re: #78 wrenchwench

Saying that moderate Muslims are ‘nominal’ Muslims is offensive.

QFT. That’s quite the Gelleresque statement. It basically says that the only moderate Muslims are those who aren’t actually observant. As Charles wrote in an article last year:

The “pious Muslim” thing is one of Geller’s main talking points. It’s how she tries to excuse herself from the hate speech accusation; she doesn’t hate ALL Muslims, just all the PIOUS ones.

And that’s one of the tried and true techniques of a real hater — to collapse a very disparate continuum of people, all with their own reasons and beliefs, into a single mass labeled “devout Muslims.” It’s the definition of “stereotype,” and the purpose is to demonize that group en masse, based on the actions of any individual in the group.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41905_Anti-Muslim_Demagogue_Pamela_Gellers_Firehose_of_Hate_Speech

re: #80 wrenchwench

I see you have been studying your Robert Spencer.

THIS, along with the absurd claim that “it is not as difficult for Christians to tolerate separation of church and state…” You’d think that the Reformation & Enlightenment in the West were orderly, bloodless transitions. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

You know that book on the history of antisemitism that I’ve been working my way thorough and keep bringing up? As I’ve mentioned previously, it’s been a real eye-opener—the history & gradual changes in the Christian West look a LOT different when viewed from a Jewish perspective.

I’m currently on chapter 10 out of 16, which covers the post-Enlightenment modern era up to the late 19th century and the Age of Nationalism. That means there are still 6 chapters to go that cover antisemitism from the late 18th century to the present, including the horrors of the Holocaust. If we’re going to talk about groups of people and their collective guilt and/or responsibility for violent, intolerant behavior and harsh laws in recent time—let’s say the past 100 years—then “we” (people born & raised in the West) aren’t exactly shining examples of peace, moderation, and tolerance.

But not to worry, the cut-off date for bad behavior always seems to be conveniently just after the things people don’t like thinking about and/or don’t want to have to try to defend.

Oh, and the whole notion of Christians/Christianity somehow being more innately tolerant of and amenable to the separation of church & state based on a single biblical verse attributed to Jesus (a.s.) is laughable. Emphasis mine:

Post-Enlightenment Christology Christology

The scholarly reinterpretation of Jesus in the Enlightenment was not formally endorsed by any ecclesiastical tradition. Rather, it was the personal opinion of theologians that began to reorient Christian thinking about Jesus. The official teachings of all Christian churches, Protestant and Catholic alike, about Jesus remained largely unchanged. Christological reflection in the 19th century was encumbered by the critiques of the Enlightenment—the repudiation of the supernatural elements in the Gospels, the challenge to metaphysical thinking and to the notion of revealed morality. This assault on traditional views raised fundamental questions for the entire Christian religion and had substantial implications for Christology. […]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/115761/Christology/259394/Post-Enlightenment-Christology