Comments on: Amazing: A Jewish Newspaper Denigrates Mormons

By: Rod

Rod — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 05:09:33 +0000

“Jewish Newspaper”….hmm…. “It’s the “Jews” again, indeed”….. Of course NY Times publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr’s mother was an Episcopalian and Arthur Jr. and his siblings were baptized and confirmed. So I guess that makes the New York Times a Christian newspaper…yes, “it’s those Christians again”, hmmmm….

By: Freedom Folks

Freedom Folks — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:29:22 +0000

Calling All Bloggers!

ALIPAC and FAIR need you to join us in DC and help blog this current amnesty out of existence!

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:32:08 +0000

Now, if Needle had qualified his statement by saying that â€œmost [or many] conservative Muslims tend to..â€ instead what he has, which as written implies a universality of belief.

You would be correct if he had said “Muslims believe”, which obviously implies universality, but “tend” implies “many, but not all” and is sufficient to make his statement supportable. It may not actually be correct, but it’s plausible enough that the burden would be on you to disprove it.

By: gary l. day

gary l. day — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:35:45 +0000

By the way, the New York Times is as much a “Jewish” newspaper as
the Washington Times is a “Moonie” newspaper. Concede one, and I’ll
concede the other.

By: gary l. day

gary l. day — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:33:05 +0000

Actually, Needlesmith’s attempt to turn the tables by referencing
Muslims is more bigoted inasmuch as it makes a statement of generalized
belief that is insufficiently supported by the evidence. Now, if
Needle had qualified his statement by saying that “most [or many]
conservative Muslims tend to..” instead what he has, which as written
implies a universality of belief. Seems to me that the thousands
(or millions) of Muslims who are making the secular West their home
could well prefer to live under a secular legal system.

Bottom line: a statement of verifiable fact, in and of itself, is
not evidence of bigotry. The right wing seems to have a hard time
with that “verifiable fact” concept, who tend to shout “bigotry” or
“bias” whenever they disagree with a fact. What betrays bigotry is
context and intent.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:58:23 +0000

Needlesmith, you’re correct; the Muslim statement is not bigoted (though you would be expected to demonstrate the “most often” part. You’re probably just listening to the vocal minority).

What part of the Mormon statement was “unjustifiably negative”? They do tend to be clannish. No doubt, that dates back to when they were highly persecuted. The “secretive” bit is probably debatable, but you could certainly find a lot of people who perceive them as such, and that’s all the statement asserted.

By: needlesmith

needlesmith — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:22:59 +0000

“Among the reasons Americans distrust Muslims is Jihad. To participate in Jihad can mean a ‘personal struggle’, but is most often referred to by Imams as ‘war on the unbeliever’. Muslims tend to believe that religious Islamic law should prevail above any secular legal system… Islam is also perceived to subjugate women…”

As long as its true~

And by your definition Gary, the bit about Mormons was ‘unjustifiably negative’.

By: gary l. day

gary l. day — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:39:53 +0000

You’re calling the Times bigoted, yet as usual present precious little
evidence of that. And no, changing “Mormons” to “Jews” does not make
the passage any more bigoted, because the statement is, on its face,
true. What is needed to conclude bigotry is a context that is either
unjustifiably negative or maliciously untrue. Once again, you provide
no context for such a conclusion. Leftist bigotry? No. Try again.