View Single Post
  #12  
Old 10-04-2006, 07:22 AM
RACooper RACooper is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta - Canada
Posts: 3,190
Send a message via Yahoo to RACooper
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel View Post
Had the hijacking resulted in the plane slamming into a building killing all aboard as well as nearly 3,000 innocent civilians, I think that would have made more of a news impact.

Had this been part of an organized "Jihad" called by extremist Christians against all non-Christians then yeah.. you would have a point. But, this isn't the case. There is no "Christian Jihad".. however there is an extremist Muslim Jihad against non-Muslims.
Ah yes because I forgot, the easy explanation that any violence commited by one of the Islamic faith can be attributed to a “Jihad”

There is a serious double-standard, or dare I say prejudice, out there that _Opi_ was trying to draw attention to (I think) – namely how the violence is portrayed or reported differently as it applies to Muslims.

Looking at the recent news, concerning the Amish school shooting, how much has been made of the murderer’s faith? I haven’t seen headlines proclaiming “Christian Man murders Amish children”, have you? But lets just say that the shooter had been Muslim… do you think the reporting might have mentioned his faith then? Or say the shooting at Dawson College up in Montreal… if the shooter had been a Muslim instead of a Atheist/Nihilist, I’m positive that the coverage would have been vastly different.

The problem is that many (yourself included) seem to jump to the conclusion that in the case of a Muslim committing a violent act, the first conclusion (and only amongst some) is it is simply “a further example of the violent nature of the faith”… whereas the same acts committed by a Christian will instead focus on how the perpetrator was deranged or “sick”, not their faith. Now why is that? Is this simply a new flavour of societal prejudice, much like the double standard of racial labelling in crime reporting of the past (and present in some areas)?

Finally why is it that every time a Muslim commits an unspeakable act, that other Muslims are called to justify or defend their faith? <such as you did with _Opi_ in another thread> Yet the same standard isn’t applied for us Christians – for example, I haven’t be asked to defend the Christian (or Roman Catholic denomination) faith in light of the Christian militants actions in Indonesia… nor do I think were Christians held accountable for the actions of Hitler – after all he was “Christian”. Instead we recognize that these acts, individuals, and ideologies are aberrations or perversions of the Christian faith – so why can’t we apply the same reasoning and standards to Islam?
__________________
Λ Χ Α
University of Toronto Alum
EE755

"Cave ab homine unius libri"
Reply With Quote