Thanks for the comments. I'm still thinking about what Mark-S15 said.. while the distinction between who is sponsoring the activity (established press vs criminals) is a good point, I doubt that beheading is NOT a direct affront to Islam as it (the religion) was meant to be.
Wow. Back to the original post - good call. & good questions. I wish I knew the answers.
Because IMHO beheadings trump all. And that is not necessarily a "good thing."
Mark S15
Beheadings may not be an offence to religion but they are for damn sure an offence to humanity.
I thought this was a bloody good post.
One is a clear offense to the religion in question and perpetuated by cultural and business organs, the other is not a direct offense to the religion and is perpetuated by criminals.
As an atheist, I get your point, but looking at culture and religion (such as they are), the relative responses make some sort of sense.
Things I don't get: Look at how many innocents have died form bombs in the past 12 monthd, and compare that to the outrage over the Terry Schiavo affair.
Then there's that famous bumper sticker: Who would Jesus bomb.
Human nature: people generally only get upset over stuff that happens to them.
Now here's something I don't get. Why do people like you think that law abiding Muslims owe you something because of the actions of some Muslims?
If this was the 1960s during the height of the civil rights movement, would you be saying that black people should be less outraged over how they are being treated and more outraged over the black people who commit crimes?
I doubt you would, so why do you now think that the treatment of Muslims, as a whole, should be conditional on them speaking out against the Muslim extremists? Just because some Muslims are committing atrocious acts does not justify the treatment they are all receiving from the rightwing pundits.
Commenting by HaloScan
