(December 6, 2015 at 10:57 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I actually used to be seriously in line with folks like Megyn Kelly on the idea that members of a group should have to 'denounce or apologize for' actions of other members. But upon further examination, that idea is a bit ridiculous. Should every American be expected to apologize or justify the actions of Bush in Iraq or Reagan in Afghanistan in order to 'justify' the existence of their group? Should every Christian be forced to condemn the Crusades 500 years later? I'm not denying that there exists a non-trivial fraction of the ideology that approves of these actions, I'm just skeptical of the notion that there needs to be a concerted effort to oppose ideas that are in opposition to basic human ideas of morality.
I'm a (potentially) naive optimist. Most Muslims are good because most humans are good. If you go to every member of a given or constructed group and hammer them about approval/disapproval of certain actions, you won't get anywhere. Most people think murder is wrong. Most people think stealing is wrong. Most people think assault is wrong. If a white guy assaults someone, you don't go to the "white community" and ask for condemnation. If a muslim stabs someone over a snickers bar you don't ask the "muslim community" for condemnation.
Not to mention that the concept implies the guilt of any individual in the group under scrutiny that doesn't for whatever reason condemn an act.
