Post by: roo_ster on May 08, 2008, 10:31:09 AM
There is much of interest in this article, but what really caught my attention was the "Hierarchy of Victimhood" or perhaps a better name is, "Priorities of Post-Americans."
Much like in the Democrat Party, there is a priority placed on its coalition members. One example being, that environmentalists get priority over poor or starving people. In this case, the WaPo kills Harris's opinion piece out of deference to Islamic sensibilities. So, atheists can expect their selves and their speech to be tossed under the bus to satisfy Muslim touchiness. (If Harris has written something similar abuot CHristianity, no doubt it would have been in the WaPo.)
FYI: Sam Harris is one of the more recent religion-despising and religious people-despising atheists to come down the road. Not content to line & let live, he actively works to destroy religion and faith. So, he is not exactly a neutral observer. But, he does not threaten religious folk with violence and he is the enemy of the West's enemies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html?view=print
Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks
Posted May 5, 2008 | 10:13 AM (EST)
Geert Wilders, conservative Dutch politician and provocateur, has become the latest projectile in the world's most important culture war: the zero-sum conflict between civil society and traditional Islam. Wilders, who lives under perpetual armed guard due to death threats, recently released a 15 minute film entitled Fitna ("strife" in Arabic) over the internet. The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur'an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial. Controversial or not, one surely would expect politicians and journalists in every free society to strenuously defend Wilders' right to make such a film. But then one would be living on another planet, a planet where people do not happily repudiate their most basic freedoms in the name of "religious sensitivity."
Witness the free world's response to Fitna: The Dutch government sought to ban the film outright, and European Union foreign ministers publicly condemned it, as did UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Dutch television refused to air Fitna unedited. When Wilders declared his intention to release the film over the internet, his U.S. web-host, Network Solutions, took his website offline.
Into the breach stepped Liveleak, a British video-sharing website, which finally aired the film on March 27th. It received over 3 million views in the first 24 hours. The next day, however, Liveleak removed Fitna from its servers, having been terrorized into self-censorship by threats to its staff. But the film had spread too far on the internet to be suppressed (and Liveleak, after taking further security measures, has since reinstated it on its site as well).
Of course, there were immediate calls for a boycott of Dutch products throughout the Muslim world. In response, Dutch corporations placed ads in countries like Indonesia, denouncing the film in self-defense. Several Muslim countries blocked YouTube and other video-sharing sites in an effort to keep Wilders' blasphemy from penetrating the minds of their citizens. There have also been isolated protests and attacks on embassies, and ubiquitous demands for Wilders' murder. In Afghanistan, women in burqas could be seen burning the Dutch flag; the Taliban carried out at least two revenge attacks on Dutch troops, resulting in five Dutch casualties; and security concerns have caused the Netherlands to close its embassy in Kabul. It must be said, however, that nothing has yet occurred to rival the ferocious response to the Danish cartoons.
Meanwhile Kurt Westergaard, one of the Danish cartoonists, threatened to sue Wilders for copyright infringement, as Wilders used his drawing of a bomb-laden Muhammad without permission. Westergaard has lived in hiding since 2006 due to death threats of his own, so the Danish Union of Journalists volunteered to file this lawsuit on his behalf. Admittedly, there is something amusing about one hunted man, unable to venture out in public for fear of being killed by religious lunatics, threatening to sue another man in the same predicament over a copyright violation. But it is understandable that Westergaard wouldn't want to be repeatedly hurled at the enemy without his consent. Westergaard is an extraordinarily courageous man whose life has been ruined both by religious fanaticism and the free world's submission to it. In February, the Danish government arrested three Muslims who seemed poised to murder him. Other Danes unfortunate enough to have been born with the name "Kurt Westergaard" have had to take steps to escape being murdered in his place. (Wilder's has since removed the cartoon from the official version of Fitna.)
Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for "seeking to inflame" the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.
There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."
Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called "a chilling effect" on our exercise of free speech. I have, in my own small way, experienced this chill first hand. First, and most important, my friend and colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali happens to be among the hunted. Because of the failure of Western governments to make it safe for people to speak openly about the problem of Islam, I and others must raise a mountain of private funds to help pay for her round-the-clock protection. The problem is not, as is often alleged, that governments cannot afford to protect every person who speaks out against Muslim intolerance. The problem is that so few people do speak out. If there were ten thousand Ayaan Hirsi Ali's, the risk to each would be radically reduced.
As for infringements of my own speech, my first book, The End of Faith, almost did not get published for fear of offending the sensibilities of (probably non-reading) religious fanatics. W.W. Norton, which did publish the book, was widely seen as taking a risk--one probably attenuated by the fact that I am an equal-opportunity offender critical of all religious faith. However, when it came time to make final edits to the galleys of The End of Faith, many of the people I had thanked by name in my acknowledgments (including my agent at the time and my editor at Norton) independently asked to have their names removed from the book. Their concerns were explicitly for their personal safety. Given our shamefully ineffectual response to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, their concerns were perfectly understandable.
Nature, arguably the most influential scientific journal on the planet, recently published a lengthy whitewash of Islam (Z. Sardar "Beyond the troubled relationship." Nature 448, 131-133; 2007). The author began, as though atop a minaret, by simply declaring the religion of Islam to be "intrinsically rational." He then went on to argue, amid a highly idiosyncratic reading of history and theology, that this rational religion's current wallowing in the violent depths of unreason can be fully ascribed to the legacy of colonialism. After some negotiation, Nature also agreed to publish a brief response from me. What readers of my letter to the editor could not know, however, was that it was only published after perfectly factual sentences deemed offensive to Islam were expunged. I understood the editors' concerns at the time: not only did they have Britain's suffocating libel laws to worry about, but Muslim physicians and engineers in the UK had just revealed a penchant for suicide bombing. I was grateful that Nature published my letter at all.
In a thrillingly ironic turn of events, a shorter version of the very essay you are now reading was originally commissioned by the opinion page of Washington Post and then rejected because it was deemed too critical of Islam. Please note, this essay was destined for the opinion page of the paper, which had solicited my response to the controversy over Wilders' film. The irony of its rejection seemed entirely lost on the Post, which responded to my subsequent expression of amazement by offering to pay me a "kill fee." I declined.
I could list other examples of encounters with editors and publishers, as can many writers, all illustrating a single fact: While it remains taboo to criticize religious faith in general, it is considered especially unwise to criticize Islam. Only Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century. There are, to be sure, reasons why this is so. Some of these reasons have to do with accidents of history and geopolitics, but others can be directly traced to doctrines sanctifying violence which are unique to Islam.
A point of comparison: The controversy of over Fitna was immediately followed by ubiquitous media coverage of a scandal involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). In Texas, police raided an FLDS compound and took hundreds of women and underage girls into custody to spare them the continued, sacramental predations of their menfolk. While mainstream Mormonism is now granted the deference accorded to all major religions in the United States, its fundamentalist branch, with its commitment to polygamy, spousal abuse, forced marriage, child brides (and, therefore, child rape) is often portrayed in the press as a depraved cult. But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs."
Any honest comparison between these two faiths reveals a bizarre double standard in our treatment of religion. We can openly celebrate the marginalization of FLDS men and the rescue of their women and children. But, leaving aside the practical and political impossibility of doing so, could we even allow ourselves to contemplate liberating the women and children of traditional Islam?
What about all the civil, freedom-loving, moderate Muslims who are just as appalled by Muslim intolerance as I am? No doubt millions of men and women fit this description, but vocal moderates are very difficult to find. Wherever "moderate Islam" does announce itself, one often discovers frank Islamism lurking just a euphemism or two beneath the surface. The subterfuge is rendered all but invisible to the general public by political correctness, wishful thinking, and "white guilt." This is where we find sinister people successfully posing as "moderates"--people like Tariq Ramadan who, while lionized by liberal Europeans as the epitome of cosmopolitan Islam, cannot bring himself to actually condemn honor killing in round terms (he recommends that the practice be suspended, pending further study). Moderation is also attributed to groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamist public relations firm posing as a civil-rights lobby.
Even when one finds a true voice of Muslim moderation, it often seems distinguished by a lack of candor above all things. Take someone like Reza Aslan, author of No God But God: I debated Aslan for Book TV on the general subject of religion and modernity. During the course of our debate, I had a few unkind words to say about the Muslim Brotherhood. While admitting that there is a difference between the Brotherhood and a full-blown jihadist organization like al Qaeda, I said that their ideology was "close enough" to be of concern. Aslan responded with a grandiose, ad hominem attack saying, "that indicates the profound unsophistication that you have about this region. You could not be more wrong" and claiming that I'd taken my view of Islam from "Fox News." Such maneuvers, coming from a polished, Iranian-born scholar of Islam carry the weight of authority, especially in front of an audience of people who are desperate to believe the threat of Islam has been grossly exaggerated. The problem, however, is that the credo of the Muslim Brotherhood actually happens to be "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
The connection between the doctrine of Islam and Islamist violence is simply not open to dispute. It's not that critics of religion like myself speculate that such a connection might exist: the point is that Islamists themselves acknowledge and demonstrate this connection at every opportunity and to deny it is to retreat within a fantasy world of political correctness and religious apology. Many western scholars, like the much admired Karen Armstrong, appear to live in just such a place. All of their talk about how benign Islam "really" is, and about how the problem of fundamentalism exists in all religions, only obfuscates what may be the most pressing issue of our time: Islam, as it is currently understood and practiced by vast numbers of the world's Muslims, is antithetical to civil society. A recent poll showed that thirty-six percent of British Muslims (ages 16-24) believe that a person should be killed for leaving the faith. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should have been brought to justice. And these are British Muslims.
Occasionally, however, a lone voice can be heard acknowledging the obvious. Hassan Butt wrote in the Guardian:
Quote
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
It is astounding how infrequently one hears such candor among the public voices of "moderate" Islam. This is what we owe the true moderates of the Muslim world: we must hold their co-religionists to the same standards of civility and reasonableness that we take for granted in all other people. Only our willingness to openly criticize Islam for its all-too-obvious failings can make it safe for Muslim moderates, secularists, apostates--and, indeed, women--to rise up and reform their faith.
And if anyone in this debate can be credibly accused of racism, it is the western apologists and "multiculturalists" who deem Arabs and Muslims too immature to shoulder the responsibilities of civil discourse. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pointed out, there is a calamitous form of "affirmative action" at work, especially in western Europe, where Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying "respect" to the glaring pathologies in their culture. Hirsi Ali has also observed that there is a quasi-racist double-think on display whenever western powers trumpet that "Islam is peace," all the while taking heroic measures to guard against the next occasion when the barbarians run amok in response to a film, cartoon, opera, novel, beauty pageant--or the mere naming of a teddy bear.
Have you seen the Danish cartoons that so roiled the Muslim world? Probably not, as their publication was suppressed by almost every newspaper, magazine, and television station in the United States. Given their volcanic reception--hundreds of thousands of Muslims rioted, hundreds of people were killed--their sheer banality should have rendered these drawings extraordinarily newsworthy. One magazine which did print them, Free Inquiry (for which I am proud to have written), had its stock banned from every Borders and Waldenbooks in the country. These are precisely the sorts of capitulations that we must avoid in the future.
The lesson we should draw from the Fitna controversy is that we need more criticism of Islam, not less. Let it come down in such torrents that not even the most deluded Islamist could conceive of containing it. As Ibn Warraq, author of the revelatory Why I Am Not a Muslim, said in response to recent events:
Quote
It is perverse for the western media to lament the lack of an Islamic reformation and willfully ignore works such as Wilders' film, Fitna. How do they think reformation will come about if not with criticism? There is no such right as 'the right not to be offended; indeed, I am deeply offended by the contents of the Koran, with its overt hatred of Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers, homosexuals but cannot demand its suppression.
It is time we recognized that those who claim the "right not to be offended" have also announced their hatred of civil society.
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 08, 2008, 12:29:15 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 01:04:21 PM
I heard MANY Christians condemning the abortion clinic bombings, even many on the pro-life side. If pagans started bombing places of worship of "People of the Book", you'ld see folks like myself, Broken Paw, and RevDisk out hunting the perpetrators. If a group of radical Jews started bombing mosques, I'd lay money that Rabbi would be loud and clear in his disgust of the act.
Yet Muslims, by and large, have ignored the violent acts of their lunatic fringe, even tacitly (and sometimes, not so tacitly) approved of it...
Post by: mek42 on May 08, 2008, 03:13:17 PM
I'm too young to remember (and wasn't paying attention to these things as a wee lad) - were there major denunciations of the intra-Irish terrorism during the 1960's - 1980's by the various Irish churches?
Post by: El Tejon on May 08, 2008, 04:17:49 PM
Post by: roo_ster on May 08, 2008, 04:30:45 PM
One of these days I need to sit down and read the Koran just to see what is really in there.
I'm too young to remember (and wasn't paying attention to these things as a wee lad) - were there major denunciations of the intra-Irish terrorism during the 1960's - 1980's by the various Irish churches?
I'm too young to remember (and wasn't paying attention to these things as a wee lad) - were there major denunciations of the intra-Irish terrorism during the 1960's - 1980's by the various Irish churches?
I am ashamed to say that many Americans of Irish Catholic decent gave moral and material support to the PIRA and affiliated organizations.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 08, 2008, 07:56:11 PM
But by and large we are at war with Islam.
And that we is every other major religion.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 08:09:03 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 08, 2008, 08:40:05 PM
Post by: De Selby on May 08, 2008, 09:21:54 PM
THE major difference is that, in other religions, violence shown by their "lunatic fringe" bring ringing denunciations almost immediately...
I heard MANY Christians condemning the abortion clinic bombings, even many on the pro-life side. If pagans started bombing places of worship of "People of the Book", you'ld see folks like myself, Broken Paw, and RevDisk out hunting the perpetrators. If a group of radical Jews started bombing mosques, I'd lay money that Rabbi would be loud and clear in his disgust of the act.
Yet Muslims, by and large, have ignored the violent acts of their lunatic fringe, even tacitly (and sometimes, not so tacitly) approved of it...
I heard MANY Christians condemning the abortion clinic bombings, even many on the pro-life side. If pagans started bombing places of worship of "People of the Book", you'ld see folks like myself, Broken Paw, and RevDisk out hunting the perpetrators. If a group of radical Jews started bombing mosques, I'd lay money that Rabbi would be loud and clear in his disgust of the act.
Yet Muslims, by and large, have ignored the violent acts of their lunatic fringe, even tacitly (and sometimes, not so tacitly) approved of it...
I await the name of one single major Muslim organization that has not condemned terrorism repeatedly.
To speak of being "at war with Islam" makes no sense-it's not a person. Clearly we are not at war with the vast majority of Muslims, or the world would be in flames from China to Britain.
The religious debate about Islam and violence is a battle of the unlearned and ignorant for the most part-on the Muslim side, ignoramuses saying "hey, they killed Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon in the 1980's and occupy lands with Muslim populations....therefore, retaliation against the civilians who fund these projects is justified because the Qu'ran says to fight oppression!"
On the other hand, you have ignoramuses like Geert Wilders who do a hack job of quoting and say "See, it's a violent religion and they do it because their book tells them to! [AKA-that Muslims are in reality what Nazis claimed Jews to be in fantasy]"
The vast majority of Muslims, in my experience, are incredulous that anyone could buy "theories" of the sort sold by Wilders, on account of their being so patently ridiculous and smelling of anti-semitic conspiracy theories; I would like to believe that most people who aren't Muslims have at least that much common sense.
Interesting, anyway, how we can be "mostly at war with Islam" (meaning at war with the deeply held religious beliefs of Iraq and Afghanistan) yet just there to help the locals be independent and free in both of those places, isn't it?
Edit: This is a good example of the absurdity of the Wilder types (this is Aayan Hirsi Ali speaking, the one that this article wants 10,000 of)....check out how calling for abolishing religious freedom and prohibiting Muslims from having schools makes a person a "moderate":
Quote
Reason: In Holland, you wanted to introduce a special permit system for Islamic schools, correct?
Hirsi Ali: I wanted to get rid of them. I wanted to have them all closed, but my party said it wouldnt fly. Top people in the party privately expressed that they agreed with me, but said, We wont get a majority to do that, so it never went anywhere.
Hirsi Ali: I wanted to get rid of them. I wanted to have them all closed, but my party said it wouldnt fly. Top people in the party privately expressed that they agreed with me, but said, We wont get a majority to do that, so it never went anywhere.
Also some other gems in her thinking:
Quote
Reason: Here in the United States, youd advocate the abolition of
Hirsi Ali: All Muslim schools. Close them down. Yeah, that sounds absolutist. I think 10 years ago things were different, but now the jihadi genie is out of the bottle.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/122457.htmlHirsi Ali: All Muslim schools. Close them down. Yeah, that sounds absolutist. I think 10 years ago things were different, but now the jihadi genie is out of the bottle.
You see comrades....to defend our fatherland from this religious scourge of Muslims who want to ban religious freedom, we must abolish religious freedom before they do!
Post by: De Selby on May 08, 2008, 09:25:29 PM
One of these days I need to sit down and read the Koran just to see what is really in there.
I'm too young to remember (and wasn't paying attention to these things as a wee lad) - were there major denunciations of the intra-Irish terrorism during the 1960's - 1980's by the various Irish churches?
I'm too young to remember (and wasn't paying attention to these things as a wee lad) - were there major denunciations of the intra-Irish terrorism during the 1960's - 1980's by the various Irish churches?
No. The Church was one of the bedrocks of financial and propaganda support for the IRA, most of its money and weapons came from America, and the support was uncontroversial enough that at least one Congressman went and had beers with IRA terrorists to show his solidarity.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 09:41:40 PM
Post by: De Selby on May 08, 2008, 09:45:48 PM
Hey SS, you're late! 9 replies in before you joined the thread. What happened, you get caught up at work or something?
I debated whether or not to reply-it's usually fruitless, but if I have the time a token effort is worth it on the chance that there might be one less person out there who believes in the recycled blood libels floating around against Muslims.
For the most part though, no amount of evidence or reasoning is good enough-suspicion and hatred of other religions seems to be an ingrained part of American culture, and I seriously doubt I will see the end of it in my lifetime. My parents grew up with everyone hating and suspecting Jews; I live with a large part of the population wanting to mark Muslims with arm bands; and Lord knows what religion will be the target when my children grow up.
It's quite sad, really.
Post by: SomeKid on May 08, 2008, 09:56:13 PM
THE major difference is that, in other religions, violence shown by their "lunatic fringe" bring ringing denunciations almost immediately...
I heard MANY Christians condemning the abortion clinic bombings, even many on the pro-life side. If pagans started bombing places of worship of "People of the Book", you'ld see folks like myself, Broken Paw, and RevDisk out hunting the perpetrators. If a group of radical Jews started bombing mosques, I'd lay money that Rabbi would be loud and clear in his disgust of the act.
Yet Muslims, by and large, have ignored the violent acts of their lunatic fringe, even tacitly (and sometimes, not so tacitly) approved of it...
I heard MANY Christians condemning the abortion clinic bombings, even many on the pro-life side. If pagans started bombing places of worship of "People of the Book", you'ld see folks like myself, Broken Paw, and RevDisk out hunting the perpetrators. If a group of radical Jews started bombing mosques, I'd lay money that Rabbi would be loud and clear in his disgust of the act.
Yet Muslims, by and large, have ignored the violent acts of their lunatic fringe, even tacitly (and sometimes, not so tacitly) approved of it...
I await the name of one single major Muslim organization that has not condemned terrorism repeatedly.
Talk about making it easy. Al-Quaida. Al-Asqu Martyrs Brigade. Hezbollah. Islamic Jihad. Fatah. I can keep going. There are more Islamic terrorist orginzations than their are Christian denominations. Oh, wait, since those are terrorist organizations they suddenly don;t count, even though you only asked for Islamic organization? Fine. CAIR. I have yet to see them denounce the Islamic attacks once.
Heck, I will go even further SS, YOU. I asked you once specifically if you had ever denounced the terrorist attacks. You immediately attacked me.
SO tell me SS, how much have you funneled to the terrorists today?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 09:58:41 PM
And, since I've BEEN persecuted for my faith, I think I can speak on this one. As I said, folks of other faiths will jump all over members of (nominally) their own faith for such outrages. But I don't really hear anyone in "the Muslim Community" denouncing the jihadists. So what gives?
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 08, 2008, 10:11:29 PM
Post by: Iain on May 08, 2008, 10:20:28 PM
But I don't really hear anyone in "the Muslim Community" denouncing the jihadists. So what gives?
Held off saying this to you last night because I wouldn't have worded it well. You seem a decent sort, so I'll ask it nicely - do you read 'muslim' press, books, hear Friday sermons at mosques? Other than that which is reported by the much denigrated msm?
If I didn't have Christian friends and relied entirely on the media for my 'news from Christianity', well I might have some funny ideas that don't square up to reality.
Do you associate with muslims at all? By that I mean, do you know any. I've spent time with muslims, known them well enough to discuss the issues of the day. Their views on terrorism are the same as yours.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 10:24:54 PM
Post by: LadySmith on May 09, 2008, 01:55:00 AM
OK. So you're saying that "mainstream Islam" IS denouncing terrorism, but that the media isn't covering it?
This possibility is believable to me.Fear sells.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2008, 02:01:06 AM
Quote
suspicion and hatred of other religions seems to be an ingrained part of American culture
You do realize that statement is as bigoted as anything anyone has said about Islam, right?
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 09, 2008, 02:05:11 AM
Quote
suspicion and hatred of other religions seems to be an ingrained part of American culture
You do realize that statement is as bigoted as anything anyone has said about Islam, right?
That statement IMO could be accounted to anyone of any religion.
Post by: roo_ster on May 09, 2008, 03:29:58 AM
Putting aside some of the other bits, what do you think about the following points:
1. In the Post-American / apatriotic* set, Muslim sensitivities trump atheist speech. Christian sensitivities do not get in the way of atheists expressing disdain for Christianity. Why the difference?
2. Sam Harris puts forth the notion that the way to protect those who speak out against Islam's more violent adherents is to, "flood the zone," making it untenable to retaliate with violence against those that take Islam to task for one reason or another.
As a Christian, it never would occur to me to use violence to counteract criticism of Christianity. The other side of the coin (use of violence in response to criticism of Islam) is well-founded.
Perhaps SH is right in that the best way to achieve decent behavior from Muslims inclined to violence in response to critical speech is to have that speech resound off every rooftop.
This comes from the perspective that Muslims and Islam are expected to conform to Western culture rather than Western culture change itself to accommodate Islam. The correct perspective, IMO.
Atheists in the house?
I was also seeking comment from honest-to-godless atheists about tossing atheist perspectives under the bus to appease violent Muslims. Any of y'all temper your remarks about Islam in the way you don't when remarking on Christianity?
* Perhaps a neologism, but the "a+patriotic" it does express my meaning better than "un+patriotic." The distinction is similar to the relationship between the words moral, immoral, and amoral.
Post by: roo_ster on May 09, 2008, 03:58:14 AM
But I don't really hear anyone in "the Muslim Community" denouncing the jihadists. So what gives?
Held off saying this to you last night because I wouldn't have worded it well. You seem a decent sort, so I'll ask it nicely - do you read 'muslim' press, books, hear Friday sermons at mosques? Other than that which is reported by the much denigrated msm?
If I didn't have Christian friends and relied entirely on the media for my 'news from Christianity', well I might have some funny ideas that don't square up to reality.
Do you associate with muslims at all? By that I mean, do you know any. I've spent time with muslims, known them well enough to discuss the issues of the day. Their views on terrorism are the same as yours.
I'll answer some of that.
I can not read any local Arab/Farsi-language pubs due to my lack of facility in those languages. There are, however, translation websites that are kind enough to translate similar pubs, amny form the ME. Very much the way Arafat would say one thing in English and another in Arabic, these pubs are much more straight-forward in their support of barbaric behavior.
There are some local Muslim pubs, however, put out or associated with the various mosqes/Muslim orgs in the region in English.
They tend to support Sam Harris' proposition that "moderate" Muslims are pretty squirrely, supporting the following SH assertions:
"Wherever "moderate Islam" does announce itself, one often discovers frank Islamism lurking just a euphemism or two beneath the surface..."
"Even when one finds a true voice of Muslim moderation, it often seems distinguished by a lack of candor above all things."
Not all are equal in their squirrely-ness, but it is impossible not to see it. A fine example is a local mosque that delivers statements condemning terrorism pretty regularly, but holds big fund-raising dinners honoring Iranian Ayatolla Khomeini*.
My region has a heavy Muslim contingent and you'd have to be a hermit not to associate with Muslims in work or other activities. Those I have had the chance to spend a decent amount of time with (usually work & grad school in past) are generally well-educated and of above-average means. Real financial success-stories of the sons of immigrants or immigrants themselves. Low crime rates, etc., and most the positive traits one associates with a successful immigrant community.
Thing is, even the well-educated generally despise the Jews and are also squirrely about their co-religionist's violence. Oh, yeah, you can get a condemnation of "terrorism," but many re-define terrorism in ways that make it fine & dandy to blow the heck outta Israelis or other convenient circumlocutions. One can't take the surface meaning of initial words/statements at face value with them on these topics.
* They also are on record supporting beating one's womenfolk and violence against homosexuals.
Post by: De Selby on May 09, 2008, 11:41:03 PM
Quote
suspicion and hatred of other religions seems to be an ingrained part of American culture
You do realize that statement is as bigoted as anything anyone has said about Islam, right?
Considering the amount of times I have seen "nuke all mUslims~!!" On this board, no, I don't.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 10, 2008, 03:19:39 AM
Post by: RevDisk on May 10, 2008, 07:25:09 AM
THE major difference is that, in other religions, violence shown by their "lunatic fringe" bring ringing denunciations almost immediately...
I heard MANY Christians condemning the abortion clinic bombings, even many on the pro-life side. If pagans started bombing places of worship of "People of the Book", you'ld see folks like myself, Broken Paw, and RevDisk out hunting the perpetrators. If a group of radical Jews started bombing mosques, I'd lay money that Rabbi would be loud and clear in his disgust of the act.
Yet Muslims, by and large, have ignored the violent acts of their lunatic fringe, even tacitly (and sometimes, not so tacitly) approved of it...
I heard MANY Christians condemning the abortion clinic bombings, even many on the pro-life side. If pagans started bombing places of worship of "People of the Book", you'ld see folks like myself, Broken Paw, and RevDisk out hunting the perpetrators. If a group of radical Jews started bombing mosques, I'd lay money that Rabbi would be loud and clear in his disgust of the act.
Yet Muslims, by and large, have ignored the violent acts of their lunatic fringe, even tacitly (and sometimes, not so tacitly) approved of it...
Most religions have used violence when it suited them. I'm not referring to hundreds of years ago. Ben-Gurion/Begin and the King David Hotel bombing. Both the Ulster nationalists and Catholics in Ireland. Heck, the Armenian Genocide was only about 90 years ago. Some have much higher body counts than others.
I suppose I'll be slated an Islamic apoligist, or an insensitive Islam hater, for my remarks, but hey, that's life. Islam is a religion, not a unified ethnic group. There are dozens of significant sects within Islam.
The group that we're more or less at war with is the Wahabbism. It was founded by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab as a conservative 18th century reformist call of Sunni Islam. It is largely based on the teachings of Taqī ad-Dīn Abul Abbās Ahmad ibn 'Abd al-Halim ibn 'Abd as-Salam Ibn Taymiya al-Harrānī (yes, I copied that as there's no way I could ever memorize it), more universally known as Ibn Taymiyyah, about 1300. Ibn Taymiyyah really hated the infidels. Infidels primarily being Mongols, Sufism and Shia. Even today, for every one Westerner killed by Wahabbi fanatics, they kill at least a hundred Muslims of a different sect.
With me so far? The Wahabbi sect's main purpose is 'purifying' Islam at the point of the sword. This is primarily concerned with other Muslims as they wish to remove "heretical" beliefs from Islam, but also on the tangent of removing outside non-Muslim influences from the region. The Muslim Brotherhood has traditionally been the Wahabbi militant arm. There are other sects that are dangerous, but none are as remotely close to the Muslim Brotherhood and its derivatives.
If you want a cheat sheet that is woefully simplistic. The Shia are territorial. If they blow anything up, it'll be within a couple hundred miles of their own turf. They don't export terrorism from the region, 99% of the time. But they can cause a lot of issues in contested turf. Sunni are amoung the most industrially and educationally advanced, but also have the most militant sects. These sects ARE perfectly willing to travel to cause problems. Shia tends to have more people, Sunni tend to have the money. Druze, Alawite, Kurds, Albanians, et al, also territorial but their warfare ends to be ethnic. They don't have the land, people or money to compete with the Sunni and *expletive deleted*it.
If you're still skeptical, go find a soldier that served in the Balkans, Kurdistan, Turkey or Egypt if they were unduly concerned about the locals clipping them. Then go find another soldier that served in the Sunni triangle in Iraq, Yemen, et al.
Still with me?
If you are an American concerned with a hostile branch Islam, you only need to really worry about the militant arm of the Sunni. As none of the rest are gonna cross an ocean to bother you. If you're above average intelligence, you'll notice that the Sunni are heavily outnumbered by the other sects. An even more intelligence person would try to work ways to get these other sects to handle one's dirty work of removing the travelling Wahabbi sects.
As for those concerned about the lack of Muslim outrage, you shouldn't be. First off, there are plenty of Muslims outraged and very vocal about doing so. They don't get much space in media, whether in the US or in the ME. So go talk to them. Dearborn, MI has tons of 'em. Sure, they have their gripes about this or that, but they'll be honked off that idiots go around blowing stuff up. As for Muslims within the ME, the rank and file wisely keep very quiet about all matters. The tallest tree is cut down in very short order. Freedom of expression is not exactly common. Very real issues like corruption, ruling oligarchies, tightly controlled information, and state funded violence is rampant. There are lots of problems. Terrorism is a concern, but numerically speaking, not exactly the most important one at most times.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 10, 2008, 07:29:32 AM
Post by: De Selby on May 10, 2008, 03:42:00 PM
OK, the bigotry continues. Are you trying to prove your point, then, or do you really believe that?
I don't consider it bigotry to point out that hatred of Jews (and now Muslims) seems to have been a feature of American public life for a long time. I do believe that it is a fact, and that a quick perusal of the anti-semitic policies and sentiments of the past 100 years in America, followed by a comparison to the attitudes expressed towards Muslims today, will yield more than enough information to support the conclusion.
Post by: Art Eatman on May 11, 2008, 10:15:17 AM
I can speak publicly against any religion except Islam and have no fear of physical retribution. I cannot speak publicly against Islam without anticipating some future violence against me. Now, why is saying that "bigoted"?
My own opinion of Islam is that it creates a static socioeconomic system. Better said, maybe, it HAS created a static socioeconomic system. They went from being leaders in math and medicine to being nowhere in much of anything. If it weren't for western geologists discovering oil and western inventors developing multitudinous uses therefor, the Islamics of the mideast would still be screwing camels. But for oil exports, the sum total of all exports from all mideast and North African Islamic countries equals the GDP of Denmark. Static.
Basically, the Jihadists have declared war on civilization once again, and we're in real short supply for an El Cid.
When you're the Great Satan because of Rock&Roll music, bikinis, women dancing with men and owning property and for the freedom to show porno flicks or be homosexual, you're not dealing with sane people. Sane by our standards, and our standards are what apply outside any Islamic country.
I'm not interested in "understanding Islam and Islamics". I'm interested in them understanding a fundamental deal for ME: "All men and women are created equal, with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and peace and quiet."
Post by: De Selby on May 11, 2008, 11:40:14 AM
If any of "mainstream" Islamics are publicly speaking out against the Jihadists and riotous types (like the car burners in France) it's a well-kept secret. Seems to me it would be a newsworthy item.
I can speak publicly against any religion except Islam and have no fear of physical retribution. I cannot speak publicly against Islam without anticipating some future violence against me. Now, why is saying that "bigoted"?
My own opinion of Islam is that it creates a static socioeconomic system. Better said, maybe, it HAS created a static socioeconomic system. They went from being leaders in math and medicine to being nowhere in much of anything. If it weren't for western geologists discovering oil and western inventors developing multitudinous uses therefor, the Islamics of the mideast would still be screwing camels. But for oil exports, the sum total of all exports from all mideast and North African Islamic countries equals the GDP of Denmark. Static.
Basically, the Jihadists have declared war on civilization once again, and we're in real short supply for an El Cid.
When you're the Great Satan because of Rock&Roll music, bikinis, women dancing with men and owning property and for the freedom to show porno flicks or be homosexual, you're not dealing with sane people. Sane by our standards, and our standards are what apply outside any Islamic country.
I'm not interested in "understanding Islam and Islamics". I'm interested in them understanding a fundamental deal for ME: "All men and women are created equal, with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and peace and quiet."
I can speak publicly against any religion except Islam and have no fear of physical retribution. I cannot speak publicly against Islam without anticipating some future violence against me. Now, why is saying that "bigoted"?
My own opinion of Islam is that it creates a static socioeconomic system. Better said, maybe, it HAS created a static socioeconomic system. They went from being leaders in math and medicine to being nowhere in much of anything. If it weren't for western geologists discovering oil and western inventors developing multitudinous uses therefor, the Islamics of the mideast would still be screwing camels. But for oil exports, the sum total of all exports from all mideast and North African Islamic countries equals the GDP of Denmark. Static.
Basically, the Jihadists have declared war on civilization once again, and we're in real short supply for an El Cid.
When you're the Great Satan because of Rock&Roll music, bikinis, women dancing with men and owning property and for the freedom to show porno flicks or be homosexual, you're not dealing with sane people. Sane by our standards, and our standards are what apply outside any Islamic country.
I'm not interested in "understanding Islam and Islamics". I'm interested in them understanding a fundamental deal for ME: "All men and women are created equal, with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and peace and quiet."
Just try this-name one "mainstream" or any other Islamic "sect" that has not spoken out against terrorism.
If you search the roster of such organizations, you will be hard pressed to find any such group other than Al Qaeda itself that has not vocally and repeatedly condemned terrorism.
Unfortunately, they don't own CNN, so they can't force CNN to carry "Muslim groups denounce terrorists-again" every day.
A note on calling for the return of guys like "El cid"-those are the people who gifted places like Haiti, South America, and Africa to the world, and who expelled every last Jew from Spain on pain of death.
In other words, we already had another El Cid-his name was Adolf Hitler; the two had remarkably similar ideologies and were at the forefront of remarkably similar movements. Thanks, but no thanks, if you ask me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 11, 2008, 02:23:52 PM
OK, the bigotry continues. Are you trying to prove your point, then, or do you really believe that?
I don't consider it bigotry to point out that hatred of Jews (and now Muslims) seems to have been a feature of American public life for a long time. I do believe that it is a fact, and that a quick perusal of the anti-semitic policies and sentiments of the past 100 years in America, followed by a comparison to the attitudes expressed towards Muslims today, will yield more than enough information to support the conclusion.
Or perhaps you are just severely confused.
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on May 11, 2008, 03:07:56 PM
i temper my remarks around christians on a regular basis. because i live with one. i have often tempered my remarks in here, due to respect of my fellow members and because i have no wish or need to offend them. if i was suronded by muslims whom i respected and felt were intellegent human beings i would also speck politely and respectfully.
my issues are not with one religion or another. its is the idea of ORGANIZED RELIGION that i don't like/agree with. i waver between agnostic and atheist depending on the day. the resons why i dislike organized religions are many and often complicated, and sometimes based in my own faith (which is personal and nessasary) in the world around me. also, my issues are not usually with the induviduals, but the masses.
that being said, i don't feel the need to bash the entirity of a particular religion, just because i don't like one sect, group or thought. i agree that the 'war on islam' is a misnomer and misleading, and potentially harmful to muslims living in our country.
now, if you want to bash, hate or mildly dislike another group. be my guest. if you want to speak out against those folks go ahead. don't be suprised if you get yelled at, because, in my experiance anytime someone states ANY opinion about ANYTHING, someones gonna get their panties in a twist.
and its not an american issue with bigotry. every group has their 'thing'. its human nature to dislike a group diffrent from their own. hell, even i have a problem with mexicans... exscuse me... illigial immigrants from hispanic countries because their culture is such that it offends me.
did that make sense?
Post by: Art Eatman on May 11, 2008, 04:02:37 PM
One thing for sure, nobody's ever reported back from Heaven, Hell, or The Blank Void. So, you don't know, I don't know, nor does anybody else.
I do note that a fair number of Olde Phart atheists find Jesus somewhere in those last years, and apparently start cramming for finals. Insufficent faith? Damfino.
But you can actually badmouth Christianity without worrying about having your head haggled of with a dull sword for the benefit of video cameras. Can't say the same for the Jihadist crowd--and you don't even have to badmouth them. Just be different.
shootinstudent, why don't you just sashay on back to the fish market with your red herrings? El Cid had damn-all to do with Spain's New World adventures. You keep yapping history as though you actually knew something about it.
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on May 11, 2008, 04:20:26 PM
Quote
But you can actually badmouth Christianity without worrying about having your head haggled of with a dull sword for the benefit of video cameras. Can't say the same for the Jihadist crowd--and you don't even have to badmouth them. Just be different.
odd, i'll badmouth the jihad nutters anyday. i'm not going to let such behavior scare me away from speaking my mind. and i'll back up my chances for survival with a 1911. it is one thing to be polite and respectful of opposing views. its another to repress your own veiws for the fear of offending somebody. and if you refuse to speak your mind cause your too scared, then you are a bonified weeny.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 11, 2008, 04:41:01 PM
to be loud and proud denouncing the jihadists is real good way to get your family whacked. sadly my kin in northern ireland weren't much better. were it not for catholicisms ban on suicide there would nbe lil way to see much difference in the two groups. the soulution is probably gonna have to come from within the islamic cultures and its probably gonna be messy.
to b
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 11, 2008, 07:28:21 PM
Wait, what?
Post by: De Selby on May 11, 2008, 07:56:05 PM
shootinstudent, why don't you just sashay on back to the fish market with your red herrings? El Cid had damn-all to do with Spain's New World adventures. You keep yapping history as though you actually knew something about it.
That is absolutely untrue-he had everything to do with it. The Reconquista culture was going strong when Spain's armies swept the world and turned it into a resource farm for the dynastic wars all over Europe. Bivar's time and exploits served as the genesis for 20th century racist movements-that is the root of the most vile anti-semitism and racism in Europe, the Spanish push to cleanse Europe of blacks and Jews. And that's exactly what they did-just like Hitler tried to do later.
Nazi racism and anti-semitism did not appear out of the blue, and if you look for its origins, you will find it in post-Reconquista Spain, where "el cid" was the hero of the day, since he spent his life killing the blacks and Jews that the Spanish kings loved to hate.
Edit: I see that Art doesn't find me credible on this subject:
Quote
El Cid had damn-all to do with Spain's New World adventures. You keep yapping history as though you actually knew something about it.
But I think if you read period sources (most are in english, but it helps to read spanish), you'll find that not only is this statement incorrect, it's fairly hard to read anything about the New World without finding the incessant Spanish references to El Cid. "Santiago" was the battle cry, for example, throughout new Spain....so no need to take my word for it on this one; any source you'd like to investigate will settle this matter clearly.
Post by: De Selby on May 11, 2008, 07:57:15 PM
*chuckle*
odd, i'll badmouth the jihad nutters anyday. i'm not going to let such behavior scare me away from speaking my mind. and i'll back up my chances for survival with a 1911. it is one thing to be polite and respectful of opposing views. its another to repress your own veiws for the fear of offending somebody. and if you refuse to speak your mind cause your too scared, then you are a bonified weeny.
Quote
But you can actually badmouth Christianity without worrying about having your head haggled of with a dull sword for the benefit of video cameras. Can't say the same for the Jihadist crowd--and you don't even have to badmouth them. Just be different.
odd, i'll badmouth the jihad nutters anyday. i'm not going to let such behavior scare me away from speaking my mind. and i'll back up my chances for survival with a 1911. it is one thing to be polite and respectful of opposing views. its another to repress your own veiws for the fear of offending somebody. and if you refuse to speak your mind cause your too scared, then you are a bonified weeny.
The odds are overwhelmingly better that by bashing Islam, you will get a series of New York times bestsellers and television appearances, rather than ending up hurt by a crazed Jihadist.