Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
vsp, you whiffed on this obvious blatant grouping of these actions as representative of an entire religion. What do you see and what do you not see?
|
Not sure what you mean by that.
Noodle's rants kept returning to a central argument of "9 out of 10 Muslims hate us and wish we were dead." That is not only a fallacy, but a dangerous one, because what would I wager that a hell of a lot of those Muslims believe in return?
"9 out of 10 Westerners hate us and wish we were dead." (Would've said "Americans" until yesterday's attacks broadened the target circle significantly.)
How many stop and think about WHY the other side "hates" them, much less as to whether that "mass hatred" actually exists? How many scoff at that kind of thinking as "embracing the attackers" or "putting them in therapy for their anger issues?"
99% of these people spouting this nonsense have never even _met_ anyone from the country or countries they're tarring. If not for the actions of these extremists, 99% of these people would live their entire lives without affecting the lives of the other side's inhabitants in any way. (It's difficult to even define "sides" in this argument. Is this Christianity vs. Islam? America vs. Islam? America vs. Iraq? Christianity vs. al-Qaeda?) They're basing their opinions on the actions and statements of these extremists rather than on what everyday people think. Unfortunately, bombs and bullets can't tell the difference between extremists and everyday people.
Are there extremists on both sides? Obviously. But the rank-and-file on both sides are seemingly caught up in this I Hate Them Because They Hate Us Because We Hate Them Because They Hate Us Because We Hate Them Because They Hate Us propaganda loop that collapses when a bit of critical thinking is applied.
That's why I twigged on the phrase "these people" in the first place, because it was an obvious euphemism for a demonization of a hell of a lot more people than the terrorists themselves, and I can't say that my instincts were wrong about that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hobbs
What we don't see, and this is one part I agree with mrnoodle, is the tens of thousands of muslims marching in the streets to take back the good name of islam. What we don't see is people ratting out their neigbors because they are busy making car bombs in the garage. What we don't see is a very loud voice of the muslim imams denouncing the violence. This to us in the U.S. paints a very grim picture of islam. It's all we have to go on.
|
And what picture do Middle Eastern Muslims have of America, its leadership, or its Christian citizens? What news do THEY get?
They get the same blurry picture that most Americans get -- that there are Hordes of Scary People Over There From A Violent Religion Who Want To Kill Us, wherever "There" is.
The average Muslim doesn't believe the "Allah wants America dead" bullshit any more than the average Christian believes that "God's word must dominate the world" bullshit.
But they don't make the news. Osama and Dobson do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Radar's construction assumes that Iraq 1/2, Afghanistan, and etc. were specifically Christian actions and nobody calls him on it.
|
_Specifically_ Christian? No. Iraq 1 had a lot more to do with region politics and oil than any religious concerns. Afghanistan was "Someone hit us hard so we need to bomb something." Iraq 2, well, does _anyone_ have good answers as to why we should've gone there? Dubya hasn't provided much of any, IMHO.
But the elephant in the corner is the religious influence that's in the ear of the Republican party and drives chunks of their agenda, including foreign policy. (A lot in Washington want Israel protected and promoted for reasons that have nothing to do with region politics, the spread of democracy or oil, for instance.) Discount the evangelicals at your peril, particularly when the President and many in his administration are receptive to the This Is A Christian Nation crowd.