|
|
Post by Baldeep on May 24, 2007 20:21:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shalin on May 24, 2007 21:33:05 GMT
The Indian media is pretty much as controlled as is the American media, so this happens to every minority religious group in India. Notice how the religion of the Hindus who attack people of other faiths is never specified, and never are they labeled as terrorists, or radicals, or any term that the media (all across the world actually) uses. It's the same as why in the US, whenever a black man commits the crime, their face is shown all over the news, and he is identified as black, but when a white person commits a crime, that is just so quaintly left out. The same holds for Muslims, as it is always specified in the American and British media when they accuse a Muslim of doing something, that he was a "fundamentalist" or "radical" Muslim. Never do you see the media focusing on religion when a Christian or Hindu commits a crime.
I mean, I don't see the Indian media ever reporting on atoricities that Hindus (whose minds have been warped by leaders amongst their communities and especially political figures) commit against minority groups, and ever once saying that these are people who are radicals or are overreligious (though most of the time, that has nothing to do with it). It's just pride, ignorance and hate that causes these actions. When there are clashes amongst religious groups themselves, "outsiders" love to view this as their opportunity to point fingers and make accusations.
Understand that there's a huge difference between radicalism and fundamentalism. If one is labeled a fundamentalist, take it as a compliment, because you're just following the fundamentals of your faith. If the news media (or even an everyday person) is labeling a group as radicals, and there really is nothing to back that up except a few pictures (most of which are taken out of context) and just a bullcrap report which is obviously trying to create a sense of distrust, animosity, or greater separation amongst ethnic and religious groups, don't worry about it too much. They do this with Muslims by using the phrase "radical Islam" and crap like that, and after awhile, you become desensitized to it since it's just the same crap said over and over again, and you know its purpose. They can show all the pictures they want of Muslims praying in the masjid (with the call to prayer playing in the background, just to add a little spice to their news report), holding a Qur'an in the air, burning flags in protest, or driving in a vehicle with a weapon for protection against the Israeli army or the American army...and they can place whatever crap/report they wish on top of this footage, but in the end, you know it is just to create a negative image of an entire religion and its followers...no matter how large or small the number.
Look at what footage they used in these videos - Sikhs burning effegies, Sikhs meeting in a gurdwara, Sikhs clashing amongst one another, Sikhs holding weapons and protesting, etc. Replace the word "Sikhs" now with "Muslims". It's the same. The media always finds interest in reporting about clashes between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, most of which was revved up by foreign armies which invaded states with Muslim populations. Here, you have a division amongst Sikhs, and the media is using this as their opportunity to gain viewers. Notice how the newscaster kept cutting everyone off when they were trying to make a point, and then putting words in their mouth. Awhile ago, I saw a report on a cable news network here in the states where they purposely tried to get "moderate" Muslims (another term that they'll probably start using for Sikhs who don't fully follow the dress code and other things) on the show. Every time they would say something, the newscasters would twist it around and start speaking about terrorism and "fanaticism inside the Muslim mind". You see what I'm getting at? It's all done to create negative views, and you're going to have people talking about how "those Sikhs" are fundamentalists, how they think they need to separate themselves from us by looking different, etc. It's the same with a lot of Hindus in India, who purposely shave their beards so they're not mistaken for Muslims, then complain about how Muslims grow beards.
Seriously though, F the media...most of what is "reported" each night on the "news" is just filler, if you get what I mean. They run out of things to talk about, so the time is passed with stories that will cause controversy, thus the ratings will go up and it will get people talking. There are many times here in the states when Muslim organizations have written to the media and even people in the Congress for offensive statements, but nothing really comes of it, because they are the ones with the power, and unfortunately, everyone else just has to deal with whatever they get. Plus, IBN is an extension of CNN, which is one of the most politically-controlled news networks in the US. You will never get a neutral view on that network.
BTW, that 'overreligious' term is a joke lol. How is that possible? I mean, you either follow your religion, or you don't. If you follow it as much as possible, good, especially in the present-day where you find many people who give up on their faith. If you're not too religious or are not at all, then that's up to you. Nobody except yourself and God can really know how religious you are, because that is your own personal relationship that nobody should be allowed to interfere with or judge. The media loves to use this against Muslims by saying that Sunnis and Shi'as have been enemies forever, and that one thinks the other is wrong. There are some people who believe that, but it's not completely true. The same holds here.
The fact that anyone can raise that question should tell you right from the beginning that this is just garbage. In today's day and age, it's WRONG to be religious...it's WRONG to be a pious person...it's WRONG to have any morals, believe in God, and wish to help better yourself and others. It's wrong to practice your faith. It's wrong for men to grow some facial hair or for women to wear hijab. It's wrong to wear a pagg. This is all pathetic man...this notion that 'secularism' is the way to go for everyone (and they use the term secular to be almost synonymous with nonreligious), that no group is allowed to carry themselves according to their faith or else be deemed overreligious or zealous or radical.
|
|
|
|
Post by singhizking on Jun 14, 2007 20:33:23 GMT
typical indian media always der to chat some crap to undermine sikhi...do i need 2 say nemore.
|
|
