up and go to work everyday, who don't rely on social services to make it in this world, who are facing the real time stresses of raising children in a culture that is less civil and more dangerous and vile (thank you very much) and who cringe at the sound of windbags such as yourself who have suckled too long at the tit, screeching f bombs and screaming senselessly about the injustice committed by everyone but themselves.
No, I don't "know" you, but I do know that you are a long way from being considered capable of preaching morals to the average man. But keep trying and don't forget about "the little engine that could."
Dismissed.
UL, I apologize if I offended your sensibilities with my previous post. I felt inspired and acted on the inspiration.
Shaw:
Yes, and it is so prevalent that it happens all the time! Uh, by the way many Christian groups denounced it as unChristian.
Daniel:
Well, now we're finally getting somewhere!!
Kathleen:
My sensibilities were not offended in the least. No worries, dear! Keep it up!
Kathleen:
Dismissed? Hardly, show me facts and I'll start taking your foolishness seriously, until then you're labelled under troll. Anti-Christian? No, anti-oppression, yes.
It's funny how you start a sentence saying you don't know me but then go on to spew a whole raft of wildly inaccurate statements about me and my experience. As I said, your words only illustrate your ignorance of me so thank you for proving my point.
You mention honest people (a wild generalistion that befits your lack of knowledge) in your foolish rant, I'm one of them by the way, who works for a living and doesn't rely on social services, I face plenty of real stresses, stop pretending you have any knowledge of me and rather focus on the issue in this post; rather than an empty, posturing personal attack on myself.
How I am supposed to take a personal attack by someone who doesn't even kno wme seriously? No need to answer because I won't!
UL: I've noticed that when we get somewhere you never answer the question.
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT PLAYBOY MAGAZINE?
Yea, whatever.
Life is good. ;o)
Daniel:
I noticed that when you assert something to be true, you think it remains true until someone proves you false.
How do I FEEL about Playboy Magazine? What I FEEL is based on what I think of it. I think it is soft porn that leads to the hard stuff, like Marijuana is to Coke, Meth or Heroine. It exploits women and femininity and corrupts good morals. In any situation where women are treated like property or sex toys, I have very strong feelings against. However, I don't have the desire to burn down print shops or hurt people.
There. Now do with the info as you will.
I'm off on The Big Adventure!
See you on the other side!
Post a Comment
<< Home