Media: Muslim Persecution Of Christians? Nah, It's Just "Sectarian Strife"

Raymond Ibrahim writes about the reaction of the media to the Muslim persecution of Christians--namely that according to the media its not Muslim persecution of Christians, but rather "sectarian strife":

The mainstream media (MSM) has just provided another example of how it ostracizes those who fail to tout its party-line. Context: the Washington Post's On Faith blog posted an article dealing with Muslim-Christian relations, in light of recent attacks on Christians in the Muslim world. Regular contributors were invited to respond. The response of one of these, Willis E. Eliot, a retired dean of exploratory programs, New York Seminary, was rejected (Pajamas Media published it here). Up till then, for over three years, Eliot had been publishing almost weekly on that blog; this is his first contribution to be rejected in all that time.


What about it caused the Washington Post to jettison it? You see, the nonagenarian Eliot decided to make black and white—as opposed to postmodern, "there-are-no-truths"—observations. Consider some of his comments on the differences between Christianity and Islam:

Jesus said, "Love your enemies." Islam, to the contrary, is essentially hostile to "the infidels"… Jesus was anti-violent, Muhammad was violent… Muslims become violent, or threaten violence, when they feel offended: when we Christians feel offended, almost never do we become violent, and almost always we suffer the disrespect in silence."

Inasmuch as Eliot's assertions are empirically demonstrative—scripturally, historically, and in current affairs (a la Koran-waving jihadists and persecuted Christians)—so too do they go against the one unwavering dogma clung to by the MSM: cultural relativism. Hence, the need to suppress them.

I don't know enough to offer an opinion on the propensity of Christians to suffer in silence (which may actually prove their point), but the propensity of Muslims to "act out" does have a long--if ignored--history.

But Ibrahim's point goes beyond ignoring Muslim violence--it's the whitewashing.

• Referring to Muslim attacks on Egyptian Copts as "sectarian strife"--as if we were talking about 2 evenly matched sides instead of a Muslim majority attacking and persecuting its minority.
  
  
• Referring to the bombing of an Egyptian church, killing 20 Copts as "Clashes grow as Egyptians remain angry after attack" (New York Times) and "Christians clash with police in Egypt after attack on churchgoers kills 21" (Washington Post) implying an odd balanced two-sidedness.
  
  
• Referring to the story of the Egyptian policeman who boarded a train, identified Christians by the small, tattooed cross on their wrists, and then killing one and wounding five while crying "Allah Akbar" with the headline "Eyewitness claims train attacker did not target Copts, state media say." (Los Angeles Times)

This is an absurd even-handedness that you just don't see elsewhere in the media. After all, where else in the Middle East do you see the media whitewashing one side while implying a balance between the side that instigates the attacks and the one being attacked?

Heaven help the Christians if they should even decide to defend themselves--the media will instantly accuse them of contributing to the cycle of violence.

Technorati Tag: Muslim Persecution Of Christians.