The recent incident at Ft. Hood is no doubt a horrible tragedy, and it raises many questions about mental health in the military, the stress experienced by those pre-deployment, the reality of PTSD, and on and on and on. But, of course, what is making the biggest headlines and is on the tip of everyone’s tongue, is that the perpetrator of the heinous act is Arabic and a Muslim.
Of course that connection cannot be denied, and there is always the possibility that the act was religiously motivated, but the fact that the news-making capability of a mentally ill individual, or someone who cannot handle the stress of looking down the barrel of the gun of deployment, pales in comparison to an act of Islamic violence against America cannot be denied either. And this, of course, brings up the ever-present feelings of Blind Nationalism that are festering in the heart of the good o’l US of A.
On a news call-in show this morning, a gentleman from a southern state called in to quote the Koran. After pronouncing words wrong, he proceeded to read from the often used section about non-Muslims as infidels, blah, blah, blah, and they should be killed, blah, blah, blah, unless they convert to Islam, yadda, yadda, yadda. And then used this as the basis for his claim that Muslims should not be allowed to serve in the US military.
Seriously? This dude actually committed this act of stupidity on a nationally-aired, well-respected radio program. ON F$%&ING NPR! What did he really think the reaction would be? “Oh southern racist guy [yes this is an assumption on the Awesomizer's part that this jackhole is also a racist as well as anti-Muslim], of course you’re right! There is at least one section in the Koran that claims that Westerners are infidels and should be killed. That is a perfectly reasonable basis for a claim that those who practice Islam should not be allowed to serve their country!”
It’s astounding and flabbergasting to me how these religious texts are used like quick reference manuals for argument rather than pieces of collected history and theology that need to be interpreted in historical, social, and political contexts.
Oh, but we do, and we do it a lot.
Turn to designated argument section A, to make point B, rinse, and repeat.
What I truly love about this particular example of idiocy is what is commonly referred to as the pot calling the kettle black. This guy that references the overused section about infidels that the lunatic, fundamentalist fringe of Islam uses to justify terrorist acts, is probably the same guy who is a member of the Christian lunatic, fundamentalist fringe that clings to the overused, archaic section of the Bible to justify hate crimes against homosexuals or immigrants, or other races, or whatever. “Gays shouldn’t be able to get married because of what it says in Leviticus!” And then some dude empties his gun into an abortion doctor.
Sound familiar? Does this mean that Christian Fundamentalists shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns?
Holy F$%&ING hell … perish the thought!
But that seems to me to be the same amount of logic inherent in this guy’s claims to ban Muslims from serving in the US military. One bad apple ruined the whole bunch.
But maybe he’s on to something there … maybe Christian Fundamentalists shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns … hmmmmm. But that’s for another post.
The point here is that fundamentalism is fundamentalism, no matter what book you use to justify your claims. And it leads to violence no matter what passage you choose.
What we forget is that Islamic Fundamentalism is the flavor of the day … we Christians did and still do practice our fair share. It’s just not what’s hot right now. But some of you may remember something called the Inquisition? Happened in Europe a few years back. There was something in there about Jews needing to convert to Catholicism or … you know, something bad would happen. I think some people died as a result. A bunch of them fled to other countries. Sounds a bit like the passage from the Koran our radio pal read … convert or else, right? I wonder what passage in the Bible justified their claims?
These are books, people, written by men. They are religiously and politically motivated texts that were written centuries ago. They do, perhaps, map out pathways for coexistence with others, codes of conduct to help us get along … you know, Thou Shalt Not Kill and whatnot? I think the Koran does stuff like that, too.
But what happened back then is not the same as what is happening now. When the Koran tells you to kill the Infidels unless they convert, chances are the political situation at the time of writing was kill or be killed. Which is still the case in many places nowadays. Especially when an army comes in and starts killing you. And then comes back a few years later and starts killing you again.
And we wonder why Fundamentalism survives.
But thank God we’ve got idiots who are willing to point these things out for us on the radio.
