Christian/Islamic Fundamentalists Two Sides of the Same Coin? Think Again
April 27, 2007 · By George Freeman
Ted Byfield has a good article, There’s No Reason - Where do supposedly rationalist liberals get the demonstrably absurd idea that Christians are scary like radical Muslims?, in the Western Standard for May 7, 2007. His assessment is sound:
We stand for reason against faith, claims the liberal left. Do they, now? Perhaps they should re-examine their reasoning here. All those prone to terrorism are devout believers in God, they say. Christian “fundamentalists” are devout believers in God. Therefore Christian fundamentalists are prone to terrorism. In logic, I think this is called the “first fallacy.” It’s like saying, “All cats are animals. My dog is an animal. Therefore my dog is a cat.” In truth, liberals have at best an extremely shaky hold on reason. Maybe they should try faith instead.
Byfield cites a good exchange—a succinct comparison—in a recent radio interview:
[As compared to the odd shooting of an abortionist, there is] the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the nightclub in Bali, the theatre in Moscow, the school in Chechnya, the slaughter in Nigeria over a beauty contest—one death against thousands.
And if this isn’t enough of an obvious lack of equivalence, read about the gruesome torture and slaughter of Christian missionaries in Turkey:
According to the Washington-DC based human rights group International Christian Concern, the three were put through a horrific ordeal which included multiple stabbings before finally being killed.
An ICC statement tells: “As difficult and sorrowful as it is to learn more, we believe that we must expose the truly hellish nature of this attack for what it is.†……
ICC described the horrific ordeal in excruciating detail, which will only moderately be described in this report.
“They arrived, and reportedly, after Necati read a chapter from the Bible the assault began. The young men tied Ugur, Necati, and Tilman’s hands and feet to chairs as they videoed their work on their cellphones. What followed in the next three hours is beyond belief,†an ICC release has said.
ICC then continued to describe the nature of the torture, which included disembowelment, emasculation, and the slicing open of various orifices.
“Tilman was stabbed 156 times, Necati 99 times and Ugur’s stabs were too numerous to count. Finally, their throats were sliced from ear to ear, heads practically decapitated,†ICC reports.
In a letter from the church of these missionaries, the torture is described in even more gruesome detail:
[Details of the torture--
* Tilman was stabbed 156 times, Necati 99 times and Ugur’s stabs were too numerous to count. They were disemboweled, and their intestines sliced up in front of their eyes. They were emasculated and watched as those body parts were destroyed. Fingers were chopped off, their noses and mouths and anuses were sliced open. Possibly the worst part was watching as their brothers were likewise tortured. Finally, their throats were sliced from ear to ear, heads practically decapitated.]
Secular progressives are off their rocker with such glib comparison!
I don’t really feel inclined to check out an article whose key statements (at least the ones you chose to excerpt) start with such stupid generalizations.
“We stand for reason against faith, claims the liberal left.”
Stupid generalization. There’s no such thing as “THE” liberal left. The “left” (to the extent that such a thing exists) incorporates faithful of all religions.
“Do they, now? Perhaps they should re-examine their reasoning here.”
Or perhaps the writer should examine the foolish straw man he bases the rest of his argument on?
“All those prone to terrorism are devout believers in God, they say.”
Really? I’ve actually NEVER heard ANYONE say that. It’s demonstrably false, given that most of the terrorist groups active in South and Central America have no religious ties at all.
So the two first sentences that you’ve presented for discussion, George, represent two false and foolish statements. Arguments like that may of interest to the stupid who visit blogs for a quick hit of self-congratulatory affirmation (emphasis on the “tory”) - but when the preview contains so little of value, forgive me for not checking out the film.
The moral distinction between planting a bomb at an abortion clinic and hijacking an aircraft is what?
Sorry, but Byfield’s trying to trivialize a politically motivated murder (or the attempt of) by Christian Terrorists, and the actions of Islamic Terrorists. About the only difference I see is that both are using their religion to justify acting like thugs.
(Please note that I do not claim that all Christians are Terrorists (which is certainly the inference I read in Byfield’s blind generalizations)
Correction: (Please note that I do not claim that all Christians are Terrorists (which is certainly the inference I read in Byfield’s blind generalizations)
Should read:
(Please note that I do not claim that all Christians are Terrorists (which is certainly the inference I read in Byfield’s blind generalizations about Islam)
Balbulican’s critque of the post is more Leonard Maltin than Henry Mencken.
Shrug. An argument based on stupid premises is going to be a stupid argument, and life is short.
Islam is not religion of peace - but of war and hatred. If they can they will kill all the Christian, Jews, Budists and all others that are no muslim.
What we will do with this facts.
You can be the next!
[...] could all help him out — make it a group effort, as it were. So I figured I could start things off here, where The Politic’s George Freeman is just all gushy over the Western Standard’s resident [...]