Just reported out of Mumbai: the hostages at the Chabad center are dead. Moshe Holtzberg, the two year old son of the rabbi and his wife, a child who escaped with the center's cook, is now an orphan.
Thanks, Muslim terrorists! You do so much for the world. Your Mumbai adventures on behalf of your faith have killed scores of people, and have jacked up tensions between two nuclear powers that hate each other. And now there are reports that British nationals of Pakistani origin may be involved in the attack -- something that, if true, could make life very difficult for Brit-Paks.
Good thing this bloody-minded intolerance is limited to a small number of Muslims, right? Except for the 10,000 to 20,000 ordinary Muslims who assaulted a Coptic Christian church in Cairo this week. Excerpt:
It is the latest of many acts of violence against Christians. The Copts are the main religious minority living in Egypt, and represent 15% of the population, out of a total of 80 million inhabitants. Over the last 30 years, it is estimated that about 4,000 Christians have been killed or injured in attacks. In 2008, there have been dozens of events similar to the one that happened to the community in the suburb of Cairo.
Didn't you hear about that? If a mob that large in a Christian country, or in Israel, had surrounded a mosque and launched a similar attack, don't you think you would have heard of it in the Western media? Don't you think you should have heard about such a shocking incidence of religious violence? Don't you think you should have heard about this one against Egyptian Christians?
Close your eyes and say "religion of peace" often enough, and it will be as if none of this ever happened. Look, I know that not all Muslims, nor, possibly, most Muslims, are behind these attacks. But the points made by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed in the wake of the Beslan massacre are as relevant today as they were then. Excerpt:
It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.
Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.
Bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.
What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement". Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?
These images, when put together, or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing.
As al-Rashed wrote at the time, "Terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women." Still is. Look at today's headlines. Draw the obvious conclusion.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"On the one hand, politicians aren't supposed to interfere with medical judgment when it comes to abortion. On the other hand, they ARE supposed to interfere with a pharmacist's medical judgment against dispensing a lethal product."
A "lethal product" that is usually prescribed by a doctor after consultation between the doctor and the patient. In the case of OTC drugs, a drug approved by the medical establishment and the government. If the pharmacist thinks it is "lethal," they should take it up with the FDA, but if it is being prescribed in acceptable dosages, it should be dispensed.
OTOH, if we believe pharmacists should have a conscience clause for doing their job, then why are they different from the store clerk or taxi driver who won't touch alcohol or pork? Is it because one is the dominant faith, and one a reviled minority faith?
OTOH, if we believe pharmacists should have a conscience clause for doing their job, then why are they different from the store clerk or taxi driver who won't touch alcohol or pork? Is it because one is the dominant faith, and one a reviled minority faith?
One big difference is that pharmacies are often required to carry these products, as a matter of law. The owner of the pharmacy has no choice in carrying the product, but the conscience clauses give pharmacists a way to work without violating their beliefs. If the law allowed pharmacies not to carry RU-486 and other abortifacients you might have a point. I'm not sure what happens when none of the pharmacists in a store will dispense product.
And there is not question that the drugs are lethal, they are just lethal to people whom our culture does not value, so they do not count.
Islam is very much a religion of peace.
Why don't you take cognizance of the fact that they killed only about 200 'infidels' in Mumbai, when they could have killed thousands, given the amount of ammo they had. These terrorists were peace-loving messengers of Allah. Don't vilify them, please...
(Psst...Fellow infidels, stop writing blogs and start living your lives. We may not have much time to live left)...
Re: One big difference is that pharmacies are often required to carry these products, as a matter of law.
Can you cite such a law verbatim from the statute books? I have never heard of law that requires a pharamacy to carry any particular drug, with the possible exception of drugs that might be deemed essential in the event of a major public emeregency (and I doubt these drugs would meet that criterion).
"There is no persecution of Muslims in India, and in places where they are in the majority, their culture is pervasive. Attacks by Islamic extremists in India have nothing to do with persecution of a "minority", they are just a wish to dominate and terrorize everyone who is non-Muslim. It's the same with the conflict in Kashmir."
Actually, there is quite a bit of violence against Muslims in that nation. The fact that you do not know this might color your opinion of the conflict over there.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03EEDD1031F932A35750C0A9649C8B63
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/26/asia/AS-GEN-India-Religious-Violence.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/26/asia/AS-GEN-India-Religious-Violence.php
We have a situation in India that is not unlike the conflict in Northern Ireland or Palestine, with both sides claiming that the other started this. The complexity that has been alluded to here on this post by some comments is precisely that this is more than just Muslim terrorism with no other purpose.
But as usual, Rod does not see beyond his own suspicions of Muslims. Apparently when Hindus burn Muslims alive in their own apartments it's not blogworthy or worth commenting on as a possible factor in the horrible violence of last week.
This seems to be a common fault of conservatism...the inability to see the big picture. It happens frequently when conservatives begin talking about foreign relations, especially conflicts such as the one taking place in India. They see only the immediate, and react based on that. Their myopia leads them to make huge mistakes, such as the Iraq invasion.
Perhaps that is the biggest change that needs to happen in the conservative movement...a widening of vision to encompass all the complexity in modern society. A terrorist act may be a simple thing. But it should not be looked at outside of the context. The killings of this past week cannot be explained apart from the killings described in the three articles I link to above.
To attempt to do so is pure and simple stupidity.
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.