Monday, October 25, 2010

Christians seize a Mosque in Pakistan

Not really. You see, if that were the case, I wouldn't bother posting it. The media - or as I like to call it, the glorious ministry of propaganda for the advancement of secular progressivism - would be plastering it all over the airwaves. Specials would be run. Round table discussions. CNN would have a series documenting the growing violence by Christians against Muslims around the world (whether there was any other example or not - remember all the violence back during the NYC mosque debate that never actually seemed to find references to substantiate?). In short, it would fit the narrative of the Left (white, European and American heterosexual Christian men are the incarnation of evil and the singular cause of all human suffering in the world), so they would run with it until there was no steam left upon which to run. But this, a mere story in which Muslims overtake a Christian church, causing peaceful protests, and despite it being a growing trend across the Muslim world, is not even mentioned - yet. Perhaps I'll be wrong. Perhaps it may be mentioned. But if it find its way into the American press, I'll bet ten to a doughnut that it will be an aside, and not the media frenzy we've seen when the blame can, or even might, fall toward the aforementioned bad guys of history.


  1. The story, if you bothered to read it, is because of legal claims. It is not an attack.

  2. I understand that. My point was that no assumptions are made (for that matter, I haven't seen it mentioned). If a Mosque is burned in America, we assume Islamaphobic bigotry first, and need proof otherwise before we admit otherwise. With something like this, even if it is covered, we start by breaking down the facts and resisting a rush to judgement - as it should be all the time.

  3. This is also a demonstration I think of your earlier post "Christians persecuted in Middle East." It is a sad reality that someone can point out the obvious and still be told they are not reading the story. The point of the blog post was to say that we would not hear this story at all in the MSM or probably anywhere in America. Dave G. never called it an attack, though he could have.
    “On October 19, the Chapel was illegally occupied by force by a group of over 20 people who broke into the building and shut themselves inside”
    Note the words used. – by force. There may have been no casualties but they did take it by force.

    It was not an attack persay but it was a seizure by force. But a seizure can be defined in many ways- including "the act of conquering"
    Yes there are legal issues, but only because the Christians have not bowed down and said "here take our rented property- that we were given legal rights to use since you abandoned it long ago"


Let me know your thoughts