The predictable arc of the discussion in the thread below about Islamic terrorism in Mumbai calls for a restatement of a principle defined on this blog almost one year ago: Manning's Corollary to Godwin's Law, which holds that the longer an Internet discussion goes on, the greater the certainty that someone will invoke Hitler or the Nazis as a comparision.
Here's Manning's Corollary, named for the CC blog's co-captain Erin Manning, who in some fashion lost in the mists of time, discerned it:
In any online conversation about an incident of violence perpetrated by adherents of Islamic fundamentalism, the conversation will inevitably devolve into claims that Christians commit the same type and degree of violent acts, regardless of how demonstrably false that is; further, the claim will be made that past historical violence involving Christians means that present-day Christians are morally incapable of denouncing current violence involving Muslims.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
*sigh*
Rod, why are you trying to justify Hindu violence such as this?
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03EEDD1031F932A35750C0A9649C8B63
www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/february02/india_2-28.html
"The worst rioting occurred in Ahmadabad, Guajarat's major city. There nearly 2,000 rioters looted and set fire to nearly 50 Muslim-owned businesses and homes in the predominantly Hindu city.
In the residential Meghaninagar neighborhood, rioters poured kerosene on homes and ignited them, burning at least 38 Muslims, including 12 children, to death.
The police told the Associated Press they had already removed 18 bodies from the smoldering homes, and reported seeing at least eight adults and 12 children still inside.
Several witnesses reported that in parts of Ahmadabad, police watched the rioting, occasionally firing tear gas as an angry mob burned and pillaged Muslim-owned buildings."
Why are you justifying the actions of the Indian government against Muslims?
Rax: "I am not Christian, I am Hindu, and *I* denounce Muslim violence."
I join you in that denunciation, Rax. Will you join me in denouncing Hindu violence against Muslims in India?
I like your thinking Larry. There could be some consolation if one was to buy into Christianity, I'm an atheist for what it's worth, that those righteous whites who approved separate water fountains are rotting in Hell as we speak.
Southern accents would be rare in Heaven I guess.
I need to do some other stuff right now, but I wanted to post this comment that I came across in the Guardian. I think it provides some good perspective on some of these issues:
Bhutti82 at 11/30/08 - 3:38 a.m.
" . . . Laskar-e-Toiba's [one of the groups with probable ties to the Mumbai terrorists] professed goal as articulated [by] Hafiz Mohammed Saeed is 'restoration of Islamic rule over South Asia.' Therefore, I am not sure how much a peaceful and honourable resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Issue would quench the thirst of blood of this murderous group.
India has indeed made several mistakes with its policies in the State of Kashmir - with its rigging of 1987 elections, continued use of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act which is creating fresh constituencies of dissent day by day.
But I wonder why most observers gloss over the role of Pakistan and other Islamist forces in this troubled region. Even as I must oppose the crocodile tears of RSS and BJP (which did not take a single step to provide permanent settlement for the refugees living in the camps during its 6 year rule) on the Kashmiri Pandit issue, I cannot ever reiterate enough that the only ethnic cleansing that has happened in the state is of Kashmiri Pandits by Hizbul Mujahideen and other Islamist forces nuturing dreams of an Islamic Kashmir.[That would be between 400,000 and 500,000 Kashmiri Pandits driven into exile from Kashmir as a result of specifically islamic threats of genocide and calls for the imposition of shariah in the 1990's. Though there have been plenty of abuses on the Indian side, the population movements in the subcontintent since partition - and an honest review of the legal codes and practices of the coutries concerned, including some unwritten but widely accepted legal practices of islamic shariah - tell much of the real story].
The fact that the State comprises of Ladakh and Jammu as well has never concerned them at all. For all the talk of Islamic unity, the treatment of Pahadis, Kargili Shias, Gujjars and people of Jammu by the people of valley is nothing less than shameful.
It is also amazing how most writers gloss over the fact that one of the first things pro-Pakistan Hizbul Mujahideen did after its formation was to eliminate cadres and ideologues of the pro-independence Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front. Every single 'separatist' leader who took a line against the HM like the late Mirwaiz and late Abdul Ghani Lone have been assassinated in the last 15 years. So much for their respect for right to self-determination. [I believe these are muslims who favored a separate, or at least a more autonomous state in this part of Kashmir, but whose agenda did not coincide with that of the islamists, "Hizbul Majahideen," who seem to be gaining power as a result of their brutality (as usual).]
The status of Kashmiris in Pak-Occupied Kashmir/Azad Kashmir/ Pak Administered Kashmir is nothing comparable to the constitutionally protected status of Jammu and Kashmir. Admittedly, article 370 has been emasculated over the years, but it has had enough strength to prevent demographic changes in the State unlike that in the Pakistani side.
Mr. Darlymple has done a great harm to his own credibility by referring to the commitment on referendum but completely failing to mention that the UN resolution also stipulated a complete withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the State of Jammu and Kashmir which has never happened in all the years.
The narrative of Indian forces oppressing the Kashmiris and neat parallels with Israel-Palestine dispute may very sound appealing but the reality is a lot more complex and layered with tussles between competing notions of Kashmiri nationalism, widespread human rights violations by Indian Army, forced displacement of a sizeable minority, under-representation of Ladakh, Jammu and growing influence of the most regressive form of Islam hell-bent on destroying the syncretic and plural nature of religious practices in the State."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/30/mumbai-terror-attacks-india1
I find it interesting that on another thread many people held that it was unChristian to use a violence to protect family from violence.
Now on this thread it seems many (the same?) people that it is very Christian to use violence to kill innocent people.
If anyone actually believes those two propositions, it would be no wonder that they weren't Christians themselves.
No, the wonder lies elsewhere.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.