Here's a nice seven-course helping of delicious troll food. ... when you said "arent we imposing a distinction between 'good muslim' and 'bad muslim'", i hear that line so much on campus from 'well meaning liberals'. I assume you're in college 
Of course we're making such a distinction, why wouldnt we? Dont we make the same distinction when we adjudicate other types of violent cases in our society? Dont we make the same distinction when we talk about christianity or any other religion?
I don't believe your "well meaning liberals" label particularly applies to me, since
1) while you've already accused me of suffering from various failings you'd associate with bleeding-heart liberal leftists, you've also accused me failings commonly associated with fascist, communist, socialist, and *gasp* Republican mindsets, and
2) I don't think we understand the word "liberal" itself in the same context. The word
liberal carries many meanings,
Liberal in a political sense includes plenty of additional meanings,
Liberal in America rarely equates with
Liberal in Canada.
My college/university days are long behind me, and even then I was an engineering nerd; I [strike]got drunk and partied a lot and sometimes got laid[/strike] applied myself diligently to my studies. Except for cute flirty chicks with dumb surveys, I tended to avoid the poly-sci and yearbook and media geeks as much as possible, and I spent more time in the labs surrounded by obsolete technology and greasy computer nerds than I'd really like to admit. I always attended a campus in my own city; never did the classic dorm/frat stuff (which is mostly imported Asians hereabouts anyhow, so I probably wouldn't fit in well and couldn't afford it anyhow); Canadian institutes aren't
quite as sports-enamoured as the stereotypical American ones; all the big jocks who want to slide through college with scholarships and get picked up by the scouts - at least those with sufficient athletic talent to have any real hope - attend American colleges where the rewards in the celebrity money game are much higher. The classic American college (or at least what I expect it would be, based on how it's represented in American movies) is not what you see, or at least not what I saw, in Canada. Even our school pranks (responsibility of the applied sciences faculty) were of an entirely different flavour; no mascot-stealing or defacing of the football/basketball team here. Similar comparisons can be seen with political-centric activism and leanings ... maybe the softies who studied icky Humanities would be into that sort of thing, but it's not at all a driving force which flavours the main student body. Perhaps the bewildering number of international students contributed to the unspoken rule that the stigma of political controversy wasn't standard conversation material, perhaps it's just that my particular corner of academia was blind and immune to it.
fwiw, I am (by choice) generally disinterested and not well-informed in matters of Canadian policy and politics, and even less interested/informed in matters of foreign (including American) policy. I am also what would be labelled atheist (although agnostic might be a technically accurate term simply because, like any other "disciple of the scientific method" I would have to accept any proven and validated proof of god's existence presented by science, though I'm unworried since that's not something I've yet seen or ever expect to see). Whatever pro-christian bias I might express (outside of occassional deliberately provocative sarcastic snipes) is only the result of - mistakenly? - identifying parallels between the practitioners of
all religions with those I've personally seen demonstrated by christian believers. And - as you hint - being the product of a society which is strongly shaped and permeated at all levels by a deeply embedded pro-christian bias.
As to your question about assigning "good muslim"/"bad muslim" role labels ...
I think "bad muslims" are an archetype; partly composed of true elements, partly drawn from exaggerated expectations, partly derived as a visible and easily identifiable face for "the enemy" ... in short, "bad muslims" certainly do and must exist but are far more a media creation than real people. "good muslims" are just the natural counterpoint, since people who consider themselves more-enlightened need to be able to look "beyond" oversimplified images acceptable only for easy digestion by the (somewhat stupid, ignorant, and uncaring) masses. As a point of interest, I note that "evil muslims" might be fanatical, insane, suicidal, driven by hate ... but they're not stupid, at least not the successful ones who are able to outsmart their targets ... I seriously doubt they'd advertise themselves with the cartoon-character appearance that "America" expects to see, except perhaps for their underground propaganda or hostage-beheading videos and similar cameo appearances. Again, fwiw, I believe that this cartoon character (evil american, evil muslim*) is naturally associated with a racist identity, one that automatically assumes complicity on the "other side" based to a large degree on their racial/ethnic origins. The turban-wearing sikhs who move next door are distrusted and encounter hostility in American (or even Canadian) suburbs just as much as English-speaking "white people" do in the Arabian deserts - I find it hard to accept this isn't a racist distinction. The only difference in degree is that fewer people shoot at each other over this conflict in the west as they do in the mid-east. I've heard caucasians use slurs like camel jockey, dune coon, hadji, muzzie, raghead, and sand nigger, just to name a few, and I've heard a lot of derogatory comments of a racial nature; I imagine that Arabs and muslims use plenty of slurs to describe their uninvited guests as well. ****ty and stupid, but you can't possibly say racism doesn't exist, especially when you talk to people who've been there.
* Before I get flamed for this (again), yes of course I know that "Muslim" and "Islam" aren't countries on a map, it's a ****ing religion; a religion practiced in many countries which themselves contain populations that practice many religions. I used it above as a one-word generalization for real countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghan, Etcetera-stan - we all know who America is fighting at least as well as the American military and media machines do - and we all know that America is not the only western power in this "war", but many other nations (including Canada) are there getting blood on their hands as well - and we all remember 9/11, it's not like anyone has never heard of it or seen the aftermath. I hate to generalize, but I hate to type three sentences worth of battlegrounds and graveyards out for precision when making this sort of point. I'm literally guilty here of the same "us/them" label practice I'm trying to condemn, partly as an example, partly as a lazy convenience. My previous attempts to state this (many posts ago) asserted my position strongly and I'll admit they could've been less offensively worded. Still, my observation is that this a real problem that is very valid. To blanket the flames a little more, I'm not racist (outside of some bad-taste colourful jokes), but I'm not blind either and I can see racism being expressed around me in society. Blatant racism (skinheads and KKK) are easy to spot, but more subtle discrimination (hiring policies and social groupings) are just as ignorant, retarded, and prejudiced; what I'm trying to say is that I see a little of both extremes happening today with this "religious" flavouring of racism, it's just that the most obvious examples aren't really so obvious because for the most part it happens in faraway deserts instead of "at home". Then again, see what happens to muslim travellers who get continuously mugged and humiliated by "random" security checks while walking through an airport.
Muslims certainly exist, so fanatical "evil muslims" must also exist. They're just a convenient villain to heap blame upon, whether they're actually guilty (as they sometimes are) or they're innocent (which they sometimes are). Every hero needs an adversary. Batman, Austin Powers, and Luke Skywalker wouldn't look so buff if all they ever did was break up schoolyard fights, plus they'd be out a job; they have a hard time justifying the need to purchase expensive new weapons, toys, gadgets, and lightsabers to their wives. So, too, I believe of the mightiest militaries in the western world. And, on the other side of the coin, even the villainized military powers which constitute the "axis of terror" ... everybody justifies themselves as the hero, no matter how morally ambiguous (or outright vile) their methods might be ... it's always easy to accept that your enemy has somehow "forced" you into vile atrocities and morally uncomfortable actions, no matter who you are or what you believe or how or why you fight.
Likewise, christians also certainly exist, and so "evil christians" must as well. Fanatical Evil (or Misguided, if you prefer) christians are capable of - and occassionally commit - vile atrocities in the name of their religion as well. It's a real shame that few people (christian, muslim, or otherwise) are able to truly become enlightened and self-aware enough to see their own faults before judging others. I've known christians who are guilty of this form of prejudice and arrogance, perhaps it's a common trait among christians, perhaps it's equally common among muslims, perhaps it's just common to all humanity and religion doesn't have any impact beyond providing another criteria for selecting who the "good" and "bad" guys are.
Atheists, and therefore "evil atheists" also exist. Perhaps my anti-religious bias has a profound effect on my passing judgement upon religious peoples, perhaps I see religious wars where there really aren't any. I'd like to think I'm not wrong, but then again so would any other atheist or christian or muslim person you ask.
Start burning copies of the qoran? That's ****ing dumb. Next you'll see islamics burning copies of the bible in retaliation. Then everyone (christian or not) will rally against this unacceptable insult, more conflict, more hate, more bodies. After a while it'll be easy to forget that the evil bible-burners were provoked into this outrage. But, hey, if you wanna sully patriotism with these dirty-fighting religious sucker punches then go ahead and pick another endless war against the billion or so "children of islam" who live on our planet. An excellent way to keep the economy of weapons manufacturing going strong; the US/NATO militaries have a lot of cool research into futuristic high technology devices and platforms going on, gotta be proactive to sustain all that expensive funding.
As to equating religious and political agendas ... it's something that's unavoidable. Been done throughout history. Early christians were persecuted by the Romans. Early muslims were persecuted by the christians. Gypsies and even jews are still actively persecuted in many otherwise civilized and developed countries. And of course there's always something interesting happening in communist China where government and religious dictates are endless intertangled. (Interesting to note that if you believe current events are an expression of christian-vs-muslim religious war, as I do at least in part, then 9/11 would be the first such religious war in history which has claimed victims outside the endless crusades across the blood-soaked deserts of the middle east.) Personally I don't think it's any country's right or damned business to impose a new religion on any other country without invitation or (otherwise) unanimous agreement among the other infinitely wise governments of the world. Something about borders and laws. Does this mean I support parochial backwardness and primitive practices? Good god, no! The candle burns at both ends; imposing western imperialism on the peoples of the the middle east who suffer under their barbaric religious laws is just as evil as imposing, say, atheist communism onto the USA or England to rescue all those blindly ignorant christians who suffer under the yokes of their horny catholic priests. (Hmmm, I did mention in a previous post that I feel religion - especially monotheism worshipping the manly bronze age sky god - is a pervasive evil which keeps the modern world straddling history with one leg stepping forward and the other firmly stuck in the sticky smelly mire of the dark ages.)
Does this mean that all christians hate all muslims and all muslims hate all christians? Of course not. Today's conflicts in the deserts are being waged by governments not churches, though the distinction (to me) seems to become quite blurry when one side's governments are pervaded by deeply entrenched pro-christian bias and the other side's governments are blatantly islamic instruments of power.
Religious intolerance is something like racial discrimination; it won't ever entirely disappear, it can't even attempt to do so unless/until it's outlawed. Let's hope that mankind doesn't drag his hate-mongering gods along to the stars.
Having said all that ... comment and argue as you will, denounce or disagree or defy or point out where I'm ****ing wrong (just please quote sparingly) ... but I won't respond to angry attackers who apparently don't bother to actually
read what's been said. This ain't no shock-radio or Jerry Springer show.
