Faith in a Box (Fox found to be most biased against religion) (1 Viewer)

[shuamort]

Faith in a Box

Fox had the highest percentage of anti-religious depictions, with 1 of every 2 depictions of religion – almost exactly half (49.7%) – being negative. NBC closely followed, with 39.3% of their depictions of religion being negative, while 35.4% of UPN depictions were negative. 30% of ABC’s portrayals were negative, followed by 29% of CBS’ and 21% of WB’s.

I'm personally biased against all religions, so I'm not a judge of this, just thought I'd share.

 

[tecoyah]

Fox had the highest percentage of anti-religious depictions, with 1 of every 2 depictions of religion – almost exactly half (49.7%) – being negative. NBC closely followed, with 39.3% of their depictions of religion being negative, while 35.4% of UPN depictions were negative. 30% of ABC’s portrayals were negative, followed by 29% of CBS’ and 21% of WB’s.


As of late....the negative outweighs the positive in virtually every aspect...they seem to be simply, reporting on it.

 

[LeftyHenry]

wtf? Perhaps they missed the constant reruns of the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes or fell asleep during Religion and the US government and the countless other war on christmas **** FOX produces.

 

[Voidwar]

Im surprised no one saw through this already.

This poll shows nothing as it lumps all religions together.

Fox is the network telling the negative truth about Islam.

duh

 

[Thelost1]

Im surprised no one saw through this already.

This poll shows nothing as it lumps all religions together.

Fox is the network telling the negative truth about Islam.

duh

Ever read the Qu'ran? Know what Jihad really is?

 

[Voidwar]

Ever read the Qu'ran? Know what Jihad really is?

I've read most of a translation, but the obsequious sycophancy turned my stomach too much to read the whole thing in a go, besides, I already read it when it better prose and was called the bible.
Yes, I know exactly what Jihad is. Conversion of Dar al Harm at swordpoint into Dar al Islam. The holy war is what the word means. Though it can be directly translated as struggle, the word has for hundreds of years been used by Islamic scholars to particularly describe holy war to expand Islam. This "inner struggle" CRAP is a recently invented case of "al tekkeya", or lying to infidels whenever it benefits Islam.

 

[Thelost1]

That's ridiculous. A religion is no more and no less than what the believers make it. There was a time when Baghdad was the scientific and cultural capitol of the world. Ever heard of what Muslim Spain was like before the crusaders got there?

Go read some history.

 

[Voidwar]

That's ridiculous. A religion is no more and no less than what the believers make it.

This doesn't really say anything.

There was a time when Baghdad was the scientific and cultural capitol of the world.

So ?

Ever heard of what Muslim Spain was like before the crusaders got there?

Who gives two shits if Morgan Freeman can understand and use a telescope and Kevin Costner can't ?

This also, does not matter to the topic at hand.

Go read some history.

You know one thing I'm certain you are completely ignorant about ?
How much history I have read.
So, when someone spouts off on a topic they know zero about, I tend to ignore it.

 

[Thelost1]

you said that Fox was showing the negative truth about Islam. I said that there is nothing negative about Islam itself, just the practitioners.

 

[Voidwar]

Historically, Jihad means Holly War (Dharma Juddha in Bangla). For 1400 years, Muslims always understood the meaning of Jihad as Islamic Holy War. Every Islamic scholar, Mullah, maulana, Imam, etc., of the whole world will agree with this meaning of Jihad. Technically, Jihad is war against non-Muslims (Jihad al-kuffar or Jihad against disbeliever; and Jihad al-munafiqeen or Jihad against hypocrites) only, since Muslims are forbidden to fight the Muslims. Hundreds of books were written by the Islamic scholars (Islamic Chintabid) on Jihad and everybody unanimously used the word Jihad as the religious war called holy war (Dharma Juddha). In the Islamic history, more than 80% of the texts are filled with Holy War (Jihad). Early Islam was spread in the Arabian Peninsula solely by holy wars (Jihad). Islam was propagated as a religion by series of wars/battles –both defensive as well as Offensive. As many as 78 historic battles were fought by the Prophet Muhammad himself. And out of 78, only one (battle of ditch) was defensive war, and the rest were simply offensive wars. Did Muslim soldiers go to Syria, Iran, and Egypt to fight defensive war? What about those great historical BATTLES – Battle of Oho’d, Battle of Bad’r, Battle of Khayber, signing of peace-pacts such as “Hudaibya Peace Pact,” etc.? Were those wars fought with the so-called struggle only? Alternatively, were those wars fought with the heart-piercing sharpened swords?

from jihad

 

[Voidwar]

you said that Fox was showing the negative truth about Islam. I said that there is nothing negative about Islam itself, just the practitioners.

Oh, then you are simply wrong.

Do you think all religions immune to criticism ?

I think the Aztec religion was negative, cause it made humans sacrifice other humans.

Can you agree with me, or would you like to drop your credibility right here ?

So now that you have realized that religions ARE subject to being judged, how do you judge child humping prophets, and violent conversion, and clitorectomies, and burkahs, and martyrs, and women being shot in soccer stadiums, and Al Tekkeya, and Dhimmitude, and the Jizya ? Give you a lil hint, , , these are negatives.

 

[Thelost1]

lets look at a mission statement from that site:

Faith Freedom International is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims. Its goals are to (a) unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism but disguised as religion and (b) to help Muslims leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their "us" vs. "them" ethos and embrace the human race in amity. We strive for the unity of Mankind through the elimination of Islam, the most insidious doctrine of hate.

What an excellant and unbiased source of information!

 

[Thelost1]

Oh, then you are simply wrong.

Do you think all religions immune to criticism ?

I think the Aztec religion was negative, cause it made humans sacrifice other humans.

Can you agree with me, or would you like to drop your credibility right here ?

So now that you have realized that religions ARE subject to being judged, how do you judge child humping prophets, and violent conversion, and clitorectomies, and burkahs, and martyrs, and women being shot in soccer stadiums, and Al Tekkeya, and Dhimmitude, and the Jizya ? Give you a lil hint, , , these are negatives.

How do you judge the crusades? Pedophilic priests? Ted Haggard? None of those incidents make the entire religion of chistianity negative. Just the people that do them.

And as for the Aztec religions. Yes, human sacrifice is negative. But practicing that religion without sacrificing people would be just fine.

I must confess, however. That it is increasingly difficult to defend Islam when the dumbass radicals go around blowing stuff up.

 

[Voidwar]

How do you judge the crusades?

recall the thread topic. The crusades have not made the news much in the last few years.

Pedophilic priests? Ted Haggard? None of those incidents make the entire religion of chistianity negative. Just the people that do them.

I'll hazard a guess that fox covered those stories to the same degree other networks did, so those are "negative depictions of religion" that all the networks aired, and would thus statistically cancel out.

And as for the Aztec religions. Yes, human sacrifice is negative. But practicing that religion without sacrificing people would be just fine.

What you have stated is an oxymoron.
Sort of like suggesting drinking without swallowing.
Practicing that religion, IS sacrificing people.
"Go read some History" :lol: J/K

 

[Voidwar]

What an excellant and unbiased source of information!

Do you understand the concept of al Tekkeya ?

On these kind of questions, the only honest Muslim you will find, is an Ex-Muslim.

 

[Thelost1]

recall the thread topic. The crusades have not made the news much in the last few years.

point being that no religion is better than another, it just depends on when and where you are.

I'll hazard a guess that fox covered those stories to the same degree other networks did, so those are "negative depictions of religion" that all the networks aired, and would thus statistically cancel out.

Oh, I get it. You think that I'm still on topic. I was arguing about your statement that islam was a negative religion.

What you have stated is an oxymoron.
Sort of like suggesting drinking without swallowing.
Practicing that religion, IS sacrificing people.
"Go read some History" :lol: J/K

[/quote]

No it's not. Practicing that religion is worshpping those gods. When was the last time yo saw a Jew sacrifice a sheep? Religions can change.

 

[Thelost1]

Do you understand the concept of al Tekkeya ?

On these kind of questions, the only honest Muslim you will find, is an Ex-Muslim.

I am not. So I looked it up on google and got some people who were complaining about multiculturalism and some others who wanted to bomb Mecca. Not the most reliable sources. I then looked it up on Wikipedia, only to discover that it has no page.

So I must ask myself. Who do I trust about Islam? The obviously xenophobic people who say that Muslims lie to non-Muslims, or Muslims?

 

[Voidwar]

point being that no religion is better than another, it just depends on when and where you are.

I just got you to admit that the Aztec religion was crummy, so why would you restate this falsehood ? The fact is, some religions are better than others.

No it's not. Practicing that religion is worshpping those gods.

It is part and parcel of those gods that the manner in which they are worshipped involves the "flowery death" of sacrificial victims and their blood running into the earth.

 

[Skip]

I just got you to admit that the Aztec religion was crummy, so why would you restate this falsehood ? The fact is, some religions are better than others.

Better is subjective. Subjective meaning opinion. Also meaning that there can be no factual "truth" about which religion is better. You think Christianity is #1 on the list? Today I'm leaning more towards... Buddhism. Tomorrow's Christmas, so I have to go with Wicca.

See what I mean?

 

[Thelost1]

I just got you to admit that the Aztec religion was crummy, so why would you restate this falsehood ? The fact is, some religions are better than others.

Where? I simply said that that part of the religion was retarded. Someone could, however, practice that religion in modern society by doing away with the human sacrifice.

 

[Voidwar]

Human Sacrifice is not just another religious choice, it is demonstrably negative behavior.

There is no Azteca religion without human sacrifice. It is part and parcel of the entire religious belief system. Your contention that someone could invent some other similar religion, that did not sacrifice, is irrelevant. The Azteca religion DID sacrifice, and it is a negative. Religions are subject to judgement and criticism. Some are "bad", period.

 

[Thelost1]

no, you don't get it. There are Christians that participatre in Mass, and those that don't. in America, that religion wold no doubt find something other than human sacrifice. And human sacrifice is oth a negative behavior and a religious choice.

 

[Voidwar]

no, you don't get it.

Incorrect.

There are Christians that participatre in Mass, and those that don't.

innaccurate parallel. All Christians believe in jesus. All Azteca believed human sacrifice was necessary to sustain and nourish their gods.

You are the one who doesn't get it. The sacrifice was not an option, it was the central belief. You further "don't get it", because for the purposes of this discussion, as soon as you invent your watered down version, you have lost the argument. The fact that you needed to water it down is proves my contention.

 

[Thelost1]

Incorrect.

innaccurate parallel. All Christians believe in jesus. All Azteca believed human sacrifice was necessary to sustain and nourish their gods.

You are the one who doesn't get it. The sacrifice was not an option, it was the central belief. You further "don't get it", because for the purposes of this discussion, as soon as you invent your watered down version, you have lost the argument. The fact that you needed to water it down is proves my contention.

All Aztecs believed in their gods. Their central belief was not sacrifice, that was a way of worshipping. My comparison does not cause me to instantly lose.

 

[Voidwar]

All Aztecs believed in their gods. Their central belief was not sacrifice, that was a way of worshipping.

You are quite simply wrong. To quote you back to yourself , , ,

Go read some history.

The fact that you need to invent some new "sacrifice free azteca religion" to defend, instead of deal with the real one that existed proves my point.

The attempt to say that human sacrifice was just a removable aspect of Azteca religion is as dishonest as it is historically inaccurate.