Jane_the_Bane
Gaia's godchild
- Feb 11, 2004
- 19,359
- 3,426
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- UK-Greens
The OP is technically correct, but Islamophobes use its arguments in disingenuous and hypocritical ways.
When we see malicious offshoots of our specific world view (be they religious, political, cultural, or whatever), of COURSE we are tempted to argue that they are not "true" [insert name]: their views do not line up with ours, their reading of authoritative or fundamental concepts diverges wildly from what we see there, and it is perfectly plain to us that they must be "wrong".
I'm pretty sure the same people who are eager to point out that ISIS = (one form of) Islam will absolutely refuse to acknowledge the KKK as (one form of) Christianity.
(Or, if they happen to be atheists, that the French Reign of Terror, the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, or the Stalinist purges were motivated by (one form of) atheist world views.)
And technically, they are not entirely wrong to assess it like that, either: ISIS is a dirt-poor reading of Islam, just as the KKK is a horrible perversion of Christianity, and the Khmer Rouge would make Karl Marx spin in his grave.
Here's the kicker:
In the end, it doesn't matter how well or how poorly a specific interpretation of a world view lines up with the source material - what matters is that there's a community of believers who embraces it in this form.
Why? Because people in the KKK or ISIS can just turn around and say: "Nope, all of these others aren't TRUE muslims/Christians, because my reading of scripture says so."
Also, what does it matter that Evangelical Christianity sounds beautiful on paper when its adherents then support putting brown-skinned toddlers in cages, venerate a billionaire con man like a messianic figure and promote the most dog-eat-dog economic system imaginable?
When we see malicious offshoots of our specific world view (be they religious, political, cultural, or whatever), of COURSE we are tempted to argue that they are not "true" [insert name]: their views do not line up with ours, their reading of authoritative or fundamental concepts diverges wildly from what we see there, and it is perfectly plain to us that they must be "wrong".
I'm pretty sure the same people who are eager to point out that ISIS = (one form of) Islam will absolutely refuse to acknowledge the KKK as (one form of) Christianity.
(Or, if they happen to be atheists, that the French Reign of Terror, the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, or the Stalinist purges were motivated by (one form of) atheist world views.)
And technically, they are not entirely wrong to assess it like that, either: ISIS is a dirt-poor reading of Islam, just as the KKK is a horrible perversion of Christianity, and the Khmer Rouge would make Karl Marx spin in his grave.
Here's the kicker:
In the end, it doesn't matter how well or how poorly a specific interpretation of a world view lines up with the source material - what matters is that there's a community of believers who embraces it in this form.
Why? Because people in the KKK or ISIS can just turn around and say: "Nope, all of these others aren't TRUE muslims/Christians, because my reading of scripture says so."
Also, what does it matter that Evangelical Christianity sounds beautiful on paper when its adherents then support putting brown-skinned toddlers in cages, venerate a billionaire con man like a messianic figure and promote the most dog-eat-dog economic system imaginable?
Upvote
0