Examine the following statements:
1) Islam, like all religions, has many different types of adherents and interpretations. The beliefs and actions of murderous fundamentalist fanatics do not represent the beliefs and actions of all Muslims.
2) Murderous fundamentalist fanatics are not Islamic, or are not representative, because Islam is a religion of peace.
I conclude that there are two kinds of people in the world. There are those who don't see any difference between the two preceding statements, and those who distinguish that the first is an unobjectionable description (if a truism), while the second is a steaming pile of obfuscatory cant that will have an effect on intelligent discussion similar to the effect that stuffing a five-pound block of cold lard down the drain has on the operation of a sluggish disposal unit.
There are those of the first group, lacking a nose for cant, who need an acceptable alternative explanatory model for why variations of statement 2 are so often greeted with withering scorn. I think my fellow Type 2's can guess the form of that model: if you guffaw or snicker when you hear the disputed phrase, or if you have spent the last year or so rolling your eyes at the "dueling sura" teach-ins produced by NPR and the like, it's not because you are allergic to horsefeathers, have some knowledge of the history of human religions, and recognize a pointless, dead-end discussion when you hear it. It is because you are an anti-Muslim bigot.
I'd say it's a bootless enterprise to attempt to defend yourself against that.
(Side-note: thanks to Dr. Frank for the link to Rick Heller; I wasn't familiar with his Smart Genes. He's got, among other good stuff, some links and commentary on the Kissinger appointment.)
So where do you draw the line? At what point do cracks and snickers at the line about "religion of peace" and derisive remarks about Islam as a "religion of peace" stop merely being mockery of BS and start being bigotry? To give an example not at random, what if the only way you referred to Muslims was as RoPists, or members of the RoP, while denouncing all the evil things done by RoPists? I'd like to think that I'm not particularly oversensitive and so on, but reading statements using that kind of language, I personally get a sense of mockery and condemnation that goes well beyond merely making fun of PC idiots. So what's a good way to tell when a sneering reference to the "religion of peace" is mocking the religion rather than the PC idiocy?
Posted by: Mark on December 03, 2002