NintendoFanKimmy : I very much agree with you. They are so biased, so friggin stupid, it infuriates me. They need a punch in the face, or something that will make them stop being so racist and stupid.

It's very unfair yes, but since that happened some people are as stupid to think all Muslims are that way. I just hope that there are enough people out there who realize that because it's a Muslim it doesn't immediately mean it's a terrorist, until they are specifically aiming for important things and they so themselves so too.

There are limits to bias?  Really?? 

One of my teachers watched his mother dying in an iron lung, still smoking a pack a day (and complaining about that restrictiveness) and swearing that it was not the cigs that gave her lung cancer because the tobacco industry had told her nothing in those things was remotely harmful.  She was willing to put her life on this line in support of false claims because it was better than giving up her addictive habit-I don't think anything the news people stoop to in a bid for higher viewership by their target demographic can compare to that.

What's worse is that a lot of these people truly believe what they're saying.  It's easy, when you don't think about it too much or do your own research.  Rush Limbaugh truly believes he's one of the few with the courage to speak against the rampaging near-Socialist liberals trying to consume America when people outside the US would argue (and have) that our main problem is that we're so far to the right that a moderate looks like an extremist liberal.  Ann Coulter is truly convinced that liberals are godless atheists and the one true reason for crime and a poor economy.  I don't have any examples from the liberal pundits because the library I work for refuses to buy their books (while eagerly snapping up the youth-oriented propaganda of Rush Revere, Limbaugh's fictitious time-traveling self who seeks to establish how it was always people who think just like him who were the patriots of the country).

Yes, I agree, This is very biased and stupid. I have nothing against other religions, But This is not very nice. I also have people told me to go back to my own muslim country, While I am actually a born dutchman, With egyptian blood.

noahs_brother : Islam is not a race, Thus it's not racism but discrimination.

NintendoFanKimmy:

They're calling it an Islamic Terrorist, cause that is what it is called.

If you perform Terrorism in the name of Islam, you're an Islamic Terrorist.

Also, I'm not so sure Islam is a peaceful religion. I would have to look into it more, but I'm not just going to accept a Muslim saying that they are peaceful cause they could lie just like anyone else, thought I have met some nice Muslims. Also, everyone's theology is different. So it's hard to say who's really upholding the true doctrine of a said religious group.

I still need to look into this though, unfortunately, what the Quaran really teaches sounds like a lot of work to Investigate, I already have enough trouble trying to decide what the Bible really teaches. As of such, I'm not really worried about whether Muslims are peaceful or not, but if one starts attacking me, I'm gonna fight back. And call it what it is.

Islamic Terrorists state that they do what they do because of their religion.

"Christians" Do not usually kill people in the name of their religion. Certainly not as often as Muslims do. Same for Buddhists, and other religious groups. Though Hindus, I recall being particularly hostile to other religious groups in India.

Plus terrorists are ussually part of an organization. Not so much for Christian Terrorists, though those do exist.

Most of the time when a "Christian" or "Buddhist" kills someone, it's not in the name of their religion. Hence, they aren't detonated as a "insert your religion here" terrorist.

It's just way more common for a Person, who is a Muslim, to commit terror, actually in the name of their religion, when compared to other religious groups, who commit crimes, and are part of a religion, but don't claim to do it because of it.


Hence the difference.

I understand what you're saying.

I just thought that I'd make that clear as to why they call it that. Nothing personal.

Sword legion : I get what you're trying to say. It's true.

But my point is, even if a Muslim doesn't kill someone in the name of their religion, he or she is still called an Islamic terrorist. And there's nothing wrong with that, as you've said, since they are Muslims. My point is, it isn't fair that people of OTHER religions who also don't kill in the name of their religion are not labeled by their religion. Let me explain.

Let's say a Christian shoots someone, and the cops aren't sure whether he/she did it in the name of Christianity. Because they aren't sure, they just call him/her a "murderer". 

Let's say a Muslim shoots someone, and the cops aren't sure whether he/she did it in the name of Islam. Because they aren't sure, they just call him/her an "Islamic terrorist".

Do you see the point I'm trying to make?

I understand that, statistically, more Islamic people kill others in the name of their religion than people of other religions, but it still is VERY discriminatory to immediately assume that a person has killed someone in the name of his/her religion JUST because he/she is a Muslim. If you still don't get what I'm trying to say, here is something else to help.

Number of Muslims who terrorize in the name of their religion > Number of people of other religions who terrorize in the name of their religion

BUT

Number of Muslims who terrorize in the name of their religion < Number of SANE, normal Muslims who are falsely accused of doing so

Now, I hope the big picture is becoming clear. I still get that, technically, if a Muslim murders someone, he or she would be called an Islamic terrorist. It's true; that's what they are. BUT, if that is what they are called EVEN when the police isn't sure about whether the crime was committed in the name of Islam, then why would a Christian, for example, be called a "murderer" and not a "Christian terrorist"? My point is, if Islamic murderers are called Islamic terrorists, then Christian murderers should be called Christians terrorists, too, OR , they can just BOTH be called "murderers".

Despite the number of Islamic criminals committing crimes in the name of their religion being larger than that of people of other religions, it still is neither a safe bet NOR ethical to label them by their religions. It's wrong. It's mean. It's discriminatory. The odds of a murderer committing a crime in the name of their religion being a Muslim are higher than the odds of a murderer committing a crime in the name of their religion being any other religion, HOWEVER, the odds of a Muslim committing a crime in the name of their religion are lower than the odds of a Muslim killing without any connection to their religion. It amazes me that people nowadays still fail to realize this.

Most people, upon hearing the word "Muslim", probably think of women in veils and men with those beards you see in cop/spy movies who are terrorists, or people dressed in traditional Arabic clothing. Times have changed. Some people still dress that way, but times have changed, and there IS a new generation of sane, modern, just-like-you Islamic kids and teens who are SICK and TIRED of this. I'm a Muslim by paper. A Sunni, specifically. I dress like all American kids do nowadays. I don't wear a veil. Do you know why? Because I don't want to ! I wear jeans and a t-shirt, sweatpants, hoodies, etc., and so do most Muslim kids my age. I have never read the Qur'an. I am not a very religious person in general, but I believe in God, I believe in the prophet Mohammed, and I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in heaven and hell, I try to be a good person, and I think that having a good-hearted character is the most important thing of all. 

Not all of us are like what many people think or what the media states. In fact, MOST of us aren't. If some people like to write about us in biased ways simply because of our religion, it's their problem - NOT ours. You say you're not so sure Islam is a peaceful religion. I don't know whether it is, either, since I know little to nothing about it . I'm a Muslim by paper, though. And for some news broadcasters, what is said by paper is enough for them to deduce that the murderer is a religious psycho. And that, Sword legion, whether you like it or not, is simply not fair.

In short, a Muslim person who murders someone is an Islamic terrorist. If Muslim people who murder others are called Islamic terrorists, however, then a Christian or Jew or any other religion person who murders someone should ALSO be called a Christian, Jewish, or any other religion terrorist. Another solution? They are all simply "murderers" with undetermined reasons for murdering. And that, I think, is what should be said. Otherwise, it is downright discrimination, no matter what anyone says.

People who view us based on past events should fix that problem themselves. It's not us who have to move on, we already have, it's them who need to get their heads out of the clouds and see what's in front of them - competent Muslims! We're just like everyone else, and they have to stop labeling us for our religion and not everyone else! It just isn't fair! Either ALL people should be labeled by their religions, or NONE of them should. Other ways just aren't fair, and they're VERY hurtful.

I understand the increase in hatred and suspicion due to 9/11, and now ESPECIALLY due to ISIS, but those examples, along with many others, simply CANNOT be used as excuses to label EVERY Muslim who commits a crime as a terrorist who sins in the name of Islam even when they don't know whether they did! You can't "assume", especially when it comes to the news. I celebrate many Islamic holidays (usually just by eating food at my grandmother's house ), I celebrate Christmas with my family, I celebrate whatever the heck I want to celebrate. I'm not going to let my religion stop me from doing what I want, and I'm NOT going commit a crime my religion says is okay just because my religion says so. I listen to my gut more than I listen to the Qur'an (actually, I don't think I ever listen to the Qur'an since I've never read it), and I freaking love bacon ! 

Sorry for going all-out, but labeling Islamic terrorists as Islamic terrorists and Christian terrorists are plain murderers is just unfair no matter how much people deny it. Nothing is going to change my mind; I just see what's in front of me and interpret it as the way I see it. What do I see in this case? It's vivid and clear. Discrimination.

I think people of all religions should be respected equally. I understand being extra cautious around suspicious Muslims due to their tendency to be more plentiful when it comes to crime, but NEVER judge them based on their religion. It's wrong, it's stupid, and, no offense, but it's just plain, old stone-age-style. We need to move on. Every person has one thing in common. Their covers may be different, but you never truly know what they're like unless you open them and read them.

NintendoFanKimmy :

No, you're right.


I would say calls someone a *insert religion here* terrorist only if they do it in the name of their religion.

As for keeping the Quran, that's your choice. Well. .... I would only do it if you think that it is the truth. Otherwise, I guess it would just be a society thing.

I don't hold anything against you for being a Muslim, I just ask that you exercise caution. As with everything.

You're a lot smarter than most children your age, and I appreciate that!

Just remember, the road to truth is a long one. Maybe someday you may view religion differently, but hey, take things seriously regarding that.

Okay?

And they did exactly what they intended to...

You are outraged that the news would use 'Muslim' in the headline.
They got your attention by doing so.

All news stories have a bit of a sensationalism.

Ever notice that 99% of the news reported is bad news?
Anything else is a 5 second piece that might as well be ignored.

News outlets don't really care what is being reported, they only want to sell papers and get more viewers.

NintendoFanKimmy : i know i hate that racist profiling they can actually be really nice people

NintendoFanKimmy :

Interesting article I read recently that relates to this.

http://kfor.com/2014/10/30/police-investigate-near-beheading-murder-of-stillwater-teen-one-in-custody/

He's described as a "religious zealot", and did the crime from his Christian beliefs no matter how crazy they may have been. Read the first article first.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/30/oklahoma-man-beheaded-suspect-charged-with-homicide/

That's Fox's take on it. The comment section on that article went crazy about how they failed to mention anything about his motives. If they're not quick to call him Christian or a Christian Terrorist, then I don't think they should be quick to categorize anyone else.

The truth can hurt, but I'd rather be told about all the facts that have surfaced. I don't want to read something that blatantly leaves out information to make me feel better about the whole thing.

I'm not sure if you have seen it or not, but there's a youtube video called "Canadians React to Ottawa Shooting Racism" which you should check out; it will make you feel better. I can't link the video, as it has a few s-words in it. If you don't know the background of the story: there was a shooting of a soldier at the parliament in Canada by a Muslim, and it created a huge media wave.

For those who want a recap of the video: two actors go to a bus stop (in the city where the solder who died was from), one dressed in middle-eastern looking clothing; the other, just a typical white Canadian. The white actor then asks the Muslim actor if he plans on taking this bus, and when the answer is yes, says he would rather he takes another bus. Well, immediately, people at the bu sstop would stick up for the Muslim actor, even saying things like "I know him, he's with me", and getting into arguments, calling the white actor racist. They did the whole experiment a few times only, because after the third or fourth time, the white actor got punched in the face by a bystander who thought he was being too racist.

It's a little off topic, but still relates. And although the social experiment takes place in only ONE Canadian city, thus not being an accurate representation of the "general public", it was nice to know that, shortly after the big scare, people would still say something when they witnessed racism.

I dislike how a stereotype is mainly set upon a group just because of a small minority of people within that group, especially with Muslims. I have a Muslim friend, and I'm sure he's one of the nicest people you'll ever meet. Just because 9/11 happened with a terrorist group doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists and evil. Sure, 9/11 was tragic but we all can't throw hate at all Muslims just because of that event caused by a very small number of Muslim terrorists.

I don't think it's far to say all people always think Muslims are fundamentalists and Islamic terrorists whenever they commit crimes.  That's imply not true.

However, you have groups who post videos of people being beheaded in the name of whichever Muslim group is doing it.  A small, extremely vocal, extremely violent group is stating they're killing for their religion.  That's going to catch attention.

When the Westboro Baptist Church starts raising crosses and crucifying people in the name of Christianity, I promise you'll hear about Christian terrorist groups.  When Jews start stoning people to death in the name of King David, I'm sure you'll start hearing about them.

Here you are complaining about Muslims getting negative attention for their religion.  You have a religion that is very conservative, where in Saudi Arabia it's nearly impossible for a woman to legally drive a car, women require male chaperons to go out in public, and people are actively saying, "I kill for my God."  It may not be fair but you should be able to understand why people would have preconceived notions about the basis of violent actions from Muslims.

Islam is being bastardized by those folks.  It has a broad interpretation for everyone but generally, like the Bible, asks people to be nice to each other.

And do some reading about attacks on Planned Parenthood in the United States.  You'll see the words "Christian" "Reactionary" and "Terrorist" linked together with no mention of Muslims or Islam.  

EideticMemory : I do want to point out that the murderer in your links was NOT a Christian (he may have claimed to be a Christian, and may have been a Deist, but he specifically violated the basic and core beliefs of Christians, making this crime NOT motivated by Christian teachings). Being Christian, and being familiar with Christian beliefs, I can say that Isaiah did NOT act in accordance with Christianity (at least, not Christianity according to the Bible). The Bible, which is the standard for Christians and holds the very definition of what a Christian should look like, specifically tells it's followers NOT to murder anyone (Exodus 20:6). By murdering Jacob, Isaiah was directly contradicting the basic beliefs of all Christians, and therefore cannot be classified as acting within Christianity while murdering Jacob. That is why he was not labeled as a 'Christian Terrorist', because his actions directly contradict everything Christianity teaches.

The reason why news programs are quick to label murders by muslims as acts of terror is due to this verse from the Quran, in my opinion (note: this does not necessarily represent my view of Muslims, nor the Muslim religion. This is simply what I believe to be the reason that Muslims are quick to be named terrorists).

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (source: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm)

With that in mind, it's easy to understand why many people choose to label Quran-following Muslims terrorists at any sign of violence. Again, however, this does not necessarily represent my views on Muslims.

warmaker : As I mentioned in my reply to EM, any actions like that from Westboro Church would be in direct contrast to the Bible's teachings. In fact, there have been quite a few Christian groups (including the Baptist Convention, if memory serves) that have already dis-owned Westboro from it's group (meaning that Westboro Baptist is no longer a part of the recognized Baptist churches). I realize this was just an example though, rather than a prediction, so I won't go into more depth. Simply put, though, no Christian will ever murder someone. Anyone who commits murder had directly violated the 6th of the 10 commandments, which Christians are commanded to follow, and shouldn't be considered as if acting within their religious beliefs (unless they switched to a different form of Deism). I would say the exact same thing about Muslims, excepting the previously listed verses. I have yet to read these verses in context, however, so I won't speak regarding my beliefs on Muslim motivation for murder.

mrfe : Yikes!!!

It actually says that in the Quran? Wow... I never imagined a book of any religion to include something so... intolerant . Ironically, that goes against what I believe, which is respecting everyone . I'm a bad Muslim, I guess XD. My religion is only stated by paper, though. I don't practice much, and I'm not a really religious person. I just believe in God and try not to be a jerk ^^. I've never actually read the Quran at all, but I have one next to my bed as a gift. I'm not going to let it stop me from doing what I want. I love bacon and celebrate Christmas. Is that sending me to hell? I don't think so! 

Thanks for sharing the fact! The more you know, right ?

Yeah, that's a direct quote from the Quran (the Noble Quran translation, to be precise). With that verse in mind, it's not hard to see why news programs are quick to jump to the 'Muslim Extremist' label. If you were to just look at that verse, you wouldn't even have to call them Extremists, since killing any non-Muslims is a command in those verses and would be expected by any devout Quran-following Muslim. As I said earlier, though, I have yet to read those verses in context, so I won't speak on my personal views yet.

Yeah, for sure! I had seen these verses before, and felt like it could be a very relevant explanation as to the motivation for modern news broadcasters.

mrfe :

That very well may be the case. However, my point is a matter of being accurate in news reporting.

That his actions were driven by notions of witchcraft, stemming from a subverted form of biblical ideology, should have been reported for the sake of consistency (no matter how flawed his thinking was). It was information that was found out, and completely leaving it out of the news article was unwarranted based on how Fox treats Muslims. Especially since religion was a clear motive.

NintendoFanKimmy was referring to the phenomenon in this thread was that when a Muslim, no matter whether the clear intent is religious or not does a crime, his religion of Islam is immediately brought up.

I see it as a double standard in their news reporting.

---

I have a problem with the "No true Christian would..." ideology, since he very well may have been under the impression that he had divine backing. Since what it takes to be a Christian is not something that is well agreed upon, it's hard to call anyone who genuinely considers themselves a Christian, not to be one. Some define being a Christian as following the Nicene Creed, but there are some who don't. Others think of it as merely a following of Jesus's principles, making some non-believers Christian. Even others think that all Gods of all religions are the same one, and it's only labeling yourself as Christian that makes you one. There are also those who believe that to be Christian you have to dedicate every moment of your life to Jesus and God, which would make there very few indeed =P.

So the conundrum appears in news reporting, since there are so many definitions. In the end, the most fair way to report it would be to say that he is a Christian, since that's what he genuinely believes himself to be.

Also deism is a philosophy that states that while there is a higher power that may have caused the chain of events (the uncaused causer), it also believes that this power does not intervene in daily affairs (or may not even exist today). So it's a completely different belief system on its own, and wouldn't be the default case for a theist who doesn't belong to a religion. I wasn't sure if you inferred it or not, but I thought I'd mention it, since I see no reason to think that he might be a Deist any more than he might be Buddhist.