You may find the clarification tiresome, but it needs to be made.
Why is that?
As you've pointed out repeatedly, Muslims now have to deal with the damaged reputation the Islamic terrorists have brought on their community. We're not doing the majority of Muslims any favors by constantly bringing them by default into the debate when discussing Islamic terrorism. I'm very careful what words I use in these threads.
So you feel that by constantly repeating the phrase "not all Muslims are terrorists" that we will then be doing the majority of Muslims a favour? I don't think so. I don't want to sugarcoat this at all, or change the language around, any more than I would with any other group. But if you and those who chose too repeat "not all Muslims are terrorists" after every Islamic terrorist act perhaps we can shorten it to NAMAT, much as they use PBUH. I'll get the ball rolling in fact, when the next atrocity is committed.
You'll never see me use the word "Muslim" when what I actually mean is "Islamic terrorist".
How about Islamic Radical, or Islamic Extremist, or Islamic Jihadist? All are being used and all mean much the same thing. I really don't give a stuff what Muslims think any more than I care what any ideological group thinks. If people believe a particular thing I can be critical, amused, or bewildered, but I don't have to worry about semantics or tread lightly when they're creating mayhem throughout the world. They should get their act together rather than seeking any undeserved respect or pity.
The word Muslim is simply too general a term for me and does not accurately convey my meaning. I try to avoid using words that will muddy my argument and will generate unnecessary posts filled with silly accusations and demands for clarification. It's a total and complete waste of time and I have too much respect for most posters here to play these sort of games with them. It's pointless and counter-productive.
The term Muslim is quite specific. The fact that the name has become sullied has more to do with Muslims behaving badly rather than any other factor. Perhaps you can explain why any religion is worthy of our respect rather than having them earn that respect? It's not clear to me why I should have any respect for Muslims, per se, despite the clear possibility that I might respect them as individuals. But being a Muslim is not special any more than being an Episcopalian is special.
As for Islamophobia, I don't think I've ever used that word. I don't particularly like it much as I'm not exactly sure what it means exactly. It is fast becoming as irrelevant and ineffective as "anti-semite" or "racist" in forums such as these. It is used to try and shame the opposition into silence and, again, I will not play these infantile word games.
Well whether you have used it or not is quite beside the point. The fact is that some diddlewits do use it, and in fact you said I was fearful of Muslims, a victim of that dreaded phobia myself. Meanwhile it is you who are concerned about the semantics and fearful of offending 'the majority'..
For the most part, Christians are actually very good at dealing with the mud thrown at them. They will discuss whatever issue at hand without trying to silence their opponent with made up words.
You bet. You don't see Christians rioting and murdering over some silly cartoons, but we've come to expect that from Muslims. That's why those cartoons are never reprinted in the mainstream media. In fact the cartoonist who suggested the "Everybody Draw Mohamed Day" has now had to change her identity and go into hiding. And it's Muslim s who are out to kill her. But, NAMAT.
I wish I could say the same when it comes to discussing either Israel or the Jewish people. I recommend you spend some time in the Middle East forum, if you can stomach it for longer than 5 minutes. I've long given up on participating there. I refuse to spend 50 pages dodging the constant accusations of anti-semitism, rather than actually discussing the OP. You may fit in there better than I did, who knows? It's definitely an interesting study on how important the words we use in this forums are, though.
I actually have spent some time there and it is disgusting. The most vile are the Left Wing and the Muslims.
I agree, but regardless of how bad it gets, banning religions or abridging freedom of speech is something I will never, ever support. There is NO excuse for doing either. Not ever.
I don't want to ban any speech or religion either, which is why I'm not concerned at all about referring to Muslim terrorism. And if it hurts some feelings so what? This "majority" should man up and speak up themselves, if indeed they are the majority.
What an odd notion. When it comes to combating terrorism, moderate Muslims are in exactly the same boat we are. We're all in this together. They are as much a target of Islamic terrorism as we are, if not more. So if they are "powerless", then so are we.
The majority of Muslims, of which you speak, has been silent too long. They have become irrelevant to the debate. You are right that they are getting killed as well as the rest but, despite being the majority, they have made little progress in curtailing Islamic aggression. I usually see them blaming others for the violence and divide than accepting any responsibility themselves or their backward religion.
But, lest I'm being too harsh in calling Islam "backward", perhaps you can explain to me what good Islam has ever done the world or its adherents? I don't think Muslims, as a group, are deserving of any particular respect.