The claim comes as officials in different branches of law enforcement and the military squabble over who knew what when about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's leanings toward faith-inspired violence, ...
The above quote was taken from here.
It seems journalists need to either coin a new term or be more specific when they use the term "faith". For example, Hasan conducted this violence while living apart from true faith (i.e., it was NOT faith inspired violence, but "faith-less" violence) and thus to refer to it as "faith-inspired" violence is misleading in that it can suggest the horrible acts were carried out in the name of faith (as opposed to what society considers those "without faith"). Sure, some will suggest Hasan still this this based on his "faith", though it be in Allah rather than Yahweh. While the latter is true, it should also be noted that everyone exercises faith on some level (even atheists), so the term is not helpful unless the object of the person's faith is qualified. This point is all the more important in a day where "anti-religion" or "anti-faith" sentiments are expressed and distinguished in the media.
This was simply a liberal journalists way of tying Islamic jihadism with Christianity by using a generic term. They report their narrative, which is politically correct anti-Christianity. He would have no problem with the term right wing Christian terror because that fits the template and is politically correct to say. It is not politically correct to even use the term Islamic Jihadist terrorism. You will not hear the liberal media string those three words together. It is disgusting and I have no respect for left-wingers in or out of government. Sword, I need your prayers due to my contempt for these people. We need to remove them from political office in the next election and pray for that result.
ReplyDelete