The leftist media has just provided another blatant example of how they ostracize those who fail to tout their party line. Context: the Washington Post’s On Faith blog posted an article by Elizabeth Tenety dealing with Muslim-Christian relations, in light of recent attacks on Christians in the Muslim world. Regular contributors were invited to respond. The response of one of these, Willis E. Elliott, a retired dean of exploratory programs, New York Seminary, was rejected (PJ Media published it here). Up till then, for over three years, Elliott had been publishing almost weekly on that blog; this is his first contribution to be rejected in all that time.
So what was so terrible about it to compel the Washington Post to jettison it? You see, the nonagenarian Elliott called it as he saw it, making black and white — as opposed to postmodern, “there-are-no-truths” — observations. Consider some of his comments on the differences between Christianity and Islam:
Jesus said, “Love your enemies.” Islam, to the contrary, is essentially hostile to “the infidels.”… Jesus was anti-violent, Muhammad was violent. … Muslims become violent, or threaten violence, when they feel offended: when we Christians feel offended, almost never do we become violent, and almost always we suffer the disrespect in silence.
Inasmuch as Elliott’s assertions are empirically demonstrative — scripturally, historically, and in current affairs (a la Koran-waving jihadists and persecuted Christians) — so too do they go against the one unwavering dogma clung to by the leftist media: cultural relativism. Hence, the need to suppress them.
No doubt the blog’s editors were expecting the usual boilerplate responses when discussing attacks on Christians in the Muslim world: acknowledge their existence, yes, but be quick to point out that, “in their own way,” Christians are equally responsible. That is essentially how most other contributors responded: one found Christian fundamentalism as troubling as Muslim fundamentalism; another bemoaned how scriptures can incite violence, while not mentioning any particular religion; yet another counseled suffering Christians to “turn the other cheek” and forgive their persecutors, cloyingly adding that all violence “can be overcome with our radical love” — easy sentiments to preach living in distant America.
Consider the leftist media’s approach to Egypt’s Copts, the Middle East’s largest Christian minority: whenever they are attacked by Islamists, the media refers to it as “sectarian strife,” eschewing the more accurate, if old-fashioned, term, “Christian persecution.” (What else does one call it when a vastly outnumbered Christian minority suffers at the hands of a Muslim majority — including its government — for nothing less than being Christian?) “Sectarian strife” suggests two comparable forces fighting one another — hardly an accurate way to depict the situation.