Nothing argues more eloquently against the racist tendency to treat young black men on the street with suspicious caution than yelling "This is for Trayvon Martin" while you beat up and rob a citizen. Dr. King would be proud.
Doesn't it put you in mind of Muslims who threaten to kill people who accuse Islam of not being the religion of peace? (And to be equal-opportunity about it, the same charge might be laid at the feet of the Spanish Conquistadors.)
I recall Sirhan Sirhan arguing that, if Robert Kennedy were alive today, he'd support SS's parole application.
Did the conquistadors threaten to kill people for suggesting that they weren't peaceful? Or did they just kill people in the course of conquering territory? Their actions don't seem to me to partake in the weird doublethink of the "Behead those who say Islam is not peaceful!" protesters.
No, I just meant that the conquistadors were prepared to murder people who refused to acknowledge the validity of the conquistadors' religion. "My religion teaches love and mercy! If you refuse to believe that, I'll kill you!"
Not just the conquistadors, of course; it was a rampant problem in Europe for centuries.
I don't mean to imply that they were worse people than us. If we don't persecute in the name of religion so much any more, I suspect it's because few people believe in their hearts that conversion could really be that important. It's easy to be tolerant when you don't care. And even in the 16th century, there were people who avoided this error.
6 comments:
I suppose it is clarifying, in its way.
Those who commit a crime while crying out "This is for Trayvon Martin" had better hope their victim isn't carrying a pistol.
Doesn't it put you in mind of Muslims who threaten to kill people who accuse Islam of not being the religion of peace? (And to be equal-opportunity about it, the same charge might be laid at the feet of the Spanish Conquistadors.)
I recall Sirhan Sirhan arguing that, if Robert Kennedy were alive today, he'd support SS's parole application.
(And to be equal-opportunity about it, the same charge might be laid at the feet of the Spanish Conquistadors.)
Except that the Spanish Catholics, and Christianity generally, cut out that sort of thing a few years ago. Much of Islam is still at it.
Eric Hines
Did the conquistadors threaten to kill people for suggesting that they weren't peaceful? Or did they just kill people in the course of conquering territory? Their actions don't seem to me to partake in the weird doublethink of the "Behead those who say Islam is not peaceful!" protesters.
No, I just meant that the conquistadors were prepared to murder people who refused to acknowledge the validity of the conquistadors' religion. "My religion teaches love and mercy! If you refuse to believe that, I'll kill you!"
Not just the conquistadors, of course; it was a rampant problem in Europe for centuries.
I don't mean to imply that they were worse people than us. If we don't persecute in the name of religion so much any more, I suspect it's because few people believe in their hearts that conversion could really be that important. It's easy to be tolerant when you don't care. And even in the 16th century, there were people who avoided this error.
Post a Comment