NPR ‘appalled’ by former exec’s comments

LOL; we all know that until they start looking at Medicare and to a lesser degree Social Security there is no way they really cut the deficit significantly AND on an ongoing basis.

Seems like fake interviews are becoming all the rage these days. First with Gov. Walker, now this; who is next? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Agreed.. all smoke and mirrors, and trying to give the appearance they are doing something real about the federal deficit.

"The most embarrassing thing about NPR is their response to embarrassment. Self-immolation is not a PR strategy".

1. With regard to NPR: I think opposing organizations ought to be able to run their programs there under the same rules. That is all I'm saying. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that Jewish programs were run on NPR. If Muslims want to run similar programs, they ought to be able to do so under the same rules. There should be no censorship in this regard.

You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Interesting, the muslim brotherhood's stated objective is to convert all non-muslim nations to muslim nations ruled by sharia law, what jewish organization do you refer to that has such a goal of global domination?

Shouldn't the message also be considered? By extension it could be argued that your statement would support programming by the american nazi party and KKK as readily as the NAACP.

Interesting, the muslim brotherhood's stated objective is to convert all non-muslim nations to muslim nations ruled by sharia law, what jewish organization do you refer to that has such a goal of global domination?

Shouldn't the message also be considered? By extension it could be argued that your statement would support programming by the american nazi party and KKK as readily as the NAACP. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Worldwide evangelism has always been a legitimate goal of religions. Witness Christianity, or even contemporary evangelicals. Even the White House Guidelines on Religion in the federal workplace allows proselytizing. The US is a non-Muslim nation. Actually, it can have NO religion as the official religion. It would be unconstitutional. And even if their goal is to convert non-Muslim nations, I suspect that is a much harder task than individuals. And I didn't refer to any Jewish organization with the goal of global domination. It is uncontested that there had been Jewish programs on NPR (the recording validates this--but IDK which ones). All I was saying is that access to the airwaves should be equal.

And yes, the message should be considered. Hate speech is almost universally condemned in this country, and has no place on the airwaves. But opposing religious viewpoints are different. As a broadcast arm of the government (as I understand it), the CPB cannot prefer one religion over another. That would be a violation of the first amendment. The only result is to either give NO religions access to the airwaves or give them all EQUAL access.

Now, when you've wandered to the Nazi Party, the KKK and the NAACP, you've gotten somewhat off the mark. These are not religions. But I'll deal with it anyway. As long as they don't engage in hate speech or the promotion of unlawful conduct, then sure, let them all advertise.

I completely understand.
Bye.

@Olivia--a couple of points: Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

1. As one who deals with discrimination issues every fukn day, yes it makes a big difference whether or not it's race or religion. The only racial discrimination in the piece was when the NPR guy accused Republicans, Tea Partiers and Christians of it.

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I am assuming you are missing the point on purpose. Discrimination is discrimination. Period. Republicans, Tea Baggers and Christians aren’t racial groups. They are political and religious groups.

Your point from Post #: 41
Let's be clear, between Israel and Islam, we're not talking about race here. Religion, yes. But, for the most part, people from the Middle East carry the same racial characteristics. But since we're talking religion, people can be of any race. And, although I generally sneer at the characterization that the American media is controlled by Jews, I don't think that Muslims should be prevented from funding programs in the media just like the Jewish people do. I further think the allegation that the Muslin Brotherhood is a radically racist organization is arguable:

1. You want to talk race. Let’s do it. Semitic (Arabs and Jews) is an ethnic group not a race. And no it is not ok for one group to discriminate against another group because they’ve been at odds since getting kicked out of the Garden of Eden. You are picking at nits. You know what I meant. It is all illegal (in most cases) and immoral regardless of why a person or group is discriminated against.

2. Israel and Islam are not congruent ideas. Israel is a country and Islam is a religion.

3. In the opening statement, the Muslim Brotherhoods website was quoted as saying they are combating the intolerance to spread acceptance of Sharia across the world. “I’m not too upset about maybe a little bit less Jew influence of money into NPR” at the 8:00 minute mark. “What Israel does just can’t be excused.” at the 8:32 minute mark. And I got tired of re-listening to the rest of the film. If that isn’t a little bit on the radically racist, excuse me culturalist, against those of the Jewish faith and Israeli citizens, I’m not sure what is.

With regard to "Arabs" and Jews (I said Muslims b/c "Arab" encompasses a larger group). I am NOT saying it is OK for anybody to hate. And I never said that in the post. All I said was they have been traditional enemies. All the way back to Esau, if I remember correctly. But I don't condone hate. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

No you said this in Post 41.

I think it is deplorable what they said about Republicans and Tea Partiers. But, I don't think you should expect a Muslim organization to come in and rave about Jews, just as you wouldn't expect that kind of conduct when it comes to Republicans, Democrats or Tea Partiers. They just don't have the respect to do that. To expect sworn enemies to lavish praise on one another is not being in reality.

You are making excuses for their obvious discrimination. I don’t expect praise to be lavished, but it is clear the actors have a strong feeling about all things Jewish. That’s why the NPR people got fired.

Your comparing our political parties to the Middle East? Republican is to Democrat as Muslim is to Jew isn’t equitable. The difference between the two ratio examples is so vast, I really don’t have time to get into it just now.

With regard to NPR: I think opposing organizations ought to be able to run their programs there under the same rules. That is all I'm saying. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that Jewish programs were run on NPR. If Muslims want to run similar programs, they ought to be able to do so under the same rules. There should be no censorship in this regard. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Your quote from Post #: 41
I see no difference in them and the organizations for which those people I named above worked. You really can't single out NPR. It happens in all organizations. Some are just more visible than others. Just sayin'.

Yes, differing opinions and should be broadcast. But eliminating "Jew influence in the media" (Pardon me, but a non-culturalist would have said Jewish influence.) and furthering a particular slant on National Palestinian Radio (Their words not mine. I think Pacifica’s is funnier: National Pentagon Radio) for $5 million dollars is a different matter. Charles, why do you think they were fired? Because they were pandering to a particular group that is culturalist at best.

As I’ve stated before. NPR holds themselves as unbiased reporters of the news. I believe for the most part they are. If they are going to sell something on a high bar, they are held to that high standard. Otherwise, they loose their reputation.

Olivia, you completely missed my points, probably because you assumed you knew my POV, which you obviously do not. You did not read my post with objectivity; to try and understand what I was saying. And talk about picking nits...look at your last post and say with a straight face you aren't.

You are too obtuse for me to carry on this dialogue. And no, I'm not giving up b/c I'm wrong. It's because it takes two to listen in order to have a dialogue, and obviously that isn't here.

Yes, I know Israel is a nation and Muslim a religion. But, unlike the US, Israel is a theocracy, ruled by the Jewish religion. So the only difference is a nit picking one...which you chose to go after, like a lot of your post.

From the totality of your posts (and not just in this thread), I strongly suspect that you are an Israeli or Jewish apologist. As such, it would be impossible to hold an objective and intelligent conversation with you on this matter.

No, Charles, I didn’t miss your point. Your point of view is clear. I just don’t agree with you.

I'm sorry but I just can't manage to take it as an insult that I'm pro-Israeli. And, by the way, I am not but I am insulted that you assume that means that I am anti-Palestinian.

Enjoy.

Worldwide evangelism has always been a legitimate goal of religions. Witness Christianity, or even contemporary evangelicals. Even the White House Guidelines on Religion in the federal workplace allows proselytizing. The US is a non-Muslim nation. Actually, it can have NO religion as the official religion. It would be unconstitutional. And even if their goal is to convert non-Muslim nations, I suspect that is a much harder task than individuals. And I didn't refer to any Jewish organization with the goal of global domination. It is uncontested that there had been Jewish programs on NPR (the recording validates this--but IDK which ones). All I was saying is that access to the airwaves should be equal.

And yes, the message should be considered. Hate speech is almost universally condemned in this country, and has no place on the airwaves. But opposing religious viewpoints are different. As a broadcast arm of the government (as I understand it), the CPB cannot prefer one religion over another. That would be a violation of the first amendment. The only result is to either give NO religions access to the airwaves or give them all EQUAL access.

Now, when you've wandered to the Nazi Party, the KKK and the NAACP, you've gotten somewhat off the mark. These are not religions. But I'll deal with it anyway. As long as they don't engage in hate speech or the promotion of unlawful conduct, then sure, let them all advertise. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

There in lies the rub when it comes to Islam. Sharia law is a convergence of religion and politics which is antithema to the US Constitution. All men are created equal unless your a devout radical Muslim who practices barbararism like stoning, honor killings, maiming and individual supression, or womens subjugation. Sharia law has no place in the US. The Brits are having a hell of a time allowing two forms of laws within their country. And the leaders of several countries in Europe are now stating that multi-culturalism has failed when it comes to integration of the 2 forms of political systems and yes Sharia Law is a political system as well as a system of religious edicts. So, free society where we can coexist or allow a system that is intolerant of competing religions?

Yes, I know Israel is a nation and Muslim a religion. But, unlike the US, Israel is a theocracy, ruled by the Jewish religion. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

A bit off-topic, but the above is not true,and Charles whatever you have read or find on-line you should trust me that on this one I know more than you do and will probably ever know. First, the government is democratically elected and the largest political parties are not religious in nature. In general most civil and criminal law is quite similar to what you find in the US and Western Europe, some of it still with a socialist leaning twist but less so now than 30 years ago. Israel does have Judaism as the state religion, but then England, Spain, Italy - to name a few - also have recognized state religions.

The deal that was cut in Israel when the state was formed in 1948 was that life cycle events and certifications of food would be handled by the Ministry of Religion under Jewish law. So marriage, divorce, conversion, etc is guided by Jewish law. Even that is not an absolute. For example, some Israelis go to Cyprus so they can have a civil marriage and the Israeli state recognizes that marriage even though it is not recognized as such under Jewish law.

The only thing I don't understand is why somebody at NPR doesn't grow a pair and say, "Hell yes, we do think that they are a bunch of racist kooks. Doesn't everybody with a lick of fuckin' sense?" They've pissed me off and lost my donations (which in the past have been in the very low four figures a year) by crawfishing on this. Of course they're racists xenophobes.

The only thing I don't understand is why somebody at NPR doesn't grow a pair and say, "Hell yes, we do think that they are a bunch of racist kooks. Doesn't everybody with a lick of fuckin' sense?" They've pissed me off and lost my donations (which in the past have been in the very low four figures a year) by crawfishing on this. Of course they're racists xenophobes. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

A year or two ago a friend told me something similar. She said the only reason someone would NOT have voted for Obama was because he or she was a racist.

I don't understand your reasoning. I believe strongly in what the tea party stand for -- liberal economic policies. I don't think the tea party "manifesto" has anything to do with racism. Or religion or abortion or legalization of prostitution or about 1000 other issues that have nothing to do with economics.

Through the years, though, I have found myself voting for more Republicans and fewer Libertarians and Democrats. (I used to vote for Democrats exclusively for positions with the Criminal Courts of Appeal.) Why? I want my vote to make a difference. Economic issues are more important to me than social issues. And I'm tired of being called a racist, dumb redneck hick because I believe in sound economic policies -- policies that history has shown to be superior, in places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, and, after the fall of Communism/Socialism, Eastern Europe.

. Islam is a religion.
Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

AND a legal system
AND a political system
AND an economic system
AND a social system

AND a legal system
AND a political system
AND an economic system
AND a social system Originally Posted by Marshall

Yes, I agree as was Christianity and Judaism. Christianity and Judaism are older religions and I think they have, for the most part, moved beyond official governance. But if you read Charles' post, you'll see that I am responding to a specific point of his.

Charles, I really like your new avatar. Classy, my man, Classy!