Genuine question: Do you consider the satirical song that's been the center of this thread to be one of those sources, or an example of those kinds of sources?
Because if so, that would lead me to think that the way you ingest information on this topic is through a highly prejudicial filter.
Imagine, for example, if one assumed all Christians are violent religious fanatics. Now imagine the kind of sources one might be using, even "Christian sources"--after all, Westboro Baptist Church does exist. Now, also imagine, you came across satire poking fun of the idea that all Christians are violent fanatics--but instead of perceiving the satire for what it's saying you instead filtered that through your own prejudicial assumptions about Christians.
After all, Christians are violent religious fanatics: The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Rhineland Massacre, the Salem Witch Trials, Westboro Baptist Church. I mean, none of that paints a good picture of people who call themselves Christian. And sure, maybe you've met Christians who don't fit that view you have of them, but you can find ways to compartmentalize that. A handful of maybe-okay Christians doesn't really change the fact that Christians are bad people. You have plenty of examples, and you can find Christian sources to back up your feelings and thoughts.
Does that make Christians, by default, violent religious fanatics? Does even a preponderance of evidence of Christians acting like violent fanatics make Christians--by default--violent fanatics? Is it a fair and accurate way to engage other people by working on prejudicial assumptions, even when one can back up those assumptions with examples, even a massive amount of examples? Ignoring all bigger conversations that could emerge from what I'm saying here, simple question: How do you want to be treated? How would you feel if someone treated you as a statistic or as a blank face representative of a group? I assume that you, like almost everyone else, wants to be treated as yourself--that you aren't just a number, but a face, a person with feelings and thoughts, and an entire lived experience that is uniquely your own.
While there is a lot, I think, that could be expanded upon in what I've said above; the real point I'm trying to get at is actually pretty simple: The dangers of confirmation bias and prejudicial thinking.
That is to say: Of choosing to interpret people through an assumption or set of assumptions about a group; accepting ideas and statements which selectively confirm what one already thinks and believes; and without allowing assumptions to be seriously challenged.
-CryptoLutheran
EDIT: I've modified some what I've said and tried to make things more clear and coherent.
