Is the problem in the war on terror Islam??

AM Talker host suspended for calling Islam terror org

from JoeUser Forums
Morning show host Michael Graham of WMAL AM630 (D.C. area) has been temporarily suspended for calling Islam a mantra of terror and hate, and basically stating that the problem with the war on terror is Islam, not just a few radical Muslims.

Check out The Washington Post, http://www.dcrtv.com and other sites for the news on the suspension. Sorry, no link for this one... don't want some people to think I'm getting someone to ghost write my conservative blog entries now, do I?

Ignoring the sources for the information, the question I would toss up for discussion is the basic question the talk show host addresses -- is the problem Islam, or is it not?

I know it's generally not a good idea to generalize, but does the host have a point?

To me, at least on one part of the statement, theres a lot of truth and insight. As some listeners commented in supporting Graham (via the DCRTV web site's mailbag), many Islamist's have quietly ignored the terror, and have been loath to comment about the attacks that were committed against the U.S., Spain, and the U.K. Even if they don't support the terror tactics, they don't condemn them. They hide behind statements claiming that to apologize and/or condemn these terrorists would be to accept some blame for what they do, or to acknowledge an implication that Islam = terror. But in doing so, they leave themselves open to be pointed at as supporting the terrorists and failing to support the U.S., Spain, the U.K. and others that have been victimized.

In anycase, Graham has been suspended, but will likely be back very soon, despite efforts by Arab American and Islamist organizations that are demanding his head on the virtual platter. Thanks to the publicity of the incident and suspension, Graham will likely bring in more listeners and get more attention for himself and his employer.

Comments and thoughts?
politics
3,469 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is a difficult one. You have already correctly identified the main problem which is the difficulty of generalising. For example you mention Arab Americans; I was very surprised to discover that, because of where they originally emigrated from, the majority of Arab Americans are actually christians.

So, in terms of generalisations all we can say is:
1. some muslims are involved in terrorism or supporting it.
2. some muslims "hide behind statements claiming that to apologize and/or condemn these terrorists would be to accept some blame for what they do, or to acknowledge an implication that Islam = terror".
3. some muslims are sickened by it and have condemned it in the strongest possible terms.
4. some muslims have been victims of terrorism.

I think that's about as far as we can say. Which of those 'somes' make up majority opinion I can't really say, but I believe and hope that it is group 3.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's put it this way; if there was a rogue Christian Fundamentalist group that believed sowing terror and death on all other religions was the right thing to do, how would mainstream Christians react ? We already know how the 'victimized' people of other religions would react but just how would mainstream Christians react in this scenario? I bet there would be some who would be circumspective too and hold back on their finger-pointing for wanting to find out why the religion they have lived all their lives with (in this hypothetical instance,Christianity) is suddenly turning to a violent direction or for just plain fear of being alluded to as a terrorist if they go on high profile, even if what they wanted to do was condemn the violent actuation.
If we generalize, we simplify the problem in our minds, but we actually make it worse by applying just one solution for differing problems.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay, I originally had a much longer answer using Christianity and Crusades/Inquisition as a contrast, but I'm going to chop it down to this:

As much as I'd like to be anti-Islam on this, I think we have to hold the individuals responsible for their particular interpretation. Those people would come to a similar conclusion and use their belief system to justify their actions regardless of what that belief system was. It comes down to the type of people they are and the kind of actions they would perform irrespective of any other factor. Everything else is just excuses to justify what they would be doing anyway.

It's not Islam's fault even though these sorry assed murderers use Islam as their excuse.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't hold a jaundiced view of Muslims regarding "racial profiling," etc. because it doesn't change the fact that the majority of individuals perpetrating these acts do match a certain profile. It just means that we need to recognize that it's not the religion's fault, even while recognizing that it's individuals within that religion whom we seek.

If this was the Middle Ages and I was a Turkish border guard I'd certainly look 12 times at anyone sporting a cross, no matter how favorably I might personally look upon their religion as a whole. (Okay, if I was a Turk soldier in the Middle Ages and I saw a guy sporting a cross, I'd run him through. But you get the point. )


That said, the host shouldn't have been suspended. If they wouldn't suspend someone for going on about Islam being "the religion of love" they shouldn't suspend someone for saying they believe the opposite, especially when it's that person's job to provoke discussion.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ok, here is the deal.

Michael Graham used to be the afternoon drive guy here in Richmond.  He is conservative, but he is very good and not a radical right.  He got a promo to DC.

His replacement is Mac Watson.  A total and unmitigated jerk, who decided to play Adolf Hitler's speeches and claim they were Pope Benedict XVI's.  He suffered no consequences.

So all you holy rollers of PC, what is worse.  Claiming a religion where SOME of the leaders are calling for the erradication of all non believers evil?

Or claiming, through demonstration and insinuation, that a religion that is actively persecuting pedophiles and advocating peace, is nothing but a Nazi Front.

Thanks Terpfan for keeping me up to date on Michael Graham.  He is more than welcome back here any time.  ANd for the rest of you, chew on the above as it is real life.  Not your pathetic hypothetical PC crap that we all love to debate.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not your pathetic hypothetical PC crap that we all love to debate


???

. 1.some muslims are involved in terrorism or supporting it.

2. some muslims "hide behind statements claiming that to apologize and/or condemn these terrorists would be to accept some blame for what they do, or to acknowledge an implication that Islam = terror".
3. some muslims are sickened by it and have condemned it in the strongest possible terms.

4. some muslims have been victims of terrorism.


pathetic hypothetical PC crap? really?!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK, with you now.

The anti-catholic thing though doesn't seem to be just a modern 'liberal' thing. I believe that the Founding Fathers had some outrageous things to say about 'popery' - which may explain why all those catholic French Canadians fought so hard for King George in 1812.

In the UK there is a similar trend. One proposed solution was to extend ancient blasphemy laws to also cover other faiths - rather than scrap them altogether, which would be my liberal [in the real meaning of the word] solution. Thankfully, we haven't heard much about that one recently.

The UK government is also working on new legislation to outlaw "incitement to religious hatred" based on the current laws against 'inciting racial hatred'. This has caused a lot of concern from civil libertarians that even stand up comics could fall foul of the law, but the government insists that the bill has not been drafted in this way and is about "protecting the believer, not the belief".

One thing I would point out. It often seems to conservatives that the 'liberals' collectively are anti-Christian, yet willing to stick up for any other religion, but I think if you look into it you find that there are different kinds of liberals at work. Those libs who do hate Christianity are usually unlikely to give Islam the time of day either; those who stick up for Islam, will probably not be amongst the most ferocious anti-christian elements.