Christian-basher Andrew Sullivan (held in high regard because he is a gay blogger; where others would see hateful religion-baiting, Sullivan gets away with his "rightous anger" because some may question his right to marry his same-sex partner) takes a breath in the middle of a diatribe to admit that, OK, the Muslim fundamentalists may be worse than their Christian counterparts:
The difference between Islamists and Christianists is that the former are using violence to achieve their ideal society and Christianists are, almost entirely, using peaceful, democratic means. That's a huge deal. It's also worth comparing Christian fundamentalist response to the latest Rolling Stone cover, featuring Kanye West as Jesus. Complaints, sure. But are the editors of Rolling Stone now in hiding? The thought is preposterous. The habits of Islamists and Christianists are on different planets.
Sullivan then goes on to compare their similarities; if you have the stomach, you can click the link here: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/email_of_the_da_2.html
But the point is, why aren't all the outlets that are bashing the publishing of the Muhammed cartoons causing a hue and cry over this depiction of Christ, whom billions see as God himself? If the Catholics rioted, do you think the MSM would bash the Rolling Stone editors, or the Catholics? Would the double-standard be applied once more? Or do the major editorial boards now opine simply based on fear of reprisals?
Tim Blair [here: http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/cheese_burned/] adds a salient point:
On Friday CNN ran a disguised version of a cartoon, and on an NBC News program on Thursday, the camera shot depicted only a fragment of the full cartoon. CBS banned the broadcast of the cartoons across the network, said Kelli Edwards, a spokeswoman for CBS News.
They won’t publish cartoons, but they will run anything they can get out of Abu Ghraib. Both sets of images provoke Islamic anger; note how the media behaves when that anger is directed at them.
Interesting, but not surprising...
”FREEDOMS BRING RESPONSIBILITIES"
ReplyDeleteThe basis of this whole dustup is some w***ing little editor in Denmark who used an opportunity to get his paper its 15 secs of fame. In this case INfamy should be the result.
The difference between Islamists and Christianists is that the former are using violence to achieve their ideal society and Christianists are, almost entirely, using peaceful, democratic means.
Mmmhmm! And that is why some Christian groups advocate the murder of doctors who work at abortion centres whereas 99.9% of Christians would be appalled at the suggestion.
Did the Pope speak out about that? No? Yet that is what you and your like expect of the Moslems.
So you can gaily continue your bigotted tirade against a whole culture based solely upon the the actions of a very small minority.
I am going to market a toilet paper trinted with your choice of Christ or the Virgin Mary (choose according to your sexual preferences...)
I wonder how long before someone suggests burning down my factory?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10369212
ReplyDeleteIt is the same the whole world over...
The television cartoon show of a Virgin Mary statue bleeding will go to air despite Catholic bishops urging their congregations to boycott TV3's news and advertisers.
Responding to an open letter from Catholic bishops, the chief of TV3 and sister channel C4 said if Catholics feared they might be offended by the "Bloody Mary" episode of the South Park show, they should switch it off.
"We absolutely expect there's segments of society that would be offended by the programme," said Rick Friesen, chief operating officer of CanWest-owned TV Works.
The bishops yesterday circulated a letter that was read at Masses and is published on the church's website decrying South Park's "ugly and tasteless" depiction of Mary, the mother of Christ, who is revered in Catholicism.