I was reacting mostly to these words:
I thought they were yours when I first read your post, but now I notice the quotation marks, so maybe they are an excerpt from the article. Regardless, why did you call attention to that particular quote if it's not relevant to your feelings on the matter?
To me all of the iterations of words relating to Islam and Muslim are far less important than including a form of the word "terrorist" if you are describing those who are killing in the name of the religion.
"Look at Trump. He's a Christian. Do I judge Christianity looking at someone like Trump?"
A chilling thought. But maybe we Christians should try it on for size, see what it feels like to be judged as part of Trump's team based on our religion, just for a minute."
Yeah, those quoted two lines were from an Iman speaking to the reporter, basically saying if you judge all of Muslims by the actions of a terrorist perverting Islam, then is it fair for me to judge all Christians based on the words of Trump, who is a Christian. And the "chilling thought" is considering what it would be like to be singled out and judged as suspect simply because one was Christian. That actually does seem to qualify as a "chilling thought" to me. I thought it would for any of us. I used the example of the IRA and my Irish heritage,because I could relate directly to that hypothetical scenario of being treated as different to all other Americans simply because I'm Irish. So as to understand how an American Muslim, or any Muslim would likely feel. Being singled out and judged as different, as being put on a watch list for no other reason then the fact they are Muslim. The article emphasized that the term "Islamic terror" implies "Islam is terrorist inclined", whereas Islamism describes a dystopian ideology that imposes Islamic law on non Muslims and is led by terrorists who pervert the faith to meet their ends, which is an Islamic State in which all citizens are subject to Islamic law, regardless of if they are members of the faith of Islam or not. I've just never seen a disconnect in understanding of this level, as seems to have happened between my own comment and your own. I thought I had expressed myself so clearly. Trump has said Ametican Muslims do not cooperate with authorities, and they do. The article pointed out how wrong he is, and what you thought was an alarming thought was simply a suggestion by a Muslim asking how we would feel if all Christians were judged based on how Trump's Christianity was judged. I assume he means going by the divisive and at times rather hateful rhetoric he has used at his rallies.
But that quote is relevant to my feelings on the matter. If the term "radical Islamic terrorism" can be reworded as "Terror sponsored by the faith of Islam", then it can easily be converted to "a war between the West and the faith of Islam". Using Islamism instead better defines it as a war between the West and a dystopian ideology known as Islamism, which itself is a perversion of the faith by psychopathic madmen, and not the entire faith. Also, Trump wants American Muslims monitored very closely. Would that not marginalize innocent American Muslims, and only lead to potential further radicalization of American Muslims, if the result is to treat them as different then all other Americans in how we are going to view them and treat them? The relevancy comes from the fact that I do not agree with Trump's call to single out certain Americans based on their faith. Hence I quoted that Iman. Hence asking to imagine being singled out for being Christian. Hence I used the example of myself being singled out for being Irish American. Isn't that relevant to what I was trying to get across?
The quote that turned you off was really only saying that one might try to feel what it would be like, if, as a Christian, and an American, you were judged by your faith, and treated differently from all other Americans as a result. I thought it was relevant to what I was saying: it is not true to our value of not judging people or discriminating against people based on their faith. And I worry that Trump's call to keep tabs on Americans who are a Muslims, simply because they are Muslims, would lead in that direction.
I thought the quote was simply pointing out that Muslims are being judged, by some, on the words and actions of psychopathic madmen who have perverted the faith toward their own dystopian vision. And how would one feel if the faith of Christianity were judged based on the words of Donald Trump.
This semantic issue is so vexing and confusing, I would like to see a national seminar, broadcast on every network, and live streamed, set date or dates, in which the difference is explained between "radical Islamic terror" and "Islamism". The former can too easily be interpreted as "terror mounted by Islam", the latter "a dystopian ideology mounted by psychopathic madmen", the same reason Bush said, and I paraphrase "we are not fighting a religion, we are fighting madmen". I don't think avoiding the former term is political correctness; I do believe it is rooted in strategy whereby the administration does not want ISIS to have the satisfaction of seeing us describe the war in a way that makes it seem like it is against the faith of Islam.
