Don't criticise Islam, says UN

[danielk]

So, why do we associate Islam with terrorists but not Christianity with the KKK?

I agree that it is indeed debatable to what extent terrorist violence can be associated with the religion of its perpetrators. However, I think it is easier to use the teachings of Islam for terrorist ends, and that connection seems to me more apparent than in the case of the KKK. I think the Islamist terrorism we see today is largely a result of a cultural crisis in the Muslim world, and religion plays an important role in culture.

The particular manner in which the terrorism is executed -- that is, by suicide -- demands a level of delusion and readiness for symbolic sacrifices which is usually only found in religious settings (I'd argue the Japanese Kamikaze were possible because of a quasi-religious environment). And it's connected to the larger culture because the Islamist terrorists want to export the barbarism which is practiced in many predominantly Muslim countries today. The tacit condonement of terrorism and barbaric practices in the media of predominantly Muslim countries reinforces that impression. Add to that the readiness with which even nonviolent and moderate Muslims embrace a conspiracist interpretation of history which relieves them from the burden to examine the faults of their own culture.

Perhaps one could argue the KKK once enjoyed widespread tacit acceptance as well. I don't know enough about the history of the KKK to assert an answer one way or the other. But it does seem to be harder to pin down a link to Christianity -- burning crosses? Interesting question; maybe someone else could shed light on the issue. In any case it's not a cultural problem anymore today.

 

[danielk]

(the entire line)

...the enforcement of discriminatory laws.

Wait, before anyone accuses me of falsifying the quotation, let me point out that it was an enumeration. They are of course right to warn against Muslim-specific legislation, but the first part of the enumeration stands on its own.

eta: It's closer to "Don't discriminate against people because of their religion and, yes, that includes Muslims."

I'm fine with that part on its own. However, I do think it's the height of hypocrisy to caution specifically against Islam-specific discrimination when you risk death in many Muslim countries if you openly profess another religion, but that's just me.

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm fine with that part on its own. However, I do think it's the height of hypocrisy to caution specifically against Islam-specific discrimination when you risk death in many Muslim countries if you openly profess another religion, but that's just me.

It isn't just you... but it isn't me, and I find your comment rather thoughtless. Since when do we as a civilization base our standards and values on the worst governments?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

The KKK was the de-facto government in several states back in the 1920s, and the comparison with Muslim terrorists completely valid.

What does that have to do with what the UN did?

Or is the principle of Universal-You're-Another-Gotcha in play?

If I object to slavery somewhere, should I shut up because there used to be slavery in my country?

 

[Upchurch]

However, I think it is easier to use the teachings of Islam for terrorist ends, and that connection seems to me more apparent than in the case of the KKK.

I very much disagree. The Christian Bible is a very bloody piece of work can be and has been used to justify any number of atrocities.

I think the Islamist terrorism we see today is largely a result of a cultural crisis in the Muslim world, and religion plays an important role in culture.

As it does in any culture. Consider two of the cultural crises we have here in the US: the push for creationism in the classroom and the subjugation of gays and lesbians. Religion plays an important part in each of these, but they are inherently political in nature. Likewise, although on a much different intensity, Islamic terrorism is a political movement. I'll grant you the foot soldiers are religiously motivated, but those in command are guided by politics.

On 9/11, you'll notice that a symbol of our economic power was attacked, not a religious symbol.

But it does seem to be harder to pin down a link to Christianity -- burning crosses? Interesting question; maybe someone else could shed light on the issue. In any case it's not a cultural problem anymore today.

Yes, burning crosses, but also their ...logo, for lack of a better word, which was/is a white cross in a red circle.

 

[danielk]

It does, but that sentence fragment doesn't say don't criticize Islam. It notes that Islam is criticized and, apparently, the UN is alarmed about that [...]

Oh, come on, let's be real here. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't understand "Don't criticize Islam, says UN" to mean they made this into a law. The resolution clearly expresses concern about the fact that Islam was criticized at the time, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that their position won't suddenly change overnight.

 

[JoeEllison]

You have to wonder at the desperation of the sort of people who are such deep and profound bigots that they would come out and openly attack anti-discrimination statements, and defend their need to be openly bigoted...

... how empty are their lives, that they have to defame a quarter of humanity in order to feel alright about themselves?

 

[Upchurch]

What does that have to do with what the UN did?

Or is the principle of Universal-You're-Another-Gotcha in play?

No, that was directed more at the OP article's author's comments that Islam and terrorist are not wrong associated. It wasn't in reference to what the UN said. I was pointing out a double standard.

 

[danielk]

It isn't just you... but it isn't me, and I find your comment rather thoughtless. Since when do we as a civilization base our standards and values on the worst governments?

OK, Joe Ellison, I'll repeat myself just for you:

I'm fine with that part on its own.

Stop with the drivel.

 

[danielk]

... how empty are their lives, that they have to defame a quarter of humanity in order to feel alright about themselves?

How empty is your life, that you constantly have to defame your political opponents to feel alright about yourself?

Sorry, but you asked for it. Let's quit with this silly game already.

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, come on, let's be real here. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't understand "Don't criticize Islam, says UN" to mean they made this into a law. The resolution clearly expresses concern about the fact that Islam was criticized at the time, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that their position won't suddenly change overnight.

You have to differentiate between their statement of facts and action statements. The US Declaration of Independence was written in much the same fashion starting with a list of complaint and then saying what we were going to do about it.

When it comes down to the action statements, unless I missed something, the UN phrased all its actions in terms of discrimination against individuals rather than commentary against a particular religion as a whole.

 

[JoeEllison]

OK, Joe Ellison, I'll repeat myself just for you:

Stop with the drivel.

The only drivel is yours, and I was hoping you would correct it.

 

[Earthborn]

In the Venn Diagram that I'm not going to take the time to draw and post, the big circle of Christianity would have a small circle of KKK entirely in it.

 

[JoeEllison]

How empty is your life, that you constantly have to defame your political opponents to feel alright about yourself?

Sorry, but you asked for it. Let's quit with this silly game already.

I'm "defaming" bigots. Do you have a problem with that, or are you saying that bigots are somehow NOT people with something wrong with them.

Seriously, you can attack me if you like, but the attacks have started with you, not me.

 

[Upchurch]

[qimg]http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=v&chs=200x100&chd=t:100,1,0,100,100,0&chdl=Christianity|KKK[/qimg]

Thank ya kindly, Earthborn.

eta: Is that some sort of commentary that the KKK is on the far left of the rest of Christianity?

 

[danielk]

As it does in any culture. Consider two of the cultural crises we have here in the US: the push for creationism in the classroom and the subjugation of gays and lesbians. Religion plays an important part in each of these, but they are inherently political in nature.

The politics of creationism couldn't possibly exist without the religion.

Likewise, although on a much different intensity, Islamic terrorism is a political movement. I'll grant you the foot soldiers are religiously motivated, but those in command are guided by politics.

I partly agree, although I think the implicit assumption that all of those in command are just cynics is unwarranted. By the way, I have absolutely no problem to say "predominant culture in many Muslim countries" instead of "Islam". However, I doubt that's going to appease the representatives of said countries...

On 9/11, you'll notice that a symbol of our economic power was attacked, not a religious symbol.

Wait, that was the target not the source. They view the West as a decadent culture which needs to be destroyed, and attacked what they perceived of as a symbol of decadence.

 

[danielk]

I'm "defaming" bigots. Do you have a problem with that, or are you saying that bigots are somehow NOT people with something wrong with them.

Seriously, you can attack me if you like, but the attacks have started with you, not me.

OK. Let's be absolutely clear now, to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Are you accusing me of being a bigot? If your answer is yes, I ask you to demonstrate the truth of your accusation with quotes. Should you fail to do so, I'll report you.

 

[Upchurch]

They view the West as a decadent culture which needs to be destroyed, and attacked what they perceived of as a symbol of decadence.

Decadence was not their only motivation. I'd go so far as to say it wasn't even their primary motivation. If they were looking to attack our culture, they would have aimed at Broadway or maybe Hollywood, not at the WTC, the Pentagon, and the White House. Bin Laden said:

"Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people"

and also:

He said that the attacks were carried out because, "We are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."

That's aimed at our politics, not our culture or our religion.

 

[JoeEllison]

OK. Let's be absolutely clear now, to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Are you accusing me of being a bigot? If your answer is yes, I ask you to demonstrate the truth of your accusation with quotes. Should you fail to do so, I'll report you.

No, I'm not. I was specifically referring to the person who wrote the article that was linked to in the OP.

Interesting, though, that you'd report me for criticizing you that way(which I'm not)... maybe you should call the UN, see if they can help you out? I can just see the headline: "Don't criticize danielk, says UN"

 

[JoeEllison]

Wait, that was the target not the source. They view the West as a decadent culture which needs to be destroyed, and attacked what they perceived of as a symbol of decadence.

No, they attacked symbols of Western economic and military imperialism. Big, huge difference... so much so that the definition of 9-11 as "terrorism" is shaky, and possibly an incorrect way of looking at it.