Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Wikipedia: Christophobia Term Is Controversial

Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Wikipedia: Christophobia Term Is Controversial

B.P. Terpstra

There’s no page for Christophobia on Wikipedia. Uniquely, the “free encyclopedia” feels more comfortable with the milder term, Anti-Christian sentiment.
As well, readers are informed: “This article is about negative attitudes towards Christians. For criticism of the doctrines and practices of Christianity, see Criticism of Christianity.” Just in case you didn’t know!
Furthermore, the linked “criticism” looks, oddly enough, like anti-Christian mythology masquerading as history. Some would call this an example of Christophobia.
The authors (leftwing Democrats in pajamas my guess) also list the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, and Israel as examples “of anti-Christian sentiment in politics and culture” as opposed to Red China, Red Korea, Saudi Arabia, and even anti-Jesus Iran. Indeed, the whole page from “Anti-Christian sentiment” to “Israel” seems fixated on downplaying hardcore Christophobia in dictatorships to distract the critical-thinker.
Not so with Islam. The politically-correct encyclopedia refuses to use the term “Anti-Muslim sentiment” because it’s too soft. Instead, “Islamophobia” is used because “Islamophobia” I’m informed “is prejudice against, hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims.”
Seriously. For to attack Christianity is to display anti-Christian sentiment, but to attack Islam is unadulterated phobia, often a sign of mental illness.

Homophobia
The spin even applies to sexual minorities, meaning that there is no Wikipedia page for anti-homosexual sentiment, because it sounds too soft. Or as the supposedly free encyclopedia affirms, “Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people and behaviour. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear.”
Or in other words again, to attack a Christian is to display anti-Christian sentiment, but to even show a lesbian your negative attitude, means that one is suffering from a medical-sounding condition (just like Saint Paul).
My point here isn’t to suggest that homophobia isn’t real (because I’ve openly opposed the persecution of supposed lesbians in the Middle East, for example). My point is to draw the critical thinker’s mind to the many ways in which Wikipedia (and by extension the elite media) seek to mother certain groups, while patronizing others. That’s the healthy and mature response, in my view.
Further down the page, we find that the term is problematic, but not problematic enough to ban as a headline page. Indeed, it’s only the “Christophobia” headline that presents a major issue, based on pure political psychology.

Suffixes
Evidently, the suffixes -phobia, -phobic,-phobe, when used selectively are manipulative psychological tools and weapons to be used for politics. They sound all psychiatric-y and human rights-y.
In a toxic media context, to call or present a beheaded Christian as a victim of “anti-Christian” sentiment serves to hide the deceased’s pain, although a good campaigning journalist is encouraged not to acknowledge persecuted believers.
By way of contrast, the frequent use of the term Islamopobia to describe a terrorist sympathizer is politically correct and therefore acceptable. To bow to Allah is to invite protection; to praise Jesus is to invite rejection.
Strikingly too, pages for Ablutophobia (“fear of bathing, washing, or cleaning”), Aichmophobia (“fear of sharp or pointed objects” – say, a Swiss knife), Astraphobia (“fear of thunder and lightning”), Friggatriskaidekaphobia (“fear of Friday the 13th”), Halitophobia (“fear of bad breath”), Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia (“fear of the number 666”) and Koumpounophobia (“fear of sewing buttons”) are deemed worthy psychological conditions.
So forget the term anti-bathing sentiment. Dispense of all critical thinking. It’s a phobia, according to Newspeak. If only victimized Christians were buttons too. But that’s the point isn’t it? Politics. Politics. Politics.

No comments:

Post a Comment