Letters to the Editor
sgaana
Published Letters: 50 Editor's Choice: 3
-
False Analogy
[Read the article: Bomb plot tests British again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"To blame Islam for the islamist bombers would be like blaming Jesus for the Salem witch trials."
Come now, timbuktom. You should already know that the above statement draws a false analogy -- the two halves are not directly analogous. Try:
"To blame Islam for the Islamist bombers would be like blaming Christianity for the Salem witch trials."
(or, "To blame Mohammed for... would be like blaming Jesus...")
In either rephrasing, your analogy falls down. I don't think that the Salem witch trials can be understood without reference to the particular type of Christianity that was being practiced in Massachusetts at the time -- which I will happily criticize for having been narrow-minded, reactionary, zealotous, and eager to persecute others. (It has often been said that the Puritans fled religious oppression in England and set up a colony in Massachusetts so that they would be free... to control and persecute other religious practices to the same degree that they had been.)
"Christianity" in its broadest sense may not have been to blame for the Salem witch trials -- but the way in which a particular sect of Christianity practiced it certainly were. (Nor were the Puritans of Massachusetts the only Christian sect that burned witches in "modern" times.) Christians *should*, in my opinion, be willing either to "own" the Puritans and their beliefs and practices as having been within the Christian fold -- or else they should criticize or disown them.
With the second possible rephrasing, the analogy fares better, although it is still problematic. Mohammed's words are the source of the Islamic faith, yes -- and just like Jesus's words, they have been misinterpreted, likely mistranslated, and twisted by various followers for their own purposes over the centuries. On the other hand -- the passages of the Bible that are most commonly interpreted to relate to witchcraft don't have anything to do with Jesus. In other words, the situation with respect to Christianity is complicated (as it is not with Islam) by Christianity's holy book encompassing far more than the words and works of Jesus.
It is therefore not impossible to "blame Christianity" for a set of beliefs that the observer feels is in contradiction with what Jesus stood for. I do not, however, think much of the tactic of dismissing "Christian" responsibility for various atrocities by using the argument that, "they weren't good Christians, they weren't representative of what Christianity is all about". No. Historically, what "Christianity" (as a whole) is "about" can only be derived from observation of the various ways in which sects have practiced it. And it does not matter to the victims whether they were killed by "good" Christians or "bad" Christians -- it only matters that they were killed by someone who himself believed he did so under the banner of the cross, and who naturally thought of himself as a "good" Christian, however much others might disagree with him.
Generally speaking, I am more inclined to say that I blame *interpretations of* Islam (unfortunately, very popular ones) for Islamist terrorism. That is not the same thing as blaming Islam categorically. However, I am also strongly against the idea that any faith should be immune from questioning and criticism -- not Christianity, and therefore, not Islam either. And I dislike seeing people use rhetorical tactics that shut down such attempts at examination and discussion.
That is what it seems you are trying to do here -- by drawing your false analogy and suggesting that we would not criticize Jesus for the mis-use of Christianity for persecution and terrorism. But that's untrue. "We" (if you mean the culture as a whole, and not narrow segments of it that cannot stand critical debate) do it to Christianity all the time.
To bring the analogy into more modern times -- I also blame (their particular interpretation and practice of) Christian beliefs for the terrorism directed towards abortion clinics and doctors. I think they are terrible Christians, by which I mean I think that they deeply misinterpret the teachings of Jesus, and that their beliefs are perverted. But I have to acknowledge that they derive their motivation to act from what they strongly feel are "correct" interpretations of what it means to be Christian. And I am disappointed that I do not see stronger, louder condemnations of such terrorism from other Christian sects in this country.
-
This doesn't quite add up...?
[Read the article: Japanese history lessons]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wait a moment...
You say that the defense minister resigned after an outcry over his saying that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "could not be helped"?
How does such a statement "despoil Japan's sense of victimhood"?
That is -- it would seem that the statement *supports* a sense of victimhood -- "we could not have done anything to prevent this" (I would think is a reasonable restatement of "it could not be helped"), that it was a terrible thing that happened to Japan outside of any context or consequences. Is that not a "victim" mentality?
It would seem to me that a statement that would despoil the sense of victimhood would be one that suggested that the bombings were the result of actions (or inactions) on Japan's part; i.e. a statement that would put some responsibility on Japan's war machine.
I don't disagree at all with your other characterizations in this article, but that one puzzles me.