- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,153
- Reaction score
- 64,580
- Points
- 148
@The Human Q-Tip ,
Just read your other response to me and I'm thinking we are talking past one another.
You say you should have the right to criticize a "belief system."
-I agree you should have the right to do so. But that doesn't mean all criticism is warranted or justified, simply because it is allowed.
We absolutely agree on that point. Obviously, incorrect/unjust/unfair criticism of anything is....incorrect, unjust and unfair. But if we're in agreement that accurate or fair criticism (not all criticism) of a belief system (including both Christianity and Islam) is okay, that's where your comparison to race loses me. Because I cannot fathom any criticism of a persons' race that is warranted or justified.
Concisely,
I disagree because ISIS does not represent, in any way, Islamic beliefs. That was the first point I made, and it is the sum of all the points I am making with respect to this disagreement.
I've been watching various talking heads Muslim talking heads, reading stuff, etc., and this is how I'd summarize what I've heard/read, which is pretty consistent with what I've studied.
There is a pretty wide disparity in terms of defining what "Islam" is. That being said, there are some things that have been done by ISIS -- such as the burning of the Jordanian pilot -- that no Muslim scholar of significance would defend as being remotely consistent with Islamic beliefs. But, some of what ISIS is doing otherwise is generally consistent with a strict, fundamentalist view of 7th century Islam. Of course, most Muslims know that we are no longer living in the seventh century, and so those actions are now outside mainstream Islam.
In any case, I believe it is both possible and desireable to Muslims and Christians to live side by side in peace. I am troubled by those issues I've previously identified that show a lack of agreement that religion should be solely a matter of individual conscience. It's not really a problem if the Muslim population is relatively small, but if you get a larger percentage of the population that still believes in prohibitions against apostasy, blasphemy, etc.., it can be a problem. However, I also am hopeful that those particular views can be changed from within Islam at some point.
In that regard, I think Europe has partially contributed -- albeit unwittingly -- to what happened with Charlie Hebdo. We in the U.S. are much more rigidly protective of free speech/free exercise rights, even at the expense of offending others, than are some in Europe. If you come to this country, your right to worship will be protected, and we'll want to assimilate you, but you better accept the fact that people here can say what they want about anyone, including Muhammed, that the Jehovah's Witnesses may come knocking at your door, etc.. And I think (hope?) most American Muslims are accepting of that.
But Europe has been moving in the direction of prohibiting "hate speech" for quite some time, and Nazism is illegal in some European nations. And in accepting the idea that it is the role of the government to prohibit certain speech because it is deemed offensive, they've given up the moral high ground, and the principle. And they may even have created an expectation that if there is enough violence relating to "insults" to Islam, the government will eventually ban that speech as well.
Just as an aside, I think the President's refusal to discuss Islam at all actually hurts the cause of distinguishing between the different schools of thought/sects within Islam. If you're going to argue "this has got nothing to do with Islam", you can't very well argue "these are just Wahhabi extremists, and most Muslims are not Wahhabi extremists."
Of course, he may not want to call out Wahhabi extremists at all because of the Saudis, but that doesn't make it right either.
Last edited: