As America's Christian "news" network, Fox is very upset about ISIS's persecution of Christians - so upset that they're willing to use these poor folks to advance the popular Fox meme that the Christian hating Obama is ignoring them. This morning, alleged "news" host, Martha MacCallum showed us how it's done.
The news that Syrian Christians were abducted by ISIS hit the media yesterday, but within nanoseconds, the right wing hateosphere was ablaze with fury about how our secret Muslim president was ignoring the plight of these poor folks. Never letting a propaganda opportunity go to waste, Jesus (and Cardinal Dolan's) pal Martha MacCallum jumped on board the smear train this morning.
MacCallum's voice was very emotional as she reported on the incident in Syria. As she spoke, the banner reinforced the propaganda: "WH Stays Silent As Christians Kidnapped." She noted that "the White House has yet to comment on it." She quoted noted theologian Sen. Ted Cruz, who said that ISIS "is the face of evil," and one of Fox's favorite Islamophobes, Rev. Franklin Graham who says - wait for -it "the president is defending Islam while chastising Christians." (Yowza, not even a minute and Martha is playing to the Obama is a secret Muslim crowd.)
MacCallum emphasized how this is just one attack in a campaign "aimed squarely at Christianity." (Meanwhile, the majority of ISIS' victims are Muslims but they're just dirty heathens so screw'em) MacCallum noted that the "huuuuge" area where this is happening is "near the birthplace of Christ." She dramatically asked "where will it end and where it the reaction?"
She tossed to her guest, David Curry, who is head of a group "serving persecuted Christians." She seemed on the verge of tears as she compared "these stories" to WWII and the holocaust and said that years later school children say "how could nothing be done." She got agitated as she cried out about how the world "looked the other way." Curry said "it's eerily similar."
Curry was concerned about how the Obama administration doesn't seem to be paying attention. (Baddaboom - propaganda point scored!) MacCallum referenced a recent statement by the Pope about "Jesus and Satan in the desert." (Funny, in right wing world the Pope's social justice views are considered communist.) Even though the homily was about how Lent is about doing personal battle with the devil, MacCallum said that "some" believe he was speaking about current events.
The title of the Fox video is instructive: "White House Staying Silent As More Christians Are Kidnapped." Note that the verb "stay" is the present perfect tense which "describes an action that happened at an indefinite time in the past or that began in the past and continues in the present." In other words, Obama's "silence" is ongoing. And making sure that Fox's Obama hating persecuted Christians got the message, the banner, "White House Staying Silent As More Christians Are Kidnapped" remained on the screen for the entire interview.
But here's the thing - MacCallum is lying. She is conveying the message that Obama doesn't care about the Christians when IN FACT his AUMF request cites the Christian genocide. Obama also condemned the beheadings of the Egyptian Christians. But that's not enough for America's Christian "news" network which doesn't have a problem breaking those commandments about lying and bearing false witness.
But you’re totally right on the larger point that we pallid Western Protestans and Catholics are oblivious to the myriad other kinds of Christianity in the ME, and the world.
For instance, since ISIS has, from most reports, pretty much stuck to the Quran’s instruction to extend tolerance to Jews and Christians as “people of the book” — and after all, their end of days comes when Jesus reappears and leads them to paradise — i was puzzled by the execution of the Egyptian Coptic Christians.
I did a little research, and it turns out that fundamentalist Muslims believe Copts aren’t proper Christians and are apostates to their own faith, so not to be tolerated. I’m not sure about the Chaldean and Assyrian Christians who are the most recent victims, but it may be the same with them as far as these fundamentalist fanatics are concerned.
I highly, highly recommend the Atlantic’s now somewhat famous recent piece on ISIS, available on their Web site, which goes into some detail about extreme fundamentalist Muslim beliefs. It explains a great deal about ISIS’s behavior and goals— which don’t include, btw, going to war with the West yet, not until the great final apocalyptic battle Jesus is going to lead after the caliphate is established and Islam has been purified.
What I’d like to know, though, is exactly when, according to FoxNoise, was the United States supposed to be the advocate for the world’s Christians? The US, according to the Constitution, is a secular state—one that has no established church (or faith) and actively prohibits such an establishment (no matter how much the right-wing wants to change that). That would suggest (at least to reasonable people) that the US shouldn’t express any more concern for a group of murdered people simply because they happen to share the same overall faith as morons of a particular
And—this is probably a needless question to ask—but does FoxNoise provide as much outrage or concern when Muslims in THIS country are killed or have their homes or places of worship burned or defaced? (Hell, as you pointed out, Priscilla, FoxNoise doesn’t seem too concerned when ISIS goes around slaughtering other Muslims—or even other religious groups. I don’t seem to remember much coverage at FoxNoise about the Yazidis.)
As an aside, the majority of Christians in the Middle East belong to various Orthodox denominations as well as “Eastern Catholic” denominations (an absurdly esoteric concept—they largely accept the authority of the Pope in Rome but may or may not have their own particular rituals and observances that don’t coincide with official Vatican procedures) but very few Protestants who, somewhat ironically in FoxNoise terms, make up the majority of Christians as a whole in the US. (Most Americans understand the various distinctions between Protestant denominations and understand Roman Catholicism and maybe a bit less certain about Mormonism, but I’m pretty certain the majority of American Christians couldn’t begin to grasp what differences exist between the Maronites and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch or the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem or the Assyrian Church of the East. Of course, the majority of the Western European Roman Catholic Crusaders couldn’t tell the difference either—which is why so many Eastern Christians died at the hands of their “fellow” Christians and the Eastern Churches that escaped destruction were so frequently “converted” to “real” Christian churches.)
Sorry to nitpick Priscilla, but wrong. (TL;DR warning applies)
The “present perfect” tense does as you describe although the primary action was completed (the meaning of “perfect” in this sense) although it may continue to the present; it largely depends on the context. Some examples of usage from http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/tenses/present_perfect.htm :
“I have walked two miles already (but I’m still walking).” The adverb “already” suggests that the action is ongoing while the parenthetical part merely confirms it.
“I have run the Boston Marathon (but that was some time ago).” In contrast to the first example, this is an action that was completed (perfected) and is finished, as further highlighted by the parenthetical.
Note that in both examples, the parenthetical clauses are both subordinate clauses which aren’t necessary for either sentence to complete its thought.
Now, as to the “present perfect,” the tense is formed (always) by the present indicative form of the verb “to have” (“has” for the 3rd person singular, "have for all other persons) plus the past participle of the main verb. The present perfect tense of “stay” is “have/has stayed.”
As it’s used, “staying” is NOT the past participle—it’s the present participle. When the present participle is used with a form of the verb “to be,” it creates what’s known as the progressive forms: I am going; you were going; he will be going; she has been going; we had been going; they will have been going (respectively, the present, past, future, present perfect, past perfect and future perfect progressive forms). The present participle shares its formation with the gerund; the participle is a verb formation while the gerund is a noun. The present participle can be a verb (I was swimming) or as part of an adjectival participle phrase (The police reports describe a man wearing a red leather jacket). The gerund however is used strictly as a noun (I like swimming or Reading is fundamental). Since their formation is identical, the line between the two is very thin.
As the chyron reads, “staying” actually represents the present progressive form with the auxiliary verb “is” dropped (it doesn’t really fit the adjectival sense since the clause actually describes two separate actions that are occurring simultaneously and that are involving two different subjects).