Having been accused as a bigot, I feel a need to respond to someone who can’t stand intolerant people. I got involved in a discussion on Saber Point which eventually took me to Romantic Dandy, the blog of someone named Percival. He has called Stogie, Aunty Belle, me, and a few other bloggers “bigots”. Meanwhile, he and his friends over on Romantic Dandy are ranting over how everyone from every religion just needs to get together and love each other, and how they can’t stand dissent from their views. I will attempt to address a few of Percival’s points (see his post too) in this post, though he seems to ignore much of what Aunty Belle and I are saying.
First, Islam is a religion and not an “ideology.”
Islam (as well as all other religions) contains a certain ideology that defines their outlook of the world. I didn’t say religion, because that connotates an attack on their way of life (that’s what the word religion means). I am not attacking the Arab way of life by any means. Many of the points for the way Muslims should live their lives, as prescribed in the five pillars of Islam, are noble. I believe in helping the poor, etc. However, I do not agree with all of them, and by no means think that you can be saved by just being a good guy. I am attacking the ideology, doctrines, and end products of Islam, which are completely false, against Christianity, and non-rational.
Second, you define bigotry as “condemning a whole group of people because they exist.” I’m not aware of any group of people ever having condemned another group for possessing the property of being itself.
What about racists? They are conventionally called bigots. They hate Africans, Asians, etc. for being the way they are. An African American cannot help the color of his skin, yet racists hate him for it. A Muslim can get out of Islam, and become a Christian, although it is harder in Islam than in Buddhism, for example. The recent incident in Afghanistan well illustrates that.
An accurate definition of bigotry is more like ‘condemning a whole group of people because you ascribe certain negative qualities to the people who belong to that group.’ Bigotry is a humungous negative overgeneralization about a large group of people.
Although I disagree with that definition, let’s use it for debate purposes.
The official definition of bigot, according to Webster, is someone who is prejudiced or intolerant. I’ll admit; I am prejudiced heavily toward Christianity, just as you are prejudiced heavily toward universalism, liberalism, and secularism. I try not to be intolerant of people, I try to talk with them first, but I’m not perfect. I might point out that you aren’t the most tolerant, either.
Anyway, you are implying that Aunty Belle, Stogie, and I are condemning specific persons themselves. You are implying that we hate certain Arabs. I definitely do not. It’s hard, the way they behave, and my being a fallen human; but I still do not hate them. I have rebuked Stogie for this several times. On the whole; however, Stogie focuses his attention toward Islam, not individual Muslims. He hates them for their beliefs, (which are capable of changing, as I explained earlier) not parts of their existence (which are incapable of changing, as I explained earlier). The vast majority of Arabs believe in Islam, that’s not an overgeneralization.
…the hate I’m hearing at the moment isn’t coming from a Muslim.
I am not hateful towards Arabs as a people; I am hateful towards their ideology, Islam. Read my comment over again if you’re not sure.
[The minority of] Muslims who are bigoted, violent, and don’t begin to understand the teachings of their own religion,
So you’re saying that you, a Westerner who studied at Chicago, not Riyadh, know more about their religion than they do? That’s very presumptuous. Many people say the same about Christianity who don’t know a thing about basic doctrines.
…serious criticism of terrorism coming from Muslim clerics. Try getting some of your news from the BBC, or out of Canada, or even NPR here in the states!
I do get a lot of my news from the BBC, actually. You missed my entire point that I said in the context to that question about Muslim clerics. I said, “If you ask a head of state or a Muslim in the US, [or Europe, etc.] then they will say that they are not radicals.” They want to make the best possible impression. If you ask a usual, small Arab town, Muslim imam, you will get little, if no condemnation of what terrorists say and do. You’ll get the same result if you ask the majority of leading clerics.
I’m sure that if you want to take particular lines from the Quran out of context and emphasize/distort them; you could find angry/vengeful/hateful verses. Ditto Judaism. Ditto Christianity.
Yes, that’s true. The difference between the verses in the Bible that say that, and the verses in the Quran that say that, is that the Bible is saying that God will punish those people, whereas the Quran clearly encourages Muslims to do the avenging themselves.
Percival goes on to give an excuse for people to become terrorists. He says that because a Palestinian had his relatives killed, and his house destroyed by a “precision” bomb, they have a right to become terrorists. They have a right, then, to strap themselves up with a bomb and blow up an Israeli bus filled with innocent civilians, just for revenge. He then asks what difference there is between Israeli violence and terrorist violence. The major difference between them is that one attacks civilians willingly, whereas the other focuses on civilians primarily for their attacks. There are plenty more differences, as I explain here.
[your] point seems to be that Christianity is “the best.”
Wow, he finally caught on! At least he made one right conclusion. Christianity is the only true religion. All others are fakes.
Then someone named Lady Wordsmith chips in and offers a Universalist proposition:
“We may all bow at different times and say our prayers in different ways, but we all offer the same praise and ask for the same grace.”
Try reading the Bible, compare it to the Quran, etc. and you’ll think differently.
I’ll leave all of you with my telling of what a radio talk show host said to a Muslim, posted in a comment on Saber Point:
I remember that one guy who was filling in for Rush Limbaugh one day about a month ago, who was arguing with a Muslim. The Muslim said that Islam was a religion of peace, and that the majority of Muslims are pacifist Pillsbury doughboys, etc., etc. The host said to him, (I don’t know the exact quote) “If terrorists are such a minority in Islam and the most Muslims are against jihadi violence, then why is there not an uproar and outrage when they do acts of terror? I mean, when the sexual abuse of boys by Roman Catholic priests was uncovered, the Pope and the Vatican cracked down on them. There was a huge trial and scandal and those people were punished. However, when Muslim terrorists blew up 3,000 New Yorkers, you didn’t see that kind of response. You saw people dancing in the streets with their fingers raised in the V-sign.” The Muslim couldn’t answer back, and proceeded to shift the focus of the argument away from what the host had said.
It was interesting to listen to.
Recent Comments