But let any 'outsider' try it, and differences are put aside to coalesce into a unified attack force - I have family living [and descended from] there, too.
As many of us do ...
And for every "Modern Life " glimpse into the 'barbarity' of the Muslim religion, one can find an equally outrageous example of 'Christian' behavior.
But perhaps more importantly: for every "Modern Life " glimpse into the 'barbarity' of the Muslim religion, one could find 10 ... or maybe 100 ... examples of modern Muslim civility and humanity ... if one
bothered to look ...
That one would not look is quite telling indeed ...
Are these stories which are widely reported and get told via the MSM ?
Of course, not ...
if it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead ...
Controversy and sensationalism rules the day ...
with those of ill-intent standing at the ready to exploit in furtherance of their dubious agendas ...
I have no problem with condemnation of violent acts which violate people's human rights - whether they are committed by an individual or a nation-state.
My problems come about when I see people use those (relatively) isolated acts to condemn an entire race, ethnicity, or religion - when it is clearly the case that it is
not the entire race, ethnicity, or religion that is doing it.
And I become particularly incensed when hypocrisy is an additional element in the matter.
When someone continually attempts to portray one group of people as 'the worst', it makes one wonder: which group is the attention being deflected from, here? And why?
That's an interesting question - particularly if the party doing it would claim it is being done as a "counter-balance" to (perceived) anti-semitism ... a theoretical premise which is logically fallacious on it's face ... as was recently pointed out.
Personally, I think that there could multiple answers to it.
On the one hand, it's clearly true that there are some - who as a matter of their religious fervor - believe that some folks (or nation-states) are "special" ... and ought to be covered for, and excused from, any responsibility or culpability for the criminal acts they have committed.
As someone who subscribes to the idea of the rule of law - and universal human rights for all people - regardless of race, sex, creed, or politics - I find this rather mystifying ...
But beyond that - and this is rather ironic, given the whole "counter-balance" argument - there is the matter of failing to even look at or even acknowledge
who it was that was committing (or failing to prevent) the vast majority of truly heinous violent anti-semitic acts, such as the massive pogroms in Europe of the last couple of hundred years (to say nothing of what occurred prior), and ultimately the Holocaust.
It wasn't Buddhists, Shintos or the Mooslims that were doing it.
That someone would have to reach back into history 150+ years to find some ill-tempered and bigoted writings of a man who was otherwise an undoubtedly great writer - but who was typically
racist for his time - to smear and tar one of the three major Abrahamic
religions of the world - all while ignoring the above - perhaps speaks to the nature of one's motivations.
Some might say that it, in fact, speaks rather loudly ...
