It’s sad that so much of contemporary discussion about religion centers on violence: the violence that is generated and sanctioned in the name of religion. Some critics of religion have argued that religion is inherent problematic. One such problem is its penchant for promulgating hatred and violence.
Along the lines of the Cohen article I cited, this blog post by Jeffrey Goldberg addresses another aspect of the acceptable range of civil discourse about religion and violence.
I am not arguing, of course, that American Muslims, as a whole, are violently unhappy with America (I’ve argued the opposite, in fact). But I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims. Here’s a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.