Skip to main content

Why are Muslims singled out from the rest?

Of course, like everyone else with a semi-functioning heart and conscience, I'm always saddened by tragedies of any kind. This, of course, includes acts of terror. However, whenever a terrorist act is committed by Muslims, I'm also troubled by many people's insistence that all Muslims worldwide denounce these awful acts. There's a growing chorus among these people, which includes a solid majority of conservatives, but also a growing number of moderates and liberals as well. My questions are, why is this necessary, and why does this seem to only surround people of the Islam faith? 

If some Muslims with a public voice want to go on the record and say, "For the record, these people's acts were cowardly, not at all representative of the teachings of Islam, and I (or we) fully denounce these individuals and their actions," then that's fine. But why do a growing number of people deem it as necessary? Just because an extremely small percentage of a certain demographic engages in an abhorrent act of some kind, does that ultimately mean all other individuals of that demographic must publicly denounce the act in order to showcase genuine sympathy for the victims and to also illustrate that not all members of that particular demographic are alike? 

Also, why is it that this unwritten "rule" seems to only apply to Muslims? When's the last time you heard the following back-and-forth in this country?

CNN: "We have breaking news! A Christian organization just bombed an abortion clinic in New York, saying, 'It's what God wants.'"

CNN contributor: "That's awful! Christians all over the world must publicly denounce these people's actions to show they don't side with the perpetrator of this abhorrent act! If Christians don't do this, they're part of the problem!"


No, I haven't heard such a story either. So, like I said, if an act of violence in the name of a religion is committed, I'd be perfectly fine with members of that religious community coming forward and denouncing the act(s), however, I don't deem it as necessary either, and think it's rather ridiculous to deem it as necessary, especially when the "rule" appears to apply to just one religion. 

I think the main problem here is regarding prejudice against Muslims, which was largely prompted by the 9/11 attacks. Since those very attacks occurred over 13 years ago, the prejudices appear to have subdued some, but appear to still be very present in our country. As is often times the case, prejudices tend to stem from ignorance, and I think that very much applies in this case. Those that are prejudiced against Muslims in this country almost always point out the "Kill the infidels!" passage in the Koran, yet aren't cognizant of similar passages in the Bible.

In Deuteronomy, chapter 17, the following is written: 

"If there be found among you, within any of the gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD they God, in transgressing his covenant; And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

Or how about in Deuteronomy, chapter 13, where this is written: 

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods', do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods,' then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt."

Upon reading this, I can just hear far-right wing Christians saying, "But that's different, and that's the Old Testament, so, I mean, come on!" 

Sadly, an increasing number of Congressional Republicans appear to be mentally stationed in the Old Testament, so those passages are quite relevant to the argument. 

Muslims, like any other religious group, shouldn't feel a responsibility to publicly denounce the disgraceful actions of an extreme minority of their fellow believers. What we should be more focused on is educating people of different faiths all across the world to help us better understand one another, to better prevent hatred and prejudice of one another, and to show that we all have more in common with one another than we may have previously thought - starting with this: All people with a semi-functioning heart and conscience, regardless of their religious affiliation, are saddened by tragedies of any kind, including acts of terror, and don't need to publicly declare such feelings in order to possess them.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/01/22/yes-the-bible-does-say-to-kill-infidels/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"