@ETpro – My point is, if they want to have an us versus them battle, let them fire the first shot. Let’s not get out in front of the curve in demonizing all Muslims. There are a good number here in the US that live peacfully and mind their own business.
Well said.
@plethora
They have already fired the first shot.
Good point. There is a severe problem with your reasoning, however. The discussion about the trojan horse element of the radical Islamic movement seems to be about what has been called the third jihad. This is a definite, real, distinct threat to the American way of life.
The Current Effectiveness in the U.S.
The problem is that there is a difference between real and effective. Example: active conversion of U.S. citizens to Islam happens most effectively in the prison population. But the prison population is a distinctly deprivileged, and I argue oppressed, part of the general population. Others that seem to be indoctrinated into these radical cells are often from the dissatisfied populations of the U.S., the ones primed for any fringe group (there are exceptions, of course,,,as discussed in this link from Current).
The problem is these fringe populations are not the agents of real change in the U.S. The fact that we don’t have a legal PC regime means we can discuss this threat – and I applaud you for voicing it as an important element to look out for. But I feel like we went through this before with another group – the Communists. I feel like Europe went through it before with another group – the Jews.
The Muslim Population in Europe
This is, of course, the source of the difference in our approach to propaganda and it’s legislative impact. Because European countries saw the profound evil that can be done with unrestrained propaganda, they have legislated, in many cases, against people trying to incite hatred against certain populations. This is because of the propaganda program and the subsequent galvanizing of the population to attack the Jewish population. Seeing it happen against the Muslim population has meant that the tolerance has resulted in populations that are more able to insulate themselves from attack, and that can end up going very wrong.
Also, Europe is unique in the Muslim context in that it is readily reachable by citizens of Middle Eastern as well as African countries.
The Differences in the U.S.
The U.S. is different. Populations can be insular, of course, but they can’t be legally safe from even the harshest criticisms. This means that we CAN say “radical Islamists are crazy.” So people ARE getting both messages. And you’re RIGHT to repeat it. However, when we create this culture of fear surrounding it, and point to Europe like this as an example, we’re right back in the Cold War.
Communism
Ideologies, whether it be tyrannical-style Communism or Radical Islam are easy targets because you can always point to examples of their evil effects, and there’s nothing good about them. However, the problem is when we conflate the “crazy” sects of the ideology with the ideology as a whole. THEN, we end up invading our free speech Army-McCarthy Hearings style (watch Point of Order!(film) on this one if anyone hasn’t already – it’s awesome). The fear became so effective that people began to lose their first amendment rights…which prevented us from determining where the real threat was because people became secretive, and people in power were able to use the fear to push other, even more insidious or personal agendas.
The examples in Europe of the problems with Muslim communities are similar to the Cold War tactic of pointing to the “Iron Curtain.” Further, we are also geographically separated from major Muslim centers even more than we were from Communist centers (the Cuban Missile Crisis was a sad event demonstrating the problems when we see the threat getting “too close”).
’
Weak v. Strong Governments
The spread of Communism is an interesting parallel because it both works against and for your arguments. Communism demonstrated that with a powerful message and an indoctrination of deprivileged populations, you can revolutionize an area and convert the government. The problem is that it never happened in the U.S. – and the concept of communism still exists today. The governments it happened to were always-already destabilized in a way, or historically oppressed. They were easy “targets.”
Political v. Religions or Religious-Political Ideologies
Further, Communism is a political ideology, not a religious one. The problem with the “religion trojan horse” as opposed to the “political trojan horse” is that people really believe in their God more than their government. Therefore, when an attempt to overthrow one’s God is perceived, at any point, it’s going to cause an uproar. It’s just not as easy to start subtly changing the perception as it is with political beliefs.
Psychological Release of Democracy
Further, our current stable government allows for constant change – therefore, the idea that we need a new solution to the problem is constantly processed through the election process. In areas where there is a dictatorship, or the elections are clearly and openly corrupt (real corruption, mind you), the population doesn’t get that exercise. Therefore, change is more likely to happen through revolutions or coup d’etats.
In many ways, the radical Islamic movement is “messing with the wrong guy.” Let’s keep a big, wide eye on it.
The Counter-productivity of Perceived Fear-Mongering and Prejudice
The problem with what you’re doing, though, and your suggestions, is that the way they’re being voiced is profoundly prejudiced and biggoted. Both you and @CaptainHarley have referenced Islam and Muslims – and claimed that the threat from them is universal. That’s ignorant, of course. It’s also deplorable. I know that @CaptainHarley attempted to make his comment more specific – but unfortunately, in our exchange above, personally I attempted to flesh out who he was talking to, what he was trying to get at, for a bit…and he finally came out and said what he did. When I pointed out the error…the profound errors…he refused to acknowledge them for several hours until he clarified. When you argue for freedom of religion, it’s not freedom of your religion, and when you demand that your religion not be attacked, you better be damn sure not to do the same. This is exactly what the problem with @CaptainHarley‘s argument was. And I say that it was the worst example of hypocrisy that I’ve seen, @josie, for two main reasons (1) it involves beliefs that people hold deeply, and therefore I believe require more respect, so that if you want respect you are required to show it as well, which the above does not, and (2) from the perspective of Christianity, the idea of fostering hate against a particular group of people is contrary to the very ideology of the religion, and statements demonizing Islam and Muslims, which @CaptainHarley made (although he did try to clarify), did just that. The level of the hypocrisy, therefore, is clear from both the perspective of argument and faith.
You aren’t doing anything different, @plethora – and are in fact more guilty than he because you are attempting to defend the fear mongering of his original statement, using rhetorical strategies like putting the friendly in ” ‘friendly’ Muslims ” in quotations to show that they’re not – they’re really dirty, dirty spies.
Why it’s Evident in @plethora‘s Examples
Shutting down immigration for ten years won’t stop it, and that’s a whole new thread with a whole new worm-can to deal with. But your suggestion regarding the Mosques brings in an interesting point – are we an example of freedom of religion in this country, or are our rights merely conveniences when the government thinks we should have them? If we limit the number of Mosques based on the religious icons in other Sharia countries, we are doing two things: (1) we are violating the first amendment as that tends to privilege all other religions above Islam, and therefore establishing a state religion of sorts; and (2) we are adopting Sharia policy into American law! Isn’t (2) what you’re trying to avoid – us becoming a theocracy?
I would ask that you please, please consider the damage that you’re doing with the way you’re making your argument. It’s as ugly – and I would argue uglier – as super-aggressive atheists calling Christians stupid and ignorant for believing in a cannibalistic space zombie. At least they’re just calling religion stupid – you’re trying to cast an entire group of people as murderers when you make the argument this extreme, and are more likely to turn people away from the argument than bring them to the points that actually do need addressing. It’s not only counter-productive, it’s destructive as it appears hateful and based on conspiracy theories. Say it, it’s important. But you should be ashamed if you continue to make the arguments about Muslims as a whole, and it would personally, and unfortunately, make me deeply suspicious of the religious agenda of any like you making this argument.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
