It's a simple word. Everyone here can use it correctly if they choose.
The police beat Rodney King, shot Amadou Diallo dozens of times, and needlessly kill dozens if not hundreds of black men annually to this day.
White Supremacists dragged James Byrd to a horrible death.
Homophobic bigots beat Matthew Shepard, tortured him and left him to die.
What do these sentences have in common? Two things spring to my mind that are relevant to this website.
1) Everyone will agree with them
2) Nobody here, ever, would consider petulantly whining that every single LEO in the nation didn't beat Rodney King or shoot a black man needlessly. You'd never see a post claiming "it's only a radical few white supremacists who dragged Byrd to death! Most of them just grumble on antiquated message boards". I would search in vain for people reminding me that homophobic bigots are only statistically similar in beating people to death when compared to other social cause advocates.
But when it's Muslims or Christians doing the nasty shit, motivated by their beliefs just as much as the white supremacists and homophobes above, be it shooting abortion providers, letting kids die rather than take them to a doctor, destroying ancient monuments or raping pubescent girls, then the screech is deafening that all of a sudden any use of a collective description automatically is universal and that anybody saying "Muslims" means "all Muslims" and can be breathlessly refuted and negated by a single counterexample or reminders that not ALL Muslims/ Christians have exactly the same beliefs or actions.
Grammar Time.
"Christians" refers to two or more followers of any Christian denomination, theology, sect or congregation. "Muslims" has exactly the same meaning for followers of Islam. The words can also be used as generalizations as in "Christians go to church; Muslims attend a mosque." Not every single adherent can or chooses to attend such venues, but when they do, it's generally venues of the given type. Christians tend not to routinely wander into mosques as a part of their worship routine. Have many of them visited mosques? Sure, but it's not the norm. Generalizations are common, well understood modes of speech.
Like everyone here I am completely familiar with the word "all". It's a short word, easily typed. If anyone here wants to refer to all Muslims or all Christians, it's easy to do. I'll demonstrate:
All Muslims profess, implicitly or explicitly, a belief in Allah. See that word A-L-L? That means every single example. The word Muslim has not absorbed the same ethnic and cultural loading as the word "Jewish". "Muslim" by any authority from dictionary to ulama refers to a believer. All Muslims then must profess Muslim belief, or they become apostates or converts to other faiths or atheists etc, not Muslims.
To contrast;
"Muslims kept me awake issuing prayer calls when I lived next to a mosque". Notice the absence of the word all? That's because it was only a couple of them who did the calls. But they were Muslims nonetheless.
"Christians dominate the US political scene". Again there is no "all" because the vast majority of Christians don't even live here let alone have political influence. But it's still a true statement, despite a sprinkling of Jews, a single Muslim (settle down birther-hunters, I mean Ellison), a Hindu and probably, but not openly, a few atheists wandering DC's halls of power. But Christians are by far dominant. No matter how cynical we are about politicians, most of them remain Christians.
Is there anybody here who cannot similarly use "all" if they want to convey universality as opposed to description or generalization? I sincerely doubt it.
Is there anyone stupid enough to not understand the absence or presence of the word "all" in a post? Again, very unlikely.
So what can be inferred from the childish and irrational complaints about using descriptions or generalizations, and responding to them as if they were universalities? Discomfort that people who share a description that applies to you can be utter bastards? Get over it! Men commit most murders, almost all rapes, the vast majority of violent crimes. I'm a man and it doesn't bother me that these things are said. I know they don't apply to me. Famous atheists include Pot and Stalin. So what? In the case of Muslims it could very well be kneejerk liberal sensitivity to criticism of anyone who is not white and powerful (well, mostly). Get over that too! People of any color or ethnicity or income can be vicious evil and oppressive.
Because this "invented universal" problem though is far more often here seen in religious descriptions, and includes the defense of white and powerful people, the most likely explanation is that people have internalized the idea that religious = good and decent and moral (remember that vernacular bigotry?) and get mighty uncomfortable when it is definitively shown that religious can also = driven to monstrous lunacy and wickedness.
But not all, ok? There's no "all" there, and I've just proven I am ready willing and able use it correctly. So are, ahem, all of you. Let's all give all other posters that credit at least, eh?
= new reply since forum marked as read
