The European Union is drawing up a lexicon of politically correct language to use when describing terrorists. "The idea is not to use the terms Islam and Muslim in connection to something negative," says a spokesman.

Further extracts, from articles here, here, and here:

"We want to avoid emotional wording which could hurt people or make a direct link between certain religions and terrorism," said one EU official. [Instead of] "Islamic terrorism," [say] "those who have an abusive interpretation of Islam."

EU policymakers worry that "Islamic terrorism" lumps all Muslims into the same category, and angers them. "The politically more correct term will be 'terrorism that abusively invokes Islam.' " The word "jihad" might be banned too. That's because it "can also mean the internal struggle to become a better man," the spokesman explained.

The exercise is designed to foster "a growing awareness of what Islam means" [or alternately,] to fight the radicalization of Muslims in Europe by avoiding words that could unnecessarily offend," terms such as "Islamist," "fundamentalist," and "jihad". "We want to take away any possible motivation or justification for people who are on the brink of becoming terrorists."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

Is this really "politically correct," or merely acknowledging that the average muslim is no more a threat than the average christian or jew or animist or wiccan or athiest?

One need not look too far into the Western past to find what a bumper sticker I just saw proclaimed: "Christianity ruled the Dark Ages."
Keep in mind that it was Islam and Judaism that kept knowledge alive during the time that the christians were burning one another at the stake, etc. The Spanish Golden Age was a fusion of Arab and Jewish culture, but then the christian kingdoms of Aragon and Castille got together and ruined it.

I find it absolutely mind boggling that no matter how much knowledge humankind aquires, people are still brutishly superstitious and fanatical, and ascribe their animus to an imagined deity.

The BBC avoids the use of "terrorist" in it's bulletins, substituting "militant" instead, which just sounds wrong to me. I mean trade unionists can be "militant" without the suggestion that they indulge in terrorism. Of course there used to be a left wing newspaper called "Militant". Just wondering if it's changed it's name to "terrorist"?
But for myself "Islamic terrorist" is correct usage. They are extremist Muslims who are terrorists so it is a correct description.
And yes, you're right Asa, religion has caused far too much trouble over the centuries!

PC appears to be an engulfing disease, stirring tempests in teacups and a threat to everyday discourse, if not to the Western traditions of free speech

On one board in which I participated, When I made reference to "Bush and the Muslims" as having a doleful effect on humanity, one of the members who was a Muslim was sorely aggrieved.

So I assured him that no offense was intended; that my remarks constituted only what was intended as a kind of political humor. But I nevertheless responded by editing my thread, substituting the phrase, "Neocons and certain international religious fanaticism". But I guess this was still too explicit as I was summarily banned from the site...

...the message from its otherwise anonymous "Admin" describing my dismissal as a form of "discipline," as if to warn, "Tut, tut, Daddy is Listening"

So be careful what you say. Subject yourself to the most intense scrutiny. Always doubly edit your thread to avoid anything that could remotely be described as Politically Incorrect

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

I think it even goes further than political correctness. I have found society is ever so much more sensitive than it used to be. In my profession, for example, just reporting research results about my own discipline has been difficult. What will the public think if we tell them we need to improve the education process? Good heavens! Wouldn't the public love it if we made that proclamation and then went about to fix it? Nope. We weren't allowed to say that.

Kalleh: Amen. Furthermore, be extremely careful not to imply that there could be something amiss with Modern American Character; even if you offer nine constructive ways to improve it; because saying so brands you as unpatriotic

We had been extremely lucky in the UK experiencing none whatsoever of the extreme PC. However, our right-wing press has conducted a concerted effort against fantasy examples of politicial-correctness-gone-mad. Therefore, there is a developing sense of confusion about what we are allowed to say, much to the delight of the Daily Mail, bigots and racists, who can now claim moral high ground when they want to be objectionable.