It's ok if a guy goes after a girl but receives rejection because the girl is not interested with him. But if a Chinese girl rejects the love from an Indian guy that means she is narrow-minded, racist, old-fashioned and the like. It's ok if the girl continues to avoid the guy after rejecting him. But if the admiration was from someone with same gender, the avoider is a homophobic.
Why can't we understand the lack of interest and awkwardness which leads to the avoidance as they are?
If an anti-Bersih rally article published by the mainstream media, it is called bias and unjust. If the mainstream media is pro-Bersih rally, that means it is trustworthy.
Mainstream media doesn't always say things the customers want to hear. But if one day the mainstream media becomes the "alternative" media, their unfavorable and opposing views are still important - as important as the current alternative media.
If a Muslim killed a handful of people, it's an Islamic extremist terror. If a Christian killed a handful of people, it's called a shooting spree.
If all religions have their share of followers who misrepresented their faith, why is it relevant to label criminals like this?
If a Chinese writes about the lazy Malays it's called racism. If the article is published under a Malay name it calls for repentance.
Why can't we analyse what was written without looking at the identity of the writers?
If Christians vote for Kris Allen, he won the American Idol title because of the Christians vote. And the Christians like Kris Allen simply because he is a Christian. But if non-Christians vote for Kris Allen that means they're fair. Likewise for homosexual voters and Adam Lambert.
Why can't we appreciate at the size of support without looking at the identity of the supporters?
If a Christian leader attends a non-Christian religious function that means he does not discriminate other religions. If a Christian leader attend a Christian function, that means he wants to make Malaysia a Christian country.
If an African American votes for Barack Obama that means his analysis is only skin-deep (pun intended). If a Caucasian American votes for Barack Obama that means he is not a racist.
Actually, a white man can still be a racist if he votes for a black man for the sole reason of the former wanting a black man to win. Any black man.
Why can't we just look at what has happened without labeling people with unrelated titles?
The worst is this:
If a profound Christian professor converts to Islam willingly the Muslims say no one can deny the truth because even a highly educated person with critical mind testifies that. The Christian does the same when a zealous Muslim or Buddhist converts to Christianity.
Since when does a religion need conversion of a certain individual to confirm its validity?
No comments:
Post a Comment