Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Obama: Why I won't say 'Islamic terrorism' [View all]MellowDem
(5,018 posts)20. Obama defends religious privilege...
The idea that a religious rationale is always for good is dripping with privilege. People do commit acts of terror with a religious rationale, and mainstream religions unfortunately have plenty of violent beliefs explicitly laid out in texts for people to be inspired by.
Ignoring that not only doesn't address the root problem, it is a salve for believers that identify with said beliefs. It's more about protecting the feelings of the religious majority than honestly addressing the issue.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
41 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
My point is that the violence should always be the focus, not the claimed motivation.
guillaumeb
Oct 2016
#40
It's not a matter of being "politically correct" (where have we heard that term lately).
rug
Sep 2016
#17
He'd reach many if he said "Same reason I don't call the Oklahoma City bombing christian terrorism".
Bernardo de La Paz
Oct 2016
#26