Google is Bigoted Against Christians and Supports Terrorism

If you go to and type in christianity is, google’s algorithms automatically try to finish your query. As with the case of the “I am Extremely Terrified of Chinese Peopleprank, it’s clear that Google’s suggestions do not imply that Google endorses this or that query — merely that such a query is common (for whatever reason). Google’s suggestions include Christianity is bullshit, Christianity is not a religion, Christianity is a cult, and conclude with Christianity is fake. All these results imly is that atheists can be insensitive jerks, which is hardly a surprise to anybody.

Similar results come up on Bing, Microsoft’s new search engine

And, as you would expect ,similar results come up when you use Bing to search for Islam is..

Now try your Islam is search in Google.


Google is fine with online bigotry against Christians, but censors online bigotry against Muslims.

The reason is obvious: Google is not afraid of charges of bigotry, but is afraid of terrorists.

Google is fearless when it comes to standing up to free speech advocates, but carries the flag of al Qaeda when their necks are on the line.

I hope no government officials have any family members with private Google accounts. A company that trembles this much at the call to Jihad might well turn over account information to terrorists…  to avoid being provocative.

Hat-tip to Fox News.

35 thoughts on “Google is Bigoted Against Christians and Supports Terrorism”

  1. Surprisingly stupid.

    The best part about America is the strength in numbers defense of blasphemy. In Europe, digs against Islam stick out like a sore thumb. (as opposed to those against Christianity where, like here with all blasphemy, they all blend together into background noise) In the US, there’s enough mocking of Islam that the terrorists wouldn’t even know where to start.

    Of course, we really haven’t seen a lot of issue-specific Muslim terrorism in the US that I can think of anyway. It seems to be more of the generalized headline-seeking type instead of looking for specific targets like Theo van Gogh or such.

  2. Excellent comments!

    It’s pretty clear all that is needed for an even playing field in the war of ideas is for some guy to chant “There is no God but God and He is Three-in-One” while he beheads a google engineer with a knife, and then upload the cellphone footage to Youtube.

  3. I think this begs a broader question; how do we know that we are actually seeing all sources available for a topic we search (regardless of what search engine we use)? I know that the most popular search engines only skim the surface of data that is on-line, but how do we know what we are missing if we can’t see it?


  4. “It seems that Google is following a reverse profiling strategy that if you have a history of dangerous reactions to criticism, you get protection.”

    Either that, or there are those that have simply been on the offensive every since 9/11 trying to defend the religion, and they end up not even knowing that they are giving said religion special treatment because of them working overtime in Islam’s defense. Thus, they don’t give themselves time to reflect upon their own philosophical inconsistencies.

  5. More people use google to search “Christianity is bullshit” than people who search the same sentence in Bing?

    but the second is weird, should be some result in the drop down when you search “Islam is” in google.

  6. BTW, unless your intention is to reinforce Christian persecution/martyr complex, the title of your posting should read, “Google is bigoted against everyone except Muslims.”

    Type in “atheism is” and you will get similar search hints.

  7. “Google is…”

    “Google is skynet”
    “Google is watching you”
    “Google is making us stupid”
    “Google is the devil”

    “Google is your friend”

    –take your pick.

    The Christian Persecution Complex has been around for 2000 years. At one time it might have worked — it is a fundamentally 4GW strategy — but I doubt it will do much nowadays but slow the flow, marginally.

    For one, no one can agree as to what “Christianity” is anymore; just look at so many varieties in the social and/or political sphere. This is a sign of the tendency toward failure of the 4GW strategy. Hell, some Christians feel Persecuted ™ by other Christians nowadays. So the Persecution Strategy seems to be feeding on itself; which means, it resembles a certain snake.

  8. Certainly, between the two, the most parsimonious explanation is that Google is supporting terrorism out of a desire not to be a victim of terrorism.

    Not sure what the “Christian Persecution Complex” is. The term sounds Freudian, which would imply the concept is garbage, but Curtis implies it is part of an xGW strategy, so perhaps it is simply an expression of outrage? Dunno.

  9. “Christianity adopted the Ouroboros as symbols of the limited confines of the material world (that there is an “outside” being implied by the demarcation of an inside), and the self-consuming transitory nature of a mere “worldly existence” of this world, following in the footsteps of the preacher in Ecclesiastes 3:9-14. G. K. Chesterton, in The Everlasting Man, uses it as a symbol of the circular and self-defeating nature of pantheistic mysticism and of most modern philosophy.”


  10. BTW, type in “Muslim is….”

    “Muslim is wrong”
    “Muslim is bullshit”
    “Muslim is a cult”
    “Muslim is the same as Islam”

    — so, if Google gives suggestions based on searches, when a threshold of # of searches must first be met, the issue could be related to Western illiteracy and/or ignorance: far more recognition of “Muslim” than the actual religion of “Islam,” at least by those doing searches.

    Hardly seems that Google is therefore being bigoted itself, although its algorithms may be off.

    Also btw, Dan are you equating “Islam” w/ “Terrorism”? — I ask especially now that there is evidence Google isn’t afraid of anti-Muslim search suggestion….

  11. Curtis,

    Your last paragraph is completely irrelevant.

    A Muslim is a person, a flawed creature.

    Islam is the perfect religion/act created by God.

    There is no sin in criticizing Muslims. Indeed, how else may people improve themselves?

    Of course, criticizing the true faith is blasphemy.

    Similarly, the Jewish Prophets regularly excoriated Jews for failing to hold high the Lord on High and his perfect religion.

    You see the same dynamic on any number of Christian TV shows.

    For that matter, the emphasis on self-criticism in a system where you can’t criticize the ruling ideology was a feature of most Leninist states, including Communist China, KMT Taiwan, and so on.

    As even “Zoroastrianism Is” turns up hits, I doubt its because the word Islam is so rare on the internet.

    The most likely explanation is that Google is afraid that one of its engineers will be beheaded by a rusty knife, shot in his own home, for running afoul of al Qaeda’s speech codes. As such, Google is submitting itself to an al Qaeda shadow government.

    This is a 4GW victory by our enemies.

  12. “Muslim is a cult” does not refer to the persons; how can one person be a cult? So it is evident that enough people have searched “Muslim” as if it were the religion itself and not merely a person.

    “As even “Zoroastrianism Is” turns up hits, I doubt its because the word Islam is so rare on the internet.” — but here’s the question. Are search suggestions a result of what actually exists on the internet; or are they a result of actual searches made on Google?

    I ask the above because this is starting to look like a war between intellectuals — who compose a very small portion of all people on Earth and thus a very small portion of people actually doing searches — so that it becomes, “Our intellectuals have noticed that Google is afraid of their intellectuals…” –

    1. Our intellectuals distinguish “Islam” as being different from “Muslim”

    2. Terrorist intellectuals will notice Google’s peculiar search suggestions, but not be bothered by “Muslim is a cult” whereas they would be infuriated by “Islam is a cult” on a Google search.

    Also, this is the English language Google we are discussing, so there you must assume that radical Islamists will be on this version enough to actually become infuriated at something so silly as distinctions between search suggestion results — as if Islamists aren’t preoccupied w/ so many more apparent slights.

  13. Add two letters other than “is” —

    “Islam ev” turns up:

    “Islam evil”
    “Islam evil religion”
    “Islam evil in the eye of god”

    —or take the antithesis if “is”:

    “Islam not” turns up:

    “Islam not a religion of peace”
    “Islam not a religion”
    “Islam not peaceful”

    –and so you can see that, perhaps, in the eyes of a significant portion of Western, English speaking Google searches, worrying about what Islam IS may be less prevalent than an already-set idea of Islam; they do not search so much for what Islam is (believing they already know) but about what they already believe — it’s evil — or believe it not to be. Or else, as I suspect, a very large number of the common run of Google searchers do not even know the word “Islam” but use the term “Muslim” almost exclusively.

  14. Curtis,

    If you’re arguing that a blacklist approach to censorship as a way to avoid terror attacks is probably a foolish policy, I agree with you.

    Otherwise, your recent comments are incoherent, and I do not understand whatever point(s) you are trying to make.

  15. I am surprised you don’t understand my argument.

    My argument is primarily skeptical.

    You have stated that Google is bigoted against Christians while implying that Google is not an equal-opportunity bigot; yet, Google search suggestions seem evenly negative (and positive?) for Christianity, Islam (“Muslim”), and even itself.

    You have further suggested that Google is terrified of the big badda boom represented by Islam and Islamist terrorists; yet you have failed to explain their terror in face of the fact that search suggestions leading from “Muslim is”, “Islam ev”, and “Islam not” indeed include negative returns. Would you suggest that Google is simply stupid, having overlooked those search terms in their effort to “appease” (one assumes) radical Islamists?

    Your inability to follow the flow of this argument surprises me.

  16. Curtis,

    Would you suggest that Google is simply stupid, having overlooked those search terms in their effort to “appease” (one assumes) radical Islamists?

    As I said, yes.

    Thank you for clarifying your question.

  17. I am with thinking that it is a weird bug because “Allah is…” and “Mohammad is…” show up with negative completion suggestions.

    There is plenty to bash Google over their hypocrisy with the “do no evil” corporate goal, but I don’t think this it (not worth the effort).

  18. Whatever the origin of this “weird bug,” it has the same behavior for “qoran is”. (I wonder if there is clue as to the human origin of this bug in that spelling?)

    In fundamentalist Islam, only perfect creatures are Islam and the Quran. Everything else is either an imperfect creature, or else God. Imperfect creatures should not be worshiped, and God is able to avenge Himself.

  19. Quran is …

    ….not the word of god




    Note not all these come up unless you space after “Quran is”

    Dan I think you have beat this horse past death and into dust or finer particles. It was a wrong argument from the very beginning.

    If it is a bug, I wonder if the “is” after “Islam,” since it appears in the word Islam, is throwing things off. OTOH, such contemplation may be akin to the original argument and similarly hardly worth the short time I’ve taken to type it out.

  20. There is no “is” in “qoran,” but “qoran is” brings up no results either.

    As I mentioned earlier, the idiosyncratic spelling may provide Google a clue as to the nationality that is the source of this ‘bug.’

  21. I see negative completions hints for both “koran is ” and “quran is “, but not for “qoran is “.

    Where is the spelling of “qoran” used?


    A Google spokesman tells that “the bug fix is in the process of rolling out, and suggestions will be visible within the next few days.” Twitter comments from readers across the country confirm Google’s statement; reports from Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, Georgia and more concur that the fix is rolling out across the country.

    When had asked Google for an explanation on Jan. 8, a company spokesman explained that the weird absence of results was just a software problem: “This is in fact a bug and we’re working to fix it as quickly as we can.” But the company would not respond to requests for clarification, nor would it offer a timeline for repairing the problem.

  23. Purpleslog,

    Interesting that Google’s explanations consistently support my hypothesis. As it does yours.

    Curtis’s recent comment is of course trolling, and has been moderated.

  24. I wish they would release the details of the “bug”. I thought it might be that “is” is in “Islam”, but I tried that with other words and couldn’t get a similar result. That doesn’t prove there is a bug, it just means I couldn’t prove it.

  25. Hard to release the details of the bug of “A technical manager did this in order to appease a terrorist organization” without looking bad 😉

  26. Hello There …..

    I’ve just tried it ….

    when i type in google “muslim is ” , I c all crap like :
    slam is bullshit
    islam is false
    islam is nothing
    islam is a lie
    islam is not a relegion
    islam is of the devil
    islam is fakse

  27. Purpleslog & Omar,

    Thanks for your helpful comments!

    The bug has been fixed. At least for this query, Google again appears to reflect the human experience of the web – however cruel and intolerant such experiences can be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *