In "Fear Incorporated," an investigatory report from the Center for American Progress, Fox News is described as an "echo-chamber" for Islamophobia in that many of Fox's guests promote anti-Islamic talking points aimed at fostering fear and loathing of Islam and Muslims. Much of the discussion has centered on how American mosques preach violence and how Islam is attempting to impose Sharia law in the US. Fox News has provided a safe haven for both its hosts and guests to "bash Islam with impunity." The bashing was non-stop during the Fox abetted "controversy" surrounding the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque." On yesterday's Fox & Friends, in keeping with this fine tradition, "devout Catholic" Eric Bolling interviewed a filmmaker who was once sympathetic to Tennessee Muslims who encountered local hostility over the building of a mosque. He has since done a total 180 and now hates Islam. Put it this way, if this guest described Catholicism in the same terms that he did Islam, Bolling, who once kicked an atheist off his show, would have cut his mic! But Fox News says it's all true!
The title of the Fox video frames the Fox patented Islamophobic message: "Filmmaker Uncovers the Truth of Radical Islam." (So Fox has determined that this guy is telling the "truth?") As Bolling, a devout Catholic who lights candles and prays for his friends, provided the "important" backstory, the chyron provided the Fox validation: "Discovering the Truth, Fmr. Filmmaker Reveals Truths of Radical Islam." (No bias here, nosiree!). Bolling reported that Michael Moore asked his guest to "help tell the story of being a Muslim in America claiming they were being persecuted because they couldn't build a mosque inTennessee but once he delved into the details, the entire story changed." He then introduced his guest Eric Allen Bell.
Bell talked about how the building permit was for a "mega-mosque" in a community where Muslims are a small minority. He thought it would make a great documentary because of the local backlash and that he went into it "with a bias" because he thought it was about civil rights and religious freedom. He denied Bolling's statement that Michael Mooore funded the project. As they spoke, the chyron continued to advance the propaganda: "Mega-Mosque Mistake, Documentary Filmmaker Discovers True Story." Bell talked about how when liberals hear the term Islam they think of Muslims and his "inclination was to stick up" for the Muslim community until he did "serious research" he didn't know what was "actually happening" and that he got the whole thing wrong. The chyron defended him: "Against Political Islam, Liberals Interpret 'Against All Muslims'."
As he started his hateful diatribe against Islam, Fox, once again, validated the message: "Truths Uncovered ,Bell Researched Terrorism & Read Islam Books." To Bolling's question of what he found, Bell said this:
"I found that there is a man who raped a nine year old girl, who owned slaves, who killed his critics, who beheaded a tribeful of Jews named Mohammed who's the highest moral example of Islam for 1.6 billion people." (Bolling nodded his head) "And this is a radical savage religion. The people aren't all radical, thank God; but the religion is the worst, most deadliest idea in the history of the world and we need to make sure that we keep a close eye on it in this country."
Rather than attempt to refute what he said, Bolling said it's an "interesting topic" and would love to have him back for a discussion about his treatment "from the left."
So, according to Fox News, the "truth" about radical Islam is Bell's diatribe of personal bigotry based on his reading of the Koran and Islam books. Wonder what Bolling would have thought if a guest said that Catholicism, based on a violent bible and a history of crusades and inquisition, is a "savage" religion involving the impregnation of a 14 year old virgin by a "god." Regardless of Bell's hatred of Islam, that doesn't change the "truth" that the First Amendment allows Muslims to build a mosque. Bolling didn't challenge Bell on that. But it was vintage Fox & Friends. An apparently unhinged and bizarre guest is allowed to rant without any refutation. There was no mention of how both Muslim and non-Muslim supporters of the mosque feel "betrayed." There was no discussion about how Bell squares the ugliness of the opposition (includes vandalism), which he documented, with his newfound "truths" about radical Islam - truths that Fox News clearly embraces. An "echo chamber" for Islamophobia - you bet!
I’m sure no logical person would argue against that sarcastic “point”. You do understand that I’m arguing against the point that you apparently believe “ALL muslims contemplate killing an infidel or attacking a country full of infidels.”…? Every (sarcastic statement) statement you made is a generalization about millions of people. And you are using those generalizations to inflame hatred in the same way you accuse Muslims of doing. So, other than posting about the evils of Islam on the internet, what is it you propose we do about this “overabundance” of Islam in the world? Sincerely try to answer that question without sounding too evil yourself.
Let’s start with the little test of Abraham, where he’s COMMANDED by God to take his son to a mountaintop and kill him—which Abraham does without a second’s hesitation. (Hell, Abraham put up more of a struggle with God over the safety of his NEPHEW. “Surely you won’t destroy a city for the sake of 50 good men….” Compare to “But, my son…well, yes Lord, I’ll do it.”)
Then, let’s take a look at the Israelites’ conquest of Canaan. A lot of cities are completely slaughtered—men, women AND children—simply because “the Lord” tells Joshua that’s the only way to “purify” the land. (Oh, and when ONE of Joshua’s soldiers disobeys an edict to burn everything and takes a few baubles for himself, God gets a little ticked off. Oh, not enough to kill the man himself—I guess once you’ve caused the wholesale slaughter of millions of INNOCENT Egyptian firstborns and destroyed an entire army a few decades earlier, killing one single solitary guy is best left to your mortal pawn. Oh, one other little thing. Joshua was commanded to kill not only the offender, but also his entire family and everything the man owned had to be destroyed. Real nice deity there, isn’t he?)
Then, we get into the whole Christian Church’s decision to minimize (even demonize) an entire gender. Menstrual blood is SO dangerous that, before a woman who’s had her period can even contemplate returning to the temple, she has to undergo a ritual purification (and this, incidentally, ALSO applies to a woman who’s just given birth). Even more, that blood is so dangerous that ANYTHING that is “contaminated” must be thoroughly cleaned (that includes her husband) or, if cleansing is impractical, destroyed. And, women became so evil, so wicked that THEY were able to cause lust in a man just by looking at him (and this was CENTURIES before Islam ever started). Women’s sexuality was turned into humanity’s shame. Plenty of societies in the Christian West had no problem with treating the female victims of rape as having deserved it. (In some parts of Europe during the Middle Ages, a woman could be forced to marry her rapist as long as the rapist was willing to pay the male head of the household the “bridal price”; a man unwilling to marry her still paid that money but generally condemned her to a life of abject misery, if she weren’t killed on the spot—he, on the other hand, was often allowed to simply leave town if the girl’s male relative consented, which was typical since he got his money for the girl.) In typical male fashion—in both the Jewish and later Christian traditions—women (ie, Eve) bore SOLE responsibility for the whole Eden incident while men (ie, Adam) got off relatively scot-free. Just look at the punishments dictated to the couple in Genesis: Adam’s “forced” to live his life working for his bread while Eve’s charged with the burden of painful childbirth (and even after anesthesia became widely available for surgery, it was often prohibited to women in labor because it “violated God’s law”). I don’t know about you folks, but that doesn’t sound very equitable since women also were burdened with being forced to obey the men in all things (and “women’s work” often began well before the man’s work and ended well after his).
During the Middle Ages, Christians and Jews were well-tolerated by their Muslim rulers. On the other hand, Jews and Muslims were DESPISED by Christian rulers. In the Crusader States, temples and mosques were routinely sacked and destroyed by the Christian “liberators” (hell, during some of the Crusades, even Eastern Christian churches—those of Orthodox rites or older Christian traditions—suffered at the hands of the Crusaders; look up the “1204 Siege of Constantinople”). During the Reconquista, both Muslims and Jews were faced with conversion or expulsion from “liberated” territory, and those who converted (the “conversos”) faced continual scrutiny from the Inquisition—which was known to pay informants to spy on conversos; a converso whose new faith was deemed false or “lapsed” were executed in public (usually by fire). There was NO similar case of CIVILIAN deaths of Jews or Christians in Muslim-held lands—only PROVEN “collaborators” faced death and those accused of collaboration with the various Crusader knights were allowed to refute accusations.
Take your Islam-bashing and GTFO. Go home to Frau Geller and Herr Spencer and tell them you did your job and you’re ready for your daily wage. Then, go out and splurge on a Little Debbie snack cake, a bag of chips and a Big Gulp. You’ve earned it.