News-Record.com

From the article link:

"Assuming Eric Rudolph committed these crimes, he cannot find one word in the teachings of Christ to justify them. Nor will he find any theological leader of any branch of Christianity willing to defend his criminal conduct.

No Christian neighborhoods burst into celebration at the news of the bombings. Nor are
Christian children being taught that if Rudolph had died in his attacks he would be a "martyr" welcomed into heaven."

I suggest the author (and those who agree) look over the press releases of Operation Save America (formerly Operation Rescue):

http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/press/press/index.html

If these don't remind you of the Taliban, you might not be paying close enough attention.

And yet there are an awful lot of folks who have no problem with saying "Islam is a religion of evil because Osama bin Laden is Muslim." Sounds like a double standard to me.

The site Eric refers to does not advocate violence in any way. It does describe abortion as a violent act and calls the Doctors who perform abortion "killers."

There is a phrase on that site that describes Eric well, "Truth is hate to people who hate the truth."

Wrong again Eric. I have not read anything like that and neither have you. I have problems with Islam when over 60% of its followers in England say they want Western culture destroyed. (source: NPR this morning!)

I would not be surprised to find that the Madrassas in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, where so many terrorists get their religious indoctrination, would say that they're just ordinary religious schools, and don't advocate violence to their students.

Face it, Chip. The Bible tells its readers that people who kill deserve death, that people who engage in homosexual acts derseve death, and so on. Why act surprised when someone, reading that book, decides to act as God's messenger, and carry out the stated sentence? How many people did as much in the Old Testament and were considered "heroes of faith" in the New?

This is where your argument falls apart, my friend.

Tell us Eric, what nations have constitutions that prohibit free speach, a free press, freedom of religion? Ah, those nations whose peoples are predominantly Christian.

We are not a christian nation. But it is a fact our constitution and rules of law were heavily influenced by men who read the bible. With all our faults, the USA is the protector of freedom around the world.

There are Islamic and athiestic governments in the world today. They are responsible for evils beyond measure.

oops- i should have said, "Ah, those nations whose peoples are not predominantly Christian."

Nancy- you are a card carrying member of the MSM. Do you think the media is quick to link guys like Rudolph to Chritianity? Is there too much cynicism from the press towards Christianity?

I know Lex, for example thinks Dobson is a kook. Yet Dobson is one of the more influential and mainstream advocates of the nuclear family.

Christspeak, just for the record, I don't think I've ever called Dobson a "kook."

No, I'm pretty sure I used a different pejorative altogether ... ;-)

In all seriousness, I would urge anyone interested in the ties between Christianity and the extremist Right to read the Orcinus blog, written by journalist/author David Neiwert. It's here. He also has written a book on right-wing, so-called-Christian extremists called "In God's Country."

It's so hot outside that you might think Satan is making a personal visit topside!
...OK, I'm just getting back inside...Christspeak, making a blanket statement about the media is like making a blanket statement about Christians. All I can do is speak for myself...and I try to treat each news story on its own merits.

But tell me what you think: Is it that journalists are being critical, or are they crossing the line into mocking?

There seems to be a lack of humility in journalists, I believe, that makes them more argumentative and cross the line you speak of. Perhaps it has something to do with the amount of criticism they are subjected to, the need to develop a thick skin, something like that.

I've watched the phenomenon for years on TV news shows, (the first real version of reality TV). Before Fox, there would be 4-5 liberal journalists for every one conservative on each show. Regardless, the panelists (mostly writers) are overbearing and contentious towards each other, often exagerating a point just to win the moment.

Then there is the notion that reporters must never reveal their disposition. I agree that it is a good rule to leave personal feelings out of news articles. But is that always possible? And when it is not, why hide it?

How about the Melvin Bobblehead story in yesterday's paper? Your editors were incredulous that the Grasshoppers would honor Melvin that way before the story ran. It would never have made front page news (days after the event), otherwise.

Then there is Lex on Dobson. He is predisposed to paint Dobson in a negative light on a personal basis, I think because of Dobson's political activities. So he cannot bring himself to admit the overwhelming positives Focus on the Family and Dobson's books have produced. Any story about Dobson he edits will most certainly be filtered through his prejudice towards Dobson.

These are examples. Yes reporters cross the line. This is why I believe Blogs will breath new life into News. We, the readers get to know you....

CS, you might *think* I am "predisposed to paint Dobson in a negative light ... because of Dobson's politial activities." In fact, I am not predisposed to paint him in any particular light. He and I share many values, but he holds others I do not share. When I covered religion for the paper, I treated everyone in my stories fairly irrespective of my own views, which I wasn't especially shy about sharing in my weekly column. I'm quite capable of editing a story about Dobson fairly ... which does NOT necessarily mean letting any old (un-) factual assertion he might make pass unchallenged. I wrote fairly about Jerry Falwell when he came to town, and part of that process was highlighting the factual inaccuracies he uttered from the stage. Some people wouldn't consider that fair. I consider it journalism.