posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:21 PM
I just read the entire document and I have to say, as an unreligious, unbiased person... Almost all of the examples seem pretty petty to me. These
studies, one done by a Christian group (agenda) and the other by what is presumably an anti-Islam organization (agenda), seem to actually be upset
that there isn't a pro-Christian/Israel bias, not that there is an Islam/Palestine bias. I saw very little evidence of Islam-over-Christianity.
Here are a couple of examples of text that they took issue with, and their reasons:
(for some reason it won't let me insert a quote from the document? So I'll just copy and paste it.)
“What were the sources of Muslim anger? …bin Laden declared that the [9/11] attacks were a
response to the ‘humiliation and disgrace’ that have afflicted the Islamic world for over eighty
years, a period dating back to the end of World War I.”
[Bin Laden justifies 9/11 by putting all the blame on the West.]
(My Response: I don't see this as anti-Christian at all. This isn't the author saying that America is to blame or that we deserved 9/11. It is an
exact quote of what Osama bin Laden gave as his reasoning, and to insist that this IMHO very key statement is sensored because it sounds anti-Chrisian
is ignorant. If the author had then provided his own commentary about why 9/11 was justified, I'd understand. But he didn't. He just put the facts
on the table, and I think that what the other side saw as their motivation is a pretty important one for history to be recorded accurately and
"The religion [Islam] has close ties to the prophets and teachers of Judaism and Christianity."
[A commonly used tactic by promoters of Islam to equate it to the other major religions, and
making it appear more Western in thought and acceptance.]
(My response: Well, it's true, the roots of each certainly have common denominators. To say that they don't is a commonly used tactic by anti-Islam
Christian fundamentalists who want to draw a very thick line between their "good" religion and the "evil" one opposite them. "...Making it
(Islam) appear more western....in acceptance" is literally stating that they are opposed to Islam being considered an acceptable religion. Who is
(Actually a majority of the examples are Isreal/Palestine nitpicking regarding, essentially, Zionism.
I wouldn't be surprised if the organizations who did this 'investigation' also pushed for textbooks to tell a story about Columbus coming to
America and having a giant happy feast with the indiginous people and everyone living together in harmony happily ever after.