Let’s talk terrorism.

Or, more appropriately, let’s discuss a recent and most disturbing trend in public discussions concerning terrorism.

I’ll get to the point. The most recent Bush administration was quick to label recent acts of terror as “Islamic terrorism,” and if memory serves, Dick Cheney criticized the sitting President this year for not using the same term.

Today, I found an article from the Associated Press concerning an event in Connecticut. The short description: Construction of a memorial in Connecticut, planned to honor a 9/11 victim, was halted indefinitely. The victim’s father insists that the memorial should refer to “muslim terrorists” as his son’s murderers. The town refuses. (Subtext: Father doesn’t understand why the town refuses).

Well, let’s help him – and everyone else who has found the term “Islamic” or “Muslim” terrorism to be right. But instead of a long-winded argument, let’s just turn the tables slightly.

Would it be appropriate to commemorate every atrocious act of the Ku Klux Klan to “White Terrorism?”

Or – let’s step back from race. They did, after all, burn crosses. So – shall we call them “Christian Terrorists” instead?

Alright – how about the numerous acts of violence against abortion clinics (and the service providers therein, some who have not survived said acts)? These actions are most often quoted as being “for life,” and both (a Christian) God and (a very Christian) Judgment are frequently called in on the side of the perpetrators. Shall we call them all “Christian terrorists?” No – I think “domestic terrorism” is used instead, and I don’t hear anyone demanding it be changed.

So why, suddenly, must it be Islamic terrorism? I hope you now see the danger in applying a wide label to a small, dangerous group. That the recent Fort Hood incident involved a muslim is no more evidence for Islam being violent than cross-burning Klan members represent a violent Christian religion. Let he who is sinless cast the first stone. Until then, learn true tolerance.