Here is another very interesting article about the substance of the Pope's message that sparked the recent flurry of Muslim rage.
I must confess that it absolutely BAFFLES me that many in the West can be labeled "intolerant" for critiquing the teachings or actions of radical Muslims when, comparitively, they riot, destroy things and kill people (without condemnation from most other Muslims) when they are offended. Those two courses of action - argument versus violence - seem very different to me. If either should be labeled "intolerant" it should be the latter.
To me it seems very similar to two little school boys on the playground. The first boy tries to point out that the other boy is being rude or not sharing or something similar. Maybe the first boy even goes so far as to call the second boy a "jerk". The second boy, however, tears up the playground and beats up other kids because his feelings were hurt by what the first boy said.
As an adult, to get angry and punish the first boy seems irrational, doesn't it? Maybe you tell the first boy to keep his opinions, however valid they might be, to himself, but you don't spank him. You spank the second kid because that is what he deserves. What he did was wrong and he is responsible for his actions regardless of what the other kid said.
Didn't we all learn this in school? I think everyone else must have forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Good insight Scott.
Post a Comment