Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Michelle Malkin)   Blasphemous Jesus pictures? "Run the photos. Free speech." Blasphenous Mohammed pictures? "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam"   (michellemalkin.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

20594 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2006 at 12:09 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



577 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2006-02-03 02:08:58 PM  
chow dig: Are you for real? You want the media to start CHOOSING not to show news that might "offend" some, but CHOOSE to show news that offends others? Sounds like CNN is CHOOSING a biased agenda here. Just like you are CHOOSING to remain blind of CNN's real intentions.

Since you drag this into it, I'll have to say that yes, I am personally in favor of freedom of the press. You know, that whole "right to print or not print what they CHOOSE (oh, is that annoying you?) thing. I'm not blind to CNN's intentions in the least. It seems as though you think you live in some idealistic fantasy world. CNN is a BUSINESS. Every major media outlet is a BUSINESS. OF COURSE they are biased, just like Fox News. They are both biased, because it makes them both money. There are a (very) few media outlets out there that are truly not biased, but you very rarely hear about them, since they're not the ones making all of the money.

I believe absolutely that CNN has a degree of a double standard here. Is it their right? I believe in freedom of the press as it exists, so yes, I believe it is their right. If you believe they should be FORCED to print or not print certain items, THEN it becomes an issue of freedom of the press where you believe they should not have it.

If you are delusional enough to believe that every media outlet in this country should be forced to print or not print the identical stories then wow . . . (insert Godwin here).

And again, if you honestly believe that any major media corporation in this country has up to this point, or EVER been completely unbiased, and concerned solely with the idealistic notion of the right of the people to know the TRUTH, then you are smoking something I've never even heard of.
 
2006-02-03 02:09:14 PM  
Where is the Muslim Outrage...

I was watching SpikeTV a few weeks ago and there was a commercial for a show on, It depicted Jebus vs Mohammed. Jebus ended up cutting or blowing off Mohammed's head. The reaction?

Not a Peep.

\does not give a Sh*t either way
 
2006-02-03 02:09:57 PM  
mrdctaylor:
((Jesus appeared to Paul and pulled Paul into His service to do this things. Making a distinction between Christian and "Paulian" is silly.))

and also as every book in the FREAKING BIBLE was written by followers of Paul it is even more silly
 
2006-02-03 02:10:50 PM  
Unbiased? "Unbiased" does not exist. At least not where humans are concerned. Why can't we just accept the fact that Muslims are becoming increasingly violent, and treat them accordingly?
 
2006-02-03 02:11:30 PM  
alhazred:

CNN isn't showing the images because they are in Islamic/Muslim markets

CNN wants their money... they kiss @$$

case closed
 
2006-02-03 02:11:32 PM  
I understand your objections against CNN's decision. Why should a "champion of free press" publish or withhold anything based on religion? It marks a deterioration of the line between media and religion.
I guess I'm kind of split on where to stand. I think we should try to understand them and respect their religion and concerns, but I don't think free speech/press should be compromised because of it.
Why can't they just be like "Please refrain from printing these cartoons. They are quite offensive to Muslims. Thanks!" instead of threatening, boycotting, and everything else? :/


What's your notion of the meaning of "free press?" I personally always interpreted it as "Government doesn't make any laws about what the press can and can't say." After that, it's up to the "press" to decide. Media companies are businesses just like any other business. They need to make money. They make money by providing a good or service to their target customer base. They make business descisions based on nothing other than what will appease their target customer base. That's what they did in this case. I don't have any problem with that, personally.
 
2006-02-03 02:11:53 PM  
sry Tatsuma, you don't get your wish for my bannation

I am just posting something that fark links to.

Too bad you are like the CNN - afraid to spaek the truth
 
2006-02-03 02:13:01 PM  
The Homer Tax:

while it -is- about providing a good and service thats not how they pitch the good and service

thus making them open for mockery and scorn
 
2006-02-03 02:13:14 PM  
jerry2a: are you suggesting that CNN and the other networks have somehow managed to hire only Jews and non-Christians?

Re-read my post.

The big boradcast news outlets have neglected Religion coverage quite a bit. It wasn't until the Passion of the Christ film personally financed and directed by Mel Gibson that they began to take notice of what they usualy call "Jesus Freaks" ( as the Ted Turner, founder and previous CEO of CNN is quoted above. )

This was the first "Religion correspondent" that was hired.
 
2006-02-03 02:13:27 PM  
2006-02-03 02:06:40 PM jmvbxx
They are simply human creations which attempt to serve the masses which requires a common demoninator.


I still cannot understand how you can both realise that your own religion is a mere attempt, and see that it was written for the lowest common denominator, and still want to be in the club. That is the stuff crackpipe junkies are made of.

Believing in the written word or not, you follow a path of a RC, which has rules/guidelines attached to it, be that in the form of a book or spoken word. Why can you not take an interest in the RC as a historical interest without swearing your faith to it? It just doesn't add up to me. You are lowering yourself and at the same time affiliating yourself with a load of skybuddy worshipping power nuts.

I guess I will agree to dissagree, thanks for the reply. I have to go to my religion now --> Karate :)
 
2006-02-03 02:13:32 PM  
The Homer Tax
Who Cares? They're not showing a bloody cartoon. If you want to see it, go to www.google.com. It's un-biased, I promise.

Some people have cable and no computer, my parents.


The only intentions that CNN has is to make as much money as possible.


They would make more money w/ link.

//sayin it
 
2006-02-03 02:13:35 PM  
On CNN International, they just had a quick interview with some Islamic journalist in Europe. The guy was on a serious rant about how the cartoons are spreading hate, and how it has similar undertones to pre-WWII Nazi Germany.

In specific, he was making a reference to how pro-Nazi journalists used political cartoons to vilify the Jews. As such, he was making the connection that these journalists are Nazis.

I call BS on ALL OF THIS.

When an art exhibit showed Christ submerged in urine, protest was light and scattered. Maybe a thousand people worldwide protested. They were armed with signs and goofy outfits. The media as a whole was very open in showing the images of the exhibit in their entirety.

When a cartoon of the Prophet is shown in a newspaper, hundreds of thousands of Muslims take to the street to protest. It could be closer to a million by the time things die down. Some are armed with automatic rifles. Others are armed with rocks, eggs and rotten fruit. The media is very split over how to display the cartoons, with some showing the images, others not.

There is no comparison. Followers of Pat Robertson do not take up any call of arms to assassinate the president of Venezuela. The Southern Baptist Church is not sending suicide bombers into Gaza. Members of the Million Man March do not protest the oppression of women under Islam. When you look at non-governmental groups, what have they done in comparison in the recent modern era? Nothing! Not one damn thing.

Those Muslims who actively participate in fanaticism or who condone it are slowly becoming the majority in the world. That is exactly what this cartoon mocked, and its authenticity was proven true with the reaction of the Muslim world.

It will be a good day when the last drop of oil is pumped from the Middle East. At that point, those people can go back to living in caves and mud huts, both more appropriate living condition for the Neanderthals in that region.
 
2006-02-03 02:14:21 PM  
CNN isn't showing the images because they are in Islamic/Muslim markets

CNN wants their money... they kiss $$

case closed


I challenge you to find a company who makes descisions that they know will piss off their customers. ALL companies are "Kiss $$," That's the nature of business.
 
2006-02-03 02:15:34 PM  
All of this BS is just more fodder for South Park.
Yay
 
2006-02-03 02:15:45 PM  
karasoth: CNN wants their money... they kiss $$

You'll get no argument from me in the least. I honestly believe that's most likely the case, not the "respect" that they profess.
 
2006-02-03 02:17:28 PM  
Homer tax,

You want CNN to make decsions based on their target audiance. You think the majority of CNN viewers are muslim? I doubt it.

CNN has an agenda to push. They are weak and apologetic to a CERTAIN religious faith. Not all religious faiths, mind you, just islam.

And I guess I'll have to CHOOSE not to watch CNN because they won't present to me to entire situation, only bits and pieces in order to not offend me.
 
2006-02-03 02:17:35 PM  
The Homer Tax:

thats what i was saying ;-)

but that doesn't make them free from ridicule.

Dinjiin:

and in the middle east editorial cartoons targeting Christian and Jews (also zionists seperate from Jews) as well as blacks (of african descent in the middle east)in the kind of offensive and bigoted manner that CNN would be all over if it was anywhere else in the world

Its like the Jordanian news paper said which is a worse impression on the good name of the prophet and the good name of the faith
 
2006-02-03 02:17:48 PM  
Tyee: They would make more money w/ link.

Probably not when you factor in the threat to their overseas offices/personnel, as well as public relations problems, particularly when no other major media outlet will show the cartoons either.
 
2006-02-03 02:17:51 PM  
Some people have cable and no computer, my parents.

They would make more money w/ link.

//sayin it


OK, CNN disagrees with you. I think they would know the best descisions to make to appease their customer base. I contend that Wal*Mart would make more money if they didn't Censor Music, movies, and books; and sold the Morning After Pill in their Pharmacies.

Wal*Mart Disagrees with me. But rather than sitting around and biatching about Wal*Mart making a descision that they feel will best appeal to their customer base...I don't shop at Wal*Mart.

/Seriously, is it rocket science?
//Doesn't seem that hard to me
///But then again an I am Super-SMRT
 
2006-02-03 02:18:42 PM  
chow dig:

I stopped watching news on a regular basis in 04
/very happy
//internet gives better news
///still turn news on when something special is happening
 
2006-02-03 02:19:16 PM  
karasoth

Let me refer you to 1 Corinthians:10-18

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospelnot with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
 
2006-02-03 02:19:23 PM  
The Homer Tax: ///But then again an I am Super-SMRT


Shop smart, shop S-MRT.

/sorry
 
2006-02-03 02:20:16 PM  
The Homer Tax:

here is the thing Homer

Wal-Mart *SAYS* they don't sell things for moral reasons/cuts things off for moral reasons........

IN THE US

In Canada they have a line of Wal-Mart dildo's

this is the same kind of behavior. Perfectly permissible and utterly ridiculous
 
2006-02-03 02:21:46 PM  
karasoth: this is the same kind of behavior. Perfectly permissible and utterly ridiculous


They'll also sell the same stuff they're censoring on their website (George Carlin's latest book comes to mind). It's that kid sweet, wholesome image that will sell you the really good stuff in the back alley later.
 
2006-02-03 02:21:54 PM  
You want CNN to make decsions based on their target audiance. You think the majority of CNN viewers are muslim? I doubt it.

I think that they feel that the majority of teir viewers are either muslim, or don't give a shiat if they show the cartoon or not.

CNN has an agenda to push. They are weak and apologetic to a CERTAIN religious faith. Not all religious faiths, mind you, just islam.

If you feel this way, then don't watch CNN - Problem Solved!

And I guess I'll have to CHOOSE not to watch CNN because they won't present to me to entire situation, only bits and pieces in order to not offend me.

Eureka! We HAVE made a breakthrough! This is what I've been saying the whole time...If you don't like it, don't watch. Free Market Capitalism at it's finest! I suggest you only patronize News outlets that havea biased agenda that is more in line with you...I'm assuming* Fox News?

/And we all know what happens when you a assume...
 
2006-02-03 02:23:05 PM  
mrdctaylor:

no no I was commenting on the argument that its not Christianity but paulianty

pretty much everything we have of "christianity" is written by a church that can follow its authority back to paul

so their is no difference

if you believe that the church is following paul and not "jesus" then you shouldn't believe in jesus because everything you know about him comes from paul
 
2006-02-03 02:24:50 PM  
Well, you piss off conservative Christians, they boycott DisneyWorld.

Piss off radical Muslims, they blow shiat up.

I can see a distinction.
 
2006-02-03 02:25:13 PM  
here is the thing Homer

Wal-Mart *SAYS* they don't sell things for moral reasons/cuts things off for moral reasons........

IN THE US

In Canada they have a line of Wal-Mart dildo's

this is the same kind of behavior. Perfectly permissible and utterly ridiculous


Honestly, I think we're agreeing here...hear me out.

I don't pretend to think that Wal*Mart has any "morals." Morals, and suceeding in Business to the extent that Wal*Mart has are mutually exculsive (for the most part). Wal*Mart makes their descisions based on the image that they want to project to their target consumers. In America, it's a certain demographic of people. They make descisions on what to stock based on what they thing will appeal these people. In Canada, they traget a whole different group of consumer, and make descisions on what to stock based on what they think will appease those people.

Brilliant!
 
2006-02-03 02:26:33 PM  
I can see a distinction.

I can see a false dichotomy, what's your point?
 
2006-02-03 02:27:54 PM  
homer tax,

if CNN believes most of their viewers are muslim or don't care, then why even mention the story? Seiously, don't half-ass it.
 
2006-02-03 02:28:44 PM  
if you believe that the church is following paul and not "jesus" then you shouldn't believe in jesus because everything you know about him comes from paul

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with that last comment. I don't quite follow. But the 4 Gospels were not written by Paul, although obviously he did write the lion's share of the New Testament. Most of what we know of Jesus comes from the Gospels.
 
2006-02-03 02:31:21 PM  
if CNN believes most of their viewers are muslim or don't care, then why even mention the story? Seiously, don't half-ass it.

You're not big on the whole "reading comprehension" thing are you? I said they think that their target audience is either muslim, or people who (ready?) *Don't care if they show the cartoon or not*. I don't care if they show the cartoon or not, I could really give a rat's arse. To me, it's not imperitive to the story. You can give the story and give all the details and reactions and all that fun stuff, and never show the picture. Who gives a fark?
 
2006-02-03 02:31:52 PM  
The Homer Tax:

Yep. However I get to still make fun of walmart for selling dildo's in canada and bulk KY-Jelly at some san's club locations.

this doesn't impact my consumption of Wal-Mart this is just something i do to make fun of them
 
2006-02-03 02:32:52 PM  
mrdctaylor:

The gospels were all written in churches that were orientated to paul or founded by paul during some of the discord in the new church over what direction it was going to take.
 
2006-02-03 02:33:41 PM  
"The Bruce Dickinson: The Jews killed your Lord"


Really? So the guy who beat the snot out of, scourged, crucified, and stuck a spike through his side were Jews? Or were they Romans? What type of logic do you work on? If Jesus actually existed (which is very debateable), he was kiled by Italians, not Jews.

But Jesus is a largely legendary figure. Kind of like Hercules and Kin Arthur are. There is no real historical evidence that he existed, and the first documentation of a "Yoshua Christos" comes decades after he supposedly lived, from source that is purely propaganda for the church. You should watch the film "The God Who Wasn't There".

So put blame where blame is due. Don't blame the Jews for killing him, blame the Italians.

/the more you know
 
2006-02-03 02:34:39 PM  
Jodeo: Ok...

Religion is people trying to reach God to earn salvation
Christianity is God reaching down to people to offer them salvation that cannot be earned.


Cute, but wrong. Christianity is a religion based on the belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ / Messiah. That is the dictionary definition, and you don't get to change definitions of words to suit you for purposes of debate or argument. Using that technique, I could prove you to be an Islamist terrorist. All I"d have to do is re-define "Islamist terrorist" as "anyone who posts on FARK.com under the handle 'Jodeo'." If that were permitted, you'd have no valid rebuttal to that logic.

Islam is religion based on cultural conditioning, not study and academic review. Islam crumbles under intellectual scrutiny, whereas Christianity has been wide open to study and investigation for 2,000 years and remains the world's largest system of faith.

Oh, is that why you can look at a travel brochure (note: not an anti-Christian tract: indeed, the brochure I saw was from a Christian group selling travel tour packages to "the land where Jesus walked"!) showing an aereal photo of the entire city of Nazareth as it exists today (note that the modern city is much larger than and completely contains the ancient city), and yet find no hills with steep brows such that a person thrown from it would surely die? Remember, when Jesus visited Nazareth, His "blasphemy" in claiming to be the Messiah so enraged His hometownsfolk that they grabbed Him, marched Him to the brow of the hill "on which their city was built," and were about to throw Him off of it. If you don't believe me, go download Google Earth and see for yourself.

New Testament scholars and archaeologists have tried for centuries to find this hill. It doesn't exist. It never did exist. Even if you accept that Luke may have mis-wrote "on" while meaning "near" (the passage does say that they took him outside the city limits, but the wording requires that the city itself be on the lower part of the hill, with the brow thereof outside the city limits), well, there are two hills nearby (within a few miles) that are tall enough with steep enough brows or cliffs to qualify, except that no Jew would ever build a city on or near such a hill since both hills are riddled with tombs dating back to well before the birth of Christ. The Mosaic Law absolutely forbids cemetaries of any kind within or near the borders of any city, town, or other dwelling place. Such is considered an abomination, and anyone living too near a cemetary is considered as unclean as any leper. So, Jesus would've spent His childhood perpetually unclean, which would blow the whole point of His being the pure, sinless, spotless ultimate sacrificial Lamb of God.

Then there's the small matter of Matthew and Luke being the only two Gospel writers describing Jesus's birth and/or childhood, and from them we get our traditional Christmas stories. Problem is, nativity scenes to the contrary, the stories could not possibly have happened the way they said. One or the other has to be false. The reason? Both tie their stories to known historical figures and events (King Herod the Great, and Quirinius the first Governor of Syria and his Census, respectively), and Matthew describes an event (the visit of the Magi, when Jesus was somewhere betweeen twelve days and two years old, depending on what traditions and scriptures you believe) that had to have happpened some time after Luke's event (the birth of Jesus), and yet these historical references absolutely require that Luke's story happen no less than a full decade after Matthew's! That's because Quirinius became Governor of Syria after, and in fact because of, the disastrous ten-year reign of King Archelaus. Cæsar Augustus finally had to depose Archelaus (who was an incompetent and tyrannical spoiled brat), dissolved the Kingship of Judaea, and brought Judaea and the other Jewish provinces (including Galilee) under the dominion of the Province of Syria, with Quirinius as its first Governor. C&aeli;gsar ordered Quirinius to clean up Archelaus's mess, but Archelaus was so lax about record-keeping that what few records existed at all were worse than useless, so Quirinius did his Census as the first step in the cleanup. Why is this important? Because Archelaus was the son of King Herod the Great (even Matthew says so!), and didn't start his ten-year reign until after Herod died (again, even Matthew says so)!

The only way that this can possibly work is if Jesus were ten or eleven years old and living in Nazareth in Galilee with His parents when Quirinius&rsqou;s census required the Holy Family to go back to Bethlehem. On the way, Jesus miraculously reverts Himself back into a fetus, and crawls back up into Mary's womb, so that the events described in Luke (manger, swaddling clothes, shepherds and angels, etc.) can happen.

This isn't even getting into the massive discrepancies between the two genealogies of Jesus (and no, Luke wasn't giving Mary's genealogy: not only did he say point-blank that it was Joseph's, but he makes it flat-out impossible to be Mary's since he has Mary be the blood cousin of Elizabeth, and says that Elizabeth was "of the daughters of Aaron" which would make her and therefore Mary of the tribe of Levi, not the tribe of Judah which King David was of: thus, not only would Mary not be from the line of King David, but she'd be absolutely, positively, as far away as it's possible to get from his line and still be an Israelite!).

As for the 'non-religious' here, you too must live 'by faith' that all there is to know, about our existence can basically be measured through our five senses and studied in history.

Uh, no. Direct observation is not faith. By definition. Even Paul says this: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

As a Christian, if I'm wrong and there is no God, I've lost nothing.
As a non Christian discovering there is a God, what have you lost?


Pascal's Wager. Fallacious logic, specifically the Fallacy of the False Dichotomy. There are far more than just two choices.

A Muslim could as easily tell you, "If, as a Muslim, I'm wrong, I've lost nothing. I simply cease to exist at death, as I would regardless of the atheists are right. But, if I'm right and you're wrong, you burn in hell because you didn't follow the Five Pillars of Islam, while I get 72 virgins in Paradise."

A Viking might say, "If I'm wrong, I lose nothing. But if I'm right, I get to go to the great halls of Valhalla and engage in glorious eternal battle and feasting under the leadership of All-Father Odin Himself, while you would spend eternity frozen in Hel under the rule of Hela, screaming as she pries off your fingernails to use to build her great Ragnarok ship, because you didn't die in glorious battle, and instead died the straw death in bed."

And so on, and so on, and so on.
 
2006-02-03 02:34:55 PM  
Outrage is out, enrage is in.
 
2006-02-03 02:35:16 PM  
www.apj.us
 
2006-02-03 02:36:00 PM  
Yep. However I get to still make fun of walmart for selling dildo's in canada and bulk KY-Jelly at some san's club locations.

this doesn't impact my consumption of Wal-Mart this is just something i do to make fun of them


Oh yeah, make fun at will. That's part of life, making fun of stuff. IMHO, there's a difference between making fun of CNN for chosing not to show some cartoon, and the lion's share of posters on here who are all like, "This is An OUTRAGE!!!!111one!!1!eleven".

Joke about it fine, don't get your panties in a bunch though.
 
2006-02-03 02:39:00 PM  
if you believe that the church is following paul and not "jesus" then you shouldn't believe in jesus because everything you know about him comes from paul

I think that's the point of the distinction. For all we know, Jesus was just trying to reform Judaism and never intended to start a new religion. Quoting scripture to the contrary doesn't prove anything either, since it all filters through Paul or his followers.

Not down on Christianity, I really respect it's core tenets, charity, piety, peace, etc. Just pointing out that we don't really know all the details of what went on 2000 years ago.
 
2006-02-03 02:39:52 PM  
The Homer Tax:

right and i posted the cartoons on the internet as my way to pseudo-protest the Boycotts of denmark against these images. And mocked CNN and the like for the hypocracy

but this isn't like say CNN covering for Saddam like they did before the war in Iraq...thats an outrage
 
J3
2006-02-03 02:41:25 PM  
Being outwardly gay in social settings does tend to make people uncomfortable. We've all known those people, I call them "Flaming Gays", who are all the time making gay comments in otherwise ordinary conversations. It's awkward for the non-gays who have to share the same space. My wife works with a guy who is like that. He always seems to have that gay look in his eye that's kind of creepy as well.

What worries me about outspoken gays is their interest in politics and government, and the "changing of laws" which ensues.


Changed the words christian and jesus in your post. If someone posted this would they be a bigot? If so you might want to join the bigot bandwagon yourself.
 
2006-02-03 02:41:44 PM  
Goodfella said:
But Jesus is a largely legendary figure. Kind of like Hercules and Kin Arthur are. There is no real historical evidence that he existed, and the first documentation of a "Yoshua Christos" comes decades after he supposedly lived, from source that is purely propaganda for the church. You should watch the film "The God Who Wasn't There".

So you believe Michael Moore movies too? What about Stone's JFK?

/The more conspiracy theories you believe...
 
2006-02-03 02:41:51 PM  
SideshowBob:

actually we don't know if thats what Jesus was doing. We do know the Jewish theology the "NT" has him saying was being taught by jewish groups (minus I am the son of god stuff) for about a hundred years before the "B.C"

I was more saying people who try to be snooty and say its paulianity not christianity don't farking understand if no paul no jesus
 
2006-02-03 02:42:42 PM  
mrdctaylor:

Dude you can make an excellent case for a lack of a historical jesus.
 
2006-02-03 02:44:41 PM  
I find the idea of any "journalistic" organization censoring itself out of "respect" for Chritianity OR Islam to be ludicrous and bizarre. Thousands of fervent bible thumpers are currently running around in Iraq (a country which never attacked the U.S.) killing people and telling them how to run their affairs. Meanwhile, thousands of fervent Koran thumpers are running around Darfur raping and torturing and murdering other thousands of fervent Koran thumpers in order to take over their water holes.

Really, what in the world have Christianity OR Islam done to garner "respect" from anyone, ever? Truthfully, the world would be a lot better off if neither of these obnoxious, intrusive, nauseating cults had ever been invented.

Give me a break. The last thing these insane monotheists deserve from anyone is "respect." These are the movements which make life on Earth far worse than it needs to be.
 
2006-02-03 02:47:52 PM  
OK, CNN disagrees with you. I think they would know the best descisions to make to appease their customer base. I contend that Wal*Mart would make more money if they didn't Censor Music, movies, and books; and sold the Morning After Pill in their Pharmacies.

WalMart makes no bones about its right to sell what it wants, nor does it have to. It is a business. Businesses are allowed to choose the products they offer.

CNN is supposed to be news, presumably fair and impartial, and hopefully, thorough.

They are bound by a different set of ethical standards.

It is reasonable to argue that CNN is bowing to pressure to censor itself, and if it bows to pressure to censor itself, its journalistic integrity is questionable.
 
2006-02-03 02:48:25 PM  
This just in on CNN--

Serial killer on the loose. We have its picture and physical description, but are not going to show it because it is a minority and we don't want to be offensive.

Additionally, we say "it" because placing a gender on the subject could be biased.

Have a nice day and remember we are still a relevant news source!
 
2006-02-03 02:50:13 PM  
horseshiat. If they were blasphemous pictures of Jebus, Xtians would be falling all over themselves to complain and censor them. Plus, just like with "The Book Of Daniel", there'd be plenty of death threats.

Suck it, Xtians, you bunch of hypocritical douchebags.
 
2006-02-03 02:50:15 PM  
karasoth (and others):

You'll either come to believe or you will not. It is simply up to Christians to plant a seed--not hammer it into you. In fact, that is where many evangelicals go wrong. They try to force feed the Gospel to people. It doesn't work like that.

The fark demographics are decidedly atheist/humanist/non-Christian and I know that. But I still come here for the links.
 
Displayed 50 of 577 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report