Who wouldn't be fearful of millions of fanatic crazies who want to kill  
you?
As I have said many times before, Islam is a religion of  intimidation.
Islam is sick, evil, criminal and violent by design.
 
OK, that is the problem. Well, say so, without equivocation.
And fight for what you believe is right,  which,     -whether you
are Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu or anything else-
will necessarily be the opposite of the principles of Islam.
 
 
This is a war, like it or not. Get used to it.
 
 
Billy R.
 
 
----------------
 
 
 
 
Islam Gets Special Treatment
By _Dennis Prager_ 
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/dennis_prager/)  - January 13, 2015 


_realclearpolitics.com_ (http://realclearpolitics.comSince) 
 
Since  9/11, the Western world's academic, media, political elites have 
done their best  to portray Islam in a favorable light, treating it very 
differently from all  other religions. Criticism of every doctrine, religious 
or 
secular, is  permitted, often encouraged. But not of Islam. Only positive 
depictions are  allowed.

 
 
We'll start with an example of pro-Islamic bias that is so ubiquitous that 
no  one seems to notice it. Why do Western media -- overwhelmingly composed 
of  irreligious people, one might add -- always deferentially refer to 
Muhammad as  "the Prophet Muhammad" in news articles and opinion  pieces?





 
When Jesus is mentioned, the media never refer to him as "Christ, the Lord" 
 or as "the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Just "Jesus." In fact, "A.D." 
("anno  Domini" -- "year of our Lord") has been completely dropped by the very 
academics  and media who always write "The Prophet Muhammad." 
When the media discuss Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Church of  
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church), they don't refer to 
him  as "the Prophet Joseph Smith." Why not? Is there a single difference 
between his  title and roles in Mormonism and Muhammad's in Islam? 
And Jews refer to Moses as "Moshe Rabbeinu," Moses our Teacher. Why don't 
the  media? 
This was not the case in the past. When I studied Islam and Arabic in  
college, professors referred to the founder of Islam as "Muhammad." And  
virtually none of the great biographies of Muhammad -- even among those  
recommended on Muslim websites -- have the words "the Prophet Muhammad" in 
their  
title. 
There is only one possible reason and that is Political Correctness --  
Western elites bending over backwards on behalf of Muslims and Islam in ways  
they never would for another religion. 
Another ubiquitous example: Before 9/11, the phrase "Allahu Akbar" was  
translated as "Allah is great" [or "the greatest"). Since 9/11, it has been  
translated as "God is great." 
This was deliberate. In 2004, the influential Associated Press Stylebook  
announced: "A new entry has been added to the AP Stylebook: Allah. The Muslim 
 name for God. The word God should be used." 
Now, there are perfectly valid reasons to translate "Allah" as "God." And  
there are valid reasons not to. Indeed, Malaysia, a country widely depicted 
as a  moderate Muslim country, last year banned Christians from using the 
word "Allah"  in Arabic translations of the Bible -- because, while all 
Muslims regard Allah  as the God of the universe, many Muslims regard the name 
"Allah" as specifically  Muslim. 
Whatever theological side one takes, the fact remains that after 9/11 Allah 
 became "God" in the Western world -- in order to essentially show how 
similar  Islam is to Judaism and Christianity. 
Always referring to Muhammad as "the Prophet Muhammad" and translating  
"Allah" as "God" are subtle examples of the Western media and intellectual bias 
 in favor of Islam since 2001. Most examples of the bias are not subtle, 
but  blatant and morally indefensible. 
Take one from the Paris murders. 
Why did the Muslim terrorists go to a Jewish grocery? This is not a riddle. 
 We all know. But some in the media pretended they didn't. During the 
attack, a  reporter for Sky News, one of the largest English-language news 
services in the  world, said on Fox News: "Whether it was targeted specifically 
for its religious  connotations it is difficult to know." 
Is there one reader of this column who thought it "difficult to know" 
whether  the Muslim terrorists targeted a Jewish grocery? 
Why would someone presumably intelligent say something so obviously  
stupid? 
In order to protect Islam. 
Just as so many in the media and government did after Major Nidal Hasan's  
murder of 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. They found it difficult to 
ascertain  if religion was a factor in his murders, despite his yelling, 
"Allahu 
Akbar"  while shooting, despite his listing himself as a "Soldier of Allah" 
on his  Facebook page, and despite many other affirmations of Islamism. 
A New York Times writer blamed it on Major Hasan's "snapping" (in an 
article  titled "When Soldiers Snap"). Chris Matthews said "it's unclear if 
religion was  a factor in this shooting." NPR correspondent Tom Gjelten 
explained 
that Hasan,  though never in combat, may have suffered from "pre-traumatic 
stress disorder."  And the U.S. Department of Defense classified the Fort 
Hood shootings as acts of  "workplace violence," not terror, let alone Islamic 
terror. 
Perhaps the most egregious example of a society's elites treating Islam  
differently from all other religions took place in the UK. Between 1997 and  
2013, at least 1,400 girls, as young as 11 years old, in the small English 
city  of Rotherham (population 275,000), had been repeatedly gang raped and 
sold as  sex slaves. The UK government acknowledged that these atrocities were 
allowed to  go on solely due to the fact the perpetrators were British 
Pakistanis and the  girls were white. No one was allowed to say that. The 
author 
of a 2002 report  identifying Pakistanis as the perpetrators and organizers 
of the Rotherham gang  rapes and the sex slavery was sent to diversity 
training. 
Finally, why won't the New York Times print even one Charlie Hebdo cartoon? 
 Twelve journalists were slaughtered over those cartoons; are the 
caricatures not  newsworthy? Of course they are. But they satire Islam, and 
that is 
not  allowed. 
Here's the ultimate irony. These PC professors and news media who treat 
Islam  so much better than any other religion are literally Islamophobic. They 
truly  fear Islam. 


-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to