I think that a very good point has been made by Abraham Piper concerning the proposed Koran burning taking place this upcoming weekend.
Here's the argument in a nutshell: if Islam is a religion of peace like so many of our leaders are claiming, then why are we scared of the potential fallout if a few Korans get burned?
 |
| Photo courtesy of www.csmonitor.com |
Piper sums up the whole deal nicely by writing,
How can we condemn Jones’s actions without also condemning the religion that makes his actions so dangerous? Sure, Jones is not being kind or prudent–He’s an absolute fool.–but the fact that he is causing legitimate worry about the safety of our soldiers, missionaries, expatriates, etc., is not his fault. It’s Islam’s.One final thought.
Or…
Islam is a religion of peace and Obama, along with America at large, is unfairly concerned. In that case, there’s nothing to worry about.
President Obama tweeted earlier today,
Burning a Quran is contrary to our values—this country was built on the notions of religious freedom and tolerance.Indeed, religious freedom is an intricate part of the foundation of our country; but isn't the President's tweet working against him on some level? Our values include freedom, yes, and toleration, yes.
But does President Obama hold Islam to the same standard? No. Not by my estimation. He says that Islam is a religion of peace (which I assume connotes both a level of freedom and a level of tolerance) but is concerned with the reaction of Islam when a whack-job in Florida burns a Koran. If there is a violent outbreak, then is it not true that Islam, on some level, is intolerant? The answer must be yes.
I think that it is silly to call Islam a religion of peace. I refuse to paint the religion with a broad brush though. I think that there are many peaceful Muslims. But is Islam a religion of peace? This country's leadership has answered that question for us with their true concerns.
4 comments:
It isn't useful to say Islam is peaceful. It isn't useful to say it isn't peaceful. Some Muslims are peaceful and some aren't. Therefore admitting that radical Muslims are dangerous has no bearing upon the nature of Islam.
It's like saying "all snakes are poisonous". We know some snakes are and some aren't. Even if I'm scared of all snakes, you can't logically conclude that I think all snakes are poisonous.
I absolutely agree. I am only demonstrating that those who say that Islam is a religion of peace are calling all snakes non-poisonous but scared because they actually think some are.
They are painting the religion with a broad brush. Not me.
The problem is that the radical Muslims can make a good case for their views from the Koran.
If they think that radical Islam is no Islam at all, why do they have to imply it. What is keeping them from simply saying it?
Post a Comment