Openly Gay, Openly Christian Buttigieg Challenges the Religious Right

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

As someone whose identity includes serious Christianity and serious progressive political stances, I’ve always been wary of trying to counter the Christian right with some sort of Christian left, in a Bible-quotation–loaded competition to claim God for a party or ideology...

Still, it’s important now and then to challenge the conservative assertion — often shared in ignorance by secular media — that religiosity, and particularly Christian religiosity, dictates reactionary positions on culture and politics. So I found it interesting and provocative that 2020 presidential candidate Cory Booker goes out of his way to talk about his own religious faith....

As E.J. Dionne observes, there is another 2020 Democratic presidential candidate who’s conspicuously talking about his faith, the fast-rising dark horse Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana....

To read more:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/openly-gay-christian-buttigieg-challenges-religious-right.html

The author states that the secular media takes this position out of ignorance. I think that it is deliberate. The US media is predominantly conservative, predominantly right wing friendly.

[MineralMan]

1. And yet, New York Magazine is part of that media.

Some of the secular media is very conservative regarding LGBTQ issues, but much of it is either neutral or positive on those topics. There is no general "media" one can talk about in this country, especially on specific issues. The media, also, in large part, is neutral on religious issues, out of concern for its audience, which includes people from all religious and non-religious positions.

It is a mistake to lump all media into one group - a grievous mistake. It implies that most media is similar to Fox News, which has a clear and obvious bias on both LGBTQ and religious issues. That is not the case, on those issues, at least.

Guess which television news media has the highest numbers of viewers? It is ABC, CBS and NBC broadcast news, by a very, very large margin. You will not find open bias for anti-LGBTQ issues nor for right-wing Christianity on any of those three. They simply do not have those biases, generally, but take a neutral to positive view of LGBTQ issues and mainstream religion.

The author is mistaken, if he or she lumps all media together. That is simply not correct.

[guillaumeb]

3. I said:

The US media is predominantly conservative, predominantly right wing friendly.

Not the author. I reading of the article would show that.

And the word predominantly is not the same as the word all.

[MineralMan]

2. As for your statement as to what the author of that article says,

you are incorrect there, too. You quoted the salient paragraph, and it does not say simply that the secular media TAKES that position. Instead it says that that position "is OFTEN SHARED in ignorance by the secular media." In leaving out those qualifying modifiers and changing the verb used in the article, you changed the statement you quoted in your very excerpt to suit your own biases.

Why try to change what the author has written by restating it incorrectly? You cannot make the author say what the author did not say, by reframing it, Why change the author's words? That you do it while quoting those very words is awkward for you, I think.

[guillaumeb]

4. Another misreading.

The author's words are highlighted. Mine are not.

Careful reading is essential.

[MineralMan]

5. The highlighting is mine, of course, to point out the differences

between what the author said and what you changed it to. Why did you change the authors verb and leave out the qualifier? There is an an enormous difference between "taking" a position and "often sharing" that position.

You also used highlighting that was not used in the article to emphasize something. It's a common enough thing to do in posts. i just followed your example, you see.

It's right there in your post, Monsieur B.

[guillaumeb]

8. Look at reply #3

We both know that the words predominantly and all are not synonymous.

[MineralMan]

11. All I need do is look at the OP.

It's all there.

[guillaumeb]

12. Yes, it is.

But you continue to mistakenly insist that my commentary is something else.

And, you avoided the point of the actual article, which challenges the prevailing view of what Christians are.

[trotsky]

6. What the actual fuck?

You whine about blasphemy, you want clergy exempted from laws, and now you rant about the "secular media."

Connecting those dots draws a very scary picture.

[guillaumeb]

7. What I said:

The author states that the secular media takes this position out of ignorance. I think that it is deliberate. The US media is predominantly conservative, predominantly right wing friendly.

In this piece, the intent is to refute what the media says.

And I said US media, not secular media.

[MineralMan]

9. Another change in the intent of the original author.

You are trying to make the article say what you want it to say, rather than what it said. The author of the article is clearly better with the English language than you are, it seems. The author says precisely what is meant, leaving it for you to reframe in your own materials.

[guillaumeb]

10. Define commentary.

Apply that definition to my commentary on the piece.

You are trying to do something, but so far you are demonstrating that you misread the post.

[Lordquinton]

13. No one's perfect

And the callout of secular media is disturbing. What does non-secular media have to say about the subject?

[guillaumeb]

14. That would make a good post. eom

But why does the term secular media bother you?

The obvious explanation to me is that the author wished to distinguish between the religious based media sources and non-religious sources.

[Lordquinton]

15. What bothers me is you highlighting it

then claiming it has nothing to do with this thread and attacking anyone who asks you about it.

It apparently bothers the article author, otherwise he wouldn't have said it, why did you choose it, and specifically highlight it?

[guillaumeb]

16. What I said:

The author states that the secular media takes this position out of ignorance. I think that it is deliberate.
The US media is predominantly conservative, predominantly right wing friendly.

The word secular is not key, it is the author's idea that the media takes the position out of ignorance, My view is that the conservative, corporate US media deliberately promotes right wing viewpoints.

A point that I have maned many times.

[Lordquinton]

17. You seem to be at odds with the author

It's really odd to say that, and betrays a bias.

[guillaumeb]

18. No, I am disagreeing with the author's view that it is accidental.

My view is that the media deliberately promotes this view.

[Lordquinton]

19. So the secular media is running a conspiracy against Christians?

That's way further than I thought this would go...

[guillaumeb]

20. The conservative media is promoting a view.

My term is conservative, not secular.

Thus my disagreement with the author as to intent.