I can't help but feel slightly irate at just how fickle society can be. It's taken me long enough to realise this, I know, but allow me to explain why.
I have just read with great frustration and irritation an article published on Cranmer's blog about a right wing author being banned from chairing a debate at the London School of Economics & Political Science entitled: ‘Islam or Liberalism: Which is the Way Forward?’. Supposedly, as a result of the Israeli attacks on Gaza, there is no debate to be had.
I suspect that students and staff fear that mere rational discussion of the issue would be deemed as "offensive" and "prejudiced against Muslims".
What complete and utter crap.
For decades, Christianity has long been the subject of endless mockery, criticism and scorn. I am aware that Christianity is not without flaws, as a result of what I believe is human error, and am not saying that people have no right to criticise. What I am saying is that Christianity is no less a faith or religion than Islam, or Sikhism, or Hinduism, or the Jedi Knight faith. Quite the opposite: it remains, contrary to popular belief, the world's most popular faith. Of course that probably means that it has every right to be subjected to criticism: it is not a minority and therefore does not need to be protected. In other words, society would rather see billions offended than millions, or even a few thousand...not exactly utilitarianism at its best, is it?
Anyway, stop rambling man...get to the point. Which is how fickle society is. In light of the recent attacks on Gaza, the topic of Islam, unless being heralded and praised, is frankly taboo. PLEASE NOTE I am not defending Israel...far from it, the violence is sickening and unjustifiable. But what I am saying is, suddenly when Muslims are the victims of attacks, we are obliged at all times to defend their faith.
Now cast your mind back seven and a quarter years. We are in September of 2001 and have just witnessed Islamic terrorists crash planes into buildings, killing thousands of innocents. Security is heightened massively, people are distraught, and the world is on tenterhooks, scared to travel on aeroplanes. And what was the attitude towards Muslims then? Was the world defending Islam? I think not. If my memory serves me correctly people could not criticise the faith quickly enough.
Similar instances occurred once again in July 2005.
NOTE here again that I am not justifying hatred of or prejudice against Muslims. What I am doing is criticising the fact that society changes its mind faster than you can say "terrorism". What resides in society is one humongous bandwagon upon which people, Muslim or Sikh, Hindu or Christian, black or white, man or woman, cannot wait to jump.
That is why I at least am proud to say that I know what I think. That is not to say I am closed-minded or unopen to change. Far from it: bring it on. But if anything will persuade me to change my opinions, it will be rational minded discourse, not irrational emotional reflex reactions to current events.
Back to the Holy Drawing Board, with some relief
-
For a conventional set up like the Church of England General Synod, all its
structures loaded for deference, yesterday's result was something of a
shock t...
3 comments:
bruv.. listen to dis breh..
Safe..
Shotta..
You forget that the factor responsible for mass public opinion is none other than the print on recycled paper you read while having your morning coffee; the sounds on the airwaves you listen to in the kitchen; the friendly face you see on the television reading from the autocue -- the media.
People follow the media like sheep follow a shepherd. The mainstream media is loaded with all sorts of emotion, bias and sometimes untruths but it is always deemed as the most trustworthy source of information to swallow up and regurgitate to form an opinion on current affairs.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often portrayed as a Jew vs. Muslim conflict, if anything to add to the plethora of "x" vs. Muslim conflicts that seem to dominate the news today. In reality we forget that the Palestinian people are a people of Muslims and Christians living in an area of land living under occupation by the neighbouring Israeli state. If the media portrayed this conflict as a struggle by the people of Palestine rather than a nation of "Muslim hotheads" then public perception would be different. And the conflict doesn't just stir the emotions of the Muslim population, as you would see at some of the demonstrations that have happened recently.
Having said that, i'm not too sure, having read the aritcle on Cranmer's blog, that the author was the best person to choose to be the CHAIR of a debate. The referee of a football match is never from the countries of the playing teams. Likewise the chair of the debate should ideally be someone who is willing to take the fence and remain neutral. I'm not doubting the author's ability to do that, I'm doubting whether the credibility of the author as a chair would be plausible amongst the debaters due to his well-publicised stance.
Though I do agree with the idea that no ideology should be immune to scrutiny. So long as it's done in a rational way, based on proper scrutiny and not the circulating emotions of the times.
You are correct that the media's portrayal of events is biased and not exactly accurate. But I was already aware of this.
I am not saying that this is an anti-Muslim tirade, but I am pointing out its relationship to the attitudes of Muslims and toward Muslims.
Thank you for commenting!
Post a Comment