Islamic Fundamentalists Are Wimps
Islamic fundamentalists are wimps; they're WOOSIES! Plain and simple.
They can't take criticism. In addition, they cannot compete in the world of ideas. When someone mocks their violent tendencies, what do they do? They become violent! They kill people; they burn down embassies; they act...like Islamic fundamentalists! Big surprise. If it wasn't so tragic it would be hilarious. But, I'm not laughing. They are goaded by a sick and dangerous religious ideology.
There are those who say that we should exercise restraint, given their violent tendencies. I ask why. Why should we restrain ourselves from challenging their violent ideology? In the world of ideas, why should they be exempt from worldwide scrutiny? This is no time for us to wimp-out either.
Look at the Catholic Church's naysayers. They STILL blame us for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and burning Protestants at the stake. They depict priests as sex-crazed pedophiles; they see Catholics in particular and Christians in general as right wing idiots; and characterize Jesus Christ as some Woodstock reject who "understands." Hollywood makes hay on this acceptable bigotry; newspapers assume this bigotry to be true. We Christians have to live with the fact that some of the criticism is deserved; most is not. And yet, we realize that they have the freedom to say whatever they want. We may not promote the advertisers who sanction this tripe, and we continuously speak out against it and call it what it is. But we don't burn flags or effigies of Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore or Louis Farrakan. We don't create riots, kill innocents and burn down embassies.
Face it, Islamo-fascists, you're nothing but wimps.
posted by Underground Logician @ 11:06 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Well, you're kind of oversimplifying the objections to the Catholic Church, but you're right about the rioting! Although I do admit its tempting to burn a plastic Ronald McDonald ... There's just something about that clown...
You are absolutely right about religious extremists. They sure can be touchy. It's all part of the same persecution pathology of religious nutjobs. Just ask Eric Rudolph.
The evango-fascists in America would do the same thing if they thought they could get away with it. Xtianity could use a few more Jim Wallis types to balance out the Robertsons and the Dobsons.
As I recovering Catholic I'm still pretty shocked they put a Nazi in the top job when there were many other eminiently qualified candidates without blood on their hands. That pretty much closed that chapter of my life.
Saur: You are correct that I'm oversimplifying. These and other issues certainly are raised against Catholics. For reasons of space and rhetoric, I simplified it.
Yankee:
Man, I agree with you re: Rudolph. He's definitely pathological. However, to say that Robertson and Dobson are evango-fascists is extreme. These men are not in the same universe with Zarqawi, AL-Zahiri, et al. They may say some off the wall stuff (more so Robertson), but never to the extent of the Islamists.
As to calling Benedict XVI a Nazi...sorry. You're just being cranky.
As to you being a recovering Catholic, you and I need to have a talk. You probably have legitimate beefs towards Catholics and priests. But as one who "came home" to the Church, let me tell you there is an enormous branch of "pseudo-Catholicism" that tries to pass for the real thing. If you're interested, tap my email and we'll converse more. If not, that's okay too.
wow, classic underground here.
i've been thinking a lot about the mohammad cartoons ... i think the worst thing about this situation is that people are judging the cartoon based on the reaction, not on the merits of the cartoon itself. as i understand it, the cartoon was part of an editorial that said islam was a violent religion. (well, point made there.) however, when considering the cartoon, i've scarcely heard people judge the merit of the cartoon at all.
to give an example of what i'm talking about: if the cartoon depicted mohammad as a cross-dresser, then that certainly would be worthy of condemnation because it would be without merit.
anyway, i didn't blog about this so had to vent here.
I posted this a while ago re:the cartoons on my blog.
I think the cartoons would make great skateboard graphics. At the same time I understand how it can upset Muslims in the same way it would upset black people to hear whites casually throwing around the word "nigger." I don't think people should die for exercising cultural insentivity, but to dismiss the resultant anger as unfounded is ignorant.
TS:
GREAT POINT. You should elaborate more on this for my visitors. Thank you!
Cranky:
I see your point and I agree that that anger is justifiable, just as anger toward any unfounded slam toward Christianity is justified. Thank you for the clarification!
Come on now, I am still thawing out from PCs place. I am making a real effort to be less . . . rigid. Ohmmmmmmm.
Kathleen:
Please, be yourself. You can be as morally absolutistic as you need to be. I am a moral absolutist myself and enjoy the camaraderie (moral relativists are absolutists themselves; they just don't admit to it). I also try to agree as much as possible with folks who disagree with me. So as with CrankeeYankee's observation of justifiable anger, I agree. I can see why a Muslim would get angry at a cartoon caricature. It's the same why any Catholic would become angry at someone putting a crucifix in a jar of urine. The only major difference is that Catholics didn't burn down art museums because of "Piss Christ," but they sure raised a lot of hell about it.
So, you are free here to be yourself; feel free to connect on the links if you want to improve your logic skills. The Logic Tutorial is a super place to start. Or, if you want more philosophical training, the Radical Academy is a great place to learn about the "perennial philosophy" of philosophical realism.
Have fun!
Post a Comment
<< Home