Thursday, October 28, 2010

Something that's bothered me for a while...

So, I read some comments by the founder of Tea Party Nation today in an upshot article. His Anti-Muslim speech brings up a theme which has been more prevalent since the so-called "Ground Zero" mosque. I've been so frustrated hearing people's views - I created this blog post to set forth my view on matter.

Mistaken Assumption:
·         Muslims did not attack us on 9/11. I cannot emphasize this enough. While it is factually accurate that all of the men who attacked us were Muslim, this does not mean all Muslims attacked us. Let me give you an example:
o   “Muslims attacked us on 9/11 because all of the attackers were Muslims”
o   “Men attacked us on 9/11 because all of the attackers were Male” 

Both of the "justifications" are literally true, but most sane people would laugh out loud at the second reason. The first one should be equally laughable. 
·         But wait - what about the fact their motivation was "Islam"?
o   If we put a man to death for rape and his reason was a desire for women, should all people with a desire for women be put to death?
o    Equivocating all Muslims to the attackers of 9/11 is the same thing. Remember: Hitler's motivation, at least in part, was "Christianity". 

So, now that I've indisputably cleared that up, (and I rarely make my arguments in such stark terms, but any other result here is a logical falsity and is just plain wrong) I wanted to say that using this argument for political gain or fear politics just sickens me.Case in point for the Tea Party Nation founder from the article mentioned above, " I learned everything I needed to know about tolerance on September 11th". 

Then you sir, are an idiot.


  1. Hey - Canavan here - saw the post come up on Mustion's wall and thought I'd take a look. Glad you're doin' this!

    Anyways - I think that my view is going to fall somewhere in the middle of both of yours'. (Please don't call me moderate ;)

    I do feel like Islamic radicalism (notice radicalism) played a part in their ideals. Therefore, I think a fairer assessment of this would be to make the analogy between this and the Christian Crusades. Granted one big variable here is going to be the societal differences but go with me here...

    Both acts (Crusades & 9/11) I assume we can look at now as morally reprehensible.

    Both were done in the name of religion, AND by groups that appear to the majority of the world (at that time and now) to be the respective faces of the religions. Now granted the Popes that sponsored/ignited the crusades were the official head of the church at that time. However, I could not really point to a living "head" of the Islam faith that is not a radical, and with our advances in communications and globalization the "cause" is being taken up by many Islam militants. Point being, is that it doesn't matter who the "orders" and organization are being given by, the cause is the same - kill the non-believers.

    But people today have a easy time not thinking about the bloodshed of that time and the killing of many innocent people. Why? Well that was just a small amount of people at a certain time - it's not representative of Christianity as a whole. Ok, I can accept this argument. Those people were bad then, we're not now, don't hold us accountable. Fair argument I believe.

    Then in that case I believe that you have to give mainstream Muslims the same benefit of the doubt. If you're going to hold them accountable for 9/11 then you (if you are Christian) in my mind have to hold yourself responsible for the Crusades. I don't believe you can have one and not the other.

    It's either:
    All Muslims have a responsibility and a cross to bear for 9/11 (no pun intended). And all Christians (regardless of time) have to shoulder the blame of the Crusades.

    The Muslims that attacked on 9/11 (who let's not forget did so in the name of Islam) are radicals, a small majority not to be confused with the whole. And the Christians that killed thousands of innocents during the Crusades were a product of their time and do not reflect on us Christians as a whole.

    Does this argument make sense? I kind of spit it out kind of fast but has from time to time angered me as I see mainstream "conservatives" of the red neck variety (again...a portion but not the whole) get all up in arms about taking down the Muslim religion.

    As I said before I believe 9/11 was done in the name of Islam but not by Muslims as a whole.


    I believe we have the burden of having to continue to defend ourselves from the radical Muslim attack on secularism, and in the process not allowing ourselves to get caught up in lumping all of Islam together as the enemy. Not quite as simple as it seems but...

  2. Josh - Nice post. I like your analysis a lot. I'm concerned that we're making the assumption that Al Queda is the face of Islam though. For the one of the biggest religions (see Indonesia, Pakistan, most of southeast asia), I think they'd object heavily to that being their face.

    I see Al Queda - and most terrorists - as more a loud, vocal completely out of sync group. Like the KKK perhaps? I absolutely agree that we wholeheartedly need to join in spirit and in arms against this level of radicalism - I just want to make sure we are very discerning between the terrorists and the average Muslim.

    Thanks for the comment, I hope you keep posting. I found the first post to be more fun than I expected - and I'd like to keep this going.

  3. My point with Al Qdoba being the face of Islam is not that it should be, but in mainstream media they have become just that. Although technically a small sect of Islam, just as one could say KKK is to Christianity (I believe they stood on that platform?) I don't know that the KKK ever reached the mainstream "appeal" Al Qaeda has.

    I agree the assumption is there, and unfortunately Islam has the burden of undoing that. That's why for instance it makes me cringe at the thought of the Mosque near Ground Zero. You can get the Constitution in play (of which I'm a strong believer) but at some point on an issue like this PR and good taste needs to win out.

  4. Ah, I see where you are going with that. I completely agree the media's portrayal is what causes this - but my point is the media is AT FAULT for presenting it the way they do. Trust me that indeed Islam is trying to undo that falsity. In fact, the group behind the Ground Zero mosque is some of the most moderate Muslims - with some some books out on being a proud muslim american.

    Now - as far the ground zero mosque in specific. Clearly the constitution gives them the right to do so, we both agree there. However, you mention taste and PR.

    Do you see implicit endorsement NOT building the mosque there would create? It's like saying "We are aware you blame Muslims for 9/11 - we agree and we'll be sensitive to that".

    I guess I think the way we all start to end to Al-Queda threat is to ENCOURAGE them to build the mosque there, by being clear in the media about the difference between terrorists and muslims and by encouraging frank discourse. If we do so - we'll expose Al-queda for what they are - not religious fanatics, but guerrilla thugs who have fought world powers for nigh 30 years, and learned to subvert a peaceful religion to their own means.