Pro or Anti-Christian Bias - It is up to you

[mattskramer]

There are news programs with a pro-Christian bias (not even counting the "700 Club). There are news items that put Christianity in a positive light. Yes. There are also news items that put Christianity in a negative light. I think that if you were to take all US news items as a whole, they (as a group) present an accurate image of "Christian activity". If Christians want the public to become more aware of the good of Christianity, then Christians should create good work and avoid engaging is bad behavior. Then, having done that, present the news (write articles, create leaflets, report on their good works, etc.)

 

[krisy]

Well,I know Fox news seems to be supportive of Christianity. I personally feel that the media as a whole is Liberal,and for that reason,tend to be hard on Christianity. It seems like they tend to portay the right as some kind of extremist Christian evil empire. There are a lot of good Christians out there that put out a positive message,such as Billy Graham. Yes there are some that come on a bit strong,but you are right,when it is represented the right way more people will follow. Although controversial,just look at what The Passion of the Christ did. All that talk about Jesus Christ was a great thing for this country IMO.

 

[5stringJeff]

I don't think I ever see too many pro-Christian stories on the Five-o'clock news. Most of the stuff I see (sadly) is about Catholic priests abusing altar boys, or gays being voted as bishops in the Episcopal church, or Associated Ministries coming out in favor of gay marriage. I wish that these things didn't happen, but the stories on this far outweigh the stories about the good that the Christian Church does daily in America. Very unfortunate, IMO.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I don't think I ever see too many pro-Christian stories on the Five-o'clock news. Most of the stuff I see (sadly) is about Catholic priests abusing altar boys, or gays being voted as bishops in the Episcopal church, or Associated Ministries coming out in favor of gay marriage. I wish that these things didn't happen, but the stories on this far outweigh the stories about the good that the Christian Church does daily in America. Very unfortunate, IMO.

That reminds me of the lack of praise and ready supply or criticism I get at my job. If I do as I'm instructed to do...what is expected of me...There is not much comment. Yet, if I behave poorly or make mistakes, I am readily criticized. Oh well...such is life.

 

[5stringJeff]

How then can you say that the media shows an accurate picture of Christian activity when the media tends to only report the bad/abnormal stuff?

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
How then can you say that the media shows an accurate picture of Christian activity when the media tends to only report the bad/abnormal stuff?

As I tried to explain above, good behavior, behavior that is expected, it not that newsworthy. Oh. If you go above and beyond what people expect, word will get around. If you double your daily quota at work, you might get extra recognition. Likewise with Christian activity in the news, there are stories of extraordinary people such as Mother Teresa and Billy Graham. News of supposed Christians that lie, cheat, and steal is newsworthy because it goes against what is expected of them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by mattskramer
That reminds me of the lack of praise and ready supply or criticism I get at my job. If I do as I'm instructed to do...what is expected of me...There is not much comment. Yet, if I behave poorly or make mistakes, I am readily criticized. Oh well...such is life.

There is a whole other world outside the habittrail, hamster boy. Aren't you tired of your meager allotment of compacted food pellets? Isn't your soul starving?

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
There is a whole other world outside the habittrail, hamster boy. Aren't you tired of your meager allotment of compacted food pellets? Isn't your soul starving?

Seems like you try to change the subject. No. I am happy with my career. Yet I am more than my career. I just used it as a parallel comparison on how expected behavior is rarely praised.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The Media and Hollywood War Against Christianity
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/2/102405.shtml
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Oct. 2, 2003
In his new, best-selling book, "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," David Limbaugh exposes the outrageous bias and discrimination against Christians. Read Part I in this series, Intolerant 'Liberals' Wage War on Christianity, and Part II, Leftists Treat Christianity as 'Cancer'.

The two most powerful molders of opinion in the nation, the media and Hollywood, are at the head of the line in the war on Christianity, frequently ridiculing and disparaging Christians in ways they would never dream of employing against any other group of Americans.

Writes David Limbaugh: "This anti-Christian bias manifests itself in unflattering portrayals of Christians in Hollywood films and entertainment television, and also in the demonization of Christian conservatives in the media."

Sometimes, he notes, the Catholic Church is singled out for special ridicule, a fact made obvious with the incredible overplaying of the recent sex abuse scandals where the facts were often overblown, especially in the media’s incessant labeling of it a "pedophile priest" scandal, where only a tiny percentage of the cases involved pedophilia and the overwhelming majority involved teen-agers molested by homosexual priests.

The media, the author says, portrays Christians as unreasonable and violent, charging them with violent acts against abortionists, abortion clinics or homosexuals while at the same time both Hollywood and the media downplay injustices and violent acts committed against Christians.

A favorite media tactic is the use of the pejorative term "religious right" to describe Christian conservatives, implying such believers are, as the author writes "intolerant, backwoods fanatics, and yet never labeling religious liberals such as Jesse Jackson, as the ‘religious left’ or other leftists as the ‘anti-religious left." Limbaugh cites a screed by the Washington Post’s Michael Weisskopf who described followers of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command."

Other shocking examples of this tactic cited by Limbaugh:

* Bryant Gumbel in a June, 2000 CBS "Early Show" interviewing Robert Knight of the Family Research Council appearing to defend the Boy Scouts refusal to allow homosexuals to be Scout leaders, thinking the mike was off, muttered that Knight was "a f***ing idiot."
* CNN founder Ted Turner asked employees who had ashes on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday if they were "a bunch of Jesus freaks?"
* In his book "Bias" Bernard Goldberg reported that CBS producer Roxanne Russell called Christian activist and then-presidential candidate Gary Bauer "the little nut from the Christian group."
* Christians have been called "the American Taliban, with one reporter for a Florida newspaper, Bob Norman referring to "evangelical loonies," and "way-out-there Christian wackos." In the St. Petersburg Times columnist Robyn E. Blummer wrote that the "religious right" is trying in "Taliban-like ways to inject religion into public schools and the operations of government."

One of the more outrageous examples of anti-Christian ranting was exhibited on the liberal taxpayer funded National Public Radio (NPR). On January 22, 2002, NPR reporter David Kestenbaum "seemed to imply," that the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), a pro-family ministry was involved in the terrorist anthrax attacks on the nation’s capital.

Here, as Limbaugh reports, is what the NPR reporter said: "Two of the anthrax letters were sent to Senator Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, both Democrats. One group who had a gripe with Daschle and Leahy is the Traditional Values Coalition, which before the attacks had issued a press release criticizing the senators for trying to remove the phrase ‘so help me God’ from the oath."

Kestenbaum then went on to say that TVC had not been contacted by the FBI without bothering to explain why they would have, clearly implying that they might be suspects in the attacks. It took NPR a full year to apologize for that slanderous report.

"No one told our reporter that the Traditional Values Coalition was a suspect in the anthrax mailing," their apology stated, adding that "no facts were available then or since to suggest that the group has any role in the anthrax mailing."

But that didn’t stop NPR from making what amounted to a thinly veiled charge of attempted murder against TVC at the time.

One of the more current cases of extreme media bias has been the handling of the controversy surrounding Mel Gibson’s new film, The Passion" which tells the story of Jesus Christ’s final 12 hours.

Although the film is solid based on the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – Gospels that have been accepted as the true narrative of Christ’s passion and death from the very beginnings of Christianity – Gibson is being attacked for promoting anti-Semitism.

Yet numerous Jews who have seen the film deny that charge. Given that the film does faithfully follow the Gospels, as both evangelical Christian Bible scholars and the Vatican attest, it can only follow that those charging anti-Semitism are charging that the Gospels are anti-Semitic.

Wrote the Boston Globe’s columnist James Carroll: "Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred." Aside from the absurdity of the statement, what Carroll is suggesting is that Christians should avoid reading the Gospels for fear that it will cause them to be anti-Semites even though the Gospels make plain the fact that Christ’s death was the work of sinners.

The role of the media, especially that of the New York Times, the Globe’s owner, and the paper’s far-left arts columnist Frank Rich has been to keep the pot stirring, no matter how many times the charge of anti-Semitism is disproved. This has been in keeping with the Times long anti-Christian record.

"Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," is far and away the most thorough account of the war on Christianity – it is complete and detailed, and he makes a prima facie case that the faith is under a sustained and vicious attack in all aspects of American life.

Editor's Note: Get "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," the latest book by the author of "Absolute Power." David Limbaugh exposes the farce of leftist "tolerance" and reveals the true agenda of "liberals" who abuse the law to

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer
There are news programs with a pro-Christian bias (not even counting the "700 Club). There are news items that put Christianity in a positive light. Yes. There are also news items that put Christianity in a negative light. I think that if you were to take all US news items as a whole, they (as a group) present an accurate image of "Christian activity". If Christians want the public to become more aware of the good of Christianity, then Christians should create good work and avoid engaging is bad behavior. Then, having done that, present the news (write articles, create leaflets, report on their good works, etc.)

What you are trying to do here, is make Christianity a faith of works instead of a work of faith. -Then you will denounce it.

You are stirring the pot to get religous debate going again to make catholics and Christians fight.

Don't expect much when you can be seen through like this.

You misunderstand what Christianity is, or else you are purposely trying to provoke a fight.

Given how you NEVER adress a topic and then back away unless you are playing cat and mouse, you are provoking a fight with full knowledge.

it is rather annoying seeing you do this. At least be man enough to adress your issues with Christianity in plain direct view.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by NewGuy
What you are trying to do here, is make Christianity a faith of works instead of a work of faith. -Then you will denounce it.

You are stirring the pot to get religous debate going again to make catholics and Christians fight.

Don't expect much when you can be seen through like this.

You misunderstand what Christianity is, or else you are purposely trying to provoke a fight.

Given how you NEVER adress a topic and then back away unless you are playing cat and mouse, you are provoking a fight with full knowledge.

it is rather annoying seeing you do this. At least be man enough to adress your issues with Christianity in plain direct view.

I was giving replies to the one who commented "How then can you say that the media shows an accurate picture of Christian activity when the media tends to only report the bad/abnormal stuff?"

Many people (Christians and non-Christians) are familiar with the advice given by Jesus (Example: "The sermon on the mount"). When one professes to be a Christian, people often expect him to do good. People don't expect him to do bad.

I am not attempting to make Catholics and Christians fight. I do not profess to be an expert on Christianity. Don't make my comments to be more than they are. I created the topic and addressed the topic. The topic basically is pro vs anti Christian bias in the media and how it is up to Christians to present good if they want good publicity.

Though it is irrelevant to the topic, I'm an agnostic.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I was giving replies to the one who commented "How then can you say that the media shows an accurate picture of Christian activity when the media tends to only report the bad/abnormal stuff?"

Nice dodging there.

How could you be replying when I was quoting the first post in the thread....-YOURS.

Many people (Christians and non-Christians) are familiar with the advice given by Jesus (Example: "The sermon on the mount"). When one professes to be a Christian, people often expect him to do good. People don't expect him to do bad.

That wasn't the issue and you know it. You were talking about portrayal in the news and news bias. If I was wrong on my statements, you wouldn't totally switch the issue.

I am not attempting to make Catholics and Christians fight. I do not profess to be an expert on Christianity.

You DO profess to think it inferior to your own beliefs and profess it to have faults which you have attempted to illustrate. By this and your statements about how the verses should be understood in other threads, you sure sound like you think you are.

Don't make my comments to be more than they are. I created the topic and addressed the topic. The topic basically is pro vs anti Christian bias in the media and how it is up to Christians to present good if they want good publicity.

Though it is irrelevant to the topic, I'm an agnostic.

Funny. Which one is it? Were you answering a question as you claimed in the top of this reply, or did you CREATE the quote I adressed? You are dancing, and I can peg you on each step.

BTW...we could see your beliefs. They are written on your sleeve.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Matty-Matt, I question your assertion that if Christians want positive press they should be responsible for generating it themselves. That's wrong. I think Christians have the right to fair and honest treatment in the media, just like everyone else. If any minority racial or religious group was treated this way, the liberals would be "fit to be tied". That means very angry.

I understand matty; all your liberal friends already question you for being a libertarian, if you started defending Christians, you would be one of THOSE conservatives. And you can't have that. So you just deny any anti christian bias.

De' Nile ain't just a river in egypt.

 

[mattskramer]

NewGuy - There was no "dodge. Look at the sequence of replies. gop_jeff and I were commenting back and forth long before you came in and posted your stuff. Yes, you quoted me. So what? The fact that you quoted me in your reply is irrelevant. Basically, you still just butted in.

Yes. The topic was portrayal of Christianity in the news. One of my comments, in reply to a comment made by gop_jeff is that behaviors and events that go against expectations make the news more so than do expected behaviors and events.

I do not think that Christianity (or Christian beliefs in and of themselves) are inferior to my own. You can believe God exists. You can believe in Jesus. You can believe in every word in the bible FOR YOURSELF. I am not getting into a debate on Bible validity. I do not profess it to be inferior. I said many things about the Bible and about not wanting passages imposed on others (particularly the passage concerning homosexuality). If you think that homosexuality is a sin and that the Bible says so, so be it. Yet (and this is a key distinction) if you think that homosexual behavior (among other things in the Bible) should be outlawed for everyone, I consider that opinion to be inferior. I think that you should be free to believe what you like OF THE BIBLE IN AND OF ITSELF. Yet in general, I think that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. I don't know how else to explain what I consider to be the clear distinction.

Do I need to lead you through the actual thread in its entirety. I will summarize: I created the original post in this thread. In summary: "I think that if you were to take all US news items as a whole, they (as a group) present an accurate image of "Christian activity". I'll quote part of gop_jeff's reply: How then can you say that the media shows an accurate picture of Christian activity when the media tends to only report the bad/abnormal stuff?" I'll quote part of my reply: "Likewise with Christian activity in the news, there are stories of extraordinary people such as Mother Teresa and Billy Graham. News of supposed Christians that lie, cheat, and steal is newsworthy because it goes against what is expected of them."

Nice try.

----------------------------------------------------

Again, I think that the news, as a whole, presents a balanced view. There are positive stories that grab people's attention. There are negative stories.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And the negative stories outweigh the positive my a margin that would be deemed unacceptable were it any group besides christians. But if you defended christians, someone might think you were one of those ignorant fools.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
And the negative stories outweigh the positive my a margin that would be deemed unacceptable were it any group besides christians. But if you defended christians, someone might think you were one of those ignorant fools.

I would defend Christians. A teacher assigned students to write on a significant person in his or her life. (She did not say that the person be alive or dead / real, fictional, or mythical) The only paper that was not accepted was one about Jesus. In all fairness, I think that such a paper should have been accepted and if I was in a position to defend her, I would have done so.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I would defend Christians. A teacher assigned students to write on a significant person in his or her life. (She did not say that the person be alive or dead / real, fictional, or mythical) The only paper that was not accepted was one about Jesus. In all fairness, I think that such a paper should have been accepted and if I was in a position to defend her, I would have done so.

Well good. There is anti christian bias in the media, however.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer
NewGuy - There was no "dodge. Look at the sequence of replies. gop_jeff and I were commenting back and forth long before you came in and posted your stuff. Yes, you quoted me. So what? The fact that you quoted me in your reply is irrelevant. Basically, you still just butted in.

1. The sequence of events is irrelevant when I was responding to the original first post you made. You obvoiusly didn't read anything I was posting about, or you want to derail from the reality and truth of my post.

2. Get used to the butting in. It is a public forum. Just because a reply is made that you don't like it doesn't mean you can keep me out. You just don't like the light of truth.

I do not think that Christianity (or Christian beliefs in and of themselves) are inferior to my own. You can believe God exists. You can believe in Jesus. You can believe in every word in the bible FOR YOURSELF. I am not getting into a debate on Bible validity.

Then the statement you just made about me believing it for myself is invalid if you can't discuss validity. IT applies to EVERYONE wether you believe it or not.

I do not profess it to be inferior. I said many things about the Bible and about not wanting passages imposed on others (particularly the passage concerning homosexuality). If you think that homosexuality is a sin and that the Bible says so, so be it. Yet (and this is a key distinction) if you think that homosexual behavior (among other things in the Bible) should be outlawed for everyone, I consider that opinion to be inferior.

My opinion is irrelevant. If the Bible claims it is not right and therefore should not be allowed, then you claim the belief and the Bible BOTH inferior.

-Hence my point stands, and again you are sucking wind.

I think that you should be free to believe what you like OF THE BIBLE IN AND OF ITSELF. Yet in general, I think that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. I don't know how else to explain what I consider to be the clear distinction.

According to man's law, I totally agree. The problem here is that you avoid God's law which allows condemning the practices that are sins. Man's law should never concone nor accept the behavior. There may not be a law specifically against it as that would intrude on the basic set of freedoms, but to not call the sin sin and oppose its practice verbally IS condoning it.

Your model of law is not complete and therefore corrupt.

Do I need to lead you through the actual thread in its entirety. I will summarize: I created the original post in this thread. In summary: "I think that if you were to take all US news items as a whole, they (as a group) present an accurate image of "Christian activity". I'll quote part of gop_jeff's reply: How then can you say that the media shows an accurate picture of Christian activity when the media tends to only report the bad/abnormal stuff?" I'll quote part of my reply: "Likewise with Christian activity in the news, there are stories of extraordinary people such as Mother Teresa and Billy Graham. News of supposed Christians that lie, cheat, and steal is newsworthy because it goes against what is expected of them."

Nice try.

So, by YOUR rules, my post cannot adress just your first post, it HAS to include Jeffs. You do this to cause derailment from the issue.

You are still wrong, still dancing, still avoiding the issue, and I am still right there to show you.

 

[mattskramer]

Okay okay. So let's be fair about it. If you think that this book (the Bible) should be imposed on everyone (Christians, Atheists, Polytheists, Agnostics, Witches, Satanists) alike, then do you think that ALL portions of the Bible should be imposed? Every sentence that states, suggests, or implies that a particular behavior (or desire) be mandated or disallowed?

Heck. Let's just replace the US Constitution with the Bible.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Okay okay. So let's be fair about it. If you think that this book (the Bible) should be imposed on everyone (Christians, Atheists, Polytheists, Agnostics, Witches, Satanists) alike, then do you think that ALL portions of the Bible should be imposed?

I never said it should be IMPOSED on anyone, did I?

I was stating it needs to be used to IDENTIFY which is how it states it SHOULD be used. People have a choice wether to follow it or not. They live with the consequences for their decisions.

Every sentence that states, suggests, or implies that a particular behavior (or desire) be mandated or disallowed?
Heck. Let's just replace the US Constitution with the Bible.

1. Again, mandating or disallowing is not the issue here.
2. You need a government and history lesson. The Constitution grants you freedom, it does not regulate behavior.

On top of that, the Bible IS the higher authority the Constitution came from.