Where there's power to be taken, nothing is sacred. As long as we give these extremists even the time of day, they are winning.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071221015548AA... And the Bible, for good measure.
But it's here, so... From a logical and humanist point of view I would say that the FBI looking out for people who adhere to violent and radical philosophies is a valid activity no matter if the background is islamic or not. There is certainly a point to be made that mainstream Islam is more radical than the mainstream of many other religions on the basis that it is one of the last mainstream movements violently opposed to human rights and democracy. Whether that is universally true I cannot verify and I doubt the FBI can either.
I certainly know a few Muslims who are about as pious as the average Christian who only goes to church when weddings and funerals are taking place. Whether those people are mainstream Muslims and mainstream Christians as opposed to "mainstream citizens" I cannot say and it would probably be counterproductive for law enforcement to make assumptions on what "mainstream" actually means in practice.
I have been trying to figure out what you mean by this, to no success. Does the violence against blacks in the US during the mid-1900s Civil Rights movement, to say nothing of slavery in the 1800s, carried out often by pious Christians certain of the morality of what they were doing, not serve as an example of a "mainstream movement violently opposed to human rights and democracy" within the Christian faith?
I also point out the numerous dictatorships in Central and South America, in devoutly Catholic countries, held by force of arms. The estimated 30,000 desaparecidos of Argentina are certainly due to nothing other than "violent opposition to human rights and democracy", and the actions of the government was certainly influenced by the conservative Catholic views of the leaders - the leader Oganía dedicated the country to the "protection and intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary."
The third largest religious group, after Christianity and Islam, is Hinduism. I honestly have no idea how the tenants of that religion affect, say, caste violence in India. Since it's one of the mainstream movements you mentioned, perhaps you can say something about it?
I think so, yes. Have I given you reason to believe I would have liked to exclude that? I apologize if I didn't express myself clearly enough. My point was not to single out Islam and/or to absolve any other religion. For the record, I don't have a stake in any of them, either.
> I honestly have no idea how the tenants of that religion affect, say, caste violence in India.
Neither do I. I think we're on the same page here, just maybe looking at it from different angles. The majority of my post could have been expressed as "what does mainstream mean, anyway?" I did express a belief that violent preachings and principles do have an influence on the behavior of the majority of believers, however. The way I see it from the outside, "moderate" Islam is still pretty radical because it is still in opposition to the principles of a free society. But it's wrong to assume that I wouldn't apply the same reasoning to, say, the Old Testament or whatever. It's not a zero-sum game, one religion's horror does not automatically make the other ones better. And of course, even a peaceful religion can breed violent fanatics.
Coming back to the article itself, I think that the FBI would do good to look at the content that is being preached at individual mosques, because I do believe there is a correlation from this to violence perpetrated (not only terrorism per se, but also things like domestic violence) - and to reserve judgement based on some definition of what's mainstream. And yes, I would suggest the same scrutiny for the Westboro Baptist Church.
