The Silence Breakers Of 2017

The Silence Breakers Of 2017

Time's Person of the Year has many names.
111
views

Time’s Person of the Year is plural for 2017: The Silence Breakers.

Unveiled on December 7th, the cover features a striking image of five women: Ashley Judd, Taylor Swift, Adama Iwu, Isabel Pascual, and Susan Fowler. The sixth appears only as a jacketed elbow, pictured in the lower right of the cover. This tiny detail is elusive but pointed. The elbow belongs to of one of the unnamed “silence breakers,” for whom coming forth is still difficult, but whose voices matter no less.

It speaks to the value of the movement of the silence breakers; they aren’t all high profile celebrities whose platforms extend globally. They cannot all tell their stories as wholly or as openly as some have. This does not disqualify their experiences. It reminds us that the silence breakers are not limited to people working in Hollywood. They surround us. Theirs is not a movement with a leader or with a unifier.

On the woman cropped out of the image, Time correspondent Charlotte Alter provided, “That’s an anonymous woman who is a hospital worker who was experiencing harassment and didn’t feel that she could come forward.” In the feature story, aforementioned hospital worker emphasizes that she remained anonymous “as an act of solidarity to represent all those who could not speak out.”

The feature finds that “When a movie star says #MeToo, it becomes easier to believe the cook who’s been quietly enduring for years.” In fact, since the Weinstein allegations have come to light, a Time/SurveyMonkey online poll for American adults finds that “82% of respondents are more likely to speak out about harassment.” The diversity in the women telling the stories demonstrates the universality of the issue, being that they are all of different ages, religions, ethnicities, and incomes. Many of the interviewees expressed fear of repercussion for coming forth, as many of them are “vulnerable in society- immigrants, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income workers and LGBTQ people.” The fact that they will be recognized as people of the year, whether named or not, demonstrates a willingness and need to detach fear of coming forth from these instances.

Despite the social media revolution and the increased impetus for telling one’s stories, the legal and policy protections that address sexual harassment have not evolved to meet the demands of that revolution. The number of these stories that have emerged indicate the failings of sexual harassment policies, and of the norms that remain stagnant while others change. Recognizing the silence breakers is a step forward, but it is one of many yet to be taken.

Cover Image Credit: TIME / YouTube

Popular Right Now

Islam Is Not A Religion Of Peace, But Neither Is Christianity

Let's have in honest converation about the relgious doctrine of Islam

99154
views

Islam is not a religion of peace.

Christianity is also not a religion of peace.

But, most people in both religions are generally peaceful.

More specifically, bringing up the doctrine of Christianity is a terrible rebuttal to justify the doctrine of Islam.

That is like saying, "Fascism is not a good political ideology. Well, Communism isn't any good either. So, Fascism is not that bad after all."

One evil does not justify another evil. Christianity's sins do not justify Islam's.

The reason why this article is focused on Islam and not Christianity is the modern prevalence of religious violence in the Islamic world. Christianity is not without its evil but there is far less international terrorist attacks and mass killing perpetrated by Christians today than by those of Islam.

First, let's define "religious killings," which is much more specific than a practicer of a religion committing a murder.

A religious killings are directly correlated with the doctrines of the faith. That is different a human acting on some type of natural impulse killing someone.

For example, an Islamic father honor killing his daughter who was raped is a religious killing. But an Islamic man who catches his wife cheating and kills her on the spot is a murder, not a religious killing. The second man may be Islamic but the doctrine of Islam cannot be rationally held at fault for that killing. Many men with many different religions or experience would make the same heinous mistake of taking a life.

Second, criticizing a doctrine or a religion is not a criticism of everyone that practices the religion.

It is not even a criticism of everyone who make mistake while inspired by the religions. Human are willing to do heinous things when governed by a bad cause. Not every World War 2 Nazis was a homicidal maniac but human nature tells them to act this way in order to survive in their environment. It is hard to fault a person from traits that comes from evolutionary biology and natural selection.

However, commenting on a philosophy, ideology or a religion is not off limits. Every doctrine that inspires human action should be open for review. The religion may be part of a person's identity and it holds a special place in its heart but that does not mean it should be immune to criticism.

Finally, before going into a deconstruction of the myth that Islam is a religion of peace, there needs to be a note about the silencing of talking about Islam.

There is a notion in Western Society that if a person criticizes Islam, then that person hates all Muslims and the person suffers from Islamophobia. That is not the case, a person to criticize religion without becoming Donald Trump. In Western Society criticizing fundamental Christians is never seen as an attack on all Christians because there is a lot of bad ideas in the Bible that Christians act on. Therefore, criticizing Islam should have the same benefit of the doubt because the Quran has many bad ideas in it.

The Quran advocates for war on unbelievers a multitude of times. No these verses are not a misreading or bad interpretation the text. Here are two explicit verses from the Quran that directly tell Followers to engage in violence:

Quran 2: 191-193:

"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (disbelief or unrest) is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists and wrong-doers)"

Quran 2: 216:

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

There is no rational way to interrupt these passages in a peaceful way. The whole premise of both passages is to inspire followers that war against the unbeliever is justified.

The first verse advocates for genocide against non-believers for the mere transgression that a society worships a different god or worships another god along with Allah.

The second passage is arguable more dangerous because the first passage just advocate that fighting may be a necessity, while the second passage encourages it. The second passage claims that war on the unbeliever is a good thing under the eyes of Allah.

The reason why these passages are dangerous is because they directly incite religious violence. For most followers of Allah, these passages are ignored or they convince themselves the passages means something they do not. However, for a large numbers of followers that view the text of the Quran as the unedited words of Allah, these texts become extremely dangerous. These passages become all the rational they need to wage war on non-believers.

This is dangerous because there are millions of followers of Islam worldwide that believe every statement in the Quran is true.

Therefore, the Quran becomes a direct motivation and cause for its followers to attack non-followers. Rationally one can understand where the Islam follower comes from, if a person truly believes that Allah or God himself wrote these words then why would you not comply.

Especially when there is verses in the Quran that says the Follower who does not fight the infidel is not as worthy of a Follower that does wage war against the non-believer (Quran 4:95). Finally, when male Followers are told that their martyrdom fighting for the faith will be rewarded with an eternity in paradise with 72 virgins for personal pleasure. If a Follower truly believes all of this is the spoken word of Allah then there is more rational why a person would commit these atrocities then why they would not.

Men and women are radicalized by these passages on a daily basis.

No, it is not just the poor kid in Iraq that lost his family to an American bombing run that indiscriminately kills civilians but also the middle classed Saudi Arabian child or some Western white kid that finds the Quran appealing. If radicalization were just poor people, then society would not have much to be worried about. However, Heads of States, college educated people and wealthy Islamic Followers are all being radicalized and the common dominator is the doctrine of Islam.

Osama Bin Laden, one of the most infamous terrorist in history, was not a poor lad that was screwed by the United States military industrial complex. Bin Laden was the son of a billionaire, that received an education through college from great schools. There is no other just cause for Bin Laden to orchestrate such grievous attacks on humanity besides religious inspirations. A person can rationally tie Islam Followers gravitation towards terrorism to a specific verse. Quran 3: 51 tells readers,

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers."

Any rational person can tie Islamic passages like this directly to terrorism. It is not a complicated correlation to like Nazism and Jewish persecution to Christianity. The Holy Book of Islam directly encourages the Followers of Islam to inflict terrorism unto the non-believer.

So why do some many people deny these obvious truths about Islam and violence?

Political Correctness and the want to not be viewed as a bigot. The correlations here are as direct as the terrors of the Spanish Inquisitions and Catholicism and no one is afraid to retrospect and say, "Yes Christianity caused the direct murder of thousands of people". A person would not even be controversial if one stated that both World Wars has significant religious undertones. However if anyone states that terrorism and violence has a direct link with Islam then there is an outcry.

Even President Obama refused to use the terms Islam and Muslim when publicly talking about the War on Terrorism. I am a hypocrite also because I used the term Islamic Follower instead of Muslim in an attempt to sound more political correct.

That is a problem when society refuse to use terms that are correct in an attempt to not offend anyone. Imagine if scientist could not report their findings because the underlying politics. Society needs to be able to have open dialogue about this problem or else it will never heal. Society needs to throw away the worrisome about being politically correct and focus on identifying the problems and solving them.

The world of Islam needs to open themselves up to this criticism.

There can no longer be a closing of dialogue where the West cannot speak on the doctrines of Islam because they are not partakers (That applies to all organized religion too, especially the Catholic Church). People who draw Muhammed must no longer be threatened with attacks on their life.

When Islamic women and men speak up about the sins of Islam, they must stop being silenced. If humanity is going to take steps into the future with better technology and more dangerous weaponry, then we need to solve this problem with Islam and gradually to organized religion at all.

If not it will doom us way before we get there…

Thank you for reading and if you enjoyed this article follow my podcast on Twitter @MccrayMassMedia for more likewise discussions.

Cover Image Credit:

https://unsplash.com/photos/JFirQekVo3U

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

If Liberals do not get a footing down pat by 2020 Then They Could Potentially Lose The Election–Again

How liberals are going too far-left for most Americans

21
views

Dear Liberals,

Do you remember in 2008 that Presidental candidate Obama did not support gay marriage?

Neither did the other serious competitor in the Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton.

A decade ago the two leaders of the liberal party in the United States where not for gay marriage.

Fast forward to 2018.

Now if you are a liberal and do not believe that gender is a social construct, all sexuality is fluid and socialism is the only economic policy that can end racism and sexism in America then you are not a true liberal. That is a huge progressive jump in comparatively in a short period. A person who was in the first grade during that election is barely an upperclassman in high school now. Like I said that is a huge ideological jump by liberals in a short period of time.

Liberals have claimed the moral high ground on these issues and are not willing to compromise. There is a moral tie between liberals in these progressive policies. A moral inspiration that causes them to completely break all bonds with people who do not feel the same. If they truly believe that this is the next steps in evolving human society than morally I cannot condone them. I personally believe that there are better ways to discover the truth on the nature of reality.

However, there will be consequences to this extreme liberal push in the United States.

You do not have to look any farther than Pres. Donald Trump as a response. Eight years ago, the Republican Party would have never elected a Donald Trump-like figure to the presidency. A man who is the farthest thing from having Christian morals and has absolutely no idea about functioning political policy. Conservatives were happy with their Bushes, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. But the strong leftist push in America created a breeding ground for Donald Trump.

Somethings liberals could not control from the conservative reaction from Barack Obama's Presidency. There is no denying that some conservatives were angry about Obama's race and the racial tension in America. There is no redemption from blatant racism. There is no denying that some conservatives were angry about the rational progressive steps like legalizing gay marriage. Again there is no redemption from homophobia. Finally, some conservatives were just angry that there was a Democrat in office. There is no redemption from tribalism.

However, a lot of the reactions and Donald Trump's presidency was a direct consequence of your actions liberals.

Liberals believe that the Obama Presidency was the final nail in the coffin for conservatism in America. Obviously, a lot of liberals did not pay much attention to politics at the state and local level, where conservatism is striving. In the liberal mind, Obama was supposed to be penicillin to the plague known as conservative beliefs and liberals planned on injecting that penicillin wherever this plague showed its face.

Liberals began shutting down Conservative speakers on campus, definitely infringing on their freedom of speech. Liberals used their belief that they possessed the moral high ground as an excuse to not speak with conservatives. Conservatives definitely started the identity politics campaign but liberals mastered it. If a person was a social conservative then liberals immediately wrote them off as racist, misogynist monsters and if a person was fiscally conservative then they were labeled capitalist that did not care about starving poor people.

Then the attacks became even more personal from the liberals. Conservatives were doing it just as much but they were not in power at the time and do not control much of the media. Politicians like Paul Ryan were labeled monsters. I disagree a lot with Ryan's political policies but I do not believe he is a monster or even a bad person. NRA members were labeled as people who have supported child murderers. Again, I personally know many NRA members of none are ok with the murder of children.

These type of attacks led to an acceptance of politicians like Donald Trump. Conservatives wanted a guy who would throw haymakers back, Trump did exactly that, where guys like John McCain were honorable and Mitt Romney did the typical dog-whistling, Trump bluntly insulted and said gross things to his competitors. Conservatives loved it though because they felt victimized by some of the attacks by the left. Conservatives were no victims; they had rallies were the hung dolls of Obama in effigy and said Sandy Hooks survivors were faking. However, they felt as if they were being victimized nether less and Trump represented the answer. That is not the final stone that is creating America's resistance to liberalism.

Liberals are making many Americans uncomfortable.

America is a county of Christian values. I am agnostic at best but leaning towards atheist and I know that America is a land of Christianity. Institutionally, as a country, we are a couple steps away from a full-blown theocracy. Most Americans are Christians, most politicians and other public figures are Christian; America has never not had a Christian president.

Then liberals attacked Christian values.

There is something, that no matter how uncomfortable it made Christian Americans feel, as a country we needed to get done. Not allowing homosexuals to get married is a violation of their human rights. Obama and Clinton were far behind on not supporting gay marriage. Homophobic people will be homophobic but most American's either got behind or grew to not care about gay marriage. Same thing with transsexual rights. Again, that is something that is a worthy fight and should be respected as on. As long as the argument is defined by reason, it does not matter if people are bothered by it.

Then liberals kept pushing farther past facts and into ideology and personal feelings.

They began advocating that there is no difference between a man and a woman. That everything we see as evidence that men and women are different is socially constructed. Evolutionary biology explicitly says that is wrong. The ultra-left make many other truth claims that science says are explicitly wrong.

The radicalization of the left will cost the Democratic Party a lot in the future. Americans will start leaving the Democratic Party as fast as they are leaving the Republican Party now. Whichever party modernizes will win the hearts of the American people. The democratic party should fight against real discrimination and unfair treatment. Fight racism through policy like fixing lead pipes in African American neighborhoods and putting more money into the public school. Fight for LGBTQA+ rights by fighting The Trump Administration's law that allows people to get fired for being gay. The Democratic Party needs to appeal to the rationality of the American Citizen and not try to match the radicalization of the Right.

If Liberals do not get a footing down pat by 2020 then they could be in serious trouble of losing the election.

If you enjoyed this conversation check out my podcast by following me on Twitter: @MccrayMassMedia

Cover Image Credit:

scontent-lga3-1.cdninstagram.com

Related Content

Facebook Comments