Anti-Semitism has been going on for far longer than Islamophobia...and no one seems to care. In fact I remember seeing a poll that said more people in America hate Jews than Muslims. I wish I still had the link to it. On top of that Christianity has been battered and beaten at every possible corner. Islam is not special. It is being treated just like every other religion.
Look at the Cathedral that isn't allowed to be rebuilt in New York. It was destroyed on 9-11 and it has taken over 10 years and still gaining no ground. Yet the Mosque has been approved within 2 months.
Longer than what and where? My point isn't that whtie people haven't done it, but your tone implies that white people do it significantly more often than other colours given the same circumstances -- I'm contesting that.
I want to contest what Skin Color has to do with Religion at all.
Anti-Islam is tolerated for the same reason antisemitism was tolerated before WW2.
People don't like a group of "weird" people moving into their countries and not mingling. They bring their own culture, set up their own communities, and wear their own clothing. They can't even eat the local food, because of their dietary restrictions.
Than someone blows up a building in the name of the religion.
And people start talking about those "weird" people that stick to themselves, rumors, false info.....
And we get Hitler.
This guy almost won the French presidential election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen
The next Hitler is going to win an election soon, don't know who, don't know when, but that's where we are headed.
It seems to me that the most obvious reason is because religion breeds religious intolerance in its very conception. "My God is better than your God" quickly dissolves to "my religion is better than your religion" without any leeway. The fact that there is an obvious excuse gives people enough reason to bring it to the forefront - and yes, terrorism is an excuse.
If I were to go off what church taught me when I still went (through missionary trips and such) then I would feel that anyone outside of my religion is, without any doubt, going to hell. That's a pretty strong conviction, and easily breeds a "I'm going to heaven and you're not" sentiment when it comes to any other religion.
To answer the original question, I think fear and hatred of Muslims is tolerated because 9/11 shattered a lot of Americans' confidence in our security and safety. The situation demanded an enemy, a "them" for "us" to be against. Because Islam does not have a large following in America, like Christianity, and because it has not even existed as a large minority since the inception of the country, like Judaism, it makes and easy target. It is something unfamiliar, something many people know little about, and thus it is an easy target for fear mongering. In addition it is an Abrahamic faith, like Judaism and Christianity. Like those two faiths, Islam has a holy book that expresses a lot of intolerance. So it is easy to take choice bits of the holy book of the unfamiliar religion and make it seem as though every imam everywhere is preaching endless war, much as it would be easy to tell someone unfamiliar with Judaism or Christianity that those religions tell us to kill homosexuals, people who eat pork, and anyone who wears a garment that included linen and wool mixed together.
I won't deny that a lot of Christian related movements tend to attract negative reactions justified or not. But think about it-how many people do you see labeling Christians as the 'enemies of America'? No large protests are organized to get people up in arms about arguably violent or otherwise 'unacceptable' passages in Christian or Jewish religious texts, and yet people are protesting Islam because of Sharia law.
Yes there are. Lots of people criticise the Bible as being "sick and twisted". And thats because it is. Have you read it?
I protest Sharia law. For good reasons.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern (I collect the format):
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron WDeath and Taxes WSoul Sisters RWG Pod Combo URSplinter Twin URStorm RBurn
To be fair the Revolutionary war was a terrorist action held against the holdings of the British Empire. Alot more then 100 people died in that one. So...um...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant what we should voyage far."
To be fair the Revolutionary war was a terrorist action held against the holdings of the British Empire. Alot more then 100 people died in that one. So...um...
The revolutionary war was fought by a uniformed military, ergo it was a war and not a terrorist action.
That is one of the main distinctions between the two.
Edit: Also when to the "-phobia" suffix replace the "anti-" prefix in American English? Both "homophobia" and "islamophobia" don't mean fear of homosexuals or muslims, but rather mean opposed to homosexuals and opposed to muslims, it seems according to conventional lexicology the appropriate terms should be anti-homosexuals and anti-islamics (following the term anti-semite). It jsut seems strange to me.
The revolutionary war was fought by a uniformed military, ergo it was a war and not a terrorist action.
That is one of the main distinctions between the two.
To be fair the person you replied to probably listens to Green Day, considers John Stewart news, and hates the United States. And will therefore not care about what you say. They will simply continue to underhandedly bash the Union.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern (I collect the format):
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron WDeath and Taxes WSoul Sisters RWG Pod Combo URSplinter Twin URStorm RBurn
To be fair the person you replied to probably listens to Green Day, considers John Stewart news, and hates the United States. And will therefore not care about what you say. They will simply continue to underhandedly bash the Union.
Nifty generalization, you must be awesome, get dressed every day in your Fox news undies and spend the next 4 hours listing to Sarah Palin on CD. I can play your silly game to.
The point stands though, to the British people the revolutionary war was the equilivant of a terrorist attack.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant what we should voyage far."
Except for the part where the point doesn't stand for the reason I stated?
I mean, you don't get to jsut ignore arguments you can't beat and claim your point stands.
Your point is that to the American people the Revolutionary War was not a terrorist action.
I'll point you to the Boston Tea party, this action was specifically designed to show defiance to british rule and gain the support of other dissadiants withen the colonies.
Today terrorism is used mostly to gain press coverage and convert other followers to their cause.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant what we should voyage far."
Your point is that to the American people the Revolutionary War was not a terrorist action.
I'll point you to the Boston Tea party, this action was specifically designed to show defiance to british rule and gain the support of other dissadiants withen the colonies.
Today terrorism is used mostly to gain press coverage and convert other followers to their cause.
Perhaps you can enlighten me, since I'm not sure, how many people died in the boston tea party:?
The revolutionary war was fought by a uniformed military, ergo it was a war and not a terrorist action.
That is one of the main distinctions between the two.
The big battles were fought by uniformed troops. There were a ton of smaller engagements where irregular, ununiformed revolutionary supporters would attack British soldiers or civilians who were Loyalists.
When you think about it, there is very little difference between a colonist militia member shooting at the British from ambush at Lexington and Concord than someone like Omar Khadr killing an US soldier in Afghanistan.
It seems to me that the most obvious reason is because religion breeds religious intolerance in its very conception. "My God is better than your God" quickly dissolves to "my religion is better than your religion" without any leeway. The fact that there is an obvious excuse gives people enough reason to bring it to the forefront - and yes, terrorism is an excuse.
If I were to go off what church taught me when I still went (through missionary trips and such) then I would feel that anyone outside of my religion is, without any doubt, going to hell. That's a pretty strong conviction, and easily breeds a "I'm going to heaven and you're not" sentiment when it comes to any other religion.
Ah, I think your generalization is false. It may be true for monotheistic religions, but I'm fairly sure Druidry, (Wicca?), Paganism in general, and also perhaps Buddhism are exempt from that diagnosis.
That's why I wish those religions would be more widely known (I don't care if people follow them or not), so that there wouldn't be this kind of polarizing stance that some atheists take that 'religion is evil'/blah
I honestly think that some atheists that 'convert' <-incorrect term from the monotheistic religions don't lose the dogmatic reactions, only the symbolism.
Perhaps you can enlighten me, since I'm not sure, how many people died in the boston tea party:?
None but by the Government's defination of terrorism..
"the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"
This still applies. Through while there may be no cut and dry answer to this you have to refer back to the quote "one man's terrorist is another man's patriot." In the end the only difference between the two really is perspective.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant what we should voyage far."
It would be "anti-Muslims", anyway. Those terms aren't used because they sound like something you'd find on Bizarro World. It's "homophobia" etc because a phobia is inherently unreasonable.
I agree that phobias are typically unreasonable. but a phobia is a fear. That is what phobia means. The suffix -phobia means "fear of ..."
It just seems like a really odd naming convention. It would be like using the word grasslike to describe anything that is green. Sure grass is green, but its hardly the defining feature. As far as sounding like something you'd find "bizzaro world" they only sound like that because a different word has been adopted. "antisemite" doesn't sound like its from bizzaro world, but it uses the convention that you say causes words to sound like they are bizzaro.
A phobia is a disease, hence the use of those words implies that the people who are against homosexuality or Islam are sick.
no, a phobia is a disorder. And use of the word implies that people who are against it are afraid of it.
I wonder if there is a suffix or prefix that actually means "hater of" seems like that owuld be useful, since homophobia and islamophobia aren't tied to 'fear' at all.
Although I suppose thats enough on this topic... its hardly the point at hand :0)
The comparison of anti Islamic sentiment to racism is one I do not agree with. Islam is a series of teachings and beliefs (though precisely what those teachings and beliefs are differ significantly based on the denomination). Ideas are at their best when they are questioned and contested. We should not give a pass to a series of ideas and beliefs just because they are of a religious nature.
None but by the Government's defination of terrorism..
"the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"
This still applies. Through while there may be no cut and dry answer to this you have to refer back to the quote "one man's terrorist is another man's patriot." In the end the only difference between the two really is perspective.
Yes, propagandists can call "terrorism" and "patriotism" anything they like. In that sense alone, one man's terrorist is another man's patriot. But by any reasonable objective standard, nonviolent protests and attacks on military targets are not acts of terror. The Boston Tea Party was, at most, an act of vandalism. Not only were no lives taken, it was carefully planned so that no lives would even have to be threatened. And the purpose clearly wasn't intimidation; it was a direct action protest, no different than the sorts of actions Martin Luther King and Gandhi would organize. (Indeed, Gandhi consciously used the Tea Party as a model for his salt protest.)
Now, the Patriots were no saints: there were acts of terror during the Revolutionary War and the lead-up to it. The tarring and feathering of tax collectors and Loyalists probably qualifies. But to seriously compare even the worst of these to the wanton slaughter of civilians that Islamic extremists carry out almost routinely is, in a word, deranged. The bulk of the war was waged against the British military and its interests, and its commanders strove to adhere to the laws of war as they were then understood. (Just try to imagine George Washington ordering the suicide bombing of the London Stock Exchange!) It was an asymmetrical war, but it was a war.
Ah, I think your generalization is false. It may be true for monotheistic religions, but I'm fairly sure Druidry, (Wicca?), Paganism in general, and also perhaps Buddhism are exempt from that diagnosis.
Neopagans generally don't commit violence because they're a mere handful of well-to-do Western liberals - and even then, there's quite a bit of anti-Christian sentiment going around in some circles. Give them a respectable population of their own and see what sort of extremist fringe develops. The real pagans... well, before the Neos came along, "paganism" used to be synonymous with "barbarism", and with reason. Long before Christians were burning "witches" (in isolated incidents, spawned by grassroots xenophobia), pagans were burning Christians (en masse, as a matter of state policy). And as for Buddhism, see Sri Lanka. No religion - I repeat, no religion - is immune to intolerance.
Islamophobia is tolerated, because at least a good 1/3 of our society has been terrified and/or promoting fear for 6 years, and many continue to be afraid. The last administration paid lip service to civil liberties, but they constantly pushed the message:
"BE VERY AFRAID... (but spend too so our economy will keep going)"
When people are afraid in general, they are very ready to be afraid of specific groups.
They wielded the "If you are against us, you support terrorism" stick so much, that even the stupidest twit in the country can feel comfortable waving that weapon around in conversation to rally a third of any dinner party on to their side.
911 still has a good portion of our population in PTSD... like a mugging victim who now carries a gun everywhere, and feels pretty much entitled to be a bigot if it touches their psychological hot-button: "Oh YEAH? Have you forgotten 911????"
A person who adapts well following a mugging or traumatic event, will learn to be smarter... but they won't let it change who they are as a person. But some people really cling to their fear forever and use it to justify any belief (it's understandable if you were a direct victim, or a relative of a victim, or maybe even on site... but rational thinking should be expected from most of the rest of us).
Many people all over our nation 7 years after an event like 911 feel like they are entitled to chuck the constitution, bill of rights, and everything else out the window ( Yet after Iraq is "shock & awed" into oblivion, hundreds of thousands are killed in the aftermath of anarchy, millions displaced, and just about everybody can name a person they personally know who was killed, and we wonder why there are so many whack-jobs in Iraq who can't just "get over it" and get on the democracy train? ).
-
Some Americans feel 911 entitles them to "be fearful, be justifiably prejudiced, and violate the rights of others".
I don't agree with that philosophy, because most of the people in the middle east have experienced far scarier than 911 in their lifetime. I don't believe those people are entitled to "be fearful, be justifiably prejudiced, and violate the rights of others" either.
This war on terror is not going to end... So we'll always have an excuse to be afraid. So we have to decide if this is how we deal with Islam, how we want to live from now on, and how we want our children to live.
Islamophobia is not part of how I want to live. Living scared is no way to live. Especially when we're the biggest and strongest, and frankly, most people are far more scared of us.
Last I heard, a phobia was an irrational fear. Well, I have a fear of human rights violations, of extreme prejudice against anyone who isn't a heterosexual male, of violent 'holy' war, of complete lack of education beyond reading a 'holy book', of institutionalized violence against women, of a bronze-age criminal code, of children being taught complete nonsense about the world around them, of mandated burqas, of the killing of apostates, of genital mutilation, of stoning, etc. I suppose none of these things have any connection to the religion of Islam...
The term "Islamophobia" is a nonsensical term used to shut up criticism of the religion. Why is the term tolerated, indeed.
Neopagans generally don't commit violence because they're a mere handful of well-to-do Western liberals
Are you sure? You may wish to back up that generalization with some facts, because I know of many pagans in non-western society, I know of pagans that aren't well-to-do (assuming you're meaning 'well-off'), and I know of many conservative pagans. But by all means...
- and even then, there's quite a bit of anti-Christian sentiment going around in some circles. Give them a respectable population of their own and see what sort of extremist fringe develops. The real pagans... well, before the Neos came along, "paganism" used to be synonymous with "barbarism", and with reason. Long before Christians were burning "witches" (in isolated incidents, spawned by grassroots xenophobia), pagans were burning Christians (en masse, as a matter of state policy). And as for Buddhism, see Sri Lanka. No religion - I repeat, no religion - is immune to intolerance.
When I reference paganism, I should have put 'neo' infront of it. I nthese neo-pagan religions, there isn't any dogma, and they actually discourage the evangelical sort of pushing the religions upon others or breeding people to be 'pagan.' They don't have any of the 'one true religion' crap that some other religions have.
I would so love some citations of this 'anti-christian sentiment' because I've never encountered it.
Notice the quote. I am refuting the quote.
Quote from EP »
It seems to me that the most obvious reason is because religion breeds religious intolerance in its very conception. "My God is better than your God" quickly dissolves to "my religion is better than your religion"
There is no 'my god is better than your god' in the religions I cited, hence I felt the need to say that the generalization was incorrect.
I also think that going back over a thousand years, you may be confusing religious intolerance with intolerance in general, not contained within the religions.
Longer than what and where? My point isn't that whtie people haven't done it, but your tone implies that white people do it significantly more often than other colours given the same circumstances -- I'm contesting that.
For continuous timeframe? Yes, we've been doing it the longest timeframe consistently - although a bit less violent and more covertly.
Look at the Cathedral that isn't allowed to be rebuilt in New York. It was destroyed on 9-11 and it has taken over 10 years and still gaining no ground. Yet the Mosque has been approved within 2 months.
Right it hasn't, but it's a matter of proximity because that part of the city isn't approved for ANY reconstruction yet - it's not that they made an exemption to them repairing the Cathedral, nothing on that block is being allowed yet. If they were going to knock it down to build a Community Center + Mosque it would get shot down.
[Especially since it's likely going to receive help from the city to repair it which isn't available at the moment, since it's generally considered a landmark unofficially]
What about the guy who tried to bomb a smiley face into the Midwest shortly after 9/11? What about the Unabomber? What about Timmy McVeigh and Terry Nichols? What about the 2007 shooting deaths in Westroads Mall? The Virginia Tech shootings? Pearl Harbor? The sinking of the Lusitania? The Revolutionary War?
To be fair Harkius, if the 2007 Mall shooting is the one in Utah - that one was loosely Muslim related. (although not terrorist, the kid was from a East European Muslim family without terrorist ties - but he flipped out because of people tormenting him for being Muslim).
And of course you missed the best recent example IMO of terrorism, since it was an EXTENDED incident over nearly a month - of the Beltway shooter. (And yea, his kid that helped him carry his ammo and such was from a peaceful Muslim group - but the kid did nothing the shooter, who was ex-US military didn't tell him to do)
9/11 as terrible as it was, only shut down NYC for a few days - the Beltway shooter incident shutdown DC and most of Maryland and NoVa for over a week - even with a lower body count.
Quote from Sciros »
Last I heard, a phobia was an irrational fear. Well, I have a fear of human rights violations, of extreme prejudice against anyone who isn't a heterosexual male, of violent 'holy' war, of complete lack of education beyond reading a 'holy book', of institutionalized violence against women, of a bronze-age criminal code, of children being taught complete nonsense about the world around them, of mandated burqas, of the killing of apostates, of genital mutilation, of stoning, etc. I suppose none of these things have any connection to the religion of Islam...
Pssst - outside of a few select Middle Eastern sects, those policies aren't enforced or even encouraged by many, likely most, (I'm too lazy to actually do the appropriate research to determine if "most" fits - so won't use it without clarification like this) of the Muslim sects around the world.
Polytheism still counts in my sentiment - especially since they also warred with each other over individual gods inside their beliefs. By accepting a belief system, you knowingly reject someone else's beliefs. Become exclusive is what breeds intolerance, and it's part of being human.
Pssst - outside of a few select Middle Eastern sects, those policies aren't enforced or even encouraged by many, likely most, (I'm too lazy to actually do the appropriate research to determine if "most" fits - so won't use it without clarification like this) of the Muslim sects around the world.
Pssst - there are MANY that do have such policies, whether to fullest extent or not. Sharia courts operate in England. Saudi Arabia and its neighbors enforce sharia. Sexism is prevalent in the religion even where it's not in its more fundamentalist form. As for teaching children nonsense about the world around them, that much is true for most of Islam and other religions. Plus, if you're admittedly too lazy to do the appropriate research then why even bother to engage? You say "few Middle Easter sects" but that's actually quite a gross understatement when you consider entire theocratic states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. and countries with huge populations of practitioners where the situation is getting decidedly worse (e.g. Indonesia). In any case I don't care if it's "most" or 25% or 10%. I would prefer zero. As it is, it's more than enough.
The point is the term "Islamophobia" is a political term thrown around often to stifle criticism of the religion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Look at the Cathedral that isn't allowed to be rebuilt in New York. It was destroyed on 9-11 and it has taken over 10 years and still gaining no ground. Yet the Mosque has been approved within 2 months.
I want to contest what Skin Color has to do with Religion at all.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
People don't like a group of "weird" people moving into their countries and not mingling. They bring their own culture, set up their own communities, and wear their own clothing. They can't even eat the local food, because of their dietary restrictions.
Than someone blows up a building in the name of the religion.
And people start talking about those "weird" people that stick to themselves, rumors, false info.....
And we get Hitler.
This guy almost won the French presidential election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen
The next Hitler is going to win an election soon, don't know who, don't know when, but that's where we are headed.
If I were to go off what church taught me when I still went (through missionary trips and such) then I would feel that anyone outside of my religion is, without any doubt, going to hell. That's a pretty strong conviction, and easily breeds a "I'm going to heaven and you're not" sentiment when it comes to any other religion.
Thanks to the guys at Highlight Studios for the great banner and avatar.
Trade with me http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=101483&highlight=" rel="nofollow"here.
I protest Sharia law. For good reasons.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
H.P. Lovecraft
The revolutionary war was fought by a uniformed military, ergo it was a war and not a terrorist action.
That is one of the main distinctions between the two.
Edit: Also when to the "-phobia" suffix replace the "anti-" prefix in American English? Both "homophobia" and "islamophobia" don't mean fear of homosexuals or muslims, but rather mean opposed to homosexuals and opposed to muslims, it seems according to conventional lexicology the appropriate terms should be anti-homosexuals and anti-islamics (following the term anti-semite). It jsut seems strange to me.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
Nifty generalization, you must be awesome, get dressed every day in your Fox news undies and spend the next 4 hours listing to Sarah Palin on CD. I can play your silly game to.
The point stands though, to the British people the revolutionary war was the equilivant of a terrorist attack.
H.P. Lovecraft
Except for the part where the point doesn't stand for the reason I stated?
I mean, you don't get to jsut ignore arguments you can't beat and claim your point stands.
Your point is that to the American people the Revolutionary War was not a terrorist action.
I'll point you to the Boston Tea party, this action was specifically designed to show defiance to british rule and gain the support of other dissadiants withen the colonies.
Today terrorism is used mostly to gain press coverage and convert other followers to their cause.
H.P. Lovecraft
Perhaps you can enlighten me, since I'm not sure, how many people died in the boston tea party:?
The big battles were fought by uniformed troops. There were a ton of smaller engagements where irregular, ununiformed revolutionary supporters would attack British soldiers or civilians who were Loyalists.
When you think about it, there is very little difference between a colonist militia member shooting at the British from ambush at Lexington and Concord than someone like Omar Khadr killing an US soldier in Afghanistan.
Ah, I think your generalization is false. It may be true for monotheistic religions, but I'm fairly sure Druidry, (Wicca?), Paganism in general, and also perhaps Buddhism are exempt from that diagnosis.
That's why I wish those religions would be more widely known (I don't care if people follow them or not), so that there wouldn't be this kind of polarizing stance that some atheists take that 'religion is evil'/blah
I honestly think that some atheists that 'convert' <-incorrect term from the monotheistic religions don't lose the dogmatic reactions, only the symbolism.
None but by the Government's defination of terrorism..
"the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"
This still applies. Through while there may be no cut and dry answer to this you have to refer back to the quote "one man's terrorist is another man's patriot." In the end the only difference between the two really is perspective.
H.P. Lovecraft
I agree that phobias are typically unreasonable. but a phobia is a fear. That is what phobia means. The suffix -phobia means "fear of ..."
It just seems like a really odd naming convention. It would be like using the word grasslike to describe anything that is green. Sure grass is green, but its hardly the defining feature. As far as sounding like something you'd find "bizzaro world" they only sound like that because a different word has been adopted. "antisemite" doesn't sound like its from bizzaro world, but it uses the convention that you say causes words to sound like they are bizzaro.
no, a phobia is a disorder. And use of the word implies that people who are against it are afraid of it.
I wonder if there is a suffix or prefix that actually means "hater of" seems like that owuld be useful, since homophobia and islamophobia aren't tied to 'fear' at all.
Although I suppose thats enough on this topic... its hardly the point at hand :0)
Yes, propagandists can call "terrorism" and "patriotism" anything they like. In that sense alone, one man's terrorist is another man's patriot. But by any reasonable objective standard, nonviolent protests and attacks on military targets are not acts of terror. The Boston Tea Party was, at most, an act of vandalism. Not only were no lives taken, it was carefully planned so that no lives would even have to be threatened. And the purpose clearly wasn't intimidation; it was a direct action protest, no different than the sorts of actions Martin Luther King and Gandhi would organize. (Indeed, Gandhi consciously used the Tea Party as a model for his salt protest.)
Now, the Patriots were no saints: there were acts of terror during the Revolutionary War and the lead-up to it. The tarring and feathering of tax collectors and Loyalists probably qualifies. But to seriously compare even the worst of these to the wanton slaughter of civilians that Islamic extremists carry out almost routinely is, in a word, deranged. The bulk of the war was waged against the British military and its interests, and its commanders strove to adhere to the laws of war as they were then understood. (Just try to imagine George Washington ordering the suicide bombing of the London Stock Exchange!) It was an asymmetrical war, but it was a war.
Neopagans generally don't commit violence because they're a mere handful of well-to-do Western liberals - and even then, there's quite a bit of anti-Christian sentiment going around in some circles. Give them a respectable population of their own and see what sort of extremist fringe develops. The real pagans... well, before the Neos came along, "paganism" used to be synonymous with "barbarism", and with reason. Long before Christians were burning "witches" (in isolated incidents, spawned by grassroots xenophobia), pagans were burning Christians (en masse, as a matter of state policy). And as for Buddhism, see Sri Lanka. No religion - I repeat, no religion - is immune to intolerance.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"BE VERY AFRAID... (but spend too so our economy will keep going)"
When people are afraid in general, they are very ready to be afraid of specific groups.
They wielded the "If you are against us, you support terrorism" stick so much, that even the stupidest twit in the country can feel comfortable waving that weapon around in conversation to rally a third of any dinner party on to their side.
911 still has a good portion of our population in PTSD... like a mugging victim who now carries a gun everywhere, and feels pretty much entitled to be a bigot if it touches their psychological hot-button: "Oh YEAH? Have you forgotten 911????"
A person who adapts well following a mugging or traumatic event, will learn to be smarter... but they won't let it change who they are as a person. But some people really cling to their fear forever and use it to justify any belief (it's understandable if you were a direct victim, or a relative of a victim, or maybe even on site... but rational thinking should be expected from most of the rest of us).
Many people all over our nation 7 years after an event like 911 feel like they are entitled to chuck the constitution, bill of rights, and everything else out the window ( Yet after Iraq is "shock & awed" into oblivion, hundreds of thousands are killed in the aftermath of anarchy, millions displaced, and just about everybody can name a person they personally know who was killed, and we wonder why there are so many whack-jobs in Iraq who can't just "get over it" and get on the democracy train? ).
-
Some Americans feel 911 entitles them to "be fearful, be justifiably prejudiced, and violate the rights of others".
I don't agree with that philosophy, because most of the people in the middle east have experienced far scarier than 911 in their lifetime. I don't believe those people are entitled to "be fearful, be justifiably prejudiced, and violate the rights of others" either.
This war on terror is not going to end... So we'll always have an excuse to be afraid. So we have to decide if this is how we deal with Islam, how we want to live from now on, and how we want our children to live.
Islamophobia is not part of how I want to live. Living scared is no way to live. Especially when we're the biggest and strongest, and frankly, most people are far more scared of us.
The term "Islamophobia" is a nonsensical term used to shut up criticism of the religion. Why is the term tolerated, indeed.
Are you sure? You may wish to back up that generalization with some facts, because I know of many pagans in non-western society, I know of pagans that aren't well-to-do (assuming you're meaning 'well-off'), and I know of many conservative pagans. But by all means...
When I reference paganism, I should have put 'neo' infront of it. I nthese neo-pagan religions, there isn't any dogma, and they actually discourage the evangelical sort of pushing the religions upon others or breeding people to be 'pagan.' They don't have any of the 'one true religion' crap that some other religions have.
I would so love some citations of this 'anti-christian sentiment' because I've never encountered it.
Notice the quote. I am refuting the quote.
There is no 'my god is better than your god' in the religions I cited, hence I felt the need to say that the generalization was incorrect.
I also think that going back over a thousand years, you may be confusing religious intolerance with intolerance in general, not contained within the religions.
For continuous timeframe? Yes, we've been doing it the longest timeframe consistently - although a bit less violent and more covertly.
Right it hasn't, but it's a matter of proximity because that part of the city isn't approved for ANY reconstruction yet - it's not that they made an exemption to them repairing the Cathedral, nothing on that block is being allowed yet. If they were going to knock it down to build a Community Center + Mosque it would get shot down.
[Especially since it's likely going to receive help from the city to repair it which isn't available at the moment, since it's generally considered a landmark unofficially]
To be fair Harkius, if the 2007 Mall shooting is the one in Utah - that one was loosely Muslim related. (although not terrorist, the kid was from a East European Muslim family without terrorist ties - but he flipped out because of people tormenting him for being Muslim).
And of course you missed the best recent example IMO of terrorism, since it was an EXTENDED incident over nearly a month - of the Beltway shooter. (And yea, his kid that helped him carry his ammo and such was from a peaceful Muslim group - but the kid did nothing the shooter, who was ex-US military didn't tell him to do)
9/11 as terrible as it was, only shut down NYC for a few days - the Beltway shooter incident shutdown DC and most of Maryland and NoVa for over a week - even with a lower body count.
Pssst - outside of a few select Middle Eastern sects, those policies aren't enforced or even encouraged by many, likely most, (I'm too lazy to actually do the appropriate research to determine if "most" fits - so won't use it without clarification like this) of the Muslim sects around the world.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
The point is the term "Islamophobia" is a political term thrown around often to stifle criticism of the religion.