10 terms not to use with Muslims

[ambelamba]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0328/p09s01-coop.html

Arlington, Va. - In the course of my travels – from the Middle East to Central Asia to Southeast Asia – it has been my great privilege to meet and become friends with many devout Muslims. These friendships are defined by frank respect as we listen to each other; understand and agree on the what, why, and how of our disagreements, political and theological; and, most of all, deepen our points of commonality as a result.

I have learned much from my Muslim friends, foremost this: Political disagreements come and go, but genuine respect for each other, rooted in our respective faith traditions, does not. If there is no respect, there is no relationship, merely a transactional encounter that serves no one in the long term.

As President Obama considers his first speech in a Muslim majority country (he visits Turkey April 6-7), and as the US national security establishment reviews its foreign policy and public diplomacy, I want to share the advice given to me from dear Muslim friends worldwide regarding words and concepts that are not useful in building relationships with them. Obviously, we are not going to throw out all of these terms, nor should we. But we do need to be very careful about how we use them, and in what context.

1. "The Clash of Civilizations." Invariably, this kind of discussion ends up with us as the good guy and them as the bad guy. There is no clash of civilizations, only a clash between those who are for civilization, and those who are against it. Civilization has many characteristics but two are foundational: 1) It has no place for those who encourage, invite, and/or commit the murder of innocent civilians; and 2) It is defined by institutions that protect and promote both the minority and the transparent rule of law.

2. "Secular." The Muslim ear tends to hear "godless" with the pronunciation of this word. And a godless society is simply inconceivable to the vast majority of Muslims worldwide. Pluralism – which encourages those with (and those without) a God-based worldview to have a welcomed and equal place in the public square – is a much better word.

3. "Assimilation." This word suggests that the minority Muslim groups in North America and Europe need to look like the majority, Christian culture. Integration, on the other hand, suggests that all views, majority and minority, deserve equal respect as long as each is willing to be civil with one another amid the public square of a shared society.

4. "Reformation." Muslims know quite well, and have an opinion about, the battle taking place within Islam and what it means to be an orthodox and devout Muslim. They don't need to be insulted by suggesting they follow the Christian example of Martin Luther. Instead, ask how Muslims understand ijtihad, or reinterpretation, within their faith traditions and cultural communities.

5. "Jihadi." The jihad is an internal struggle first, a process of improving one's spiritual self-discipline and getting closer to God. The lesser jihad is external, validating "just war" when necessary. By calling the groups we are fighting "jihadis," we confirm their own – and the worldwide Muslim public's – perception that they are religious. They are not. They are terrorists, hirabists, who consistently violate the most fundamental teachings of the Holy Koran and mainstream Islamic scholars and imams.

6. "Moderate." This ubiquitous term is meant politically but can be received theologically. If someone called me a "moderate Christian," I would be deeply offended. I believe in an Absolute who also commands me to love my neighbor. Similarly, it is not an oxymoron to be a mainstream Muslim who believes in an Absolute. A robust and civil pluralism must make room for the devout of all faiths, and none.

7. "Interfaith." This term conjures up images of watered-down, lowest common denominator statements that avoid the tough issues and are consequently irrelevant. "Multifaith" suggests that we name our deep and irreconcilable theological differences in order to work across them for practical effect – according to the very best of our faith traditions, much of which are values we share.

8. "Freedom." Unfortunately, "freedom," as expressed in American foreign policy, does not always seek to engage how the local community and culture understands it. Absent such an understanding, freedom can imply an unbound licentiousness. The balance between the freedom to something (liberty) and the freedom from something (security) is best understood in a conversation with the local context and, in particular, with the Muslims who live there. "Freedom" is best framed in the context of how they understand such things as peace, justice, honor, mercy, and compassion.

9. "Religious Freedom." Sadly, this term too often conveys the perception that American foreign policy is only worried about the freedom of Protestant evangelicals to proselytize and convert, disrupting the local culture and indigenous Christians. Although not true, I have found it better to define religious freedom as the promotion of respect and reconciliation with the other at the intersection of culture and the rule of law – sensitive to the former and consistent with the latter.

10. "Tolerance." Tolerance is not enough. Allowing for someone's existence, or behavior, doesn't build the necessary relationships of trust – across faiths and cultures – needed to tackle the complex and global challenges that our civilization faces. We need to be honest with and respect one another enough to name our differences and commonalities, according to the inherent dignity we each have as fellow creations of God called to walk together in peace and justice, mercy and compassion.

The above words and phrases will differ and change over the years, according to the cultural and ethnic context, and the (mis)perceptions that Muslims and non-Muslims have of one another. While that is to be expected, what counts most is the idea that we are earnestly trying to listen to and understand each other better; demonstrating respect as a result.

This is depressing. Islam has no space for change according to this article. And their number is growing while other belief systems are diminishing.

[Omnaka]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0328/p09s01-coop.html

This is depressing. Islam has no space for change according to this article. And their number is growing while other belief systems are diminishing.

At least they aren't forcing their belief on you.

Those who are muslim believe in their religion, no big deal, Kinda smells like bait.

Love Omnaka

Edited April 2, 2009 by Omnaka

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0328/p09s01-coop.html

This is depressing. Islam has no space for change according to this article. And their number is growing while other belief systems are diminishing.

This article is referring to muslims whom are living in different countries than our own. These countries have many different cultures residing within them. Some words in our culture have a different meaning to those in a different one, such as those offered in the example. I don't think this shows an intolerant religion. The article merely gives several suggestions as to how to show respect in someone else's culture.

[__Kratos__]

Wait, what? We've heard repeated calls by muslims to convert or die. Of all the muslim attacks in the world, it's hard to picture that they're not forcing their faith onto others. Just look how they behave in their own countries!

[Mr Walker]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0328/p09s01-coop.html

This is depressing. Islam has no space for change according to this article. And their number is growing while other belief systems are diminishing.

I agree. i read through the article, not sure of what the post was about or the posters purpose, but i felt that while i agreed with some points others indicated an inherent world view which simply does not allow for difference (outside of some basic parameters)

Instead of supporting the view that muslims may be quite "moderate" in their religious perspectives, it clearly indicated this was not the case. It is similar to an absolute refusal to allow anyone, from anywhere, to poke fun at god , religion etc. It indicates a wide divide between the writer (and assumedly his reflection of muslim opinion) and the "secular" world.

It almost presumes that a muslim world cannot coexist with a secular one, despite stating the opposite

The equation of freedom with licentiousnes is perhaps the most frightening thing. This is a concept found only n the most rabid versions of christianity and largely held in check by western democratic traditions and laws. The evidence is that freedom as a right does not exist in islamic countries especially where it pertains to frreedo of belief and reeligion, but also in the many freedoms physically restricted through the application of islamic principles and beliefs in law.

This is not to say that this could not happen in a christian country, nor that some fringes of christianity might not support and even push for similar restrictions on freedom, but inherently christianity does not reflect this view. Modern christianity, at heart, is about personal choice, with any consequences entirely dependent on the exercise of that personal belief/choice.

it is also worrying that this is apparently a sincere article/pov from a "reputable " source, and from a writer with at least some credibility in the area.

The fact that neither the author nor apparently the publishers could see the inherent bias and irony in many of the statements, or saw them but published them anyway is also of concern.

One could add another. "Dont speak in plain and simple terms, or tell the truth as you see it."

Muslims might get offended by either of these mannerisms. Rather, use tact, subtlety, and nuance, so that no one is too sure of your pov, and thus cannot be offended. Never say out right that, in your opinion, a muslim might have things wrong.

I believe i could follow islam quite happily, and personally i respect it as a faith and its people as spiritual beings. Its greatest failing, i think, is its failure to recognise, accept or tolerate difference in religious pathways. This may be an opinion with some prejudice attached, but it has developed from reading and from an awreness as a history geoegraphy and politics teacher of the actual practises and lifestyles in many (even modernised) islamic countries.

It is something which, ultimately, they have to sort out for them selves, but unfortunately, for geopolitical reasons, it has a real and serious impact on large parts of the rest of the world , particularly western democracies, thus provoking external intervention, which only exacerbates the problem.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Mr Walker

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

I agree. i read through the article, not sure of what the post was about or the posters purpose, but i felt that while i agreed with some points others indicated an inherent world view which simply does not allow for difference (outside of some basic parameters)

Instead of supporting the view that muslims may be quite "moderate" in their religious perspectives, it clearly indicated this was not the case. It is similar to an absolute refusal to allow anyone, from anywhere, to poke fun at god , religion etc. It indicates a wide divide between the writer (and assumedly his reflection of muslim opinion) and the "secular" world.

It almost presumes that a muslim world cannot coexist with a secular one, despite stating the opposite

The equation of freedom with licentiousnes is perhaps the most frightening thing. This is a concept found only n the most rabid versions of christianity and largely held in check by western democratic traditions and laws. The evidence is that freedom as a right does not exist in islamic countries especially where it pertains to frreedo of belief and reeligion, but also in the many freedoms physically restricted through the application of islamic principles and beliefs in law.

This is not to say that this could not happen in a christian country, nor that some fringes of christianity might not support and even push for similar restrictions on freedom, but inherently christianity does not reflect this view. Modern christianity, at heart, is about personal choice, with any consequences entirely dependent on the exercise of that personal belief/choice.

I think the issue is that their religion is so intertwined with their government and culture, that to disagree with their faith, is to disagree with their government and indeed with their entire existence. I took the article as making suggestions on what not to say in a culture in which, at this point anyway, we have got to make strides with both politically and culturally. My issue is, it should not be the west that does all the compromising ya know?

[Beckys_Mom]

Wait, what? We've heard repeated calls by muslims to convert or die. Of all the muslim attacks in the world, it's hard to picture that they're not forcing their faith onto others. Just look how they behave in their own countries!

I agree, it is hard to pic that...

[S2F]

I think the issue is that their religion is so intertwined with their government and culture, that to disagree with their faith, is to disagree with their government and indeed with their entire existence. I took the article as making suggestions on what not to say in a culture in which, at this point anyway, we have got to make strides with both politically and culturally. My issue is, it should not be the west that does all the compromising ya know?

"Compromise" is just another word that has been left off of that list that Muslim's would rather not hear. It seems they would rather take a life than compromise.

[momentarylapseofreason]

Islam in general is not tolerant.

But the majority of Muslims are-or claim to be-I have experienced some intolerance from Muslim men.

I think it's absurd to call Islam tolerant-when anyone criticizing it has to change their name and fear for their life.

Don't you ?

[momentarylapseofreason]

"Compromise" is just another word that has been left off of that list that Muslim's would rather not hear. It seems they would rather take a life than compromise.

According to the Quran there is no compromise. Believe me.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

"Compromise" is just another word that has been left off of that list that Muslim's would rather not hear. It seems they would rather take a life than compromise.

Not all of them.

[Beckys_Mom]

Islam in general is not tolerant.

But the majority of Muslims are-or claim to be-I have experienced some intolerance from Muslim men.

I think it's absurd to call Islam tolerant-when anyone criticizing it has to change their name and fear for their life.

Don't you ?

WOW you go girl LOL...I 100% agree here.....it's far from tolerant

[S2F]

Not all of them.

Yes, you are correct. I find myself lumping most Muslims into a category when I know I shouldn't stereotype anyone, or any group. To be honest, I think that coloring all Muslims in a broad brush is a major factor in most of the "misunderstandings" that the OP was referring to. It is a character flaw of mine that won't die so easily, even though I try.

[momentarylapseofreason]

This article is referring to muslims whom are living in different countries than our own. These countries have many different cultures residing within them. Some words in our culture have a different meaning to those in a different one, such as those offered in the example. I don't think this shows an intolerant religion. The article merely gives several suggestions as to how to show respect in someone else's culture.

They demand respect but give none-show me how Islam shows the west respect ? And has it ever ?

In Europe Islam asked for an inch and now they want the whole measuring stick-I saw what goes on over there.

The whining and screaming about offense is all about manipulating the west and silencing any criticism.

It all about appeasement and submission.

To show respect we must totally not express any real or honest opinions.

Why must we behave as if we believe in their prophet and god, when we in fact do not !

[Lt_Ripley]

let those without sin cast the first stone ??

Verbal expressions of intolerance in Christianity:

While religiously motivated terrorist actions by Christians are relatively rare in the West, verbal expressions of intolerance are far more widespread. Consider the following pronouncements by American and Northern Irish church leaders, politicians, and para-church organizations:

bullet In 1980, Bailey Smith, then president of the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, made national news by announcing that "God does not hear the prayers of a Jew."

bullet At the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jerry Vines (pastor of a 25,000 member church in Jacksonville, Florida) denounced Muhammad as a "demon-possessed pedophile." He also condemned religious diversity as a major problem in America.

bullet Even stronger statements have been made by the Reverend Dr. Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, founder and moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, leader of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party, and Member of the British and European parliaments. Paisley views Christianity as being under siege by demonic forces embodied in Irish Catholics and apostate Protestants. Using the anti-Catholic writings of such Protestant figures as John Calvin, George Whitefield, and John Wesley 4, Paisley has branded Catholics as bearers of "satanic deception." He has been quoted as denying that Roman Catholics were Christians, and that they were subhuman. In addition to being a virulent anti-Catholic, Paisley also campaigs against homosexuals. Among the quotes attributed to him, are:

bullet "I denounce you, Anti-Christ. I refuse you as Christ’s enemy and Antichrist with all your false doctrines." This was addressed to Pope John Paul II.

bullet In 1958, Paisley denounced Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother for "committing spiritual fornication and adultery with the Antichrist." This followed their visit to Pope John XXIII.

bullet Paisley called the Popes "black-coated bachelors from Hell."

bullet Paisley, referring to Pope John XXIII in 1963 after the pope's death, said: "This Romish man of sin is now in Hell."

bullet Addressing Fr. Murphy in his magazine Revivalist, Paisley said: "We know your [Catholic] church to be the mother of harlots and the abomination on earth." Paisley has called the Catholic Church the ‘Harlot of Babylon’.

bullet In 1999, Representative Bob Barr attacked the religious freedom of Wiccans on army bases.

bullet Also in 1999, a group of Fundamentalist Christian para-church groups organized a boycott of army recruitment. Their goal was to force the Army to terminate the religious rights of Wiccan soldiers.

bullet A longing by a Fundamentalist TV pastor to return to olden times when we stoned religious minorities to death. The statement was followed with prolonged applause by his congregation.

bullet A call by a Baptist minister for the U.S. army to exterminate all Wiccans with napalm.

horizontal rule

Violent attacks by Christians:

Although most expressions of intolerance by Christians have been verbal, there have been some instances of violence, including:

bullet The 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK, by Timothy McVeigh killed 168, including 19 children.

bullet One lynching, one attempted mass murder by stoning, and numerous fire bombings, shootings, and assaults victimized Wiccans and other Neopagans in the U.S. during the late 20th century. To our knowledge, all were perpetrated by Fundamentalist Christians. The increasing public awareness of, and knowledge about, Wicca, such attacks have reduced the frequency of these attacks to near zero over the past 25 years.

bullet Fundamentalist Christians have attacked Jewish centers, attempted to poison municipal water supplies, bombed abortion clinics, and assassinated abortion providers.

The members of the Christian organizations perpetrating these crimes seem to be convinced that the forces of truth wage a perennial, cosmic battle with the forces of falsehood, and that they face the challenge of protecting Christian truth by any methods available. That they are allowing Jesus’ cross to become Mithras’ sword does not occur to them. There are fewer attacks by Christians than by Muslim terrorists apparently because the former organizations are less numerous, their individual agendas differ, and that there is a lack of cooperation; their actions are not coordinated.

North American Christian groups engaged in violent action are often inspired by the theology of at least two major fundamentalist organizations: The Reconstructionist 5 and the Christian Identity movements.

bullet The Recontructionist movement asserts that the coming reign of Jesus will abolish democracy, the separation of church and state, abortion, religious freedom, federal welfare programs, and many other features of modern society.

bullet Christian Identity is based on racial supremacy and biblical law. It has been the background of many extremist American movements, provides the ideological support for some America’s militias, and its ideas were most likely part of the thinking of Timothy McVeigh. 3 The most distinctive doctrine associated with Christian Identity is the belief in the Satanic origin of the Jews. They interpret the serpent in the Garden of Eden story in Genesis as the devil himself or one of his underlings. They believe that he had intercourse with Eve. This generated a line of descent from the devil, through Cain, the Edomites, and the Khazars, to contemporary Jews. Identity has fused belief in a world-wide Jewish conspiracy with that of a cosmic satanic conspiracy. 6 Jews are viewed as non-human demonic creatures who carry the devil’s capacity to work evil. 4

Christian Identity has been derived from a wayward nineteenth-century form of biblical exegesis known as British Israelism. In the last decades of the twentieth century the ideology of Christian Identity groups such as The Covenant, Sword, Arm of the Lord, The Church of Israel, Aryan Nations, Children of Yahweh, The Christian Defense League, and The Kingdom Identity Ministries, blended into their distinctive amalgam of biblical, apocalyptic, historical, anti-Semitic, racist, and conspiratorial theories. The ingredients of these theories were taken from survivalist movements, and the Patriot’s movement, and neo-Nazi variants of white supremacism. 7 Two examples should be enough to provide a taste of such thinking:

bullet A brochure published by Aryan Nations included this statement in their creed of faith: "We BELIEVE there is a battle being fought this day between the children of darkness (today known as Jews) and the children of Light (God), the Aryan race, the true Israel of the Bible." 4

bullet One of the United States most notorious right wing terrorist groups of the post-war era, the Order (otherwise known as the Silent Brotherhood, or Holy Order of Aryan Warriors) brought together militant racists from Christian Identity, a racist faction of the Odinists, and people of conventional neo-Nazi backgrounds. 7

A special chapter could be written about terrorism in Ulster: Between 1968 and 1998, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) killed an estimated 728 civilians (most of them Protestants – not counted are military personnel and police)), compared with estimated 864 civilians (mostly Catholics) killed by loyalist paramilitaries. However, the conflict between the IRA, which wants to unify Ulster with the Republic of Ireland, and the three main Protestant paramilitaries that want to stay loyal to the British Crown [the Ulster Defence Association (UDA); the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF); and the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF)], appears to be inspired more by political ideology than by religious beliefs. Many Catholics feel like second-class citizens in Ulster, and there is violence, harassment, intimidation, and abuse (not to mention revenge killings), but, with the possible exception of Rev. Paisley, there seem to be little religion in all of it. Nowadays, the terror groups are involved in moneymaking activities.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/relhateex.htm

Edited April 2, 2009 by Lt_Ripley

[momentarylapseofreason]

WOW you go girl LOL...I 100% agree here.....it's far from tolerant

That's what happens when you lived in Europe for 15 yrs.

I can't believe how much it changed.

I wouldn't mind Islam if it wasn't so sexist, bullying, whiny and hateful against infidels-and that it is (Islam)

Americans haven't experienced this over here.

I frankly don't think the americans would put up with it.

Sorry but as a woman I feel threatened by Islam !! I have a daughter.

This all got way out of hand by being PC and told to be tolerant for years.

Be tolerant of the intolerant . Ridiculous !

I don't want anyone (Muslims) hurt-just beware of Islam-it's not what they try to make you believe it is.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

They demand respect but give none-show me how Islam shows the west respect ? And has it ever ?

In Europe Islam asked for an inch and now they want the whole measuring stick-I saw what goes on over there.

The whining and screaming about offense is all about manipulating the west and silencing any criticism.

It all about appeasement and submission.

To show respect we must totally not express any real or honest opinions.

Why must we behave as if we believe in their prophet and god, when we in fact do not !

Hey, man.. Settle down a bit. you seem to be just a fanatical as they can be, but from your own perspective.

Disagree. Absolutely. Speak up. but do it respectfully thats all. Those words have a different meaning in their culture no? there are many words tha have different meanings in many different cultures. Not using them in their presence is merely a show of respect.

I agree with you about certain parts of the Islamic culture. Read my other post man. however, I don't feel that this article shows Islam as being intolerant. I'm not saying it is or isn't. Only that this article is not saying what you think it says.

Furthermore, rather that saying "Islam is intolerant" etc... Why not offer some suggestions as to how to come together, rather than driving that wedge just a bit further in there. Somehow I don't think thats what you want. I think ya want a fight.

[Lt_Ripley]

Hey, man.. Settle down a bit. you seem to be just a fanatical as they can be, but from your own perspective.

Disagree. Absolutely. Speak up. but do it respectfully thats all. Those words have a different meaning in their culture no? there are many words tha have different meanings in many different cultures. Not using them in their presence is merely a show of respect.

I agree with you about certain parts of the Islamic culture. Read my other post man. however, I don't feel that this article shows Islam as being intolerant. I'm not saying it is or isn't. Only that this article is not saying what you think it says.

Furthermore, rather that saying "Islam is intolerant" etc... Why not offer some suggestions as to how to come together, rather than driving that wedge just a bit further in there. Somehow I don't think thats what you want. I think ya want a fight.

I agree....... honey works better than vinegar. Both sides keep each other going. Policy is what lit this fire.

[momentarylapseofreason]

let those without sin cast the first stone ??

Verbal expressions of intolerance in Christianity:

While religiously motivated terrorist actions by Christians are relatively rare in the West, verbal expressions of intolerance are far more widespread. Consider the following pronouncements by American and Northern Irish church leaders, politicians, and para-church organizations:

bullet In 1980, Bailey Smith, then president of the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, made national news by announcing that "God does not hear the prayers of a Jew."

bullet At the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jerry Vines (pastor of a 25,000 member church in Jacksonville, Florida) denounced Muhammad as a "demon-possessed pedophile." He also condemned religious diversity as a major problem in America.

bullet Even stronger statements have been made by the Reverend Dr. Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, founder and moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, leader of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party, and Member of the British and European parliaments. Paisley views Christianity as being under siege by demonic forces embodied in Irish Catholics and apostate Protestants. Using the anti-Catholic writings of such Protestant figures as John Calvin, George Whitefield, and John Wesley 4, Paisley has branded Catholics as bearers of "satanic deception." He has been quoted as denying that Roman Catholics were Christians, and that they were subhuman. In addition to being a virulent anti-Catholic, Paisley also campaigs against homosexuals. Among the quotes attributed to him, are:

bullet "I denounce you, Anti-Christ. I refuse you as Christ’s enemy and Antichrist with all your false doctrines." This was addressed to Pope John Paul II.

bullet In 1958, Paisley denounced Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother for "committing spiritual fornication and adultery with the Antichrist." This followed their visit to Pope John XXIII.

bullet Paisley called the Popes "black-coated bachelors from Hell."

bullet Paisley, referring to Pope John XXIII in 1963 after the pope's death, said: "This Romish man of sin is now in Hell."

bullet Addressing Fr. Murphy in his magazine Revivalist, Paisley said: "We know your [Catholic] church to be the mother of harlots and the abomination on earth." Paisley has called the Catholic Church the ‘Harlot of Babylon’.

bullet In 1999, Representative Bob Barr attacked the religious freedom of Wiccans on army bases.

bullet Also in 1999, a group of Fundamentalist Christian para-church groups organized a boycott of army recruitment. Their goal was to force the Army to terminate the religious rights of Wiccan soldiers.

bullet A longing by a Fundamentalist TV pastor to return to olden times when we stoned religious minorities to death. The statement was followed with prolonged applause by his congregation.

bullet A call by a Baptist minister for the U.S. army to exterminate all Wiccans with napalm.

horizontal rule

Violent attacks by Christians:

Although most expressions of intolerance by Christians have been verbal, there have been some instances of violence, including:

bullet The 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK, by Timothy McVeigh killed 168, including 19 children.

bullet One lynching, one attempted mass murder by stoning, and numerous fire bombings, shootings, and assaults victimized Wiccans and other Neopagans in the U.S. during the late 20th century. To our knowledge, all were perpetrated by Fundamentalist Christians. The increasing public awareness of, and knowledge about, Wicca, such attacks have reduced the frequency of these attacks to near zero over the past 25 years.

bullet Fundamentalist Christians have attacked Jewish centers, attempted to poison municipal water supplies, bombed abortion clinics, and assassinated abortion providers.

The members of the Christian organizations perpetrating these crimes seem to be convinced that the forces of truth wage a perennial, cosmic battle with the forces of falsehood, and that they face the challenge of protecting Christian truth by any methods available. That they are allowing Jesus’ cross to become Mithras’ sword does not occur to them. There are fewer attacks by Christians than by Muslim terrorists apparently because the former organizations are less numerous, their individual agendas differ, and that there is a lack of cooperation; their actions are not coordinated.

North American Christian groups engaged in violent action are often inspired by the theology of at least two major fundamentalist organizations: The Reconstructionist 5 and the Christian Identity movements.

bullet The Recontructionist movement asserts that the coming reign of Jesus will abolish democracy, the separation of church and state, abortion, religious freedom, federal welfare programs, and many other features of modern society.

bullet Christian Identity is based on racial supremacy and biblical law. It has been the background of many extremist American movements, provides the ideological support for some America’s militias, and its ideas were most likely part of the thinking of Timothy McVeigh. 3 The most distinctive doctrine associated with Christian Identity is the belief in the Satanic origin of the Jews. They interpret the serpent in the Garden of Eden story in Genesis as the devil himself or one of his underlings. They believe that he had intercourse with Eve. This generated a line of descent from the devil, through Cain, the Edomites, and the Khazars, to contemporary Jews. Identity has fused belief in a world-wide Jewish conspiracy with that of a cosmic satanic conspiracy. 6 Jews are viewed as non-human demonic creatures who carry the devil’s capacity to work evil. 4

Christian Identity has been derived from a wayward nineteenth-century form of biblical exegesis known as British Israelism. In the last decades of the twentieth century the ideology of Christian Identity groups such as The Covenant, Sword, Arm of the Lord, The Church of Israel, Aryan Nations, Children of Yahweh, The Christian Defense League, and The Kingdom Identity Ministries, blended into their distinctive amalgam of biblical, apocalyptic, historical, anti-Semitic, racist, and conspiratorial theories. The ingredients of these theories were taken from survivalist movements, and the Patriot’s movement, and neo-Nazi variants of white supremacism. 7 Two examples should be enough to provide a taste of such thinking:

bullet A brochure published by Aryan Nations included this statement in their creed of faith: "We BELIEVE there is a battle being fought this day between the children of darkness (today known as Jews) and the children of Light (God), the Aryan race, the true Israel of the Bible." 4

bullet One of the United States most notorious right wing terrorist groups of the post-war era, the Order (otherwise known as the Silent Brotherhood, or Holy Order of Aryan Warriors) brought together militant racists from Christian Identity, a racist faction of the Odinists, and people of conventional neo-Nazi backgrounds. 7

A special chapter could be written about terrorism in Ulster: Between 1968 and 1998, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) killed an estimated 728 civilians (most of them Protestants – not counted are military personnel and police)), compared with estimated 864 civilians (mostly Catholics) killed by loyalist paramilitaries. However, the conflict between the IRA, which wants to unify Ulster with the Republic of Ireland, and the three main Protestant paramilitaries that want to stay loyal to the British Crown [the Ulster Defence Association (UDA); the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF); and the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF)], appears to be inspired more by political ideology than by religious beliefs. Many Catholics feel like second-class citizens in Ulster, and there is violence, harassment, intimidation, and abuse (not to mention revenge killings), but, with the possible exception of Rev. Paisley, there seem to be little religion in all of it. Nowadays, the terror groups are involved in moneymaking activities.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/relhateex.htm

I feel much more threatened by Islam.

Have you watched The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam (the video). You have to be strong to watch that.

[Mr Walker]

I think the issue is that their religion is so intertwined with their government and culture, that to disagree with their faith, is to disagree with their government and indeed with their entire existence. I took the article as making suggestions on what not to say in a culture in which, at this point anyway, we have got to make strides with both politically and culturally. My issue is, it should not be the west that does all the compromising ya know?

i agree that was probably its purpose. As regulars will know ,im not much for tact and diplomacy replacing truth. A danger in using words is that they can imply agreement with the principles those words represent. Freedom for example (in western parlance) is a universal right. I dont think we should indicate that we might accept a reduction in freedom through accepting more politically correct words. I appreciate some will see this a a form of cultural imperialism, but if a nation, people, or creed states that "Ït holds these truths to be self evident" then i dont think it is productive for it/them to act as if they were not self evident truths when applied to other people.

If the truth offends, does that mean we should not speak the truth? Again, much potential danger and harm lies in doing this.We can fool others, and even sometimes ourselves, as to our true inner opinions and beliefs.

In giving offence we may also cause ourselves, and those offended, to examine what is causing the offence and who, if any, holds the more defensible position.

Im not sure about the connection to culture. Certainly many islamic countries have a very short timeline from feudal nomadic kingdoms to the 21 century. This has not allowed time for their faith to make the adaptations it must for a new society (but note the writer doesnt like the concept of a reformation of islamic faith) Regardless of what he likes, it is inevitable a faith which does not represent the current realities of the society in which it is embedded can not survive. It will adapt or become irrelevent, and diminish in power and authority.

However, islam has spread to some quite modern and enlightened countries. Is the writer suggesting that, even in such countries, islam and its peoples are so fragile/sensitive that we need to speak always in politically correct terms.

It is possible that an australian muslim might find some of the statements as irrelevant and misleading as i do.

[momentarylapseofreason]

Hey, man.. Settle down a bit. you seem to be just a fanatical as they can be, but from your own perspective.

Disagree. Absolutely. Speak up. but do it respectfully thats all. Those words have a different meaning in their culture no? there are many words tha have different meanings in many different cultures. Not using them in their presence is merely a show of respect.

I agree with you about certain parts of the Islamic culture. Read my other post man. however, I don't feel that this article shows Islam as being intolerant. I'm not saying it is or isn't. Only that this article is not saying what you think it says.

Furthermore, rather that saying "Islam is intolerant" etc... Why not offer some suggestions as to how to come together, rather than driving that wedge just a bit further in there. Somehow I don't think thats what you want. I think ya want a fight.

Sexism is sexism.

They used honey in Europe-it attracted aggressive Wasps-not honeybees.

I'm talking about Islam

I don't want a fight -I want honesty-don't sugar coat what has no sweetness

Where is my respect from them- ? I started out with respect until I got called a whore by them too often (the men-not by the women)

Edited April 2, 2009 by momentarylapseofreason

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

i agree that was probably its purpose. As regulars will know ,im not much for tact and diplomacy replacing truth. A danger in using words is that they can imply agreement with the principles those words represent. Freedom for example (in western parlance) is a universal right. I dont think we should indicate that we might accept a reduction in freedom through accepting more politically correct words. I appreciate some will see this a a form of cultural imperialism, but if a nation, people, or creed states that "Ït holds these truths to be self evident" then i dont think it is productive for it/them to act as if they were not self evident truths when applied to other people.

If the truth offends, does that mean we should not speak the truth? Again, much potential danger and harm lies in doing this.We can fool others, and even sometimes ourselves, as to our true inner opinions and beliefs.

In giving offence we may also cause ourselves, and those offended, to examine what is causing the offence and who, if any, holds the more defensible position.

Im not sure about the connection to culture. Certainly many islamic countries have a very short timeline from feudal nomadic kingdoms to the 21 century. This has not allowed time for their faith to make the adaptations it must for a new society (but note the writer doesnt like the concept of a reformation of islamic faith) Regardless of what he likes, it is inevitable a faith which does not represent the current realities of the society in which it is embedded can not survive. It will adapt or become irrelevent, and diminish in power and authority.

However, islam has spread to some quite modern and enlightened countries. Is the writer suggesting that, even in such countries, islam and its peoples are so fragile/sensitive that we need to speak always in politically correct terms.

It is possible that an australian muslim might find some of the statements as irrelevant and misleading as i do.

I truly think the issue here is words being taken differently by two different cultures. What's a fag in Britain? What's a fag in the states? Two different meanings same word. See what I mean?

Sexism is sexism.

They used honey in Europe-it attracted aggressive Wasps-not honeybees.

I'm talking about Islam

Aggression is aggression.

I'm talking about you.

[S2F]

I truly think the issue here is words being taken differently by two different cultures. What's a fag in Britain? What's a fag in the states? Two different meanings same word. See what I mean?

Why then, can't Muslims simply alter their understanding of "our" words as opposed to us changing our words thereby implying something unintentionally?

[Mr Walker]

I truly think the issue here is words being taken differently by two different cultures. What's a fag in Britain? What's a fag in the states? Two different meanings same word. See what I mean?

Aggression is aggression.

I'm talking about you.

So you dont call a cigarette a fag in america?

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Why then, can't Muslims simply alter their understanding of "our" words as opposed to us changing our words thereby implying something unintentionally?

The article is about being a guest in "Their" country. When they are here, they should respect our culture as well. Sit down and have a cold beer

Shoot hoops with our president. lol.