Shea,, to associate one of the world's largest religions (essentially 1/3 of the entire world) with the single act of 9/11 is flat out wrong.
It shows that we as Americans really need to broaden our understanding and perspective.
9/11 was no more a Muslim act of terror than the bombing of the Oklahoma City building was a christian act (antigovernment militias regularly espouse Christianity), or the KKK lynchings in the name of God and Christianity were *Christian* attacks.
No one in their right mind would EVER protest a church being built next to the blown up federal building because Timothy McVeigh probably called himself a Christian, or attempt to ban a religion from being practiced because many of the worlds great mass murderes have used the excuse of God's righteous wrath in the commission of their great crimes.
On one hand you have 9/11 - a group of people who happened to be Muslim engaging in an act of terror that really had more to do with opposition to US regional allegiances (many of them Muslim governments) and international policy. Being from the Middle East, they attack under the banner of Islam.
On the other hand you have Islam - whose practice is generally as "peaceful" as any major world religion. You can find people killing for "Catholicism" in Ireland, or for "Christianity" in Africa.
The banner that you fly when you attack someone has less to do with the "bad" or "good" nature of your own religion but factors of geography; where you are from, how you were raised, your ethnicity, etc.
Had the hijackers been from Latin America, they may have used the guise of socialism, revolution, or social justice.
Had they been from America, they would likely have waged the act under the banner of freedom, democracy, or liberty. (Look at our justification for invading Iraq and Afghanistan)
Millions have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since we invaded under the guise of freedom and democracy. Can there now be neither freedom nor democracy in either of those countries? No, because invading a country forcefully is neither an organic act of free will by its people nor is it democratic.
In other words, the US invasions of those countries do not fully represent freedom and democracy, just as 9/11 does not represent Islam.
Defining an entire section of the world or an entire major world religion based on actions by an insane minority is at best short-sighted and at worst totalitarian.
America is acting like the villagers in a torch mob. Our democracy is *better* because we can (and should always) look past the simple distinctions that we use to divide and classify the rest of the world and allow everyone to partake in our society.
Banning the mosque based on some narrow idea of the meaning of Islam or 9/11 is not what we are all about. We should be *more* of an example and *more* accepting in the face of 9/11, not less, or else we run the risk of having the same mentality as those who perpetrated it..
It shows that we as Americans really need to broaden our understanding and perspective.
9/11 was no more a Muslim act of terror than the bombing of the Oklahoma City building was a christian act (antigovernment militias regularly espouse Christianity), or the KKK lynchings in the name of God and Christianity were *Christian* attacks.
No one in their right mind would EVER protest a church being built next to the blown up federal building because Timothy McVeigh probably called himself a Christian, or attempt to ban a religion from being practiced because many of the worlds great mass murderes have used the excuse of God's righteous wrath in the commission of their great crimes.
On one hand you have 9/11 - a group of people who happened to be Muslim engaging in an act of terror that really had more to do with opposition to US regional allegiances (many of them Muslim governments) and international policy. Being from the Middle East, they attack under the banner of Islam.
On the other hand you have Islam - whose practice is generally as "peaceful" as any major world religion. You can find people killing for "Catholicism" in Ireland, or for "Christianity" in Africa.
The banner that you fly when you attack someone has less to do with the "bad" or "good" nature of your own religion but factors of geography; where you are from, how you were raised, your ethnicity, etc.
Had the hijackers been from Latin America, they may have used the guise of socialism, revolution, or social justice.
Had they been from America, they would likely have waged the act under the banner of freedom, democracy, or liberty. (Look at our justification for invading Iraq and Afghanistan)
Millions have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since we invaded under the guise of freedom and democracy. Can there now be neither freedom nor democracy in either of those countries? No, because invading a country forcefully is neither an organic act of free will by its people nor is it democratic.
In other words, the US invasions of those countries do not fully represent freedom and democracy, just as 9/11 does not represent Islam.
Defining an entire section of the world or an entire major world religion based on actions by an insane minority is at best short-sighted and at worst totalitarian.
America is acting like the villagers in a torch mob. Our democracy is *better* because we can (and should always) look past the simple distinctions that we use to divide and classify the rest of the world and allow everyone to partake in our society.
Banning the mosque based on some narrow idea of the meaning of Islam or 9/11 is not what we are all about. We should be *more* of an example and *more* accepting in the face of 9/11, not less, or else we run the risk of having the same mentality as those who perpetrated it..
