with most attacks on Islam and Muslims nowadays, the retort when challenged invariably boils down to a tantrum about the "sanctity of race and ethnicity" as opposed to the "flimsy veneer of religion". As far back as 2004, Neocons working for the Daily Telegraph were arguing for the right to criticise Islam on the grounds that it was not an ethnicity. In 2005, the comedian Rowan Atkinson appeared in the House of Lords and argued that "to criticise people for their race is manifestly irrational but to criticise their religion, that is a right".
The author links to a few studies and then concludes that
religious distinctions play a far more decisive role in the formation of identities than genetics, which begs the question as to why on earth is race given such an advantage over religion when it comes to discrimination, ridicule and insults? In other words why should race be a “no-go area” and religion a "free-for-all"?
Because awful choices have consequences.
I've seen this coming. In the Islamic world, criticism of Islam or Muhammad is punished aggressively. (For example, see section 295C of Pakistan.) Now the Islamists are trying very hard to put Islam above criticism in the West as well. The "problem" you see isn't that Islam advocates all sorts of barbarities; the problem is the uncouth person who dares to point this out and holds Muslims accountable.
2 comments:
Religion is one of the most powerful institutions in any culture, along with business and government, etc.
We would never think for a second that it would be reasonable to place government or business beyond criticism, so why ought we entertain the idea that religion ought to be beyond criticism?
Islamic child abuse - evil from the lowest cesspool in hell
http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/2007/11/25/this-is-islam-and-what-it-does-to-children.aspx
Post a Comment