It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Public schools teach Muslim, not Christian, religion

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
reply to post by Aermacchi
 

So what? ..Perhaps Obama is a Muslim.. so what?.. what's wrong with that? ..Whether he is or not, I fail to see your point.



That IS my point, he was a muslim and so what.

I see you go my point also

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Aermacchi]




posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

Muslims have a little truth and do live it. Muslims aren't fornicating or aborting their babies. They have their priorities straight (family). For America to be attacking peaceful Muslim nations Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and soon to be Iran if the Zionists have their way -- it is a despicable thing making America worse than Hitler's Germany.


You've got to be kidding, right? The way women are treated in many Islamic nations is reprehensible if not downright disgusting. You can't jive me, I've been in Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar and throughout the the UAE. These are among the more "liberated" of states at that. I have a daughter, and I would not want her force fed this type of "religion" at school, and I'd actively protest it. Learning about other cultures and religions in a strictly scholarly and educational context is one thing, and it acceptable. I don't find it acceptable to expose other people's children to belief systems with the intent to mold them into it, however. My daughter is more than her ability to have babies and she will not be any man's religiously sanctioned punching bag. No thanks. That said, I do not agree with our troops being over there and NO I do not think we should stay another day. Let them do what they will. And if you think Muslims aren't "fornicating and aborting" then you are sadly naieve and probably should travel more places.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SR

It's like in Africa the popular mindset was the bigger the family the more power you have in the region yet with the same breath they would wonder why they where starving to death and didn't have enough resources.


Muslims need to accept there holy book in some cases doesn't have answers that work well with reality like the Christians and Jews did.

Another thing that's a joke;

All this hating on gays and stuff, It's like to be fair a gay couple aint going to be having children or loads of them and expecting the state to pay for it. A non aids affected gay person generally puts in more than they take out from the state and do not add to the problem of over population.

Yet all the religions hate on them and want to hang them it's like I feel sorry for gay people. They get hated on yet it can be argued the do the most to benefit humanity in a way especially for a minority.



1) Africans having many children has to do with a) religious beliefs (a lot of them are Catholic ----no birth control). b) no monetary resources for birth control (for non-Catholics). c) lack of sex education. d) high mortality rate, so having several pregnancies/births guarantees that at least some of them will not die so young.
That's what I think.

2)Christian and Jewish holy books deal well with reality? Yeah, like when you see people walking on water, waking people from death, in talking to ghosts, having conversations with bushes that are on fire, collecting every single living species (termites and ring worms included, two of each) and loading them all in a wooden boat........all very real of course.
Again, my opinion, I respect people who believe in this.

3) What do respecting gays have to do with all of this?



Originally posted by SR

Bear in mind science didn't exist back then.



Why would you think that science did not exist in Jesus' times?
Have you heard about the Egyptians? Even hundreds of years before Christ they had advanced science. Greeks? The Roman Empire? China? Persians? (just to name a few).

[edit on 3/23/2009 by haika]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by awake_awoke

I'm sorry, did you call Obama a Muslim?



Yes I called him a Muslim, he isn't a practicing Muslim anymore but many say he is a closet muslim these days. I certainly do NOT believe that church he went to in chicago was a Christian Church and was more about militant activism against rich white America.


So...then that makes Oprah a Muslim as well?

What will American Christian housewives say? Because she went to the same church as Obama did in Chicago.

Anyway........back to the subject: religion in public schools = bad.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,Christianity is dwindling..atheist or agnostic is on the rise,or atleast more people dont feel they have to hide it..so it makes sense to teach about Islam.I think schools should be teaching the majority of religions,it IS a large part of peoples cultures,traditions and has had a large role in history.It links into so many aspects of the past,present and future it would be silly not to teach it in its basics.


REPLY: True, Muslims are quickly becoming a large percentage of the population in many countries, and that is, indeed, the problem. I have no problem with Muslims (except that the majority do not speak out against Islamic terrorists), bit I have an extreme dislike for Islam, going back to The Crusades and the Barbary Pirates.

Actually, schools should be teaching more about history, math and reading, and stay away from social studies.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by zappafan1
 




(except that the majority do not speak out against Islamic terrorists)


Garbage.

This website contains about 100 or more links to articles reporting Muslim countries and organisations and individual Muslim rallies condemning everything from 9/11, to Bin Laden and even Sharia Law:
www.muhajabah.com...

You don't hear about it because the mainstream media is owned by huge right-wing conglomerates like Rupert Murdoch (major shareholder of Fox News, The Times, New York Post, Wall Street Journal and even Myspace), who's an outspoken Republican supporter and fervently influences his media organisations with his own ideology.


bit I have an extreme dislike for Islam, going back to The Crusades and the Barbary Pirates.


You like Muslims but you hate Islam?


Bit like saying: "I don't hate Jews, I just hate their retarded beliefs."

Those beliefs are what makes them Jewish. You can't have one without the other.

[edit on 23/3/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
I have no problem with Muslims

I'm sorry.. you contradict yourself, see below;


Originally posted by zappafan1
I have an extreme dislike for Islam



Originally posted by zappafan1
Muslims are quickly becoming a large percentage of the population in many countries, and that is, indeed, the problem


I'm not understanding you here... and then you say this;


Originally posted by zappafan1
except that the majority do not speak out against Islamic terrorists

First of all, there are radicals in all shapes and forms in any society or culture.. so why do say "Islamic terrorists" ... why not just say "terrorists"?.. where does it allegedly say in Islam; to be a 'terrorist'?

Second, why should anyone take responsibility for the actions of a few whom do not relate?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


Also, I would be very careful when trying to pass off "American Thinker" as a partial, credible source on religious tolerance.

These guys are nothing but another right-wing, neo-con thinkthank organisation with a clear agenda of Muslim discrimination.

REPLY: Being a NeoCon in America is a complement:

Noun: Neoconservatism
An approach to politics or theology that represents a return to a traditional point of view (in contrast to more liberal or radical schools of thought of the 1960s, such as Marxism, Socialism,Communism).

I see no problem discriminating against Muslims at all. It wasn't long ago that being "discriminating" was a good thing, as it represents common sense and logic in thinking towards various issues. I have no problem disliking those whose religion tolerates "mercy killings" of family members for wives who have been raped, or who feel it is an honor to strap bombs to their children to placate a false god.

My referencing a site whose thoughts are sometimes similar to my own is no different than someone referencing the "Earth First" or "Greenpeace" website if they post an article on the false notions of human caused climate change.



[edit on 23-3-2009 by zappafan1]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
I see no problem discriminating against Muslims at all

Some people would beg to differ.



It wasn't long ago that being "discriminating" was a good thing

Yes, back then in the olden days, slavery was a good thing too.



I have no problem disliking those whose religion tolerates "mercy killings" of family members for wives who have been raped, or who feel it is an honor to strap bombs to their children to placate a false god.

And your proof of these claims? .. how does this represent Islam; rather than individual cases like any part of the world?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by zappafan1
 


You don't hear about it because the mainstream media is owned by huge right-wing conglomerates like Rupert Murdoch (major shareholder of Fox News, The Times, New York Post, Wall Street Journal and even Myspace), who's an outspoken Republican supporter and fervently influences his media organisations with his own ideology.

REPLY: Fox is the only one you mentioned who is even partially conservative. As for media bias, check out the following:
www.mediaresearch.org...

Also a snippet of info here:
Next, the researchers and their assistants counted citations to these same groups in the media, and calculated an ADA rating for each media outlet based on the citations. So if a newspaper cited a mix of groups very similar to groups cited by Sen. John Kerry, the newspaper would have the same ADA rating as Kerry: 88 percent.

Two major media outlets were to the right of the American political midpoint: The Washington Times, at 35 percent, and Fox (the nightly news with Brit Hume) at 40 percent.

Three outlets were slightly left, but still close to the center: The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America - all at 56 percent.

The majority of the media clustered in the 60 to 69 range - significantly to the left of the average U.S. voter. These outlets were (in order of increasing leftishness) ABC's World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News, USA Today, the Today show, Time, U.S. News & World Report, NPR Morning Edition, Newsweek, CBS Early Show, and The Washington Post. Every one of these outlets was further from the American political midpoint than was Fox News.

At the far left of the major media spectrum were the Los Angeles Times (70), CBS Evening News (74), The New York Times (74), and The Wall Street Journal (85). The ratings were based only on news stories, so the left-leaning opinion pages at the Los Angeles Times and right-leaning opinion pages at The Wall Street Journal had no effect.

The authors conclude: "Our results show a strong liberal bias." Even so, most of the media are much more moderate than Congress itself, where the average Democrat has an 84, and the average Republican a 16.

The study, which builds on previous work by Groseclose and Mil- yo, appears in the November issue of The Quarterly Journal of Economics. It is available online at www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf.


The higher the number the More Left.


You like Muslims but you hate Islam?


REPLY: ...... didn't say I liked or disliked Muslims. Please don't inject words I didn't say. Thanks!!!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


The ONLY job of a president, and other elected officials, is to uphold and protect The Constitution. One cannot be a Muslim and do both. One cannot be a Socialist/Marxist and do both. It's bad enough that he refuses to produce the vault copy of his birth certificate. And, yes, during a campaign interview he slipped up and mentioned his muslim faith
(lower case "M" intentional). Of course, what can one expect from someone who thinks there are 56 or 57 states in America?
Oddly enough, there are 57 "states" in the musim arena. (States is probably not the correct word).



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by haika

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by awake_awoke

I'm sorry, did you call Obama a Muslim?



Yes I called him a Muslim, he isn't a practicing Muslim anymore but many say he is a closet muslim these days. I certainly do NOT believe that church he went to in chicago was a Christian Church and was more about militant activism against rich white America.


So...then that makes Oprah a Muslim as well?

What will American Christian housewives say? Because she went to the same church as Obama did in Chicago.

Anyway........back to the subject: religion in public schools = bad.


How would it make Oprah a muslim? By the way Oprah denounced Jesus Christ on her television show. If you haven't already heard, Oprah is her OWN religion



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I learned ABOUT all religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism. I graduated in 2007, so I'm not as far out of touch as some people are.

We don't need to be taught how to be religious in schools, we just need to be taught about ALL RELIGIONS.

Open mindedness is the light that will set you free, masses!

reply to post by zappafan1
 


You are just ridiculous. How can one be Muslim and not do both? A Muslim is no more crazy than a Christian. All religious people have their own special brand of bat poop insanity.

Oh, I see now that you're a troll. Suddenly, your insanity makes perfect sense.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by sadisticwoman]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
That article made me crack up. It's amazing how ignorant some people are!

This particular part of the article really tickled me:


Ybarra claims that the textbooks also treat Islam with special privilege and tend not to criticize or challenge it, as they do Judaism and Christianity. He offers this example from the glossary of World History: Continuity and Change:

It calls the Ten Commandments "moral laws Moses claimed to have received from the Hebrew God," while the entry for the Koran contains no such qualifier in saying it is the "Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from God."


What the author of that article failed to mention is that Moses is not only an important figure in Judaism, but also in Islam. In fact, Muslims believe that Moses was a prophet of God and that he was given the Ten Commandments by God on top of Mount Sinai, just like the Jews believe.

So basically, what the author of the article is saying doesn't make sense because Muslims believe in Moses and the Ten Commandments just as much as Jews do. It is an equal part of both religions! The only explanation is that the people at American Thinker are seeing criticism where it doesn't exist, or they are making up crap. I would be much more likely to believe the latter given all of the totally outrageous stuff they posted about Obama.

Islamic View of Moses (Wikipedia)

I know that there are some minor differences between the two stories, but both religions believe that Moses received tablets from God, which is enough to refute the assertion in the American Thinker article.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by haika

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by awake_awoke

I'm sorry, did you call Obama a Muslim?



Yes I called him a Muslim, he isn't a practicing Muslim anymore but many say he is a closet muslim these days. I certainly do NOT believe that church he went to in chicago was a Christian Church and was more about militant activism against rich white America.


So...then that makes Oprah a Muslim as well?

What will American Christian housewives say? Because she went to the same church as Obama did in Chicago.

Anyway........back to the subject: religion in public schools = bad.


How would it make Oprah a muslim? By the way Oprah denounced Jesus Christ on her television show. If you haven't already heard, Oprah is her OWN religion



It was meant to be a sarcastic comment for zappafan1. Honestly, I have no idea about Oprah's life, I don't care for her. Just that a while ago I heard someone on TV say that she attended the same church as Obama in Chicago (which BTW, I know is not a mosque or a temple of Muslim faith).

[edit on 3/24/2009 by haika]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
As Texe Marrs points out in his broadcast this week (which you can listen to until Friday, March 27 at noon) by way of his guest Michael Hoffman, author of a new 1100 page book on Judaism, the Muslim religion used to be considered a Christian heresy. It is closer to Christianity than Mormonism or in some ways even than Catholicism. The Muslims believe Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost, the Koran calls him the Messiah. They believe Jesus was taken bodily to Heaven. They believe Jesus is coming again to defeat the antichrist and rule the new Jerusalem. They do not believe Jesus was crucified for our sins. That is the missing part.

Yes, their Koran is bogus. The account of the birth of Jesus reads more like the birth of Ishmaal to Hagar. The Koran teaches that Mary went out to the desert alone to give birth to Jesus, and that God supplied water to her from a rock when she was dieing of thirst. The Koran teaches that Mary called out to God asking, What shall I tell the men of my village when they ask me why I have a baby and no husband? And God told her, Let the infant answer for you. So when Mary went back to the village, the men were there and confronted her. The Koran teaches that baby Jesus answered and said, 'She is innocent, and conceived by the Holy Ghost.' The Koran says the men were bowled over with amazement and ran away and left Mary alone after that.

The Koran was invented out of thin air, a creation of the Jesuit Catholics. Mohammed was married to a Catholic. The Catholic church sent their agent, a nun, to recruit Muhammad and to start a new religion. The Catholic church desired to have the Arabs be their personal army to conquer Jerusalem for them. Instead, the Muslims decided to keep it for themselves. But this explains why the two religions are similar in that the Muslim women are dressed as nuns, they both use prayer beads and chantings, both have bone relics of saints under their alters, and usually you will see a Catholic cathedral right next to the Muslim mosque. One Muslim mosque has a shrine to John the Baptist and they claim they have his head.

The Muslims are monotheistic, which means they worship one Creator God. The word prophet that is applied to Jesus is only one of his names or titles given in the Koran. He is also called the Messiah and the son of God, but not God himself. This differs from Christianity, but in practice most Christians don't fully realize that Jesus was and is God the Creator who took the form of a man to walk this earth for 33 years and die on the cross as the Lamb of God, so in that respect they are no different than the Muslims.

Compared to the Muslims who love Jesus and Mary, the Jews make a point in their religion of focusing a consuming hatred on Jesus. The Talmud refers to Jesus as Yeshu (sp?) meaning "May his name be forever blotted out." The Talmud teaches that Jesus was a scoundrel, a liar, a thief, and that he is now burning in firey excrement in Hell. It also says Mary was a whore. It says awful things about all nonJews but especially those who follow Jesus, and advocates that it's okay to cheat a goy of his wages, to pull the ladder away if he falls in a crevice, to let him drown if you hear his cries for help, that kind of thing. There is also much other stuff concerning human excrement and sex with children in the Talmud that is pure wickedness.

For Christians to align themselves with Zionist neocons against the Muslims is delusional and apostasy to Christianity, especially since it is based on heresies taught in paperback sensationalized religious pop Christianity books written by Hal Lindsey and by British Zionist agent CI Scofield's footnotes of the 1900s. Scofield was a novice supposed convert to Christianity, one who liked to scam and defraud, who was imprisoned for embezzlement, who bilked his own mother in law of all her money to sell her nonexistent property, providing her wtih a deed to property that did not exist with the name of a nonexistent former owner upon it. He also abandoned his wife and two children and never sent them a penny of money even when he was raking it in from his Scofield Bibles. This is the guy whose words are next to God's in the Bible that's used by so-called "Fundamentalists" and many evangelicals, the infamous Scofield Reference Bible. It teaches the pretrib rapture, that just before WWIII the Christians will be whooshed away and leave the rest of the people behind to either die in the holocaust or to be ground to hamburg by the antichrist. The teaching is that the Christians will be whooshed away to a big supper feast in Heaven where they can watch those "Left Behind" going through the horrors of the Tribulation. This heresy has caused untold numbers of Christians to sit placidly and apathetically in their pews whlie the world has gone to hell in a handbasket, and to support the neocons in their megalomaniacal support of Israel and the New World Order.

This puts Christians, supposed Christians, in the front lines working for the antichrist and the New World Order. At the very least, it causes them to acquiesce and not lift a finger or utter a whimper against it.

The media is totally and completely owned and controlled by Zionists. Same for the education system, Big Pharma, the courts, and the federal government, which is stacked with Freemasons and Zionists. Those not supporting Zionism don't get money to run for office, and if they do manage to get enough support to start getting votes, they elections will be stolen or the person will be destroyed in the media.

The alternative media is where we find the truth, and we must think for ourselves, not allow ourselves to be programmed by the controlled media, its schools and its evil culture. We need to break out of the matrix and think for ourselves, seek out the truth where it may be found, which is NOT in the controlled mainstream media.

Jesus said, You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

As Texe Marrs points out in his broadcast this week (which you can listen to until Friday, March 27 at noon) by way of his guest Michael Hoffman, author of a new 1100 page book on Judaism, the Muslim religion used to be considered a Christian heresy. It is closer to Christianity than Mormonism or in some ways even than Catholicism. The Muslims believe Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost, the Koran calls him the Messiah. They believe Jesus was taken bodily to Heaven. They believe Jesus is coming again to defeat the antichrist and rule the new Jerusalem. They do not believe Jesus was crucified for our sins. That is the missing part.


Prove it! and then you can answer my last post to you.



Yes, their Koran is bogus.


Proof?



The account of the birth of Jesus reads more like the birth of Ishmaal to Hagar. The Koran teaches that Mary went out to the desert alone to give birth to Jesus, and that God supplied water to her from a rock when she was dieing of thirst. The Koran teaches that Mary called out to God asking, What shall I tell the men of my village when they ask me why I have a baby and no husband? And God told her, Let the infant answer for you. So when Mary went back to the village, the men were there and confronted her. The Koran teaches that baby Jesus answered and said, 'She is innocent, and conceived by the Holy Ghost.' The Koran says the men were bowled over with amazement and ran away and left Mary alone after that.

The Koran was invented out of thin air, a creation of the Jesuit Catholics. Mohammed was married to a Catholic. The Catholic church sent their agent, a nun, to recruit Muhammad and to start a new religion. The Catholic church desired to have the Arabs be their personal army to conquer Jerusalem for them. Instead, the Muslims decided to keep it for themselves. But this explains why the two religions are similar in that the Muslim women are dressed as nuns, they both use prayer beads and chantings, both have bone relics of saints under their alters, and usually you will see a Catholic cathedral right next to the Muslim mosque. One Muslim mosque has a shrine to John the Baptist and they claim they have his head.

The Muslims are monotheistic, which means they worship one Creator God. The word prophet that is applied to Jesus is only one of his names or titles given in the Koran. He is also called the Messiah and the son of God, but not God himself. This differs from Christianity, but in practice most Christians don't fully realize that Jesus was and is God the Creator who took the form of a man to walk this earth for 33 years and die on the cross as the Lamb of God, so in that respect they are no different than the Muslims.


Ok

Yes they hate jesus and you hate the Jews. Now Ill ask you again, since I have never seen anyone so much an anti semite as you are.

You are either a Skin head who think they are true Christians, or a Palestinian or a Neo Nazi which is ironic when you think about it because Nazi is what many here call neocons and NWO

All the rest of that stuff, again you castigate anyone who disagrees with you and you call them a Zionist and you Criticize anyone not backing up there claims yet I have asked you several times on several threads where you post this same rant and you have never shown any. That is besides the posts you make that you copy almost word for word from other blogs but then again that could be you also since this kind of post seems to be a career of sorts for you.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


Just because it doesn't sit well with your religious bigotry, doesn't mean they're actually bad people.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by zappafan1
 




I see no problem discriminating against Muslims at all. It wasn't long ago that being "discriminating" was a good thing, as it represents common sense and logic in thinking towards various issues.


Did you ever pass English Comprehension?

Discriminating is being discerning and rational when analysing information and not swallowing everything whole.

Being discriminatory towards a particular ethnic or religious group for simply following their beliefs is Xenophobia and Bigotry.

Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges.

Be discriminating by all means, nobody's claiming that's bad.

But hating people for belonging to certain belief system hasn't been a "good thing" since 1945 and the fall of Hitler.

So please, can the ridiculousness, unless you actually WANT to purposely discredit yourself.


I have no problem disliking those whose religion tolerates "mercy killings" of family members for wives who have been raped, or who feel it is an honor to strap bombs to their children to placate a false god.


And I have no problem disliking people who make sweeping assumptions about topics they have absolutely zero knowledge about and simply gain insight into them via watching mainstream media garbage tainted purposefully to demonise a certain group of people for the government's gain.


Fox is the only one you mentioned who is even partially conservative.


Right. And George Bush was only partially Republican.

Don't play dumb. The majority of media outlets today inherently favour the right, and pander to their wide-ranging Republican benefactors and contributors from Jewish groups like AIPAC, to the PNAC, to the Fox Media Conglomerate, Rupert Murdoch, RJC and so forth.

All well-funded big business players who are out there to promote Republican ideas as much as possible with as much cash as possible.


As for media bias, check out the following:
www.mediaresearch.org...


No I'll be okay

MRC.org is a self-proclaimed conservative media watchdog who do nothing but slander absolutely every news pundit whom they claim displays a 'left-leaning' bias. It's nothing more than a professional smear campaign organisation for the Republican party.

Hence I don't pay much attention to people who's best interests are promoting a wide-ranging "liberal bias" in the media.

MRC has repeatedly been proven to use VERY selective evidence and none of their "liberal bias" theories hold up to any scrutiny when investigated by REAL Media watchdogs like MediaMatters and Fairness&Accuracy in Reporting, who simply pick up on their unsound logic and thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks at anything Liberal:


MRC research director Rich Noyes summarized a May 9 "study," titled "Extreme Conservatives vs. Unlabeled Liberals," as follows:

In the six months since November's elections, network reporters have zeroed in on "conservatives" -- especially "religious conservatives" -- as an energized and unwelcome force in American politics. As TV told it, George W. Bush won re-election because of strong support from "social conservatives" and would pack the courts with "conservative" judges. It was "conservatives" who pushed Terri Schiavo's right-to-life case, and "conservatives" like Tom DeLay and John Bolton were embroiled in controversy.

It's true conservatives have been making a lot of headlines, but even as the networks painted the right side of the spectrum as ideological, and even a tad fanatical, reporters rarely used ideological terms to define liberals. Since Election Day, network reporters branded politicians or groups as "conservative" 395 times, compared to 59 "liberal" labels, a greater than six-to-one disparity.

The basic premise of this "study" -- that if there are more mentions of the word "conservative" than the word "liberal" in a given period, then the news must be "biased" against conservatives -- is so ridiculous that a fourth-grader could pierce its logic.

mediamatters.org...


On NBC, Meet the Press consistently features imbalanced panels that favor conservatives; interviews on the Today show in April featured three times as many conservatives as liberals; and 19 Chris Matthews Show panels skewed right in 2004, while only 7 skewed left. In the 15 weeks following the 2004 presidential election, the CBS Evening News featured 65 clips of Democratic officials or commentators representing progressive organizations and 83 clips of Republican officials or commentators representing conservative organizations, not including President Bush; and on January 19, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer acknowledged that CBS' Face the Nation hosted more Republican than Democrat guests since the presidential election. Media Matters has noted imbalances in cable news coverage of political events as well, including the 2004 presidential debates and the inauguration.



The MRC was also angry that the lobbying group USA Next was identified as conservative, while the AARP was not identified as liberal. As Media Matters has noted, USA Next is little more than a Republican front group funded by the pharmaceutical industry to attack Democrats and press Republican causes. The AARP, on the other hand, represents tens of millions of seniors on a wide variety of issues, in addition to offering services like health and life insurance. Its CEO worked on President Nixon's re-election campaign, and the organization endorsed the Bush Medicare prescription drug plan; calling the AARP a "liberal" group would hardly be accurate.

If it's not Republican spin, it must be liberal bias

www.fair.org...


Be more DISCRIMINATING in your choice of sources.



REPLY: ...... didn't say I liked or disliked Muslims. Please don't inject words I didn't say. Thanks!!!


YOUR EXACT WORDS BELOW:

"I see no problem discriminating against Muslims at all."
"bit I have an extreme dislike for Islam,"

Stop dodging your own fallacies and at least be honest about it. Obviously the sources you vainly quote to back up your deluded rationale you're not really aware of yourself, but I'm sure you are fully aware of what you deep down think about Islam.

You think we're incapable of using the mouse scroll or something? It's all there for everyone to see buddy.


The ONLY job of a president, and other elected officials, is to uphold and protect The Constitution. One cannot be a Muslim and do both.


Point to me where it states in the Constitution that the President of the United States must be a practising Christian.
Please.

Have no you long-term memory or knowledge of history?

Why do you think the pilgrims fled to America in the first place? Because they were fed up with religious Bible-thumpers stifling every free thought and new idea anyone came up with and calling it "blasphemy".

The United States was designed to be a secular nation with a clear separation of Church and State from the get go, unlike the horrible conditions the original founding fathers escaped in England.

They fought to free themselves of religious persecution, among many, many other human rights violations of Monarchical Britian and now everyone seems to be forgetting this.

[edit on 24/3/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira


Point to me where it states in the Constitution that the President of the United States must be a practising Christian.
Please.

Have no you long-term memory or knowledge of history?

Why do you think the pilgrims fled to America in the first place? Because they were fed up with religious Bible-thumpers stifling every free thought and new idea anyone came up with and calling it "blasphemy".

The United States was designed to be a secular nation with a clear separation of Church and State from the get go, unlike the horrible conditions the original founding fathers escaped in England.





United States Supreme Court February 29, 1892, in the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36L ed 226,
"No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. . . . Religion morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state."


No this was constructed to have freedom of religion not FROM religion and yes if you look at most ever early document from George Washington to Lincoln and on and on to this day Christianity is all over the place. The only thing unique was that the Government would not become a Church like the Church of England and it was to promote the Christian Religion since that happened to make up most of them in different sects. Their is NOTHING in the constitution that separates church and state just that they will make no laws to establish a state religion as "thee" religion but they were certainly endorsing one back then when you read that ruling in its entirety


[edit on 24-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join