4 ms·

I have difficulty believing the objectivity of a magazine whose editors have such a clear religious bias (and pushed compassionate conservatism, to boot). http

by ETHisso2017 8y ago

I have difficulty believing the objectivity of a magazine whose editors have such a clear religious bias (and pushed compassionate conservatism, to boot). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Olasky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Olasky

lawrenceyan 8y ago
Is the South China Morning Post objective enough for you?[1] Even domestically, many people are recognizing the inhumane conditions a vast majority of Uyghurs are facing right now. [1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/2171990/security-spending-xinjiang-soars-china-rolls-out-re-education https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/2171990/sec...
philwelch 8y ago
Nobody is objective and everyone is biased. Once you accept that, you can start to price that in somewhat. If anything, it’s counter-biased for evangelical Protestants to have strong concerns for the welfare of Muslim Uyghurs.
- sverige 8y ago
  It is perfectly understandable for christians to be concerned about the welfare of all people.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    Sure, but if these particular Christians are driven by the "bias" of being concerned about the welfare of all people...that's not really a bias anymore, is it?