do journalists legimatize Islam?
Posted: 22 February 2006 07:03 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  707
Joined  2005-05-16

Journalists are suppose to be neutral on maters of religion, but when journalists refer to the founder of Islam as “The” prophet Mohammed, they maybe unknowing validating the beliefs of many Islamic extremists.  What must of Islamicist think when an infidel newspaper or journalist refers to his prophet as “the” prophet?
Of the world estimated 6 billion inhabitants, and estimated 1.5 billion or 25 percent of the worlds’ population are Muslims.  For 75 percent of the world population, Mohammed is not their prophet.  No legitimate journalist would refer to Jesus Christ as “the son of God”, or the founder of Mormonism as “The Prophet” Joseph Smith.
Mohammed should be referring to as “The Muslim Prophet”, “The Islamic Prophet” or the founder of Islam.  Such terminology should not be insulting to either Muslim or to the major of the world’s population that do not believe Mohammed to be God’s ultimate prophet.  This is not a mater of political correctness, just objectivity and neutrality on issues of religion.

Please forward this message to newspapers and journalists.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2006 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20

A good point.  It may be a form of appeasement.  Sam Harris talked about our tiptoeing around religious ‘sensitivities’.  George Bush apparently feels that his God approves of his decision to go into Iraq.  However, could a cartoonist depict Jesus walking the streets of Bagdad in a U.S. uniform, carrying a weapon, or kicking down a door?  Many people living in Middle America are afraid to point out Christian inanities -  I mean,  afraid in the real sense - fear of physical harm, or losing one’s job, social ostracism, etc.  If fundamentalist Islam is seen as dangerous, as many writers, journalists see it, they try to carry on so they are not murdered in the night.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2006 12:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  414
Joined  2006-02-01

[quote author=“MrMody”]Journalists are suppose to be neutral on maters of religion, but when journalists refer to the founder of Islam as “The” prophet Mohammed, they maybe unknowing validating the beliefs of many Islamic extremists.  What must of Islamicist think when an infidel newspaper or journalist refers to his prophet as “the” prophet?
Of the world estimated 6 billion inhabitants, and estimated 1.5 billion or 25 percent of the worlds’ population are Muslims.  For 75 percent of the world population, Mohammed is not their prophet.  No legitimate journalist would refer to Jesus Christ as “the son of God”, or the founder of Mormonism as “The Prophet” Joseph Smith.
Mohammed should be referring to as “The Muslim Prophet”, “The Islamic Prophet” or the founder of Islam.  Such terminology should not be insulting to either Muslim or to the major of the world’s population that do not believe Mohammed to be God’s ultimate prophet.  This is not a mater of political correctness, just objectivity and neutrality on issues of religion.

Please forward this message to newspapers and journalists.


It is a good point - other than the obvious flaw of ‘not be[ing] insulting to either Muslim or to the major[ity] of the world’s population that do not believe Mohammed to be God’s ultimate prophet]. This is a huge oversight: teasing Muslims is so this season and all the cool thinkers are doing it.

 Signature 

All Christians should be sent to heaven immediately.

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
‹‹ islam cartoon      Teaching Sam's book ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed