I knew six people in the World Trade Center.. and one on the Pennsylvania airplane that crashed on 911, so I think I know what "violence" and "terrorism" is.
Hijacking of any sort is a wrong and horrible.. but the example Opi gave is like comparing apples and oranges. Christians have not declared a mass holy war against anyone. This hijacking had nothing to do with trying to exterminate those who practice a religion.. where as the it was the mission (and still is) of the terrorists on 911 to kill as many non-Muslims as possible.
The Amish thing had nothing to do with a holy war. It was a crazed man who enjoyed making young girls suffer and loved to kill. I'll never understand what drives humans to enjoy making others suffer.. whether it be torturing someone mentally or physically. He lived in the Amish area, and these girls were an easy target. He did not declare a holy war on the Amish.
And... regarding my questions on the other thread... I asked legitimate questions, but Opi refused to answer them. The questions I asked are the basis of why there is so much controversy regarding Islam.
She got extremely defensive about those quotes.. as are you. Why? Those quotes were in the Islamic holy book. I did not make them up. I even asked her to explain to me what they meant and whether they were mistranslated. They describe how those of the Islamic faith are commanded to convert everyone to Islam, and if they don't.. to fight them. It's right there in black and white.
The crux of this is that there is a Jihad declared against all non-Muslims.... just as Hitler declared a Jihad against all Jews. He got plenty of press too... and he wasn't Muslim. If there was a holy war against the Muslims, I'm sure those causing the violence against the Islamic community would get lots of press too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RACooper
Ah yes because I forgot, the easy explanation that any violence commited by one of the Islamic faith can be attributed to a “Jihad” 
There is a serious double-standard, or dare I say prejudice, out there that _Opi_ was trying to draw attention to (I think) – namely how the violence is portrayed or reported differently as it applies to Muslims.
Looking at the recent news, concerning the Amish school shooting, how much has been made of the murderer’s faith? I haven’t seen headlines proclaiming “Christian Man murders Amish children”, have you? But lets just say that the shooter had been Muslim… do you think the reporting might have mentioned his faith then? Or say the shooting at Dawson College up in Montreal… if the shooter had been a Muslim instead of a Atheist/Nihilist, I’m positive that the coverage would have been vastly different.
The problem is that many (yourself included) seem to jump to the conclusion that in the case of a Muslim committing a violent act, the first conclusion (and only amongst some) is it is simply “a further example of the violent nature of the faith”… whereas the same acts committed by a Christian will instead focus on how the perpetrator was deranged or “sick”, not their faith. Now why is that? Is this simply a new flavour of societal prejudice, much like the double standard of racial labelling in crime reporting of the past (and present in some areas)?
Finally why is it that every time a Muslim commits an unspeakable act, that other Muslims are called to justify or defend their faith? <such as you did with _Opi_ in another thread> Yet the same standard isn’t applied for us Christians – for example, I haven’t be asked to defend the Christian (or Roman Catholic denomination) faith in light of the Christian militants actions in Indonesia… nor do I think were Christians held accountable for the actions of Hitler – after all he was “Christian”. Instead we recognize that these acts, individuals, and ideologies are aberrations or perversions of the Christian faith – so why can’t we apply the same reasoning and standards to Islam? |