(no subject)
It actually annoys me quite a bit when people confuse religion with culture, especially in the case of the Arab world. Yes, of course, Islam is a major component of that culture, as it would be in any country without a separation of Church and State. And many Arabic leaders use Islam to justify their policies and actions. But for Colbert to claim that ISLAM gave the world algebra is ridiculous.
"Last Tuesday, the Pope gave a speech and quoted 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel Paleologos the Second, who said that everything introduced by Islam is 'evil and inhuman.' Well I say, don't back down, your Holy Pope! 'Cause it's true. What did they give us? Optics, hydraulic engineering, algebra... There's not an eighth grader in the world who would convict you, sir!"
---Stephen Colbert
Claiming that Islam gave us optics makes about as much sense as claiming that radiology is a Christian invention. Just because Madame Curie was raised Catholic does not mean her understanding of the Catechism is what led to the discovery of radium.
Yes, of course, it's the Colbert Report and he's not being serious, but I see far too many references to how we are at war with the Muslims, when that is simply not true. Nor are our enemies targeting only Christians and Jews, however much they like to claim they are. How many people who died in the World Trade Center attacks were agnostic? How many were Muslim themselves? How many were Buddhist, Hindu, Wicca?
I guess the problem is one of vocabulary. We could say we're at war with the Arabs, but there are Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs, and "Arab" is too voluminous a description to make any real sense. We could say we're at war with Islam, but there are plenty of Muslims who don't hate the West (many of them even live here.) We could say we're at war with terrorists, but it's more than that. Terrorist only identifies someone who's taken action, not those who support the principles that drive terrorism. We could say we're at war with fundamentalists, but then 1/2 the Republican party would also fall into that category. We could say we're at war with the Middle East, but that leaves out Indonesia and Northern Africa, which are just as capable of harboring Al-Qaeda-like groups and also have interest in the decline of the Western world. Plus, aren't we supposed to have an ally or two over there? Saudi Arabia, for instance?
What do you call someone who wants to see the destruction of Western civilization and American secularism and personal freedoms in particular, that doesn't specify a region, religion or culture, even though all three of these things might be major influences in their life?
"Last Tuesday, the Pope gave a speech and quoted 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel Paleologos the Second, who said that everything introduced by Islam is 'evil and inhuman.' Well I say, don't back down, your Holy Pope! 'Cause it's true. What did they give us? Optics, hydraulic engineering, algebra... There's not an eighth grader in the world who would convict you, sir!"
---Stephen Colbert
Claiming that Islam gave us optics makes about as much sense as claiming that radiology is a Christian invention. Just because Madame Curie was raised Catholic does not mean her understanding of the Catechism is what led to the discovery of radium.
Yes, of course, it's the Colbert Report and he's not being serious, but I see far too many references to how we are at war with the Muslims, when that is simply not true. Nor are our enemies targeting only Christians and Jews, however much they like to claim they are. How many people who died in the World Trade Center attacks were agnostic? How many were Muslim themselves? How many were Buddhist, Hindu, Wicca?
I guess the problem is one of vocabulary. We could say we're at war with the Arabs, but there are Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs, and "Arab" is too voluminous a description to make any real sense. We could say we're at war with Islam, but there are plenty of Muslims who don't hate the West (many of them even live here.) We could say we're at war with terrorists, but it's more than that. Terrorist only identifies someone who's taken action, not those who support the principles that drive terrorism. We could say we're at war with fundamentalists, but then 1/2 the Republican party would also fall into that category. We could say we're at war with the Middle East, but that leaves out Indonesia and Northern Africa, which are just as capable of harboring Al-Qaeda-like groups and also have interest in the decline of the Western world. Plus, aren't we supposed to have an ally or two over there? Saudi Arabia, for instance?
What do you call someone who wants to see the destruction of Western civilization and American secularism and personal freedoms in particular, that doesn't specify a region, religion or culture, even though all three of these things might be major influences in their life?