Let me get something out of the way straight away. I am not saying that there are not bad people who call themselves Christians, both now and in the past. And I am not saying that there are not good people who call themselves Muslims, both now and in the past. I'm saying that Islam promotes violence and condones murder much more readily than Christianity. Capice?
While re-listening to an audio book of Godless: The Church of Liberalism by my One True Love, I'm still pondering the situation involving Rifqa Bary. (Listening to Ann Coulter and thinking about Leftists makes me even more dangerous than usual.) In fact, I had a bit of a scare this morning when I saw a headline that said something like, "Fugitive Found Dead", but it was about someone that probably deserved it.
Annie was talking about how liberals will often trot out a crying woman, or women, to make their case when logic doesn't work (and logic doesn't work for leftists most of the time). The World Trade Center widows (the "Jersey Girls"), Cindy Sheehan dishonoring her heroic fallen son in her lunatic protests of the war on terror, etc. Coulter's point about using sobbing, hysterical women is, "You can't respond to them because that would be questioning the authenticity of their suffering".
Right! Sort of like an emotional human shield. And who wants to be the bad guy that tries to argue with facts and reason? You'll look like a hearless cad.
But that only works with leftist causes. Hearing the very genuine fear and sobbing of Rifqa Barry went right through me. Yes, I was moved. Did you see Agam's comment in the previous post?
You know what burned me up most in that video? The interviewer treating her like maybe she's a bit kooky for going off to Florida to find this Christian group. "Do you really think that this is true?" I don't know if this is a media person, but it sure sounds like one of those. Rifqa gets more upset at that point, thinking she isn't even being believed, and frustrated that the questioner seems not to have any background education on the issue at all.Do you know why the, uh, "journalist" was so callous? It was a Muslim girl that had converted to Christianity! This is not a leftist cause! Who cares about her feelings? Now, if she was afraid to return to her Christian parents, liberals would be interested. After all, the "Islam is a religion of peace" mantra is one of their pet projects, as is "tolerance" (which is "tolerance" of everything except the Judeo-Christian ethic, heterosexuals, Caucasians, etc.)
Then the lady - she talks just like a damn social worker, if she isn't a "reporter" - says, "So what do you want at this point now?"
All the Christians present were just too well-mannered to have slapped that woman on the face, which is what she really needed. Rifqa has been telling her for six minutes. She doesn't want to die. She wants religious freedom, which for her means Christ. Simple. She doesn't want to be sent back to a family which will probably murder her, as other families have done to thousands of girls like her. Finally she just blurts it out - "I don't want to die."
And the social worker / journalist hootchie says, "Alright."
Perhaps that is why this intellectually castrated "journalist" was not moved, either. His own liberal bias is prevalent in his piece, but he may have cared if this was about a leftist cause. If you can stand to read it, see how the commenters let him have it. Bam! He should be barred from ever doing this kind of "work" ever again. Not because I disagree with him, but because of his obvious bias.