A video has been circulating around the internet recently, which I’d like to comment upon.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=731193436971783

“Islam doesn’t promote violence or peace, Islam is just a religion”Bullshit. A religion is an ideology, and an ideology can in face promote violence or peace. While some say that “Oh, it’s just the racialists, the extremists, that are inherently violent people”, you have to keep in mind that 15-25% of Muslims are extremists. Since there are 1.5 billion Muslims, there are roughly as many extremist Muslims in the world as the population of the United States. You can’t say that Islam does not perpetuate violence at that rate. If you don’t believe the numbers, just look in the Qur’an. You can find loads of quotes that plainly say to cause violence. Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” This scripture even says that normal Muslims are not equal to jihadists: Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons.” You can’t just cherry pick a religion and say that it’s peaceful because there are peaceful people in that religion. It’s wrong to say that all Muslims are violent, but it is correct to say that Islam as a whole is a violent ideology. When Muslim states disregard women’s rights, they are following the Quran. That action from the state comes from the Islamic ideology. The point that some Muslim nations support women is irrelevant, because that’s a result of social movements that go against the Islamic beliefs. People can be offended all they want, but ideologies should always be able to be scrutinized. I also love that the description of the video calls the journalists “racist”, which is a blatant misuse of the term.

Race. Nationality. These are two topics that can strike a chord in many people. However, these same people are usually the ones who get the two confused. Your race and nationality have nothing to do with each other. The biggest misconception that demonstrates this idea is the term “African American”. This term has been passed along as the more politically correct version of calling someone black. However, is it really politically correct?

Take a black Jamaican for example. They have the same skin color as another black person, and when a citizen of America, they are mistakenly referred to as African American. To a black person with no African decent, this can be offensive. Would you call a white American “European American”? Most likely not, sine you do not know whether they identify as European or not. Now take a white American that immigrated from South Africa. This person could very well identify as African American, although their skin tone would go against most people’s perception of the term. Most black Americans I have encountered have have not had any family in Africa, do not practice the culture of any African country, and have not even visited the continent. How would these people be then considered African?

If you were to then say, “Well, they’re considered African because their ancestors came from Africa.”, then what is stopping us from saying that ALL Americans are African American? Since the human race originated in Africa, we all share ancestors from Africa. What is important is that people realize that a white person can be African American, and a black person can not identify as African American. This is because race and nationality are two separate identifiers, and therefore, we should not use African American as a black statement from any black American. America needs to get to the point where we are all just Americans, and not separated by these cultural identifiers that we may or may not even identify with.

Today I came across this news article on the ABC Eyewitness News website.

FORMER EMPLOYEE SUING COSTCO FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

The man, Jean Camara, claims that he was a victim of religious discrimination by Costco. Let’s examine this story.

First, let’s look at his wonderful quote that goes against everything he was saying in the first place.

“Just because you have a different belief, that doesn’t give anybody the right to treat you different,” said Jean Camara, suing Costco.

Exactly! Because of Camara’s beliefs, he expects to be treated differently. He was being treated no differently than any other cashier, however because of his views that disable him from touching pork or alcohol, he expects to be treated differently and continue to do his job. Nevertheless, let’s move on.

After Camara refuses to touch pork on the conveyor belt (even though this pork is wrapped so that he wouldn’t actually be in contact with the meat), he was assigned to collect carts outside. Camara then goes on to claim that he was not informed why he was reassigned. Isn’t that part obvious? He couldn’t do his job as a cashier, so the store found a position that would not interfere with his religious beliefs. Costco in this respect was actually quite accommodating. What Camara actually calls religious discrimination is that he could not get a job inside. He requested to work in the electronics department after he was reassigned to collect carts, but was denied because there were no open positions. There aren’t any open positions, but because of his inability to do the job he applied for in the first place, he wants to be treated differently. Doesn’t that contradict what he was saying before also?

In summation, this was not a case of religious discrimination. If one’s views limit them for performing the duties of a certain position, then one should not apply to that position. It’s really as simple as that. If you can not perform the duties of the job you were hired to do, you really have no leeway to pick what job you are reassigned to. In fact, you should be thanking the company for keeping you on in the first place.

The article mentioned above can be found below:

http://7online.com/religion/former-employee-suing-costco-for-religious-discrimination-/532866/

The tragedy at Charlie Hebdo has brought light to the world’s current issue with religious extremism. Religious extremism is responsible for countless tragedies around the world, with 9/11 and other terrorist attacks as prime examples. Many people do not realize just how often these attacks happen. Just recently, February 26th, 2015, an American blogger was hacked to death in Bangladesh by religious extremists. The blogger, Avijit Roy, was known for speaking out against religious extremism in his blog posts. Religious extremism continues to promote silencing any viewpoints other than their own, using any means possible. People should not have pay their life for expressing their views, even if their views are unpopular.

It is starkly important that ideas of all kinds be criticized, as this promotes intellectual discussion on these topics that can lead to more research and discoveries. This is a major part of the scientific method, where nothing is taken for granted, and every idea is criticized and tested many times over. However, some people claim that there are certain topics which are forbidden; off-limit for discussion and debate. These topics are mainly religious. When religious topics are said to be as sacred as so, this can further propagate religious extremism and violence when anyone speaks out about these ideas. The Pope even went as far as putting the blame for the incident at Charlie Hedbo on the employees who satirized the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He stated, “One cannot provoke; one cannot insult other people’s faith; one cannot make fun of faith,”. However, this is where he has it wrong. Freedom of speech allows us to rightfully express our views without persecution, and for good reason. There are no topics forbidden from discussion, even in religion.

  Articles mentioned in this post:

Blogger hacked to death, The Pope on Charlie Hebdo

Interested on this topic? Look here for more:

Charlie Hebdo journalist on Freedom of Speech, Sam Harris and Bill Maher on Charlie Hebdo