Post by anni on Jun 23, 2016 14:11:09 GMT -8
Stolen from our vacationing Roberta's FaceBook page. So great and timely. From the GNP's column, In Theory: Is 'Radical Islam' a Fair Term to Use?
After the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando last weekend, the term "radical Islam" has been a hot-button issue. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has spoken out several times, criticizing President Obama for not using the term.
"People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Islamic terrorism,'" Trump said last week.
In response, Obama said the term was "a political distraction."
"What exactly would using this label accomplish?" Obama asked last Tuesday during a press conference. "Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away."
Q: Is the term "radical Islam" a fair term to use? What, if anything, is gained or lost when those words are used?
Did we hear "radical Catholicism," or "radical Protestantism," even during the worst of the sectarian fighting in Northern Ireland, or "radical Christianity" when a reactionary born-again Christian shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic? No.
But this is not really about terminology, and in any case President Obama is criticized by the right wing on everything he says.
Our most recent — unless another gun horror overtakes In Theory's deadline; always possible given our lax firearm regulations and the abundance of powerful weapons floating around — mass killer was deeply confused about his politics, his religion and his sexuality, and was prone to violence. Many people in the U.S. are all these things.
The difference between yet another pitiable weirdo and a super-efficient murdering machine is the easy availability of weapons of war, guns without any useful civilian purpose except for enabling massacres like Orlando.
We have allowed this to happen and we can stop it. It takes only the will.
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose
After the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando last weekend, the term "radical Islam" has been a hot-button issue. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has spoken out several times, criticizing President Obama for not using the term.
"People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Islamic terrorism,'" Trump said last week.
In response, Obama said the term was "a political distraction."
"What exactly would using this label accomplish?" Obama asked last Tuesday during a press conference. "Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away."
Q: Is the term "radical Islam" a fair term to use? What, if anything, is gained or lost when those words are used?
Did we hear "radical Catholicism," or "radical Protestantism," even during the worst of the sectarian fighting in Northern Ireland, or "radical Christianity" when a reactionary born-again Christian shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic? No.
But this is not really about terminology, and in any case President Obama is criticized by the right wing on everything he says.
Our most recent — unless another gun horror overtakes In Theory's deadline; always possible given our lax firearm regulations and the abundance of powerful weapons floating around — mass killer was deeply confused about his politics, his religion and his sexuality, and was prone to violence. Many people in the U.S. are all these things.
The difference between yet another pitiable weirdo and a super-efficient murdering machine is the easy availability of weapons of war, guns without any useful civilian purpose except for enabling massacres like Orlando.
We have allowed this to happen and we can stop it. It takes only the will.
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose