Emily writes correctly, "What is contested here is whether it is fair to blame peaceful Muslims who denounce and don't believe in violence having anything to do with the REAL Islamic teachings."
The only difference between the jihadists and our wannabee anti-Islamic terrorists is they know they would be wiped out immediately by the LEO if not their neighbors if they started killing.
JakeStarkey Good point that there are 'wanna be' potential types in between the two extremes of
terrorist Jihadists and peaceful law abiding Muslims.
Even Farrakhan calling for violent disruption to protest and take back power is calling for people to take law and justice "into their own hands" instead of invoking equal authority of law and leading reform fully legally and civilly according to civil authority.
the difference I find is whether people respect DUE PROCESS: at what point do we drop the "innocent until proven guilty" and start assuming, judging and punishing people based on our own accusations, with or without a fair process to determine who was responsible or guilty for what?
As humans, we tend to jump the gun and start accusing people, even by association with groups. So that isn't respecting the principle of due process of law where the person is confronted first with the accusations, has the right to defend petition and appeal, and go through a process BEFORE determining guilt or innocence as charged.
Govt goes through a FORMAL due process.
People go through a similar process, where WE want OUR innocence and reputation defended from accusations we demand the right to answer to or correct first. But do we give the same opportunity to others we accuse of something they deny where they demand the right to defend and correct the record.
Christianity may call for people to love one another, to care for each other as ourselves.
The Constitution does not require individual people to uphold the same standards as govt.
But that is what I find separates the sheep from the goats.
Those who have figured out the empowerment process of taking on responsibility for enforcing laws (using the Constitutional principles similarly to invoking and enforcing Biblical laws on one's own instead of relying on church authority to be responsible for that) exercise a different level of autonomy, representation and defense, and ability to rebuke and compel others to have authority or influence in society.
While those who stand back and let others lead and enforce laws don't have this same sense of authority, ownership and control, so this leads to victimhood.
When I look at the reactions and statements by various leaders, including Black leaders with BLM, I notice if they justify the lawbreaking or if they put law enforcement first as the way to EMPOWER citizens to exercise equal authority and standing.
Counseling people to break the law in order to protest is what leads down the road to terrorism as a form of protest. So that is not respecting the civil right to petition, but bypassing it and going straight to war.
You are right
JakeStarkey there are some people
sitting on the fence, and would lean toward the lawless lawbreaking approach given the opportunity. And that's what the mob/looting/riots take advantage of is that impulse to act collectively as a crowd and get away with things they couldn't do individually.
Very dangerous not to teach people the difference and the empowerment involved in enforcing laws as equals instead of breaking them and becoming subject to the authority of others.
