|
|
Post by Sassenach on Apr 23, 2019 6:14:08 GMT
The people who were attacked in Sri Lanka are being referred to as "Tourists and Easter Worshippers" by some of our most prominent and influential leaders. They aren't using the term "Christian" to describe the victims. ***Let me first say that I am non-religious and do not identify as a Christian. So I am not here to defend it. But I have noticed a double standard in the reporting of the the two recent religiously motivated attacks. The first one in New Zealand and the most recent attacks in Sri Lanka.I think the way language is used is important. It can be specific and convey the truth, or it can be vague and purposefully obtuse. Two of our most prominent leaders from America tweeted about both events and the way they used the language to describe the situations was confusing. First Hillary Clinton's Tweets: (And I agree with everything she says in this tweet) 1st Tweet:
"My heart breaks for New Zealand & the global Muslim community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms.
White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.
I think this tweet was specific and conveyed the truth in no uncertain terms. It named the victims (Muslims) and also named the perpetrators (White Supremacists) and the ideology behind the hatred.( Islamaphobia) These hate-mongers should be called out and judged for their horrible actions. Because you have to be able to tell the truth in order to deal with a problem.2nd Tweet: "On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I'm praying for everyone affected by today's horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka."
She calls the victims "Easter Worshippers" instead of saying Christians. And does not call out the perpetrators of the violence, Islamist Terrorists.
1. Why does she name the first group of victims (Muslims) by their religion but won't call the other group of victims by their religion (Christians)? 2. She calls out the first group causing the violence, the White Supremacists, but will not mention the perpetrators of the second bombing, the Islamic Terrorists. I am baffled by this gymnastics of semantics. Why the honesty in the first tweet and the vague, obtuseness in the second tweet?  ![]() Obama does a very similar thing when tweeting about these two events. 1st Tweet"Michelle and I send our condolences to the people of New Zealand. We grieve with you and the Muslim community. All of us must stand against hatred in all its forms."2nd Tweet"The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.He names Muslims as the victims of the New Zealand attack, but won't call the victims in the Sri Lankan bombings Christians.
I just think it is weird that they are both using there same terminology. Did a memo go out? Like "Ok here is the correct way to talk about these tragedies....." |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 23, 2019 6:41:09 GMT
I'm just curious if this is the very first time you've noticed the differences in the wording that is used.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sassenach on Apr 23, 2019 6:46:26 GMT
It just seemed very blatant in this example as if no attempt was even being made to be impartial.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 23, 2019 7:03:50 GMT
It just seemed very blatant in this example as if no attempt was even being made to be impartial. Yes, they are very blatant. This is why Brandon Straka formed the WalkAway Movement. But, I don't want you to take my word for it. Listen to the man speak for himself. He's very easy to find if you Google him. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 23, 2019 7:08:29 GMT
I've only watched the fist couple minutes, but here's a perspective on those tweets that you will not hear on MSNBC, CNN, NBC, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Apr 23, 2019 7:21:10 GMT
Maybe because not all Christians celebrate Easter?
Christianity is a religion with many denominations that don't agree on a singular liturgy or calendar of worship. Not all saw last weekend as an Easter celebration.
The churches targeted in the attacks were celebrating Easter, so identifying the attacks as an Easter attack makes sense to me. In fact, it is less vague or obtuse to identify it as an Easter attack. It is an attack on one of the holiest days of the year for these denominations, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sassenach on Apr 23, 2019 7:46:36 GMT
Interesting video. I had no idea that so many churches were being attacked. I just found an article about the Catholic churches being vandalized and desecrated in France and Germany. I wonder if it is a coincidence that these countries have had a huge influx of migrants and refugees from Muslim countries. Islamists are not tolerant of other religions and this may be a consequence of that. Is the mainstream media asking this question and really investigation why these church desecrations are happening now? Here is the article: www.newsweek.com/spate-attacks-catholic-churches-france-sees-altars-desecrated-christ-statue-1370800They are blaming secularists, feminists, anarchists, and anti-religious groups. Apparently radical islamists are not even being considered ( I guess it might be politically incorrect to even bring up that question) |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 23, 2019 7:57:35 GMT
Maybe because not all Christians celebrate Easter? Christianity is a religion with many denominations that don't agree on a singular liturgy or calendar of worship. Not all saw last weekend as an Easter celebration. The churches targeted in the attacks were celebrating Easter, so identifying the attacks as an Easter attack makes sense to me. In fact, it is less vague or obtuse to identify it as an Easter attack. It is an attack on one of the holiest days of the year for these denominations, isn't it? And if the attacks had been made on Mosques during Ramadan prayers, Obama and Hillary would have tweeted that the attacks had been on Ramadan observers, right? It doesn't matter what day another church observes Easter. These Christian churches were observing Easter when they were attacked by Muslim extremists. From the video I linked, about the 7 min mark... |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 23, 2019 8:02:07 GMT
Is the mainstream media asking this question and really investigation why these church desecrations are happening now? You mean, are the mainstream media reporting news adequately? You get to decide that question for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Apr 23, 2019 9:54:03 GMT
I think that if mosques had been attacked during Ramadan people would have said "the Ramadan attacks", or if something had happened during the hadj in Mecca. Same with a synagogue being attacked on Passover. Easter is the holiest day of the Christian calendar so attacks on a church on Easter Sunday seem one step worse than an attack on any other Sunday would be (which are already horrible enough).
I also don't think we knew until just a short time ago that it *was* "radical Islamic terrorists". Now they know that it was, and that it was specifically in retaliation for the New Zealand mosque attack. Since there have been many Sundays between the attack in New Zealand and Easter when they could have bombed churches I'm sure they chose Easter specifically.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 12:59:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2019 10:32:26 GMT
Let’s be more accurate. Catholics were attacked at Catholic churches. Many Christian denominations do not consider Catholics to be Christian. That is probably a debate for another day, Most people who identify as Christian in Sri Lanka are Catholic so it makes more sense for them to be the targets of the attack.
Hotels were also attacked.
As a Catholic I am not going to get caught up in the who on the left/right used what word. I am more interested in the future protection of soft targets and the ability of everyone to worship without violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Apr 23, 2019 10:43:33 GMT
Some perspective for those interested. Slate opinion piece(tl;dr: this is more selective outrage from those who have a political interest in painting Christians as a persecuted group. Easter worshippers literally cannot specify any other group than Christians, and is a more specific term in this case than just Christians because it specifies that the Christians were in church on Easter Sunday. Similar terms have been used by other media outlets to describe other religious groups as Eid worshippers, synagogue worshippers, etc. without any outrage.) Also - the people being accused of slighting Christians in this case are all Christians themselves. Not Christian enough for the right, apparently, but I can virtually guarantee you that every single one of them was in a church on Sunday morning. |
|
maryannscraps
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,728
Aug 28, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
|
Post by maryannscraps on Apr 23, 2019 11:07:34 GMT
I don't think the second tweets are vague at all. Christians celebrate Easter, obviously these bombers were targeting Christians. There were also non-Christians targeted in the hotel bombings. The tweets are appropriate expressions of horror and sympathy.
If we're going to pick apart these things, I think that all those tweets are from the heart, as opposed to the oddly worded "warmest sympathy and best wishes" tweet we saw from another about the New Zealand massacre.
|
|
|
|
Post by katiejane on Apr 23, 2019 11:22:42 GMT
All those people lost their lives and you want to get hung up on descriptive language!
The bombs targeted tourists there for the Easter Break and those in Church celebrating Easter, local and tourists. I have no problem with the language. When I went to bed last night, the perpetrators and motive had not been confirmed, so I can let people off not naming.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Apr 23, 2019 11:54:06 GMT
In THIS case I do think that ‘Easter attack’ is more specific as not all Christians observe that day as Easter.
And I will also agree that many other Christian denominations do not consider Catholics to be Christians. Similarly many do not consider The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be Christian despite the title.
However since we are going to get into wording and how people speak about horrific crimes maybe you should include the fact that when a white man shoots 50+ people he is not called a terrorist. When a white man sends bombs to people in the mail he is not called a terrorist. When Christian churches where predominantly black people worship are burned down it is not referred to as terrorism. Either you are looking for specificity of wording or your not. Being mindful, specific & truthful when speaking is not a partisan thing.
And if the people in the ‘walk away’ movement are so worried about words why aren’t they upset with the POTUS’s lack of specificity & truthfulness in his wording? They either are or are not looking for truthful wording.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817 
|
Post by pyccku on Apr 23, 2019 12:18:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 12:59:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2019 12:20:46 GMT
They are blaming secularists, feminists, anarchists, and anti-religious groups. Apparently radical islamists are not even being considered ( I guess it might be politically incorrect to even bring up that question) I'm sure the incidents were fully investigated at the time.If there is no evidence to support it why should they be named ? They're not blaming the others they must have some evidence that points the responsibility to that group of people. Europe doesn't hesitate to call a terrorist a terrorist whoever they are, be it the Islamists or the far right. Or in fact the the New IRA who is responsible for killing a totally innocent journalist in Londonderry last Thursday. |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Apr 23, 2019 13:17:44 GMT
I think that “Easter worshippers” implies that the victims are Christians but is more specific - and highlights how awful the attack really is, to target people while worshipping during their most sacred holiday.
To me, it would be similar if there were an attack against Hajj pilgrims. Calling them that instead of Muslims is more specific, gives more information, and woul highlight the nature of the terrorists’ motivation. It wouldn’t be “hiding” the word Muslim.
|
|
casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,461
|
Post by casii on Apr 23, 2019 13:43:42 GMT
I think Easter because the attacks happened on Easter. And since I was one of the people at church helping with parking because there are 2 dates, Christmas and Easter, at church where there's a larger than usual crowd, I find nothing disingenuous about referring to the attacks on Easter worshipers vs referring to them as Christians. If the attacks in New Zealand had happened on a Muslim holy day, it would be likely that the victims would be referred to as Ramadan worshipers. While we're talking about attacks on churches, there is a GoFundMe for the 3 historically black churches that were burned down by a white supremacist. Since Notre Dame has brought out the support of the ultra-wealthy, perhaps us little people could send some love their way. There is rich history in those churches. They're not famous, but they are important and I think worthy of our notice. Go Fund Me for Black Churches |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 23, 2019 14:53:10 GMT
While we're talking about attacks on churches, there is a GoFundMe for the 3 historically black churches that were burned down by a white supremacist. Since Notre Dame has brought out the support of the ultra-wealthy, perhaps us little people could send some love their way. There is rich history in those churches. They're not famous, but they are important and I think worthy of our notice. Go Fund Me for Black ChurchesThe goal has been exceeded. I hope they have the funds to be able to rebuild all 3 churches. They are no longer accepting donations. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on Apr 23, 2019 15:50:30 GMT
. Many Christian denominations do not consider Catholics to be Christian. That's such an American thing, though. That's not how Catholics are viewed elsewhere in the world. If anything, this shows that the term "Easter worshippers" used by US politicians and media for this particular instance is probably trying to be politically correct towards their non-Catholic Christian viewership rather than an actual emotionally manipulative spin doctor twist in the (good) Christians vs (ebil) Muslims storyline. It's still weird and representative of anti-something feels. I mean, you can be/deal with anti-Muslim folks who are also anti-Catholic. Not mutually exclusive (even if the brown folks are the worst *eyeroll*). ETA: French media are reporting Christians ( Le Monde, Figaro, Nouvel Obs amongst others). Spanish media were too during the weekend ( El País, El Mundo). "Easter worshippers" is an American language choice. |
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Apr 23, 2019 16:21:16 GMT
In THIS case I do think that ‘Easter attack’ is more specific as not all Christians observe that day as Easter. And I will also agree that many other Christian denominations do not consider Catholics to be Christians. Similarly many do not consider The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be Christian despite the title. However since we are going to get into wording and how people speak about horrific crimes maybe you should include the fact that when a white man shoots 50+ people he is not called a terrorist. When a white man sends bombs to people in the mail he is not called a terrorist. When Christian churches where predominantly black people worship are burned down it is not referred to as terrorism. Either you are looking for specificity of wording or your not. Being mindful, specific & truthful when speaking is not a partisan thing. And if the people in the ‘walk away’ movement are so worried about words why aren’t they upset with the POTUS’s lack of specificity & truthfulness in his wording? They either are or are not looking for truthful wording. This. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 23, 2019 17:50:59 GMT
I think that “Easter worshippers” implies that the victims are Christians but is more specific - and highlights how awful the attack really is, to target people while worshipping during their most sacred holiday. To me, it would be similar if there were an attack against Hajj pilgrims. Calling them that instead of Muslims is more specific, gives more information, and woul highlight the nature of the terrorists’ motivation. It wouldn’t be “hiding” the word Muslim. Technically, that's a very good point. French media are reporting Christians ( Le Monde, Figaro, Nouvel Obs amongst others). Spanish media were too during the weekend ( El País, El Mundo). "Easter worshippers" is an American language choice. It is a very odd choice for Americans and something I have never heard before. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on Apr 23, 2019 18:11:35 GMT
French media are reporting Christians ( Le Monde, Figaro, Nouvel Obs amongst others). Spanish media were too during the weekend ( El País, El Mundo). "Easter worshippers" is an American language choice. It is a very odd choice for Americans and something I have never heard before. Used by two prominent Democratic figures: it seems to indicate that the Democratic Party is possibly trying to win over or at the very least not scare away any potentional Protestant voters for the next elections. Don't ruffle their feathers and those on the fence might actually end up swinging to the Left for the first/next time. Politics is psychology. Use euphemisms wherever necessary. Proceed with caution. It's likely they deemed using the term Catholics or umbrella term Christians would have elicited too many negative feelings and reactions within a core group they are trying to break further into. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Apr 23, 2019 18:20:55 GMT
I think people are reading too much into this. I hope that this is just a question that the OP has and not something that the right wing media is portraying as something it isn’t.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
|
Post by pyccku on Apr 23, 2019 18:32:17 GMT
Part of it is a language choice. Part of it is being concise. Twitter has a limited number of characters, newspaper headlines often have a limited amount of space. Fox News used the exact same term when talking about the Christians in France who wanted to attend Mass at Notre-Dame but couldn't due to the fire. Is that also offensive?
Comparing the headlines in various languages isn't particularly helpful, because different languages have different syntax. In French, Spanish, etc. "Easter" isn't going to be used as an adjective. In English, it can. We have "Easter candy" - because it is candy involved specifically in the celebration of Easter. We have "Christmas stockings" - Christmas being used as an adjective, to describe the particular stockings. In French or Spanish, you could say candies OF Easter, or stockings OF Christmas - but Easter and Christmas are not used as adjectives. So you're not going to find headlines saying "Easter worshipers" in those languages, not because they aren't politically trying to say a certain thing - but because linguistically, those constructions don't work. As you can see from expressions such as Easter candy, Easter eggs, Ugly Christmas sweater, Christmas dinner, Halloween Candy, Independence Day fireworks and many more - English can and does frequently use nouns as adjectives and nobody takes offense. Until now, because someone wants something to be outraged about.
Saying "Christians" doesn't convey the horror of the attacks as precisely as "Easter worshipers." Christians tells you about the religion, but it doesn't show the concept of it being a particularly holy day when more people would be expected to attend services. It also doesn't convey the horror of people being attacked on that day specifically. "Easter worshipers" gets the point across quickly and succinctly. And if it's not offensive for Fox to call the Christians at Notre Dame "Easter worshipers" perhaps it's simply not an offensive phrase.
I suppose they should be super-exact next time, with more Jesus so nobody gets upset:
"Christian people who wanted to worship Christ at a Christian service in a Christian cathedral dedicated to Jesus Christ on a rather important Christian holiday were attacked."
|
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 23, 2019 18:39:14 GMT
I think people are reading too much into this. I hope that this is just a question that the OP has and not something that the right wing media is portraying as something it isn’t. The OP gave two tweets from Hillary and Obama that show differences from two other tweets they made for similar events. You can either look at the differences yourself or not, but you're being dismissive to question whether she can think for herself or not. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Apr 23, 2019 18:43:49 GMT
I think people are reading too much into this. I hope that this is just a question that the OP has and not something that the right wing media is portraying as something it isn’t. The OP gave two tweets from Hillary and Obama that show differences from two other tweets they made for similar events. You can either look at the differences yourself or not, but you're being dismissive to question whether she can think for herself or not. There have also been a lot of explanations that make sense, in that saying they are attacks on Easter worshippers is more specific, and does not take away from saying the word “Christian” which is what Easter worshippers are. What I said was that I hope the op IS thinking for herself and that the right wing media is not saying the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by heather on Apr 23, 2019 19:05:21 GMT
Lmao. We’ve went from...’why can’t they say the word Christmas!’ to OMG they said the word ‘Easter!’
It’s almost like the outrage is not authentic.
(definitelynotadistractionfrommuellerreport)
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 23, 2019 19:06:13 GMT
All those people lost their lives and you want to get hung up on descriptive language! The bombs targeted tourists there for the Easter Break and those in Church celebrating Easter, local and tourists. I have no problem with the language. When I went to bed last night, the perpetrators and motive had not been confirmed, so I can let people off not naming. The language doesn't bother me too much but it does feel disjointed.
And yes, given that this thread is about the language of the various responses and how they differ from other acts of terrorism and violence, it's okay to "get hung up on descriptive language".
There is another thread specifically about the attack here. I find the term "Easter worshipers" strange and uncomfortable because Catholic or Evangelical - none of us worships Easter. That's just a weird way of saying it.
Honestly, I am more confused by the total silence of Ocasio-Cortez. She was very vocal about the Christchurch attack immediately after it was reported. She's been so outspoken about so many things so I am genuinely perplexed by her complete and total silence on this.
What is she talking about? Her movie. It's weird. |
|
