Islam is a religion of peace, therefore the perpetrators of this latest crime are not real Muslims.
What exactly does that mean? Isn't that true of everything after a fashion? It's a statement that looks logical but I'm certain contains a fallacy though for the life of me I don't know which one (or ones). I never took a logic class. I wish I had.
It just seems like a statement to absolve a group from any and all responsibility like what you read on practically every vitamin bottle/health food container after beneficial claims are made. There's always that asterisk: THESE STATEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED BY THE FDA. THIS PRODUCT IS NOT INTENDED TO DIAGNOSE, TREAT, CURE OR PREVENT ANY DISEASE.
It's not that the claims are necessarily bullshit, it's just that no one has bothered to subject them to rigorous scientific scrutiny but the fact remains that statement can be made in small print on the backside of the package while the beneficial claims can be made boldly, front & center.
It's like a purity test. Only 100% counts. Anything less and they're not a real or true X. I mean, would you still consider a person a vegan if they ate meat ignorantly served to them (so as to be polite/not waste food) or if they were to accidentally eat meat or put on a borrowed pair of leather shoes because their feet were sore? I would.
It would seem strange and petty to strip someone of their title for committing an act of politeness or accidentally transgressing, no?
Is Islam an inherently war-like religion? I don't know and I doubt it. Most people seem content to live their lives without bothering anybody or imposing upon them.
If I had to guess, I would say Islam is more a convenient tool for terrorism than a cause of it. I mean, the Bible is full of heinous stories that I'm guessing people would rather ignore/forget (and certainly not act upon) in order to focus on the good stuff. It strikes me as no different than those would use immigrants or those not of their race as scapegoats for current problems rather to tackle those problems in earnest. It seems easier to gather people to your will in anger, envy, and violence than it does to bring people together for a common good. Humanity doesn't seem to like the idea of a rising tide lifting all boats. We appear to remain a selfish lot who would wish only for ourselves and our loyal group to be raised thusly, leaving the rest to suffer and believe in our hearts that they are inferior and deserving of their fate.
You have a combination of shared religious identity and the cultural memory that your religion was once very powerful and commanding. What greater way to sway a disadvantaged group to your side is there than the promise of a return to "the good old days"?
And that, is what I think is going on.
Though I think those who proffer such statements of So&So is not a real X because of Y are just trying to rationalize, more to themselves than to others, that nothing is rotten in the state of Denmark. They don't want to accept the possibility that people could be motivated to commit to heinous acts, violent acts, terroristic acts, etc. in the name of X group.
I don't know what I'm trying to say so I'll end it here...
ADDENDUM (03/17/2015): I have recently been informed by Alias TBA that what I am thinking of is an informal fallacy called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy which appears to be part of a larger fallacy group called the Ad Hoc Hypothesis. Good to know :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment