11
Jan
10

People Treated Badly by Miz Pink

I forget how hard it is to be Christian because it’s so easy to be Muslim

– Aasif Mandvi, “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”

I’m a little behind in my viewing of Jonny Stewart (and my other honey-bunn…Stevie Colbert) but when I saw the segment in which the quote above took place, it made me laugh. It was in response to Brit Hume complaining about how Christians get crap the minute they spout their view (after he basically siad on air that Tiger Woods should find Jesus and repent and oh by the way Buddhism is a substandard faith.).

Now, I agree with Aasif and Jon at the juxtaposition of Christianity and Muslim faith here but I also disagree.

Ya see, it is true that is ain’t easy being Muslim these days especiallly here in the old U.S. of A. You get profiled and passengers look at you funny if you LOOK Muslim…even if yer just a secular Arab or an African or what have ya. Muslims as a whole get blamed for the evils of a select group and their religion is painted by many conservative frothy mouth types as being inherently violent. So yeah it ain’t easy being muslim.

On the other hand there is some truth to Brit Hume’s complain too. No Chrisitians don’t get persecuted and profiled but people do make big judgements if you ID yourself as Chrisitian or God forbid mention Jesus as anythin but just a cool guy with neato philosophies. If he’s your savior then you must be a kook. I have had peopel entirely revise their opinions of me at work after months upon months of knowing me and shun me because I mentioned in passing that I follow Jesus as my savior. They act like they know my whole personality and motives and secret plans (apparently to convert them) in ways they never to do to someone who IDs as a Jew or a Witch or a Hindi.

No its true that no one is going to strip search me for being Chrisitian in this country but it isn’t as easy being a Christian as a lot of non Christian types would like to believe.

Advertisements

23 Responses to “People Treated Badly by Miz Pink”


  1. January 11, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    Given the fact that dude is basically telling Christians to stop whining, I gotta agree with him.

    If Christians want to complain about how they are getting shafted, they need to consider how easily they are willing to shaft Muslims and others. You reap what you sow.

    It’s ludicrous for someone like Hume to whine, since he always complains about anybody else lodging any sort of logical complaint.

  2. 2 Inda Pink
    January 11, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    While I’m totally in favor of a no-whining rule there is a double standard here. Not that Muslim experience and Christian experience equal out but rather that alot of dudes who would be “oh how terrible to profile Muslims” and who think other sorts of profiling are nasty (and they are nasty) don’t blink at profiling christians on sight.

    Brit is dweeb no doubt.

  3. 3 Deacon Blue
    January 11, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    So I’m going to come out of my self-imposed exile or sabbatical or vacation or whatever for a quick commment.

    First off, Brit Hume deserves every bit of ire, ridicule, snark, sarcasm, and insult that comes his way over this. Recently, Mrs. Blue, in an act of devil’s advocate-ness, asked, “Well, couldn’t one say that he’s doing what a Christian is supposed to do?”

    The answer is “No.” He didn’t approach Tiger privately in a spirit of support. Maybe if he had there might have been some good way to share the gospel or even…*gasp*…to possibly proselytize. Maybe. Fact is, he doesn’t probably know Tiger from any other Black/Asian/etc. man, and has no business approaching him or advising him about anything spiritual.

    No, what Brit Hume did was, very Pharisee-like (and I mean that in the example of the hypocritical Pharisees whom Jesus reviled, not the ones who did their jobs properly…and there were many who did), shout out from the good seats in his proverbial synagogue that Tiger was a wretched sinner. He sought to beat his own chest publicly to show how “Christian” he was, and to just as publicly shame Tiger Woods in a manner that was inappropriate and insulting.

    That being said, Christian do catch a lot of shit, and it’s precisely because of asshole behavior like that that we do.

    Muslims get extra points for day to day crap they catch. On the other hand, no one is still blaming them for anything they did centuries upon centuries ago. Christians today still get blamed for the Crusades and the Inquisition. Whether that makes a balanced equation or not, I couldn’t say, but I would certainly rather navigate day to day life as a Christian in the U.S. than to try to do it as a Muslim.

  4. 4 Mark
    March 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    Christians should stop complaining about getting the shaft… if you aren’t getting the shaft, you aren’t Christian!! Jesus said we would be persecuted, so love that you are persecuted. As far as being Muslim causes you to be profiled at the airport and such… it is bunk. Nobody can tell your religion by looking at you… they can tell and do profile people of Arabian countenance. Not all Arabs are Muslim either. So you are not getting profiled because of your relgion, but rather your race. And if a bunch of red headed people started blowing up things, I would look twice at red heads.

  5. 5 Deacon Blue
    March 20, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    Well, if you’re taking Brit Hume to task, great, since he vastly overstated things and is a hypocrite.

    If you’re taking Miz Pink or me to task, you’re off base because neither of us has “complained” about our “persecution.” Instead we are pointing out the hypocrisy of so-called open minded people who judge Christians and pointing out shallow and judgmental behavior in general. I’m going to shine a light on bad behavior regardless of whether I feel particularly affected by it myself.

    Also, your Arab/Muslim comments are a bit circular, don’t you think? Sure, you can’t tell who’s Muslim, but it’s the demonization of Muslims that gets Arabs profiled, isn’t it? And so it still comes down to the Muslim issue, and the general assumption by many that Arab = Muslim.

    And broad-based profiling is stupid and useless anyway.

  6. 6 Mark
    March 20, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    I wasn’t taking anybody to task… but I was proud of Brit.

  7. 7 Deacon Blue
    March 21, 2010 at 10:11 am

    That makes one of us. Brit didn’t lift up Jesus but rather attempt to tear down someone else with a very empty religious platitude.

  8. 8 Mark
    March 21, 2010 at 11:25 am

    I am curious regarding who he attempted to tear down, how his religious platitude was empty. I do agree that his words could have been more eloquent regarding Jesus offers forgiveness, not the Christian religion, but most Christians got the point. We realize it is not our religion but rather our Lord… I think he would have rephrased had he got the chance. As far as tearing down other religions… I see no problem with that, they all lead away from God and that is the worst thing that could happen to anybody. If somebody I knew was planning on moving into an area with an active volcanoe and they didn’t realize it, I would warn them that their plans were deadly… same scenario. Volcanoes, bad…

  9. 9 Deacon Blue
    March 21, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    I’m not going to argue your point about “tearing down other religions” even though I think it’s a terrible choice of phrasing. And the reason I’m not going to argue it is because I did my fair share of fretting about other religion and them leading people to Hell early on in my faith. I don’t see it that way anymore because I think there are too many flaws and inconsistencies in the notion that God is only going to take people who have accepting Jesus in this life. It just doesn’t wash, as it would mean damning people who would have no reason to even consider giving Jesus a first look, much less a second one. But you are where you are in your faith walk and I won’t try to talk you down from that.

    However, there are a couple things I DO have to call you on.

    First, your statement “most Christians got the point.” If Brit Hume is trying to lift up Jesus on the airwaves, and Christians are the ones who are going to get the point…then what IS the point? He’s preached to the choir. Useless.

    Second, his platitude was empty because he proclaimed that the solution to Tiger Woods’ infidelity is Jesus. Totally wrong. The solution to his soul’s salvation is Jesus (or, as I prefer to think of it, Jesus is the surest and quickest way to salvation, though I believe many will stand before Jesus in the end and be granted eternal life who weren’t “Christian”…so I encourage people to explore Jesus because I think he offers the best spiritual package going). But getting back to my point, Tiger converting to Christianity won’t solve his problems with keeping his junk in his shorts when away from the wife. That’s a personal failing, and finding Jesus doesn’t make us sinless or solve our personal failings. Brit offered up Jesus as a cure to a problem that has nothing to do with Tiger’s faith…because, frankly, it’s not like Buddhism exactly preaches cheating on your wife either.

    So, Brit’s platitudes were empty and reflect poorly on Christians because he’s not being a light for Christ. Instead, he’s being a judgmental Pharisee.

    Period.

  10. 10 ketch22
    March 21, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    Your statement of “I think there are too many flaws and inconsistencies in the notion that God is only take people who have accepted Jesus in this life” helps me understand you a little better. You either believe the Bible is the Word of God or you believe the Bible to have some Godly ideas. I believe the Bible to be the Word of God… therefore when Jesus states that He is THE way, THE truth, THE life… nobody comes to the Father except through me… it is truth. He doesn’t say that He is A way, A truth, A life… I am but only one way to the Father. If He didn’t mean it, He wouldn’t have said it.

    Also, you have no way of knowing the chance that God gives those to know Him. Even though you might consider there no reason for them to give Jesus a first or second look, God does reveal Himself in many ways and doesn’t have to use us. As for those who have heard the good news, I absolutely believe that will be judged… as for those who have never heard the name Jesus, I believe God will deal in His own way with them… I do, however, believe they have to have some knowledge of their sin and depravity in this existence.

    As for your belief that many will stand before Jesus in the end and be granted eternal life is not Biblical at all. The passage that seems to shut the door to a “second chance” is a parable Jesus told in Luke 16:19-31. The parable was about a rich man who died and went to hell. In his agony, the rich man looked up to heaven and cried out for mercy. In response to his cries, the man was told a chasm separated heaven and hell—a chasm that could never be crossed. Why was he not given eternal life?

    As hard as it is to hear, eternal separation from God is the punishment for people who don’t accept Christ as Lord and Savior. But please understand that it’s not God’s desire for anyone to spend eternity in hell. As it says in 2 Peter 3:9, “He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” So I believe He gives everybody a chance to hear the Good News. The excuse that you never heard the name Jesus better be real… and your life better reflect a life of seeking the Truth instead of just living how you want to live because you never heard of Jesus.

    Last but certainly not least… I am sorry, but Brit did not act like a judgemental Pharisee… he simply said that he believes Christianity offers forgiveness and Buddhism does not. He never said Christianity is the only religion that teaches us not to commit adultry… he said that it offers forgiveness in a way no other religion does… and that, my friend, is truth… not judgement. Judgement is a whole different ball game and we can go into the difference between judgement and discernment if you want.

  11. 11 Deacon Blue
    March 22, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Well, as for Brit, if I’m remembering wrong, my apologies, but I seem to recall a vibe and wording more along the lines of “What Tiger needs to deal with his problem is to find Jesus.”

    As for the rest, I know everyone will stand before Jesus, and I know that all must go through him to get to the Father.

    That doesn’t mean people have to declare him on Earth first.

    The parable you speak of talks about a rich man, and who knows what wickedness was in his heart beforehand. He may have looked at Heaven longingly, but was it out of true regret and repentance, or just because he feared damnation?

    There is a difference, and I believe Jesus is there to see that in our hearts.

    But is it a surer and shorter path to accept him first? Surely.

    But if accepting him on Earth is the requirement, than that would mean God purposefully allows people who have little or no exposure to Jesus to go to Hell “just because.” That’s not in line with the love of Jesus or God. And if you hold to the Word being true, then you must also accept the fact that in Revelation, is says that many will come to God in the end times and find salvation.

    So, are you saying that people who live during the Tribulation period and only come to Christ and God when they see apocalyptic, mystical shit happening and see the clearest proof ever of the existence of the divine and the damned, they get a second chance…but those who weren’t presented with such overt signs are screwed?

    What sense does that make?

    It may indeed be that souls who don’t accept Jesus on Earth may go to Hell, but the Bible also says that Hell isn’t permanent, and will go into the Lake of Fire. That two-step process suggests to me that Hell is a holding place more than a final destination, and it would seem likely that on judgement day there will be those in Hell who will have found true redemption and regret in their hearts, and will come to Jesus in truth and not because of fear of punishment.

    THAT is the key to salvation. Repentance. Not simply saying “Jesus is Lord.” He’s a judge, but a fair judge…and no fair judge would damn people for being born in the wrong place or time to become Christians.

  12. 12 ketch22
    March 22, 2010 at 9:03 am

    “What Tiger needs to deal with his problem is to find Jesus.” if this is what he said… my memory fades as well… then I stand corrected… I agree with him wholeheartedly now. He said it perfectly. Because having Christ in your life and as your standard means you are forgiven, but it also means your life changes… you now want to please the Lord and committing adultry now feels wrong.

    I agree with you that hell is a holding place… not an eternity place. I don’t believe in a literal burning as opposed to absence from God. I also believe the non-believers will be snuffed out in the Lake of Fire at the end. I also told you that I don’t know what happens to those who have not heard the Good News of the Gospel… that is for God. So we agree here… however, to assume that people who have heard the news about the cross get a 2nd chance after death is not Biblical, and sounds like LDS. And if they do have a 2nd chance in hell, what was their purpose on earth? “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18).

    You use Revelation to help your argument, but it rather goes the other way. To understand what happens to nonbelievers after they die, we go to Revelation 20:11-15 which describes the Great White Throne judgment. “the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” The books contain all the thoughts and deeds of those being judged, and we know from Romans 3:20 that “by the works of the Law is no flesh justified.” Therefore, all who are judged by their works and thoughts are condemned to hell. Believers in Christ, on the other hand, are not judged by the books of works, but their names are found written in another book—the “Lamb’s Book of Life” (Revelation 21:27). These are the ones who have believed on the Lord Jesus, and they alone will be allowed to enter heaven.

    So to think that the rich man in the parable may have had wickedness in his heart and that was why he might not have had a 2nd chance? I am sorry, but his wickedness is only 2nd to mine and yours. Each and every human, save one, has had wickedness on his/her heart… it will be there till we die. Those with less wickedness won’t get a 2nd chance because our works and thoughts don’t save us. We are all forgiven by Jesus by belief and repentance through grace.

    As far as tribulation, it is written that people, because of their wickedness still won’t believe after seeing all these signs… they will be duped by the anti-christ. Remember the Pharoah when Moses showed him the signs? Even Moses’ people had difficulty remaining faithful to God after all the miracles and built idols in the desert.

  13. 13 Deacon Blue
    March 22, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Well, we could go round and round, but much like with my discussions with agnostics and atheists at times, I’ve come to recognize when things seem to be getting circular and not really moving anywhere. We both have faith in Jesus, and vastly different interpretations, and that’s not uncommon. Nor does it distress me much.

    I believe that faith is a search and a walk, not a destination. When I found Christ, my life changed in many fundamental ways, but it continues to change and so does my understanding of the Word. Based on a quick glance at your blog, I’m sure yours has too (and continues to, and will in the future).

    God bless.

  14. 14 Big Man
    March 22, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    Mark or Ketch said:

    “Not all Arabs are Muslim either. So you are not getting profiled because of your relgion, but rather your race. And if a bunch of red headed people started blowing up things, I would look twice at red heads.”

    This is ridiculous. People assume certain things about your religious beliefs based on how you look. If you’re wearing a turban, they’re going (wrongly) assume you’re a Muslim. Same thing with a hijab. Same thing with anyone who looks “Arab.”

    But, let’s take Mark’s logic and use it widely

    I’m black. Roughly 100 percent of the racists who have treated me poorly have been white. So, am I now justified in looking twice at all white people?

    Can I stereotype you Mark? Should I assume upon meeting you that you are very likely to discriminate against me, or behave like a racist? Should I then take precautions to prevent this potential action from occuring, regardless of whether you’ve actually done anything discriminatory or not?

    Well, what do you think I should do?

  15. 15 Deacon Blue
    March 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    Oh, thank God…Someone with more energy than I have at the moment came in to pick up some loose ends. Many thanks, Big Man. 🙂

  16. 16 ketch22
    March 22, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    Big Man… you would be very well within your rights to assume that possibility… you would be wrong about me, of course (I am not a racist although I do have prejudice). AS far as taking precautions, I leave that up to you. I am not really understanding your question. You are a black man… and you say that nearly 100% of the racists who have treated you poorly have been white… so… you must know no black racists who have ever treated you poorly… wow! I am white and I know many white people who are racist who have treated me poorly.

    And it is incorrect to say that somebody wearing a turban would (wrongly) be thought of as a Muslim. The majority would be Muslim… so the being wrong would be rare. Especially in Muslim countries and here in America.

  17. 17 Big Man
    March 23, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Ketch

    Actually, most Muslim men don’t wear turbans. Those are Sikhs, which is an entirely different religious group. Just look it up.

    My logic on racism is simple.

    You’re advocating profiling of Muslims because a small subset of Muslims has done something wrong.

    I’m asking you if you agree with profiling white people because a subset of white people does something wrong.

    Would you enjoy people assuming you’re a racist because they’ve had issues with racist white people in the past? If you wouldn’t enjoy that, why would you treat a Muslim in that manner. That appears to be in direct violation with the Word of God.

    I”m not sure of your point on black racists.

    I, personally, have never had a problem with black racists treating me poorly. Thus, I have no reason to suspect that they will treat me poorly in the future.

    Once again, when you stereotype, you must ask yourself if you would be comfortable with being stereotyped.

    Do you think it’s just when other people make negative assumptions about you based on how you look? If you don’t think that’s just, why would you behave in that manner? How is that keeping with the tenets of Christianity?

    Your justification for stereotyping all Muslims is ridiculous. Just like justifications for stereotyping all white people, or all black people, or all redheads.

    For example, white males have committed just as many acts of terrorism in America as Muslims. So, why shouldn’t you all be stereotyped and given extra attention from security at airports, malls, universities and anywhere else people congregate?

    You’re justifying something that’s wrong because it’s easier.

  18. 18 Big Man
    March 23, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    Oh, and on the turban issue.

    You said that people are not profiling Arabs for being Muslims, they are profiling them for being Arabs. Besides the fact that even if this was true, it would be a huge injustice, I don’t think you truly believe it’s true.

    Why don’t I believe you?

    Because you say:

    “And it is incorrect to say that somebody wearing a turban would (wrongly) be thought of as a Muslim. The majority would be Muslim… so the being wrong would be rare. Especially in Muslim countries and here in America”

    That’s after you said:

    “…As far as being Muslim causes you to be profiled at the airport and such… it is bunk. Nobody can tell your religion by looking at you… they can tell and do profile people of Arabian countenance. Not all Arabs are Muslim either. So you are not getting profiled because of your relgion, but rather your race. And if a bunch of red headed people started blowing up things, I would look twice at red heads.”

    So, you can’t tell somebody’s religion by looking at them, but people in turbans are usually Muslim?

    Do you see the logical disconnect there? If you can’t tell someone’s religion by looking at them, then why are turbans usual identifiers for picking out Muslims? That makes absolutely no sense, Mark.

    Once again, most of the folks wearing turbans are Sikhs, not Muslims. Do a regular Google search on Sikhs, and also an image search. You’ll find that the folks you assume are Muslims, probably are not. In fact, in most Muslim countries men DO NOT wear headgear, only women.

    Sikhs are an entirely different religious group, they aren’t even related to Islam. That would be like stopping and searching Christians for the actions of Buddhists.

    Can you see how humilating and ridiculous that practice would be?

  19. 19 Big Man
    March 23, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Correction.

    Men in Muslim countries wear headgear at times, but he average man does not wear headgear. They walk around bareheaded in many Muslim countries. It oftne depends on the particular sect of Islam they belong to, and how strict they are about following the practices of that sect.

    Wanted to make that clear.

  20. 20 ketch22
    March 23, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Big Man said: Actually, most Muslim men don’t wear turbans. Those are Sikhs, which is an entirely different religious group. Just look it up.
    ______________________________________________________________
    I actually know a little about Sikhs and India, however, the term turban used by me is the generic term for middle eastern derived headdress worn by the male… not the more specific “turban” you are referring to. If you need clarification I found a couple of articles that use the generic term and then go into more specifics… turban can be used generically and most people, like me, not associated with the specific terms use it like this.
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/lifestyles/links/turbans_27.html
    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010927&slug=turban270
    http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=turban

    Of course many differing opinions on the subject are found elsewhere.

    Big Man said: You’re advocating profiling of Muslims because a small subset of Muslims has done something wrong. Your justification for stereotyping all Muslims is ridiculous. Just like justifications for stereotyping all white people, or all black people, or all redheads.
    ______________________________________________________________
    Many times out of anger or an eagerness to get a point across, many of those who debate add presuppositions to the others words. I actually never said I advocate profiling of any kind. My statements were about understanding why people profile… not saying I thought it was OK.

    I stand by the idea that we profile race and appearance, not religion or belief. You can’t tell a religion by looking at someone… and you have proved that with most of your statements on headdress… just because somebody is dark and wears a turban doesn’t mean they are Muslim… so the race or ethnicity is being profiled, not the religion.

  21. 21 Big Man
    March 24, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    ketch

    You wrote:

    “And if a bunch of red headed people started blowing up things, I would look twice at red heads.

    Maybe I took it too far, but this appears to be clearly endorsing profiling. You didn’t use the word “profile” but saying that you would look at all red-heads twice if some redhead started blowing up stuff is saying that profiling makes sense.

    Here’s the thing, I’m not going to tell you that profiling DOESN’T make sense. There are some cases where it does, and I agree that all of us do it.

    What I was trying to point out is that most people are far more comfortable with other people being profiled than they are with being profiled themselves.

    So, if you think it makes sense to profile redheads based on a bunch of them blowing stuff up, do you think it makes sense to profile white people if a bunch of them have been racist?

    It’s a simple comparison.

    Also, once again, you said:

    “And it is incorrect to say that somebody wearing a turban would (wrongly) be thought of as a Muslim. The majority would be Muslim… so the being wrong would be rare. Especially in Muslim countries and here in America””

    To recap, I said it was wrong to assume that someone in a turban would be a Muslim. You’re saying it makes sense because Muslims wear turbans.

    So, you’re saying it makes sense to decide what someone’s religion is, BASED ON HOW THEY LOOK.

    I hate typing in all caps, but sometimes it’s necessary.

    You said that assuming that somebody is a Muslim based on their turban makes sense.

    Explain to me how that does not translate into believing that you can pick out someone’s religion based on their looks?

    Is not a turban an article of clothing that we notice with our eyes? Thus, if we assume that someone is a Muslim because they have on a turban, which you have said is a justified assumption, then are we not using our eyes, and their looks, to make a determination about their religion?

    The Sikh thing was pointing out that turbans do not necessarily mean Muslim.

  22. 22 ketch22
    March 25, 2010 at 12:11 am

    Here… it is really simple… I will use all caps as well. WE PROFILE BASED ON APPEARANCE. We may come to the conclusion they are Muslim, maybe even falsly… which again proves my point that we aren’t profiling their religion… ESPECIALLY IF IT ISN’T THEIR RELIGION.

    You can’t profile religion or beliefs, unless you have access to that information about the people you are profiling. You can only profile what you know and that is appearance. That is what we do… we may associate it with a correct assumption or sometimes and incorrect assumption of their religion, but that IS NOT WHAT WE ARE PROFILING.

    Big Man said: Maybe I took it too far, but this appears to be clearly endorsing profiling. You didn’t use the word “profile” but saying that you would look at all red-heads twice if some redhead started blowing up stuff is saying that profiling makes sense.
    _________________________________

    I said I would probably do it and that it makes sense… I didn’t say I endorse it, nor does it indicate that I endorse it. I don’t endorse killing for any reason as I am a Christian, however, if my family were threatened, I am sure I would do it if it came to that… even if I don’t approve of my actions before and after I have done it. I don’t approve of racism, but I am sure I am not perfect and my actions may sometimes outwit my endorsement. I hope that makes sense. I am sure you are a great guy and have plenty of reasons to argue with me, and I hope we stop soon. I have a problem with pride not allowing me to be the one not to get the last word 🙂 I don’t endorse pride, but recognize it in myself. Forgive me.

  23. 23 Big Man
    March 25, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Well, I can respect a man who says, “I know this is wrong, but I admit I do it anyway.”

    That’s fine, I do the same thing. If, from the beginning, you had made it clear that you felt that way, I wouldn’t have posted all of these responses. Your responses seemed to imply that it made perfect sense to profile, but, since that wasn’t your intention, I apologize for making that inference.

    On the issue of Muslims, I think you’re making a distinction that is niggling at best.

    These Muslims aren’t being treated badly because they’re Middle Eastern. They are being treated poorly because they are Muslims. People use their skin color, facial features and clothing to identify them as Muslims, and then jump to conclusions based on their own assumptions about how Muslims behave. The truth is that many Americans associate Middle Eastern folks who look a certain way with Islam, and they associate Islam with terrorism.

    This appears obvious to me, but clearly you disagree, and think it’s really just because they’re Arabs and people believe Arabs are bad people because some Arabs have blown up planes. We will likely never reach common ground on this topic because each of us has a very strong opinion.

    And there is no need for me to forgive you. I’m working on the beams in my own eyes.


Comments are currently closed.

Deacon Blue is the blogging persona of editor and writer Jeffrey Bouley. The opinions of Jeff himself on this blog, and those expressed as Deacon Blue, in NO WAY should be construed as the opinions of anyone with whom he has worked, currently works, or will work with in the future. They are personal opinions and views, and are sometimes, frankly, expressed in more outrageous terms than I truly feel most days.

Jeff Bouley

_________

Jeff Bouley

To find out more about me professionally, click here. To find out more about me generally, click here.

_________

E-Mail

You can reach Deacon Blue/Jeff Bouley at deaconbluemail@gmail.com.

_________

LinkedIn

For my public profile, click here.

_________

Tales of the Whethermen

My superhero fiction blog, click here

_________

Raising the Goddess

My parenting blog, click here

Copyright Info and Images

For more about images used on this site, and copyrights regarding them, as well as usage/copyright information about my own writing as posted here, click here.

Deac Tweets

Archives

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 836 other followers

January 2010
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

%d bloggers like this: