Quote:
Originally Posted by polak
We agree 100%. If you read my other posts they are specifically targeting those that are complacent with their peers subscribing to the more violent aspects of the religion. That I'm not okay with. Where we might differ is if whether or not you think that people have a responsibility to actively distance themselves from the problem. At what point is it up to the individual to say I no longer want to associate myself with that group. Practice your interpretation of the doctrine, without identifying as a muslim, for example (I know its an extreme example and not really needed for Canadians, but lets say if that 60% number for Pakistani’s that are okay with violence in the name of islam is true, then I think it is necessary)
I'm not saying I'm taking matters into my own hands. I'm just saying that's where I think the "us vs. them" mentality is coming from. The lack of change or initiative to incite reform.
|
I think this is an interesting line of thinking. Sadly, it's often espoused by people in times when they can point the finger at other "groups." In other words, it's easy to toss this expectation at Muslims because you're not part of that group, and you feel it emotionally and intellectually safe to call them to carpet.
This type of irrelevant accusation is also often tossed at Americans traveling in Europe. I've seen it first hand with friends: "Hey, your president is an idiot and your vice president advocates torture. How backwards and immoral a group you guys are... and why haven't we seen each and every one of you denounce torture?" According to your framework, you're going to need to be not "complacent" and assure that each and every American you come into contact with actively denounces association with that "group."
It's easy to toss grenades from an epistemically enclosed shelter.