Where's the outrage?
Sep. 11th, 2007 05:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plonqI'm going to delve a bit into politics here, and speak on a subject that I typically keep quiet about because, well, I don't usually like to dwell too much in politics in my journal. While I do not, in any way, condone the actions that happened in 2001, I get a bit tired of hearing this retread argument.
The argument goes something like this:
Premise: If a radical Christian group had performed a heinous act of terrorism against a Muslim country and killed 3000 civilians, Christian leaders around the free world would be immediate and loud in condemning the act
Premise: There has not been enough outcry and condemnation from the Muslim community leaders for the criminal acts of September 11, 2001.
Inference: The religion of Islam, regardless of how it bills itself as the "religion of peace", is fundamentally violent and flawed.
Conclusion: Muslims are bad people.
The first premise is fairly hypothetical. We hope that Christian leaders would condemn any such acts. I have enough faith in humanity to assume that they would.
The second premise is entirely subjective. We don't feel that they were outraged enough, but we have no idea what lies in the heart of the average Muslim. How many people who argue this have actually sat down with some of their Muslim friends (if they have any) and asked them to gauge their level of outrage?
The inference and conclusion are self-explanatory.
You see, the problem with this argument is that it is fundamentally flawed, because we are comparing the known reaction, and hypothetical reactions of two groups and drawing inferences and conclusions from those. Since the conclusion is based on a hypothetical argument anyway, let's adjust the parameters a bit so that the hypotheses play out on a more level field. If we are going to compare our reactions to those of the Muslims, let's actually put ourselves in the same situation.
Let's assume that instead of Christian nations, the world is dominated by a group of very rich and powerful Muslim nations. For generations the Muslim nations have used the Christian nations as their political playground, propping up brutal dictators in one country, and arming rebels in the next. Although the Christian nations sit on a vast wealth of resources, most of the Christians live in poverty because the Muslims openly prop up the corrupt Christian leaders who let them bleed the resources dry while pocketing all of the proceeds for themselves and their immediate friends and families.
Oh, and the Muslims have permanently stationed troops in The Vatican, and various other holy Christian sites. They also occasionally bomb Christian countries that get too uppity, and invade ones who threaten to try and control their own resources. They like to wax on about how Christians are evil, and they don't seem too bothered when one of their puppet Christian governments decides to slaughter and gas a bunch of their own Christian people using weapons that the Muslims gave them.
A group of Christian extremists manage to hijack some Muslim planes and slam them into a couple of Muslim financial and military centres, striking deep in the heart of what most Christians regard as the centre of all evil. Mind you, a lot of innocent people died that day. Naturally there is going to be a lot of wide-spread, angry and vocal Christian outrage, isn't there?
Isn't there?
The argument goes something like this:
Premise: If a radical Christian group had performed a heinous act of terrorism against a Muslim country and killed 3000 civilians, Christian leaders around the free world would be immediate and loud in condemning the act
Premise: There has not been enough outcry and condemnation from the Muslim community leaders for the criminal acts of September 11, 2001.
Inference: The religion of Islam, regardless of how it bills itself as the "religion of peace", is fundamentally violent and flawed.
Conclusion: Muslims are bad people.
The first premise is fairly hypothetical. We hope that Christian leaders would condemn any such acts. I have enough faith in humanity to assume that they would.
The second premise is entirely subjective. We don't feel that they were outraged enough, but we have no idea what lies in the heart of the average Muslim. How many people who argue this have actually sat down with some of their Muslim friends (if they have any) and asked them to gauge their level of outrage?
The inference and conclusion are self-explanatory.
You see, the problem with this argument is that it is fundamentally flawed, because we are comparing the known reaction, and hypothetical reactions of two groups and drawing inferences and conclusions from those. Since the conclusion is based on a hypothetical argument anyway, let's adjust the parameters a bit so that the hypotheses play out on a more level field. If we are going to compare our reactions to those of the Muslims, let's actually put ourselves in the same situation.
Let's assume that instead of Christian nations, the world is dominated by a group of very rich and powerful Muslim nations. For generations the Muslim nations have used the Christian nations as their political playground, propping up brutal dictators in one country, and arming rebels in the next. Although the Christian nations sit on a vast wealth of resources, most of the Christians live in poverty because the Muslims openly prop up the corrupt Christian leaders who let them bleed the resources dry while pocketing all of the proceeds for themselves and their immediate friends and families.
Oh, and the Muslims have permanently stationed troops in The Vatican, and various other holy Christian sites. They also occasionally bomb Christian countries that get too uppity, and invade ones who threaten to try and control their own resources. They like to wax on about how Christians are evil, and they don't seem too bothered when one of their puppet Christian governments decides to slaughter and gas a bunch of their own Christian people using weapons that the Muslims gave them.
A group of Christian extremists manage to hijack some Muslim planes and slam them into a couple of Muslim financial and military centres, striking deep in the heart of what most Christians regard as the centre of all evil. Mind you, a lot of innocent people died that day. Naturally there is going to be a lot of wide-spread, angry and vocal Christian outrage, isn't there?
Isn't there?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
If I can expand a bit...
Date: 2007-09-11 11:19 pm (UTC)In the U.S., at least, we have had several acts that would, to any objective observer, be classified as Christian Terrorism: the Oklahoma City Bombing, the bombing of various abortion clinics, the sniper that killed a couple of "abortion doctors" a number of years ago...
If my personal experience is any indicator, whether or not most christians condemn the actual actions, the vast majority don't even recognize that these activities were carried out by people claiming to be members of their faith (okay, the McVeigh thing gets a little odd because he kept insisting he was agnostic and had abandoned his faith... in between times that he spouted Christian Identity slogans, and then he insisted on Catholic last rites and quoted that most favorite of poems among the Christian Identity wingnuts as his last words).
In less personal experience I know that in the case of one abortion clinic bomber who was hiding out in the woods (in one of the Carolinas, I believe it was) until recently, you could go to many churches in the area and photograph scores of cars in the church parking lots with bumper stickers announcing the car's owner's support of the bomber.
So yes, I emphatically agree that the argument is fundamentally flawed. I also believe that even the subjective bits are demonstrably false.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-12 01:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-12 01:14 am (UTC)well
Date: 2007-09-12 03:07 am (UTC)But here's a thought for you - most Germans, at the time of Hitler's reign/position of power, would tell you they weren't "really Nazis" - that the Nazis were somebody else, not the average ordinary people. But these people did nothing while million of people were sent to concentration camps & killed. Lots even participated, claiming they were "only following orders". Yes, you do have some happenings like "Schlinder's List" and "Diary of Anne Frank" but when you conside how many people died, it's not much of a dent.
So I'm sure that many Muslims are _not_ involved in the fanatical stuff (just as many Christians aren't involved in the fanatical stuff), but if they just stand by and let it happen....
But I don't think I have the proper perspective to answer this, seeing how the Pentagon was only 40 miles away from where I was working that day in 2001...
Re: well
Date: 2007-09-12 04:44 am (UTC)Re: well
Date: 2007-09-12 11:01 am (UTC)ah well, should have been doing something else instead...
Re: well
Date: 2007-09-12 03:22 pm (UTC)Re: well
Date: 2007-09-12 08:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-15 03:43 am (UTC)