gsa
Well-Known Member
An atheist blogger at Patheos says yes:
Sure, Saudi Arabia’s government is solely at fault when it executes someone for speaking out against it. But you can’t blame the government alone for Saudi blogger Raif Badawi’s sentence of 1,000 lashes and ten years in prison for the crime of insulting Islam. To do so is an insult to Badawi and the countless others killed in the name of blasphemy, like those at Charlie Hebdo.
Werleman knows politics, and he is often correct about the political climate in the US and elsewhere. He is also often correct about the steps we need to take politically to ease tensions and remove a powerful recruitment method from these extremists. But he seems too wrapped up in his own ideological position to see the damage done by ignoring all of the problems of Islam, thereby exempting it from any responsibility.
While there seems to be a growing number of non-Muslim Islam apologists, this rule of “anything but Islam” does not seem to transfer to all religions, making the argument even more spurious. When Christians attack an abortion clinic and say they were inspired by religious belief, we take them at their word and rely on moderate, liberal Christians to speak out and condemn such actions. But when Muslims chant religious text while blowing themselves up or gunning down a magazine staff, and then religious terrorist groups take credit for the attack, the faux-liberal Islamic apologists claim religion had nothing to do with it. Anyone who claims otherwise a racist and Islamophobic. If we continue to ignore religion’s influence on Islamic extremism we are allowing these groups carte blanche to exploit religion as one of the most effective recruitment tools in their struggle for power.
What do you think? Does Dan Arel have a point?
Sure, Saudi Arabia’s government is solely at fault when it executes someone for speaking out against it. But you can’t blame the government alone for Saudi blogger Raif Badawi’s sentence of 1,000 lashes and ten years in prison for the crime of insulting Islam. To do so is an insult to Badawi and the countless others killed in the name of blasphemy, like those at Charlie Hebdo.
Werleman knows politics, and he is often correct about the political climate in the US and elsewhere. He is also often correct about the steps we need to take politically to ease tensions and remove a powerful recruitment method from these extremists. But he seems too wrapped up in his own ideological position to see the damage done by ignoring all of the problems of Islam, thereby exempting it from any responsibility.
While there seems to be a growing number of non-Muslim Islam apologists, this rule of “anything but Islam” does not seem to transfer to all religions, making the argument even more spurious. When Christians attack an abortion clinic and say they were inspired by religious belief, we take them at their word and rely on moderate, liberal Christians to speak out and condemn such actions. But when Muslims chant religious text while blowing themselves up or gunning down a magazine staff, and then religious terrorist groups take credit for the attack, the faux-liberal Islamic apologists claim religion had nothing to do with it. Anyone who claims otherwise a racist and Islamophobic. If we continue to ignore religion’s influence on Islamic extremism we are allowing these groups carte blanche to exploit religion as one of the most effective recruitment tools in their struggle for power.
What do you think? Does Dan Arel have a point?
