Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The West Is Lavender
Doug Ireland reviews a disturbing book about the lives of gays and lesbians in the Middle East. One interesting tidbit:
In dissecting the wide gap between portrayals of homosexuality in Arab media and official discourse, and the lived reality of Arab same-sexers, Whitaker writes that "Arab portrayals of homosexuality as a foreign phenomenon can be [plausibly] attributed to a reversal of old-fashioned Western orientalism. Western orientalism, as analyzed by Edward Said in his influential book, highlights the 'otherness' of oriental culture in order (Said argued) to control it more effectively. Reverse orientalism -- a comparatively new development in the Arab world -- taps into the same themes but also highlights the 'otherness' of the West in order to resist modernization and reform. Homosexuality is one aspect of Western 'otherness' that can be readily exploited to whip up popular sentiment....Where symbolism of this kind applies, the sexual act must necessarily be described in terms that maximize the reader’s disgust: there is no scope for portrayals of homosexuality that are anything but negative."
For more on this "Occidentalism," see Chuck Freund's pioneering Reason essay of December 2001.
|1.5.07 @ 10:50AM|#
As a gay man, this is the primary issue that makes me regard
"progressives" as an enemy that hates me. These pompous, stupid
"progressives" insist that I lovingly embrace every aspect of Islam
or else I am a vicious racist. If I point out that the death
penalty for homosexuality is well-accepted in every major school of
Islamic thought and represented in the shitty lives of gays in
Islamic countries, then I am called a vicious racist.
Nevermind that Islam isn't a race. Nevermind that there's no such
thing as "race" anyway (outside of the single human race).
You made an enemy out of me, you fetid "progressive" pieces of
garbage.
|1.5.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Loundry,
How many instances can you cite where you've been labeled a
"vicious racist" for pointing out Islam's appalling treatment of
gays, or are you just arguing with the progressive in your
head?
|1.5.07 @ 11:01AM|#
One of the most useful chapters in the book is Whitaker's
dissection and refutation of the arguments of Joseph Massad (left),
a controversial Columbia University professor and author of a
widely-circulated essay ( "Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay
International and the Arab World," Public Culture, Spring, 2002)
complaining that gay rights in Arab and Muslim countries is an
imperialist 'missionary' project orchestrated by what he calls the
"Gay International."
Um... homosexuality was not invented by westerners nor is it
exclusive to them. What a prick.
|1.5.07 @ 11:05AM|#
I wonder what cultural origin they attribute to fucking goats? Um, female goats of course. Screwing a male goat would clearly be gay.
The Lounsbury|1.5.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Charming, the responses:
Islam's appalling treatment of gays
Islam is an abstraction, like Christianity. It doesn't do
anything.
Like all the Abrahamic religions (including e.g. the Judaic root,
as evidenced by the nice stonings in Jerusalem during the aborted
gay pride rally, done by Orthodox), the religious texts are not
terribly, how shall we say it, liberal in approaching
homosexuality.
Hardly news, this.
Of course, if one actually reads Whitaker's text (or know the mate)
one gets a rather less demonic picture of the Arab world (nota
bene, Arab, not Islamic, nor even Islamic Arab) in
re homosexuality. A picture that reads rather like the West c. 1960
or so re gays (in most countries, some of course are rather
worse).
However, it would appear that many a Westerner rather prefers the
empty-headed demonization, must much self-satisfying to look down
on the Infidel foreigners, eh no?
(Also
see Aqoul's own note on Whitaker's book, based off his sharing his
pre-pub galley with eerie and myself.)
|1.5.07 @ 12:09PM|#
If we (and by "we" I mean "other people who look like you and me") treated gays like this X years ago, do we (and by "we" I mean "you and me") really have standing to criticize that others are treating gays like this now?
|1.5.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Charming, the responses:
Snotty and pompous, your response. Typical "progressive"
sanctimony.
Islam is an abstraction, like Christianity. It doesn't do
anything.
A religion is not an "abstraction". Typical "progressive" cop-out.
What Islam does is precisely that which its adherents do in the
name of Islam, following the teachings of Islam, for the purpose of
increasing the numbers of Islam's adherents or increasing Islam's
dominance.
However, it would appear that many a Westerner rather prefers
the empty-headed demonization, must much self-satisfying to look
down on the Infidel foreigners, eh no?
You're one to talk of "looking down" on anyone, aren't you? Typical
"progressive" moral equivalence.
Kiss my gay ass, you stupid "progressive" piece of garbage. I
struggle to keep from hating your guts, but only because hating you
would do more damage to me than it would to you, not because you
don't deserve to be hated.
|1.5.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Wingnut,
I think Islam is an evil religion and should be either massively
reformed or destroyed. It should not be tolerated; rather, it
should be mocked, reviled, and eliminated.
Is this racist of me?
|1.5.07 @ 12:24PM|#
Loundry,
No, that's not "racist" (for reasons you yourself pointed out) but
it is rather hysterical and excessive of you.
If you talk like that to everyone I could see how you could be
called a vicious racist, although, again, I disagree with that
terminology. There's a big difference between saying "Islam treats
gays poorly" and "Islam must be destroyed."
|1.5.07 @ 12:25PM|#
Jaybird,
I criticize people who look like me for how they treat gays RIGHT
NOW. By doing so, I am saying that people with the same ethnic and
cultural background as redneck homophobes (like myself) can be
decent and fair to gay people. In other words, I can decry
homophobia, and even the cultural traditions that foster it,
without denouncing their/my culture as a whole.
Which is a distinction I suspect Loundry doesn't go out of his way
to make.
|1.5.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Ever notice how conservatives describe everything evil done by westerners as contrary to their culture or religion, while everything evil done by Muslims or Arabs is the inevitable, logical extension of their culture or religion?
|1.5.07 @ 12:31PM|#
"If we (and by "we" I mean "other people who look like you
and me") treated gays like this X years ago, do we (and by "we" I
mean "you and me") really have standing to criticize that others
are treating gays like this now?"
Given that I (by which I mean me) have never treated gays in a
detrimental way at any point in my life, I (by which I mean me)
feel completely justified in calling these cultural monsters on
their barbarism without the least hint of hypocrisy.
Fucking savages.
|1.5.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Yes, but joe, the cultural conservatives here in the US are led by the one true God, and are therefore both infallible and completely justified in telling you how to live your life.
VM|1.5.07 @ 12:37PM|#
"Ever notice how conservatives describe everything evil done by
westerners as contrary to their culture or religion, while
everything evil done by Muslims or Arabs is the inevitable, logical
extension of their culture or religion?"
That's a good point. One poster here constantly has a drumbeat of
1) what he perceives as "christian bashing" and 2) paints "Islam"
with a broad brush. (You probably can figure out who)
It's not as though there aren't extremely bigoted evangelical
christians who really hate gays (and the ones running around with
"intolerance is a wonderful thing" t shirts).
All those hatemongers can go sod off.
Point is, hate and bigotry suck and need to get jock itch of the
uvula. Regardless of source.
d'oh, Mediageek! :)
|1.5.07 @ 12:37PM|#
andy,
No, that's not "racist" (for reasons you yourself pointed out)
but it is rather hysterical and excessive of you.
Yes, when an entire religion states that I should be stoned to
death and dozens of countries ruled by that religion enforce that
law and fund efforts to proselytize in my country then it tends to
make my Hitlerhhoids flare up. Maybe I'm not hysterical or
excessive at all, and it is, in fact, you who is militantly
ignorant vis-a-vis Islam. Time will tell which opinion turns out to
be correct.
If you talk like that to everyone I could see how you could be
called a vicious racist
You defend the "progressives", stupid and pompous and anti-gay as
they are.
There's a big difference between saying "Islam treats gays
poorly" and "Islam must be destroyed."
I wrote: "I think Islam is an evil religion and should be either
massively reformed or destroyed."
Do you think that it is just fine that Islam continue just as it
is, with no changes, and that we should tolerate it?
|1.5.07 @ 12:41PM|#
VW,
It's not as though there aren't extremely bigoted evangelical
christians who really hate gays (and the ones running around with
"intolerance is a wonderful thing" t shirts).
You're incorrect. Today's Christian gay-bashers have learned to be
much more passive-aggressive. They claim to shower us with
"Christian love" but would happily vote to reinstate the sodomy
laws if given that blessed opportunity. They have become more
dangerous because they are more clandestine and underhanded.
They're still preferable to Muslims in most every way, though. I
live in the notoriously anti-gay Cobb County, Georgia (you know,
the one with the anti-evolution stickers in science textbooks), so
I speak with gay authority.
dhex|1.5.07 @ 12:45PM|#
"Ever notice how conservatives describe everything evil done by
westerners as contrary to their culture or religion, while
everything evil done by Muslims or Arabs is the inevitable, logical
extension of their culture or religion?"
dude, it's all about team players. you know that.
also, systemic analysis is a heady, exciting field. like when
"liberals" do this or "conservatives" do that; or your own fondness
for what "libertarians" think and do.
it's only painful when analyzing what seems to be contradictory
behavior (as you mention above) or to cherry pick other examples,
the whole rushdie affair in the 80s or the varied responses to the
danish cartoon thingy.
the enemy of my enemy is my friend, i guess. for some folks this
means taking things a bit too far, obviously.
|1.5.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Loundry,
You never did answer my question. How many times, if ever, have you
been called a racist for merely criticizing Islam, or are you just
beating up a strawman?
Note: 19 year old university students don't count.
dhex|1.5.07 @ 12:47PM|#
"Do you think that it is just fine that Islam continue just as
it is, with no changes, and that we should tolerate it?"
uh, what the fuck else are you going to do? maybe start a fund to
help gay arabs repatriate to someplace that doesn't totally
suck?
i.e. you can't possibly kill everyone, even presuming that would
"work."
unrelated: "i speak with gay authority" should be a t-shirt,
somewhere.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 12:49PM|#
joe,
I can decry homophobia, and even the cultural traditions that
foster it, without denouncing their/my culture as a whole. Which is
a distinction I suspect Loundry doesn't go out of his way to
make.
I'm not criticizing culture, I'm criticizing the shitty religion of
Islam. There are multiple cultures represented under the religion
of Islam (Arab, Persian, Malay, "Indonesian", etc.).
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 12:53PM|#
Wingnut,
It wouldn't make any difference to answer you. You aren't
interested in dialog. You're only interested in discounting me as
paranoid. I can't help but notice that some people's criticism
"doesn't count" to you. Isn't that an example of "discounting"?
VM|1.5.07 @ 12:53PM|#
Okay - we'll use you as our one authority on All Things Gay.
(And I'm glad you recognized my wheels, BTW!).
Shame there aren't other gay posters here with different takes and
different experiences. And don't get hysterical about Islam. I'm
sure a good friend, who posts here, (from Egypt, originally)
appreciates being painted in that way by you.
(just think your broad brush, ignorant opinions - when applied to
fundie christians, or gays or whomever would be met with outrage.
Joe's point is even stronger in light of your frothing)
You can prefer one form of hatred over the other, whatevs. This
citizen decries, denounces, and damns hate and bigotry, and I
happen to think that Fundies (regardless of religion) that seek to
eliminate or hurt or whatever suck. (As everybody knows, that "hate
the sin, love the sinner" still has that operative word,
"hate").
|1.5.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Loundry,
"I can't help but notice that some people's criticism "doesn't
count" to you. Isn't that an example of "discounting"?"
You're a piece of work. But allow me to rephrase myself: Name some
sober, non-idiotic progressives that have done what I
said. I won't deny that there's some wacky-ass "progressives" out
there, but it seems you were painting them all with the same
brush.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 12:58PM|#
dhex,
uh, what the fuck else are you going to do?
I surmise it's starting to sink in with you. You're not OK with
Islam NOT reforming, but what are the alternatives? Instead of
venturing an answer, you've decided to throw it back at me.
Cognitive dissonance sucks.
maybe start a fund to help gay arabs repatriate to someplace
that doesn't totally suck?
And why do the places where they currently live "totally suck"? Is
it because those places are ruled by Islam, and Islam is a shitty,
evil religion?
i.e. you can't possibly kill everyone, even presuming that
would "work."
You're beginning to see the scope of the problem. This isn't just
about gays, but I just can't help but take that aspect of it rather
personally, in a juicy-Hitlerhhoid-flareup-inducing way.
"i speak with gay authority" should be a t-shirt,
somewhere.
Better yet: tatooed on my tremendous manly pecs.
|1.5.07 @ 12:59PM|#
"Shame there aren't other gay posters here with different takes
and different experiences. And don't get hysterical about Islam.
I'm sure a good friend, who posts here, (from Egypt, originally)
appreciates being painted in that way by you."
I totally have friends who are fundamentalist Christians and when
people call fundamentalist Christians "fundamentalist" they get all
hurt and upset because, hey, *THEY* aren't like that.
I also have relatives from the South and people say that there is a
lot of Racism in the South, they get really hurt because they
aren't racist.
I can't believe how hurtful you libertarians can be. (and don't
pull this crap about how maybe "libertarians" are hurtful but you
are an exception because I can see through that bullshit from a
mile off)
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Wingnut,
You're a piece of work.
The contemptuous feeling is most mutual.
Name some sober, non-idiotic progressives
There is no point in doing that. You'll just discount them as
wacked-out and idiotic if they don't fit what you're trying to
show, and that is for me to be paranoid.
it seems you were painting them all with the same
brush
I ignore all "You're stereotyping!" arguments. You'll have to try a
different tactic.
Rhywun|1.5.07 @ 1:04PM|#
Reading this article, I kept noticing the alternating references to "Islam" and "Arab" and wondering, "Well, which is it?". Having a loved one living in Malaysia--majority Islam and not Arab--this topic is of rather great interest to me.
|1.5.07 @ 1:05PM|#
My god, Loundry, I give up. When you're ready to have a serious, adult conversation please come back.
VM|1.5.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Jaybird - exactly! Well spake!
Rhywun - my dear sir - does this mean that the visa snafu wasn't
resolved? I'm sorry.
Rhywun|1.5.07 @ 1:10PM|#
VM,
No, it was not. And it's not a snafu so much as "you've stayed your
arbitrarily alotted time - now get the fuck out".
dhex|1.5.07 @ 1:11PM|#
"You're not OK with Islam NOT reforming, but what are the
alternatives? Instead of venturing an answer, you've decided to
throw it back at me. Cognitive dissonance sucks."
no, it's an actual question. what the hell are you going to do
about it?
i'm not defending islam's vicissitudes in various countries here; i
am probably less pro-abrahamic than many here (though not as much
as others). but i notice a definite lack of stonings in jersey
city, or dyker heights, brooklyn, where there are large religious
arab populations, etc.
so clearly something else is at work here.
VM|1.5.07 @ 1:13PM|#
I'm sorry, Rhywun.
Just remember - allowances to marry and get the green card is a
privilege for heteros only. If you would like to have that
privilege, too, you'll get accused of wanting "special treatment",
and a lot of posters here will give the standard cop out "gov't out
of marriage" without addressing the other issues.
Balls. I hope it works out. And I'm sorry that you're separated
from your Beloved due to bureaucratic bullshit.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 1:15PM|#
VM,
Okay - we'll use you as our one authority on All Things
Gay.
I ask that you use me as your one authority on All Things, but I'll
settle for merely being an authority on All Things Gay. For
now.
And don't get hysterical about Islam.
You've pegged me wrong. I am strident, angry, and merciless toward
Islam. I can tell you exactly how shitty Islam is in calm,
well-reasoned phrases allowing you ample time to question and
respond.
I'm sure a good friend, who posts here, (from Egypt,
originally) appreciates being painted in that way by
you.
Is your friend a lax Muslim? There's millions of those, but what
are they doing to thwart the mujahedin who sucessfully argue from
Koran, Hadith, and sira that Muslims should dominiate non-Mulsims
(and kill all gays) through force and fraud? Lax Muslims seem
completely incapable of forulating an Islamic theology which
supports the peaceful and equal coexistence of Muslims and
non-Muslims. I invite you to direct me to this theology if it
exists, for I have yet to see it.
This citizen decries, denounces, and damns hate and
bigotry
Very "progressive" of you. I decry, denounce, and damn anyone or
anything which acts to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or
property through force or fraud. Islam does that in a big way, and
that is precisely why it sucks planetoids through vole capillaries.
The "kill all gays" theology which is present in every single
Islamic school of thought is diarrhea frosting on a cake made from
rat carrion.
But decrying "hate" and "bigotry" allows you a lot of wiggle room
and the requisite amount of self-loathing that is so hip and cool
in "progressive" circles nowadays.
and I happen to think that Fundies (regardless of religion)
that seek to eliminate or hurt or whatever suck.
Yes, this doesn't have anything to do with the religions, it's all
about fundamentalism. This is the "progressive"
meme which states "Christianity is just as bad as Islam". It's ripe
bullshit.
|1.5.07 @ 1:17PM|#
"If we (and by "we" I mean "other people who look like you
and me") treated gays like this X years ago, do we (and by "we" I
mean "you and me") really have standing to criticize that others
are treating gays like this now?"
Nope. You see that way I'm free to treat all black folks like that
dick that mugged my friend. It's a win-win.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 1:19PM|#
Wingnut,
My god, Loundry, I give up.
You really started off on the wrong foot with your condescending
"Prove yourself to me!" argument. It's unrealistic for you to
expect me to want to engage you when you patronize me like that
from the get-go.
When you're ready to have a serious, adult conversation please
come back.
Again, the sentiment is most mutual.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 1:26PM|#
dhex,
no, it's an actual question. what the hell are you going to do
about it?
It's a good question. Are you interested in my answer, or are you
merely interested in shooting me down and painting me as an
intransigent bigot?
i'm not defending islam's vicissitudes in various countries
here;
Under the persian rug go Islam's many, many evils!
i am probably less pro-abrahamic than many here (though not as
much as others).
"Abrahamic" was the sobriquet that the odious Morgan Spurlock used
in his rancid television show "30 days" which aimed to equate Islam
with Christianity and Judaism. It's part of the "progressive"
template in regards to religion and how to cope with the clash of
values between Islam and multiculturalism.
but i notice a definite lack of stonings in jersey city, or
dyker heights, brooklyn, where there are large religious arab
populations, etc. so clearly something else is at work
here.
I see the same thing. What do you think accounts for the low rate
of jihad activity in American Muslim groups? What do you think of
Muslim groups in Dearborn, MI?
VikingMoose|1.5.07 @ 1:27PM|#
wow. "progressive"? "that's" quite an "insult". Did you go to
M1EK charm school, perchance?
I'll bet you're actually a black-beret wearing foreign film major
at Illinois Wesleyian college who is trying out ideas for a book
report.
In fact, I'll bet that you have all the wiggle room you need to be
hip and cool, and then you tell your little friends at the malt
shop how internet tough you are.
Or you're the genetically-created lovechild of Juanita and Dave
W.
Either way, I love it how your eyes flash and that little bubble of
spittle forms on the corner of your mouth when you're internet
angry. You're sort of a techno punk rocker. With a Plus 5 Searing
Tongue of Lashing!
Mein Gott. I think I'm going to model my day after you.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Wingnut,
You don't need help being patronized. You do it very well to
yourself.
It makes me horny when you condescend to me! Please, continue.
:)~~~
VM|1.5.07 @ 1:32PM|#
"froth" you "barg" "blap-a-ding-dong" and garrrh! durkadurka.
gnash gnash.
flubba wronk neener. quaggle-flox rum.
spittle spittle. rage rage.
mmm. You are just so precious.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 1:34PM|#
VikingMoose,
Yes, Cobb County, Georgia is in Illinois.
I think I'm falling in love with you.
|1.5.07 @ 1:36PM|#
"It makes me horny when you condescend to me! Please, continue.
:)~~~"
Hmmm, I don't just condescend for anyone. I'm far too attractive
for that. Do you have a pic? ;)
dhex|1.5.07 @ 1:38PM|#
"t's a good question. Are you interested in my answer, or are
you merely interested in shooting me down and painting me as an
intransigent bigot?"
i don't know if you're a bigot, but you're definately a bit of a
fuckface. that aside, for the third time today, what are you going
to do about it, aside from accusing everyone online of being a
"progressive" ?
"I see the same thing. What do you think accounts for the low rate
of jihad activity in American Muslim groups? What do you think of
Muslim groups in Dearborn, MI?"
a difference in political and social cultures. immigration
patterns. etc.
in other words, other factors than just their religion.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 1:45PM|#
dhex,
i don't know if you're a bigot, but you're definately a bit of
a fuckface.
I feel the same way about you! That's something we have in common.
:)
for the third time today, what are you going to do about it,
aside from accusing everyone online of being a "progressive"
?
I hate to be stubborn, for I am open to discussing that, but I'm
not going to bother answering it if your only motivation is to
denounce me. So, seriously, do you honestly give a shit what my
answer is, or do you just think that I suck and you're waiting for
my answer so that you can prove it? It is absolutely necessary that
I know what your motivation is.
in other words, other factors than just their
religion.
Yes, clearly there are other things at play; otherwise, all Muslims
would be the same. Do you think it's true that Muslims tend to
commit more acts of jihad when they think they can get away with
it?
|1.5.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Personal experience and observation for your reference:
The only man to hit on me was a Jordanian in Aqaba, Jordan. My male
roommate in Cairo was stalked by a man in our neighborhood.
(In the interest of neutrality and fun I also disclose that a
friend was hit on by a yeshiva student in Jerusalem.)
Homosexual and bisexual behavior, like other taboos, in Arab
societies is treated with a "hear nothing, see nothing" approach.
Unless it is so obvious as to be impossible to deny, it is
ignored.
Ironically, it seems the open secret of bisexual behavior among
single men is inadvertently encouraged in the most conservative
Muslim societies, like Saudi Arabia, by the extreme separation of
the sexes.
|1.5.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Is your friend a lax Muslim? There's millions of those, but
what are they doing to thwart the mujahedin who sucessfully argue
from Koran, Hadith, and sira that Muslims should dominiate
non-Mulsims (and kill all gays) through force and fraud? Lax
Muslims seem completely incapable of forulating an Islamic theology
which supports the peaceful and equal coexistence of Muslims and
non-Muslims. I invite you to direct me to this theology if it
exists, for I have yet to see it.
So, a Muslim who isn't murdering gays, blowing up major
landmarks, or cramming the Koran down peoples throat isn't a "real"
Muslim? And "no true
Scotsmsn" puts sugar on his porridge either, right?
Yikes! And people accuse me, an atheist of the Dawkins/Harris
school of thought, of painting religion with too broad a
brush.
"Abrahamic" was the sobriquet that the odious Morgan Spurlock
used in his rancid television show "30 days" which aimed to equate
Islam with Christianity and Judaism. It's part of the "progressive"
template in regards to religion and how to cope with the clash of
values between Islam and multiculturalism.
No fucktard, Islam is a "Abrahamic" religion because they all
profess to believe in the God Of Abraham as do Jews and Christians.
It a goddamn academic term, moron.
I don't know what's sadder, Loundry's brainless comments about
Islam, or his paranoid obsession with "progressives" and
"multiculturalism."
|1.5.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Loundry
Dude, living in Cobb County doesn't mean you speak from "gay
authority". It means you speak from gay paranoia (and who could
blame you). Also, you keep throwing around the epithet
"progressive" (I tremble before your scare-quotes). I just want to
point out that very few commenters here would ever refer to
themselves as "progressive".
I can't dispute that most Muslims, at least in the middle-east,
hate your guts. But you aren't the only one here whose personal
behavior puts you on the sharia death-list. And yes, I think we
would all like to have your answer to "what are you going to do
about it"?
There was a time when almost all Christians would burn you at the
stake for being gay. That time is thankfully past (now only some of
them would like to kill you, and burning people at the stake is out
of fashion. It does nothing to encourage change in the Muslim world
to simply declare them evil. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm
saying you are not thinking pragmatically, but letting a visceral
gut reaction control your opinions.
Side question: have you ever met an actual Muslim?
Back to the topic of the post, this labeling of homosexuality as a
"western decadence" phenomenon makes me think of the Soviet's
labeling of it as an example of "bourgeoisie decadence".
"well the protestants hate the Catholics/ and the Catholics hate
the protestants/ and the Hindus hate the Muslims/ and everybody
hates the gays"
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Akira MacKenzie,
So, a Muslim who isn't murdering gays, blowing up major
landmarks, or cramming the Koran down peoples throat isn't a "real"
Muslim?
That is precisely the argument that the mujahedin
use against lax Muslims, especially when they are exhorting lax
Muslims toward jihad. The mujahedin claim that their Islam is the
"true" Islam. They certainly produce a case that is more compelling
in regards to the Koran, Hadith, and Sira. Are you going to use the
"no true Scotsman" to dismiss them as well? Probably not. We all
know that "fundamentalism" is the real enemy!
Yikes! And people accuse me, an atheist of the Dawkins/Harris
school of thought, of painting religion with too broad a
brush.
Did you see that South Park when Richard Dawkins was screwing Mrs.
Garrison? "Nail my monkey hole!" Classic!
No fucktard, Islam is a "Abrahamic" religion because they all
profess to believe in the God Of Abraham as do Jews and Christians.
It a goddamn academic term, moron.
It's excellent spin to equate Islam with Christianity by calling
the "Abrahamic" moniker "academic". It's better than calling it
"factual" or "historical" because "academic" implies the pompous
snottiness that goes hand-in-hand with the tired old
"fucktard".
Perhaps you'd like to comment on how much of Islam is merely Judaic
stories that were ripped off from the Talmud? That, too, is
"academic".
|1.5.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Is your friend a lax Muslim? There's millions of those, but what are they doing to thwart the mujahedin who sucessfully argue from Koran, Hadith, and sira that Muslims should dominiate non-Mulsims (and kill all gays) through force and fraud?
So, does that make any Christian or Jew who doesn't stone a gay man
to death per Leviticus lax? I don't understand the argument. If you
are saying that Islam "is a shitty, evil religion" yet conceed that
"clearly there are other things at play; otherwise, all Muslims
would be the same." Either all adherents to Islam are evil or there
is room for secularism and fundementalism as with Christianity and
Judeism. Which is it? If there is indeed room for secularism, then
there is room for Islam to follow the same path as Christianity and
gain tolerance.
dhex|1.5.07 @ 2:06PM|#
"Yes, clearly there are other things at play; otherwise, all
Muslims would be the same. Do you think it's true that Muslims tend
to commit more acts of jihad when they think they can get away with
it?"
religiously-inspired warfare is a crime of opportunity?
suicide bombers are definitely interested in clean getaways, to be
sure. you may have a point here.
|1.5.07 @ 2:13PM|#
It's excellent spin to equate Islam with Christianity by calling the "Abrahamic" moniker "academic". It's better than calling it "factual" or "historical" because "academic" implies the pompous snottiness that goes hand-in-hand with the tired old "fucktard".
Perhaps you'd like to comment on how much of Islam is merely Judaic stories that were ripped off from the Talmud? That, too, is "academic".
It seems to me that your gripe is with the fundemenatlist adherents
to any pan-abrahamic religion instead of with the religions
themselves. How is Pat Robertson any different than Ayatollah
Sistani? Also, using Afghanistan, Iran and Malaysia as good
examples, how much of the influence the Imams hold is due to the
mingling of religion and the state?
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 2:14PM|#
citizengnat,
Dude, living in Cobb County doesn't mean you speak from "gay
authority".
That you preface your argument with "dude" means that I am your
authority; gay, straight, and bi. Feel the gay power, dude!
It means you speak from gay paranoia (and who could blame
you).
Why would I be paranoid? I've never had any problems living here,
and we're quite out. Oh, that's right, "paranoid" is an easy way to
dismiss me without having to contribute to the discussion.
Also, you keep throwing around the epithet "progressive" (I
tremble before your scare-quotes).
"Progressives" have struggled very hard for those scare quotes, and
I will not deny them what they have rightly earned.
It does nothing to encourage change in the Muslim world to
simply declare them evil.
I didn't declare Muslims evil. I insist that Islam is an evil
religion because it teaches evil. Specifically, it teaches violent
subjigation of non-Muslims, oppression of women, murder of gays,
slavery, brutal punishments, and massive suppression of individual
liberties. I really wish it would reform, and it is evil until it
does.
I'm saying you are not thinking pragmatically, but letting a
visceral gut reaction control your opinions.
I disagree. This isn't about my feelings, but about how grossly and
egregiously Islam violates my principles of what is right and what
is wrong. It is wrong to treat women like property. It is wrong to
sentence all gays to death. It is wrong to own a slave. And a
religion that teaches these things is evil. Period.
You are more than welcome to disagree with anything I have
asserted, but don't label my opinion as emotional when it is not.
(Though I do admit that I get just a tad bit emotional when an
entire religion of one billion people clearly teaches that all gays
must die. Can you blame me?)
Side question: have you ever met an actual Muslim?
Yes, several. They are lax Muslims, clearly, since they can bear to
be my friend. If they were devout Muslims, then they would hate me
with halal hatred as an kafir, and they would insist that I be
executed under Shari'a law for being gay.
|1.5.07 @ 2:17PM|#
That is precisely the argument that the mujahedin use
against lax Muslims, especially when they are exhorting lax Muslims
toward jihad.
So you have to share in their fallacy and condemn a large
population of peaceful people? Brillant!
It's excellent spin to equate Islam with Christianity by
calling the "Abrahamic" moniker "academic". It's better than
calling it "factual" or "historical" because "academic" implies the
pompous snottiness that goes hand-in-hand with the tired old
"fucktard".
That anti-intellectualism shit might get you props on O-Really or
Hannity's daily two-minute hates, but around here, you're
jingoistic bullshit won't fly. Unlike others here, I'm going to
call and duck a duck:
You're a fucking bigot who's beneath my contempt, and the contempt
of every other human on this planet.
|1.5.07 @ 2:18PM|#
citizengnat | January 5, 2007, 2:14pm | #
woah, libertarian Muslims. my mind is blown.
I second that.
|1.5.07 @ 2:21PM|#
"They are lax Muslims, clearly, since they can bear to be my
friend. If they were devout Muslims, then they would hate me with
halal hatred as an kafir, and they would insist that I be executed
under Shari'a law for being gay."
I always go to people who openly despise a certain belief system or
cultural group when I have a question about the authenticity of
someone's belief in that system.
Ergo, Julian Sanchez isn't really a libertarian, because he's nice,
and doesn't hate poor people. At least, that's what I read at The
American Prospect.
And Joe Lieberman is the embodiment of authentic foreign policy
liberalism. I know this because National Reivew told me.
|1.5.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Loundry
I interpreted your statement about Cobb county to mean you were a
gay authority because you had seen the face of the enemy or
somesuch. If that isn't what you meant, my mistake, and my
statement about your paranoia makes no sense. I did not mean by the
word to dismiss your arguments, as I would have thought the tenor
of the rest of my post made clear.
That said, I feel you have picked the easiest parts of my post to
refute. I can hardly prove, for example, that you are speaking more
from anger than considered argument, that was just my subjective
speculation. You didn't address any of the harder questions or
points, including the one that you continue to refuse to answer,
what are you going to do about it? You correct you called Islam
itself evil, not muslims themselves. My mistake. I still consider
this statement, even if true, to be unhelpful. If that is all you
have to offer than you are no use to your own cause.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Kwix,
So, does that make any Christian or Jew who doesn't stone a gay
man to death per Leviticus lax? I don't understand the
argument.
Allow me to explain. There is much more room for interpretation in
Christianity than there is in Islam. This is why there is both
Focus on the Family and the Sojourners within Christianity -- they
just interpret scripture differently. It is widely taught and
understood within almost all Christian circles, both right-wing and
left-wing, that scripture is not literal and must be
interpreted.
(I know very little about Judaism, so I cannot comment about
it.)
Under Islam, however, the principle of interpretation (ijtihad) is
very strictly, if ever, applied. The Koran is the literal word of
God, period. This is why there aren't very many sects of Islam,
each following a separate interpretation, as there are in
Christianity. The two major sects in Islam, Sunni and Shi'a, differ
because a dispute over the rightful succession of the prophet
Muhammad, not over interpretation of their scripture.
If you are saying that Islam "is a shitty, evil religion" yet
conceed that "clearly there are other things at play; otherwise,
all Muslims would be the same." Either all adherents to Islam are
evil or there is room for secularism and fundementalism as with
Christianity and Judeism. Which is it?
I can't accept your analysis because I don't accept the "as with
Christianity and Judaism" part. The situations are only
superficially comparable. Islam is an evil religion becasue it
teaches evil. The reason why not all Muslims do evil is because not
all Muslims adhere strictly to the rules of Islam. Hence, I call
them "lax" Muslims. I would really, really love for there to be an
Islamic reformation so that a new and, quite frankly, acceptable
verson of Islam could arise and Muslims could choose to adhere to
that version as the "True" Islam. (I'd much rather them abandon
religion altogehter, but I'll take what I can get.)
If there is indeed room for secularism, then there is room for
Islam to follow the same path as Christianity and gain
tolerance.
I think that's a very superficial view of the religions. Islam
cannot "follow the same path" that Christianity did because the
religions are more different than you think they are.
|1.5.07 @ 2:30PM|#
You see, I could swear at you and call you a bigot, as many on
this board have chosen to do. But I feel that treating you with
respect which you may or may not deserve is much more usefull in
what I hope is a mutual pursuit of truth. If a proponent of strict
sharia law were to post to this board I would similerly try to
engage him. You would tell him he was an evil peice of shit. Most
likely neither of us would get anywhere, as I feel I am unlikely to
get anywhere with you, but at least I would make the effort to
engage his evil peice-of-shit ideas.
I guess that probably makes me a "progressive" and thus you don't
need to answer me at all.
VM|1.5.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Hi Kwix! Merry New year to you!
Akira - correct.
This twaddlenock who fears "progressives" is such a quixlenofish
nerf herder that he really can only be said love child of Juanita
and Dave W.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Akira MacKenzie,
So you have to share in their fallacy
You claim it is a fallacy for the mujahedin to portray their
violent, expansionist version of Islam as the True Islam? Please
explain why this is a fallacy. Make sure you use Islamic sources to
show why their interpreation is wrong.
That anti-intellectualism shit might get you props on O-Really
or Hannity's daily two-minute hates, but around here, you're
jingoistic bullshit won't fly.
I love intellectuals, but they are so rare nowadays. Today we have
to cope with the ersatz versions who confuse "your" with
"you're".
You're a fucking bigot who's beneath my contempt, and the
contempt of every other human on this planet.
I feel the same degree of contempt for someone as vapid and fake
(not to mention weak) as you are, yet I'm not nearly pompous enough
to pretend to speak for "every other human on this planet". Is that
a flavor of bullshit that does happen to fly around here?
|1.5.07 @ 2:40PM|#
It is wrong to treat women like property. It is wrong to sentence all gays to death. It is wrong to own a slave. And a religion that teaches these things is evil. Period.
Then both Judeism and Christanity are evil, period. Sorry, but you
are condeming Islam for teachings that all three religions
share.
Women as Property = Genesis 3:16, Exodus 21:7
Gays as Abomination and worthy of death = Leviticus 20:13 and
Timothy 1:9-10
Slavery as Normal = Exodus 21:20-21 and Ephesians 6:5-9
Christ elevated the status of women but the early church relegated
them back to second class status. In the time of the Second Temple,
the golden era of Judeism, women were required to be double veiled
to go outside and could not speak with strangers. Sound
familiar?
As for homosexuality, there is no doubt in the bible(the Torah and
New Testament) that being gay is a crime punishable by death at the
hand of man and exclusion from heaven by God. Every Christian who
thinks otherwise is, in your words, lax.
|1.5.07 @ 2:43PM|#
"I love intellectuals, but they are so rare nowadays. Today we
have to cope with the ersatz versions who confuse "your" with
"you're"."
Allright, you are an asshole if you think critisizing someones
spelling or grammer somehow means you have scored an intellectual
point. I fucking hate that shit. Good spelling and grammer does not
an intellectual make. Comeon dude, rise above! I know you can do
it!
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 2:54PM|#
citizengnat,
Sarcasm off. I do appreciate the respectful and reasonable way you
are treating me.
That said, I feel you have picked the easiest parts of my post
to refute. I can hardly prove, for example, that you are speaking
more from anger than considered argument, that was just my
subjective speculation.
I understand. Those kinds of speculations tend toward the personal
rather than the factual and, thus, they aren't very helpful in the
discussion.
You didn't address any of the harder questions or points,
including the one that you continue to refuse to answer, what are
you going to do about it?
That's a very good question, but I must restate for you, as I have
for others here, is that I must know your motivation in wanting me
to answer it. Do you think I suck, and you want me to answer so
that you can prove it? I apologize, but I must know, because I have
no desire whatsoever to walk into another pit of
name-calling.
You correct you called Islam itself evil, not muslims
themselves. My mistake. I still consider this statement, even if
true, to be unhelpful. If that is all you have to offer than you
are no use to your own cause.
I understand what you're saying and why you think it's unhelpful.
The reason why it doesn't "help" is because it seems to create a
problem as opposed to solving one.
The reason why we aren't seeing eye-to-eye at this point is becasue
we differ on what "the problem" actually is. One of the problems
that we Westerners have is that we live under the notion that "all
religions basically teach the same thing". It is a comforting and
very liberating belief because it allows us to give others what we
expect for ourselves: individual freedom of conscience. If "all
religions teach the same thing", then everyone can follow whatever
religion they choose to follow, and that feels good to us
Westerners becasue it is fitting in with one of our core values:
indivudal freedom of conscience.
The notion that Islam is evil and that Islam teaches evil jars
mightily with this Western sensibility. It means we have to deny
some individuals their freedom of conscience, and that's a bitter
pill to swallow.
If a proponent of strict sharia law were to post to this board
I would similerly try to engage him. You would tell him he was an
evil peice of shit.
I probably would. I call a duck a duck. (Kisses, Akira!) I am not
obligated to respond with kindness and reason toward individuals
who wish to do me ill or treat me disrespectfully. As you might
have noticed, I fight fire with fire and make no apologies for
it.
|1.5.07 @ 2:56PM|#
The best cure for Occidentalism is to learn a little something
about the Pre-Christian European tradition.
This is why there aren't very many sects of Islam,
Yeah, there is only a sect for every male descendent of Mohammed
for like 10 generations.
Seriously, welcome to earth. You may want to study up on it a
bit.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Allright, you are an asshole if you think critisizing
someones spelling or grammer somehow means you have scored an
intellectual point. I fucking hate that shit.
Normally I do, too, but he was begging for it.
|1.5.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Loundry
I can speak only for myself, but I ask because I really do want to
know. There are a lot of evil ideologies out there, including large
sections of Islamic thought and law. The only tool in my box is to
hold up my side, the western-liberal tradition, and hope to win
through the rightness of my beleif. Is there another way to go? A
further problem with your method is that you alienate possibly your
best allies, those "lax" Muslims you refer to.
So, my motivation is honest. I just want to know if you've got a
better idea.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Kwix,
Then both Judeism and Christanity are evil, period. Sorry, but
you are condeming Islam for teachings that all three religions
share.
You are confusing scripture with religion. The religion comes from
the adherents, not (necessarily) from the scripture. I am an
ex-Christian and I am very, very knowledgable about the Bible in
general and especially Biblical errancy.
The key difference between Christianity and Islam is that
Christianity allows for wide interpretation wheres Islam only
barely does. The testament to this fact is that there are very few
Churches which openly teach that all homosexuals should be
executed. This violates the Bible, but interpretation fixes that.
It also fixes the death penalty for violating the Sabbath, which
millions of Christians do every single week.
Every Christian who thinks otherwise is, in your words,
lax.
No. They just interpret scripture differently. We don't see such a
thing in Islam, and therein lies the difference.
|1.5.07 @ 3:11PM|#
I think Kwix's point is that if you looked at medieval Christianity you would see it as equally incapable of reforming. And yet, it did. I too fail to see the distinction between your "lax Muslims" and your Christians who interpret scripture differently. Is it the lack of intellectual justification for this lax Islam? It is small, but there are moderate and even liberal imams out there. By calling Islam "evil" you only reinforce the paranoia which sends Muslims to conservative and radical interepretations.
Loundry|1.5.07 @ 3:24PM|#
citizengnat,
I can speak only for myself, but I ask because I really do want
to know.
Fair enough.
The first thing that has to happen to for us Westerners who believe
in the goodness of Western culture to accept what Islam is, and
that necessitates us for us to accept that Islam teaches evil. As
you might have noticed, this is precisely what I'm doing on this
board right now. Libertarians cling so strongly to the notion that
"all religions basically teach the same thing" and that "everyone
is the same everywhere" that many of them will be highly resistant
to this idea. I am a small-l libertarian, by the way.
Once enough people are jarred enough out of their comfortable
Western sensibilities, then we need to have many more expressions
of intolerance toward Islam on both the local and the national
level.
* We must ban the hijab, as it is oppressive to women
* We must investigate every mosque and every Islamic school to
ensure that they are not teaching jihad
* We must examine every source of Islamic funding from other
countries
* We must legally fight every legal attempt by Muslims to use the
law to force people to give respect or show adherence to Shari'a
law
* We must publicly denounce and desecrate the verses in the Koran
(especially 9:29 and 4:34) that are inimical to Western
enlightenment traditions
* We must expose and publicly humiliate Muslim "soft jihad"
proponents (such as CAIR) for their lies (taqiyya) and their ties
to violent jihad
* We must participate in anti-Islam propaganda
* We must put an end to Muslim immigration to Western
countries
* We must put an end to the construction of Mosques on western soil
until Islam allows churches to be built on Muslim soil
* We must foment war between the Sunni and the Shi'a
I agree that all of these ideas suck. They are all better
than:
1. Allowing Islam to continue spreading unchanged and
unchallenged
2. Going to war against all muslims
What I'm proposing is the middle path between those two
alternatives. It is our grim, nasty future. But pretending that
there is no problem will make things worse, not better.
A further problem with your method is that you alienate
possibly your best allies, those "lax" Muslims you refer
to.
I don't agree that they are our "best" allies, but it is the lax
Muslims whose hearts and minds we Westerners are competing for
against the mujahedin. Who is winning? Is our message of individual
freedom superior to the "this is true Islam" message of the
mujahedin, especially considering that the recipient is already
nominally Muslim and is subject to Muslim tradition and
propaganda?
So, my motivation is honest. I just want to know if you've got
a better idea.
I don't expect my answer to satisfy you. The realization of what we
Westerners are up against is severely disquieting, and that's why
so many of us Westerners prefer to continue believing that "all
religions teach the same thing" and blame the problem on our own
behaviors.
|1.5.07 @ 3:27PM|#
The key difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity allows for wide interpretation wheres Islam only barely does. The testament to this fact is that there are very few Churches which openly teach that all homosexuals should be executed. This violates the Bible, but interpretation fixes that. It also fixes the death penalty for violating the Sabbath, which millions of Christians do every single week.
So, what you are saying is that the adherence to the dogma of the
religion is more important than the actual scriptural teachings and
that the majority Christian dogma has slid away from things like
executing gays and witches in the last 300 years.
This change in dogma (in the West) did not eminate from within the
church, it was from without due to the "Age of Enlightenment". Like
market forces, enough of the 'unwashed masses' demanded changes
from the church and it complied to maintain its power structure.
The Pope still condemns homosexuality but no longer calls for the
execution of gays. Great strides that started bit by bit.
What makes you think that the same thing cannot happen with Islam?
Hell, look at Turkey, one of the most secular Islamic countries in
existance. It is oppressive to be sure, but on par with the
Southern US 60 years ago.
|1.5.07 @ 3:29PM|#
Nice defining your conclusion.
Muslims are X.
But there are lots of Muslims who are Not X.
They're not Real Muslims.
How do I tell a Real Muslim from a lax Muslim?
Easy. Muslims are X.
|1.5.07 @ 3:47PM|#
The argument that "all religions are the same everywhere" is a
strawman. I don't think anyone seriously beleives that.
I would say I am more than "not satisfied" with your solution. You
want to use the violent, repressive power of the state against a
minority within our own borders, you want to create large
exceptions to the bill of rights in regard to muslims. Just as I
cannot except, as a libertarian, such treatment of Nazi's or
Communists, or the Cristian Coalition, I cannot accept it here. We
don't make exceptions to the bill of rights, not only because of
our abstract western ideologies, but because we do not want
exceptions made regarding us.
A few bits of your program are at least acceptible within a free
society, though I think them counter-productive for the reasons
I've already expressed. Those would be:
* We must legally fight every legal attempt by Muslims to use the
law to force people to give respect or show adherence to Shari'a
law
* We must publicly denounce and desecrate the verses in the Koran
(especially 9:29 and 4:34) that are inimical to Western
enlightenment traditions
* We must expose and publicly humiliate Muslim "soft jihad"
proponents (such as CAIR) for their lies (taqiyya) and their ties
to violent jihad
* We must participate in anti-Islam propaganda
You have the right to do all these things. You have these rights
because of our constitution.
now this last point, fomenting war between the Shiites and
Sunnis... I am fighting the urge to write you off as a nut. What is
the point of this? To cull the numbers of Muslims worldwide?
Fomenting violence means actively seeking the deaths of thousands,
if not millions of innocent people.
Just what is it that makes you so afraid of the Muslims? do you
think they are on the verge of overwhelming our society and putting
you to death? What sort of conflict could possibly justify such
terrible wrongs, especially made in the defense of liberty and
enlightenment? You would have us destroy the west to save it, and
murder and oppress people in the process.
Good god man. Your ideas are evil. But thanks for finally
sharing.
|1.5.07 @ 3:47PM|#
* We must ban the hijab, as it is oppressive to women
Would you also propose to ban the LDS from having women stand in
the back during service or Mennonites from wearing hair
covering?
* We must investigate every mosque and every Islamic school to ensure that they are not teaching jihad
Would you propose investigating all private schools, temples and
churches in the world to ensure they are not teaching religious
anymosity regardless of the religion?
* We must examine every source of Islamic funding from other countries
What about examining every source of Israeli funding? What about
Southern Baptist Funding? What about missionary work in
non-Christian countries that promote proslytization and conversion
to Christ?
* We must legally fight every legal attempt by Muslims to use the law to force people to give respect or show adherence to Shari'a law
Eh, respect to a religion, any religion is as enshrined in this
country as it should be. As for enforcing adherence, I agree.
Secular government is the way to go.
* We must publicly denounce and desecrate the verses in the Koran (especially 9:29 and 4:34) that are inimical to Western enlightenment traditions
You mean like the verses in the Bible and Torah that I quoted
earlier? Would you descrate those Scriptures as well? I thought
that Islam wasn't about scripture.
* We must expose and publicly humiliate Muslim "soft jihad" proponents (such as CAIR) for their lies (taqiyya) and their ties to violent jihad
What about organizations who raise money for Israel and petition
the US to intervene on behalf of the Israeli state? What about
funding for Christian missionaries and thier war on other
religions?
* We must participate in anti-Islam propaganda
Bwhahahaha. I already do baby.
* We must put an end to Muslim immigration to Western countries
Like the newly elected representative from Minnesota, eh?
* We must put an end to the construction of Mosques on western soil until Islam allows churches to be built on Muslim soil
Churches are built on "muslim soil". A great number of them. Not in
Afghanistan or Iran but most countries of Islam have Christian
minorites with churches.
* We must foment war between the Sunni and the Shi'a
Ah yes, the old "let them kill each other off" routine. Excellent.
I say let's nuke the Dome of the Rock/Temple Mount and all of
Jeruselem while we are at it. Nothing to end religious conflict
like destroying all sides of it is there?
|1.5.07 @ 3:48PM|#
"I am a small-l libertarian, by the way."
based on those prescriptions - no. no you are not.
|1.5.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Ok, legally fighting Sharia I definatly do support. It was hiding among all the nastiness.
|1.5.07 @ 3:51PM|#
For god's sake, we're libertarians! We recognize that there are
some things that suck but are unchangeable by us! That's what
distinguishes us from the nanny-staters!
The lousy aspects of Islam are almost entirely aspects that us
Westerners can't do anything about. We're still allowed to wish
that they'd change, but "what would you do to reform Islam?" is a
meaningless question when asked to a non-Muslim from the West.
|1.5.07 @ 3:56PM|#
While we are at it, we should foment war between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. I think that would be a bloody good idea. Maybe war between Baptists and Anabaptists would be better. Saved in Youth vs Saved as Adult. Smackdown for God.
|1.5.07 @ 4:03PM|#
jb
There are minor things we can and should do, like issue far more
student visas to middle-eastern students, and hope some western
ideals trickle back (ok, I think our borders should be essentially
open, but thats a pipe-dream right now). We can change our foreign
policy, which currently helps the jihadis claim that we are engaged
in a crusade to steal Muslim lands and convert them and rape their
women and whatever other shit they spout.
But yeah, good point. Whish we could change things, but their ain't
much we can do.
|1.5.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Loundry: And why do the places where they currently live
"totally suck"? Is it because those places are ruled by Islam, and
Islam is a shitty, evil religion?
That's so obviously true that only "progressives" are clever enough
to trick each other into pretending otherwise.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its
votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a
man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic
apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident
habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of
commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers
of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this
life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and
sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong
to some man as his absolute property-either as a child, a wife, or
a concubine-must delay the final extinction of slavery until the
faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become
the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but
the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of
those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the
world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and
proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central
Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not
that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-the
science against which it had vainly struggled-the civilisation of
modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient
Rome." - Winston Churchill, "The River War"
dhex|1.5.07 @ 5:22PM|#
i'm not really down with this whole "we must become evil to destroy it" thing but different strokes for different folks.
|1.5.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Kwix: You said "Would you also propose to ban the LDS from
having women stand in the back during service or Mennonites from
wearing hair covering?"
That one caught my eye. I've been LDS (a member of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) since 1978 and attended nearly
every Sunday since I was born (1971) and I have no idea what you
are talking about. Maybe you were remembering something about some
other church.
If anyone is standing in the back of an LDS service they are
generally holding a fussy baby in their arms - and the numbers tend
to be split pretty evenly between men and women.
Just sayin'
|1.5.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Islamofascism vs. Christian Fundamentalism: Which is the Greater
Threat?
By Salamantis
I view the contemporary Islamofascist memeset as currently more
dangerous to freedom and tolerance than the Fundamentalist
Christian one, for a number of reasons.
1) Recent History
The lion's share of mass-killing terror attacks in the past
quarter-century have been perpetrated by these people, and not
Fundamentalist Christians (although they, too, are on my "Danger,
Will Robinson!" list). 9/11, London, Beslan, Bali, Madrid, the USS
Cole, the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies, the Khobar Towers...the
list could go on and on.
2) Fundamentalist Literalism
Christians believe that the Bible was written by human beings,
under Holy inspiration, while the official position of Islam is
that the Qu'ran (literally, the Recitation) was dictated to
Muhammed, from Allah (God) by the Archangel Gabriel, and is
word-for-word accurate and correct for all time. Thus, while there
is a reasonable split between Fundamentalist Christians, who take
the Bible literally, and the rest of Christians, who see parable,
poetry, metaphor, simile, era-linked human prejudices,
contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible, no such split is
officially possible within Islam. All observant Muslims are
expected to submit to the literalist stance; in fact, Islam
translates as Submission.
3) More Violent Character
While there are a half-dozen or so peace-and-tolerance passages
contained within the Qu'ran, there are also more than a hundred
vicious and violent passages to be found there. People say, well,
the Old Testament is indeed itself to a significant degree a
'testament' to divinely sanctioned brutality, and this is true.
However, most of that brutality was superseded by the
pronouncements in the more peaceful and tolerant New Testament,
while the Qu'ran is divided into the Meccan and the Medinan
sections. The Meccan section, which came first, when Muhammed was
militarily weak and was forced to placate his enemies, contains all
of the peace-and-tolerance passages, while the Medinan section,
which contains many (although not all) of the brutal and violent
passages, was written later, and supercedes the more moderate
Meccan section. It is as if, in the Bible, the Old Testament came
later and superceded the New; if this were so, the majority of
Christianity would most likely be much more brutal and intolerant
than small sections of it (see the former Yugoslavia) are
now.
In fact, there is no such thing as enduring peace with infidel
nations in the Muslim lexicon; instead, they employ truces
(hudnas). These are, according to the Qu'ran, supposed to be
offered when the Faithful are militarily weak vis-à-vis their
adversaries, to give them time to increase their military numbers
and augment their armaments. When the weak faithful become
militarily strong compared to their adversaries, the hudna is to be
unilaterally broken by the faithful, and jihad is to resume. Once
one understands the conceptual character of the hudna, it becomes
obvious that it is never in a nation's interest to accept
one.
4) The Examples of the Respective Primary Protagonists
Jesus only once became violent in the Bible, when he whipped the
moneychangers. Mainly, he preached faith, love of one's neighbors,
and nonviolence. When one of his disciples raised a sword against
and cut the ear off of one of the people sent to arrest him, he
supposedly put it back on. Muhammed, on the other hand, was
historically a warrior and guerilla fighter. His life was
circumscribed by military conquest. The hadiths, which are records
of occurrences in and commentaries on the life of Muhammed and
records of his words (when they were not supposed to be dictated by
the Archangel Gabriel), are nearly as important as the Qu'ran
itself to them.
5) The Confrontation with Modernity
Christianity began to behaviorally moderate and domesticate itself
around 500 years ago, due to the effects that the Reformation and
the Enlightenment had upon it. Islam has yet to go through this
confrontation; it is only now just beginning for them. However, in
the present era, with the advent of global anonymous communications
and travel, and with easy access available to both the materials
needed to construct WMD's and the knowledge needed to properly
employ these materials, this is a particularly dangerous time for
fanatics to lash out from the growing pains. Giordano Bruno
conceived of relativity 350 years before Einstein and was burned as
a heretic for it, and rockets (fireworks) were already known to
Europe by then, due to Marco Polo's sojourn in China; think of what
it would have been like if the medieval world had had the option of
ballistic thermonuclear conflagration (not to mention genetically
engineered plagues and mass-produce-able deadly chemical
compounds). There is the added factor that one of the Muslim
death-penalty heresies (or shirks) translates as 'innovation'
(Islamists are quite willing to appropriate death-dealing
technology while rejecting the science behind it - a Pakistani
'scientist' actually wrote a paper that advocated solving his
country's energy problems by harnessing djinn (genie) power!); thus
it can be dangerous for Muslims to publicly embrace novel concepts
- and this will only make it more difficult for Muslim adaptation
of include accommodation to other perspectives rather than to
simply be comprised solely of the Borgian assimilation, subjugation
or elimination of all of their vectors.
6) The Evolution of Universality and Intolerance in Totalizing
Memeplexes
Mind viruses are unlike the viruses that plague our bodies. If a
physically infectious disease kills its host too quickly, that host
cannot serve as an infection vector (which is why AIDS is so much
more of a global threat than the Ebola virus - the long,
symptom-free yet contagious incubation period). This is also why
deadly diseases demonstrate the historical propensity to become
slower killers as time goes on. However, a different survival
strategy presents itself for totalizing mind-viruses, which MUST be
cognitively rather than physically communicated, and thus, if they
are elaborate and/or involve significant behavioral changes,
difficult to contract under the radar of one's attention: to kill
and/or enslave all those who RECOGNIZE the attempted dissemination
(proselytizing) and REFUSE to be infected (part of these memesets
is invariably the inculcation of the desire and/or duty to infect
others - this is how they propagate). This eliminates competition
for cognitive residence from alternative memeplexes (the dead
cannot communicate their competing vectors). Unlike physical
diseases, where people may be infected with multiple differing
phages simultaneously (like measles AND the flu), a totalizing
memeplex must have SOLE possession of its niche, or it cannot be
said to possess it at all. And in fact, to reject conversion to
Islam is considered by Islamofascists to be an insult and attack
upon it, punishable by death.
Now, remembering that the historical function of tribal religion
has been to enhance group cooperation and cohesion, thus giving
religious tribes an advantage in warfare against tribes with less
mutual commitment and more individualism (and most likely the
pre-historical function, too - thus setting up a group selection
which would tend to reproductively favor those who were
increasingly susceptible to infection by religious memeplexes),
let's take a quick look at the evolution of universality and
intolerance in Patriarchal Monotheism.
The memeplex of Judaism originally involved a divine gift of a
particular parcel of land to a particular chosen people - Israel
for the Jews (although, lately, converts to Judaism, although not
sought, are accepted from every racial and ethnic classification).
Thus the parameters for the growth of the Jewish memeplex were set
by the nature of the memeplex itself - only within ethnic Jews, who
were only promised dominion over historical Israel (most Zionists
still think this way).
However, with the evolution of Christianity from Judaism, the
ethnic imperative and the geographical rootedness were pruned off,
and all one had to do was to accept the memeplex. This allowed
Christianity to spread to all sorts of ethnicities, and for them to
take control of previously non-Christian lands, as their
demographics grew to majority within them. It also had the
advantage of spreading the genetic sacrifice idea beyond a tribe,
so that multiple tribes sharing the same memeplex could band
together and both protect each other and cooperate in the
confrontation of common enemies (a feature that the Roman Empire
put to conscous use when they adopted Christianity as the state
religion of the Roman Empire). However, Christianity was written so
it could be disseminated via persuasion - the Great Charter, which
comprises the Christian memeplex's infection module, reads: "Go ye
therefore and TEACH all nations". Of course, the construction of
this module implies the conviction that the vector is offering a
gift of knowledge to the ignorant, and for this reason many have
been historically forced to adopt Christianity 'for their own
good', even when they were too (willfully or otherwise) ignorant to
recognize what their own good was, and sometimes at the cost of
their mortal bodies, if in the process their immortal souls were
saved.
Still, the language of Christianity's proselytization module is
persuasional rather than coercive, and this left room for the
development of tolerance for other faiths, even while missionaries
continue to be perpetually funded to 'spread the Good Word'.
This is a weakness that the evolution into Islam has exploited. The
Muslim memeplex explicitly substitutes coercion for persuasion. It
is quite precise in what may and may not be done: all 'People of
the Book' - that is, Jews and Christians (and I suppose
Zoroastrians - they have a single holy book called the Zend Avestra
of Zarathustra)- have the option to a) convert to Islam, b) be put
to death, or c) live in Dhimmitude, a serfic, subservient state
somewhere between slavery and second-class citizenship,
characterized by less civil rights, the fact that any Muslim's word
will always be legally favored over theirs in courts of Shari'a
law, and the payment of perpetual monetary tribute known as the
jizya. For all the rest - Buddhist, Taoists, Hindus, Pagans and
Atheists - the options are only two: convert or die.
Islam officially divides the globe into two camps; Dar-el-Islam
(the World of Islam) and Dar-el-Harb (the World of War). This
stance entails the conviction that the only means by which final
global peace may be attained is the total elimination of the Dar el
Harb, and the establishment of a Global Muslim Caliphate ruled by
Shari'a law. Those who choose to embark upon Jihad (actually, it is
described in the Qu'ran as a duty rather than as a choice just like
Christian witnessing is in the Bible) and are killed (martyred)
while engaging in it, are Qu'ranically assured of a Paradise in
which they may perpetually and guiltlessly enjoy practically all of
the pleasures that are religiously forbidden to living Muslims;
those who live are Qu'ranically permitted to take possession of the
spoils of war, be they the property or the women of the conquered
and/or slain infidels. This stance is, of course, patently
hegemonistic and militantly imperialistic, and becomes even more
appealing to poor male Muslim youth, when they see their chances of
having their own (appealing) wife as negligible (since the more
wealthy Muslims are religiously free to marry as many as four of
them each - as long as they can financially support them all). When
one takes a look at the historical spread of Islam, primarily by
coercion and conflict, from its inception in the Arabian Peninsula
some 1300 years ago to its reach from Spain to the Philippines
today, and one discovers that, of the forty-five military conflicts
extant in the world today, Muslims are fighting on one or both
sides of them all, it would appear that this particular module
possesses great expansionistic efficacy.
Supporting this memetic module are some others, such as the
doctrine that all humans are naturally born as Muslims, and that
those who profess other beliefs have fallen into apostasy (and thus
must be rescued from their error or suffer the dire consequences),
and the dictum that people are free to convert TO Islam - in fact,
as we have seen, the 'inducements' are quite formidable - but that
to convert FROM Islam to anything else (or, in the case of atheists
and agnostics, to nothing) is a religious crime for which the
punishment of death is prescribed. It is also better for one's
assimilational purposes if one's infidel target is kept in the
dark. Thus, Muslims are religiously free to both deceive infidels
as to their intentions regarding them (taqiyya) and to misdirect
their attention from those intentions (kitman), in the interests if
the greater good - that is, in the interests of the expansion of
the Ummah (the fellowship of the true believers).
Now, I'm not saying that all Muslims, or even a majority of them,
are inexorably drawn from live-and-let-live tolerance to Mujaheddin
Jihadism in the service of the annihilation of the Dar el Harb and
the establishment of the Global Caliphate (Daniel Pipes estimates
the number at around 15%), but the vast majority those who are not
so drawn are very quiet, because the message contained in the
memeplex of Islam supports not them, but the militants, and they
are quite reasonably frightened of suffering the Righteous
Retribution of the Violent Faithful should they dare to attempt to
speak out in dissent (Some exceptions are Salman Rushdie, Ayaan
Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, Taslima Naslim, and Ibn Warraq; these
brave souls continue to suffer for their courage and integrity, and
many of their outspoken brethren have been killed).
Next, let us take a brief look at the particular strain that is
presently so globally troubling.
Imaam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab was born in and lived in eighteenth
century Arabia (1703-1792), and promulgated the idea that Islam had
fallen away from its seventh century roots, the Edenic era when
Muhammed and the Four Great Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and
Ali) succeeded each other, and needed to return to them. This
involved a Puritanical purging of all non-Muslim influences, the
return of draconian enforcement of religious edicts against
infidels, and the toughening of restrictions upon women. Wahhabism
subsequently spread throughout most of the Arabian Peninsula and
gained significant footholds beyond, but concentrated itself
primarily upon the peninsula itself, as the defender of the purity
of the faith in Muhammed's birth land, the Land of the Two Mosques.
In the early 20th century, the House of Saud brokered a deal with
the Wahhabists, and Saudi Arabia was born.
Sayyid Qutb was a Wahhabist born in Egypt (1906-1966). He traveled
to the US, and sojourned there between 1948 and 1950. This
experience shocked and disgusted him. He was horrified by the
presence of uppity and voting women, freedom of religion and
thought, widespread substance use and rampant sexual
licentiousness. He then put forth the idea that the US was the
fount of Jahiliyya (a word roughly translatable as pre-Musim
Paganism), and, as such, was a danger to Islam and must be forcibly
subjected to Shari'a rule. He did not view the US as a military
threat, since he believed that life in such a dissipative culture
had weakened and softened its citizenry, but rather contended that
its various freedoms and vices were slatternly temptations that
could seduce the faithful away from the true path. Thus, for the
good of both the faith and of all humankind, the US as it was must
be destroyed, and Muslim piousness enforced there. He later
generalized this view to include, first European, and later all
non-Muslim societies.
Notice that, without Qutb, Wahhabism would have remained directed
inwards, and without Wahhabism, Qutb would not have had a pious and
puritanical Islam with which to compare and contrast the US culture
that he encountered. Together, their contributions combine to
create the present Al Qaedan stance that the entire globe must be
subjugated to a religious regimen that consciously holds itself in
the seventh century. Interestingly enough, the head of Al Qaeda,
Usama Bin Laden, came from Saudi Arabia (like Wahhab), while Al
Qaeda's chief ideologue, Zawahiri, came from Egypt (like
Qutb).
Considering all of these points taken together, it is surpassingly
obvious that, in the present era, Radical Islamism is a far greater
threat to the continued existence of the secular, nonsectarian
governance of open and constitutionally democratic societies than
is Fundamentalist Christianity.
How do we, as free, democratic and tolerant societies, deal with
the aggressive encroachments of this virulent memeplex? I believe
that we're already on the path to doing so, and this is why:
The primordial form of government, one that long predated the
advent of the written word, is monarchial, composed of royal
masters, typically from a single family lineage that served as a
simulacrum of the genetic heritage of the tribe, and ruled slaves,
who owed the masters familial bonds of fealty. However, this form
of government often entailed power struggles and intrigues by the
royal relatives to either lay claim to or to seize the reins of
succession during the authority change when the king, czar, pharoah
or emperor would die, and this was not conducive to smooth and
orderly transition and the smooth continuation of civil
order.
Spoken religious myths had most likely been invoked to legitimize
royal rule for as long as humans spoke and gathered in tribes.
However, with the creation of written language, it was possible to
create a form of leadership that would not change or die like
rulers did; blueprints - that is, sets of ideas - that could codify
the regal rule as divinely sanctioned, serve as abstract monarchs
with which to supplement the concrete yet generationally changing
kings, provide a common glue which smoothed transitions and soothed
the populace while transition happened, and, via the inclusion of
explicit tribal history, the encoding of symbolic abstractions of
important past tribal decisions within the religious myth, or the
insertion of purportedly divinely communicated rules, provide both
guidance as to how such transitions should be effectuated, and
within what parameters a particular king should circumscribe his
decisional alternatives. These blueprints are the holy texts of
written religions.
As time passed, certain written religions spread across several
kingdoms each, and the kings themselves became in their turn ruled
by their ecclesiastical authorities, who held sway over multiple
kingdoms; as religion mattered more, royalty mattered less. In such
a manner, genetic monarchies gradually evolved into, or were
superseded and supplanted by, ideological monarchies, whose rulers
were chosen from within the membership of the religion itself, the
successor being decided, whenever a ruler died, via the consensus
of the most influential members remaining.
Where religious government was itself supposedly superseded, in
most cases, its supersession was apparent rather than real. Thus
with communism and fascism, the god of matter and labor, and the
god of the spirit (geist) of the people and its will to power,
replaced the transcendent god of heaven, mind and prayer. Still,
however, the master and the slave remained; the divinely granted or
prescriptively composed sets of ideas and rules were the
acknowledged rulers, but the actual rulers were those who mandated
to the general populaces what those rules meant. Hegel was the
philosopher who first explicitly described this structure.
The Hegelian master-slave dialectic was composed of Masters (who
were willing to risk death in order to rule) and Slaves (who were
not willing to risk death in order to not be ruled), and Hegel did
not present any manner by which governmental form could evolve past
this basic inequity. However, in the past couple of hundred years,
a synthetic new level has emerged, that of Free and Independent
Individuals, who refuse to rule others, but who are willing to kill
and die in order not to be ruled by others - that is, they are
willing to, in fact, even desirous of, letting others rule
themselves, and will even take pains to free enslaved others, but
in return they insist upon the right to rule themselves also, via
representatives who are neither divinely chosen nor doctrinally
imposed by exclusive vote from within an ideological apparatus, be
they priests or commissars, but are instead popularly elected by
the populace at large, in accordance with a constitution that, in
addition to codifying those ethical precepts contained within both
holy and secular precursors which are genuinely ethical, mandates
the existence, frequency, and structure of such a process. In a
way, the principle of ecclesiastical or commissar vote was
generalized to encompass the entire citizenry (just as, in prior
times, the Gutenberg printing press wrested the holy texts away
from their elite cadres and made them available for perusal and
judgment to all literate citizens), and a new memeplex has thus
evolved; the constitutional democracy memeplex
In fact, evolution is an explicit module of this memeplex; whereas
holy texts were forever frozen in their revealed forms,
constitutions could be amended or modified by elected
representatives responding to popular consensus in the face of
changing circumstances, like species evolve in response to natural
selection acting via changing environments. This capacity for
evolution from within relieves pressure for revolution, as popular
changes can be made to the established order without the need to
overthrow that order in its entirety. However, so that the rights
of minority citizens are protected from any oppressive 'tyranny of
the majority', basic guaranteed civil and political rights for all
are also included as a submodule qualification of the popular
evolution module. This submodule grants and guarantees all of the
memeplex's citizens equal rights and freedoms to individually
pursue their own personal and economic well being. The interpreters
of this constitution (the written and codified template of this
memeplex) are appointed by the popularly elected representatives of
the citizens, and those who amend it via legislation are separated
from those who execute its enforcement and from those who interpret
its meaning, as a barrier against groups of representatives
collaborating in order to create and implement mutually
self-serving rather than citizenry-benefitting changes, or issuing
and enforcing self-serving interpretations, and to prevent the
executors from authoring self-serving provisions which they then
may enforce to their own benefit, or from interpreting existing
provisions in self-serving ways. Of course, the concrete personal
and political reality of a citizenry as codified in their
constitution can never completely catch up to their abstract ideal,
as this ideal is itself a moving target, in constant evolution in
response to evolving and expanding potential rights,
responsibilities, opportunities and choices, but, as noted before,
their constitution can be continuously modified to progressively
approach it.
Competition between the governments and peoples of countries that
embrace this principle, that is, competition between constitutional
democracies, is removed from the politico-military sphere
(democracies generally do not war with one another - it's
counterproductive) and relocated in the economic sphere, comprised
of international trade and the competition between producers for
consumers via the manufacture of better and/or less expensive
products. This competition of course financially and materially
benefits the consuming citizenry, at the same time that it
furnishes them with gainful productive employment by means of which
they may self-support (self-support and self-responsibility being a
necessary corollary of freedom and self-rule). Thus, the
constitutional democracy memeplex is likely to appeal to a
significant percentage of those who presently suffer political and
personal oppression and economic privation under theocratic and
totalitarian systems, and are prevented by such systems from having
an electoral voice in their government's conduct, making personally
benefitting economic decisions, exercising personal choice, or
changing (or even advocating the changing of) the nature or rules
of the system in order to permit themselves to do these things.
This appeal renders it likely that the constitutional democracy
memeplex can, by offering people the opportunity to achieve
concrete and actual this-world economic benefits, expanded ranges
of personal choice, and genuine political empowerment, successfully
compete for their cognitive memespace with the abstract and
hypothetical next-world paradisiacal promises and infernal threats
proferred to them by the Wahhab/Qutb memeplex. The hope for the
future of secular and tolerant civilization could well lie in this
constitutional-democratic memeplex synthesis proliferating through
the populations of the globe, siphoning a large enough percentage
of their potential members away from the enslaving embrace of the
Wahhab/Qutb memeplex that they are unable, after membership
attrition via natural and jihad-related causes, to increase or
maintain their acolyte population, and finally ridding the world,
via democratic revolution (assisted where possible and necessary),
of the remaining totalitarian and theocratic enclaves which
continue to employ the oppressive master-slave dialectic, and
maintain their citizenries in its stifling thrall.
PS: Do not think that this is a racist stance which I am taking; I
am expressing dismay at the propagation of a violent, virulent
memeset that may cognitively infect any racial or ethnic
classification, and trying to figure out what can be said and/or
done to persuade Muslims to refuse to embrace it. In fact, there
are quite a few non-Muslim Arabs, and the majority of Muslims are
themselves not Arabs - the most populous Muslim nations are
Malaysia and Indonesia, and their populations are East Asian, not
Arab). Likewise, I am not criticizing Islam alone or in its
entirety; the problem we face and the task set before us is to gain
enough understanding of the workings of the Islamofascist memeplex
to be able to memetically counter the propensity, a propensity
particularly inherent in the Islamic memeplex but also present in
the memeplexes of the other Patriarchal Monotheisms, to facilitate
the spawning of intolerant and murderous mutational variants, such
as, in the case of Islam, the Wahhab/Qutb Al Qaedan strain.
Also do not think that I have written this analysis from the
standpoint of a hidden Christian or Jewish agenda. Putting aside
the fact that attacking the racial or ethnic membership or the
religious affiliation of the author of a position, rather than
critiquing the merits of the position itself by assessing the
evidence presented and checking the logical links in the chain of
reasoning by means of which the items of evidence are connected, is
a 2500 year old Greek logical fallacy known as ad hominem, I am
neither Christian nor a Jew, either ethnically or as a religious
stance; I am English, Irish, Dutch and Native American, and
consider myself to be a secular humanist with pagan overtones (I
tend towards sympathy with both the gender egalitarianism and the
ecologically friendly stance embraced by many pagan faiths and
their adherents, as well as their typically tolerant and positive
attitude towards the freedom of all to make uncoerced and
unfettered personal choices for themselves in matters both
political and religious, and their opposition to such matters being
dictated by some for others). I am not a fundamentalist of any
stripe. Philosophically, I favor existential and hermeneutic
phenomenology, Jean Piaget's genetic epistemology, semiotics, and
memetics (my BA is in philosophy) and my graduate work (a thesis
short of my MA) is in interdisciplinary humanities, including
philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics,
political science, and comparative religion.
I do, however, believe that the one thing that tolerant people
cannot tolerate is the coercive intolerance of others. Once people
begin to tolerate such a thing, it is a short and slippery step for
them to begin to share those others' intolerances, as well as the
coercive manner by means of which they endeavor to force such
stances upon people who would not freely embrace them (Tolerance:
Between Intolerance and the Intolerable by Paul Ricoeur).
Rhywun|1.5.07 @ 5:47PM|#
What makes you think that the same thing cannot happen with
Islam?
Yet the prospect seems so remote. Many of the countries in the
Middle East are total basket cases. I'm not aware of any progress
towards a free society having been made there in the last fifty
years or so. I would think that it would take some sort of uprising
to change things, so... why hasn't it happened yet?
In the more developed countries like Malaysia, there's certainly
been some progress, but it always seems like advances in one area
are followed by setbacks in another. The economy improves while
there's still zero political freedom and gays are still tossed in
jail. In fact it seems like they're playing the economic card just
like China is: let the people get just wealthy enough to be
content; content enough to not make waves with the govt/religious
power structure.
|1.5.07 @ 6:14PM|#
Talking crap about homosexuality because you believe it goes against the Bible and encoding laws that allow for the killing of Gays are not the same thing. They are not even in the same freaking ball-park. A few people need to get a bit of perspective.
The Lounsbury|1.5.07 @ 6:36PM|#
Well, glad to see that "libertarians" (that amusing US term for
supposed laissez faire liberalism) are not unacquainted with vulgar
bigotry and provincialism.
It would be disappointing should they be immune to such.
Now, on the first bit of vomitous response:Charming, the
responses:
Snotty and pompous, your response. Typical "progressive"
sanctimony.
Eh?
Progressive?
What the bloody fuck does that mean?
Well, some bit of whanking knee jerking it would seem, I presume I
am being accused of some Leftism.
As a genuine classic liberal of a most classically pragmatic bent,
nothing could be further from the truth, but what can one expect
from the land of slavering ideologues.
Islam is an abstraction, like Christianity. It doesn't do
anything.
A religion is not an "abstraction".
Religion is most certainly an abstraction, what else would it be my
dear dim-wit?
Typical "progressive" cop-out.
Actually, it's typical of rational, logical thinking unclouded by
hysteric ideological reaction.
Reason, in short, not hysterics.
What Islam does is precisely that which its adherents do in the
name of Islam, following the teachings of Islam, for the purpose of
increasing the numbers of Islam's adherents or increasing Islam's
dominance.
Which adherents of the billion odd adherents?
The majority that don't do much different than every other human,
or the mediatised activists?
Islam is an abstraction, nor can one pretend it is a single entity
with any degree of rationality (although very much like the
Christianist lunatics to prevalent in the US of A, the lunatics and
frothy believers do like to assert they are "the religion" whatever
rational objective observation might suggest).
Childish whinging on as yours merely underlines the irrational
bigotry of your reaction - although I suppose it is at once
instructive and amusing to see bigotry justify reverse
bigotry.
Wonderous the human condition.
Does nicely highly why laissez faire non-interventionist classic
liberalism is superiour to interventionist Statist prescriptivism;
one can't even trust so-called 'liberals' (libertarians) not to
descend into irrational bigotry.
However, it would appear that many a Westerner rather prefers the
empty-headed demonization, must much self-satisfying to look down
on the Infidel foreigners, eh no?
You're one to talk of "looking down" on anyone, aren't you? Typical
"progressive" moral equivalence.
Typical progressive?
Well, in any event, mate, yes indeed I do look down on inferior
logic, and irrational ranting on dressed up in the false clothes of
"concern" - reminds me of old colonial era faux concern for the
native savages.
However, unlike your ranting, I don't pretend (i) any real concern
for anything but the principle of laissez faire, (ii) any respect
for anything but for liberty, which means not pretending to impose
liberal value either should other jurisdictions / entities chose
other paths.
I am confident in the long run good example wins out.
Kiss my gay ass, you stupid "progressive" piece of garbage.
Get a grip, my dear sanctimonious hypocrite.
I struggle to keep from hating your guts, but only because hating
you would do more damage to me than it would to you, not because
you don't deserve to be hated.
I have a tiny violin to play to accompany your hysteria.
The Lounsbury|1.5.07 @ 6:58PM|#
I should close by noting that being afflicted by the
'misfortune' of actually being directly familiar with the Middle
East (insofar as I live and do business across the region, and have
learned the "mohemmedan," as the quaint phrase supra was used,
languages), I am amused by the pretend concern shown by the
hysteric faux liberals supra. the exagerations, and gross
distortions with respect to the dislike infidels rather underline
the quality of the actual attachment to liberty.
The sort of liberal who supports liberalism for his or her own
ideas and opinions, but is quite ready to suppress others and
impose in a Statist fashion.
Little surprise, liberty is a harsh mistress and few genuinely love
her. Genuinely.
Patrick D|1.5.07 @ 7:19PM|#
"Islamofascism vs. Christian Fundamentalism: Which is the
Greater Threat?"
... or Hindu fundamentalism, or Jewish fundamentalism, or
Socialism, or Communism ...
It is a topic worth exploring to understand the commonalities and
differences between them. The answer to the question is all of them
are threats to the degree that they undermine individual liberty
and are even complementary to the extent one sets a precedent that
benefits another.
"I do, however, believe that the one thing that tolerant people
cannot tolerate is the coercive intolerance of others. Once people
begin to tolerate such a thing, it is a short and slippery step for
them to begin to share those others' intolerances, as well as the
coercive manner by means of which they endeavor to force such
stances upon people who would not freely embrace them."
I absolutely agree with this but point out that the overriding
objective is to defend individual liberty, democracy and
capitalism. When something is proposed that threatens those things,
the proper answer should be "no" regardless of the source.
Patrick D|1.5.07 @ 7:26PM|#
Sorry. The conclusion of my post is not clear.
When something is proposed that threatens those things, the proper
answer should be "no" regardless of the source. Going on the
offensive is such a way as to damage individual liberty represents
the nonsense of "destroying it to save it" and effectively assists
the enemy.
Patrick D|1.5.07 @ 7:39PM|#
"Reverse orientalism -- a comparatively new development in the
Arab world -- taps into the same themes but also highlights the
'otherness' of the West in order to resist modernization and
reform. Homosexuality is one aspect of Western 'otherness' that can
be readily exploited to whip up popular sentiment...."
To get back to the original point of the string, it is strange that
homosexuality would be portrayed as a Western phenomenon.
Homosexual and bisexual behaviour were present and tolerated to
various degrees in the Islamic world long before the West existed
in its present form.
The Lounsbury|1.5.07 @ 8:03PM|#
Patrick:
Not terribly strange, quite logical if one looks at the history of
the reaction to public attitudes to homosexuality in the MENA
region ( I shan't try to say anything about the Islamic world,
since both my experience and Whitaker's are MENA specific ).
First, of course, as Whitaker's actual book makes clear, and as I
have seen in my decade in region, operationally non-exclusive gay
behaviour remains tolerated in the Arab world. One need not even be
particularly closeted, just show a modicum of commitment to "family
values"....
Second, the relatively recent emergence of "Gayness" in the social
identity sense in the West came at the same time, roughly as the
colonial experience of the Arab world, and the post-colonial
reaction - that is the violent imposition of Western rule and to an
extent Western values (or the cartoon image of such imported by
those most illiberal Colonial agents).
No surprise then that social reaction to what is at once a
relatively recent and rather... floridly Western secular society
development would be at once negative and strangely contradictory
to "operational values."
Typical reaction. One sees the same thing among certain Americans
reacting to European irreligiousity and relative libertinism.
Neither good nor bad in my opinion, merely reaction.
|1.5.07 @ 8:06PM|#
Ever notice how conservatives describe everything evil done
by westerners as contrary to their culture or religion, while
everything evil done by Muslims or Arabs is the inevitable, logical
extension of their culture or religion?
Let's not blind ourselves to the fact that there
is a great deal of truth in that when it comes to
religion, okay? Compare the Koran to the Gospels.
In one, the story is about a guy who was persecuted for his
preaching by the authorities, meekly surrendered to them, and was
executed.
In the other, the story is about a guy who was persecuted for his
preaching by the authorities, ran into exile, raised an army,
conquered the city he was driven from, and then kept conquering
neighbors until he had an empire.
Which story requires less manipulation to justify going out and
conquering the infidel? Which protagonist would you rather have a
neighbor who doesn't like you emulate?
dhex|1.5.07 @ 8:23PM|#
"Which protagonist would you rather have a neighbor who doesn't
like you emulate?"
historically speaking, i'd rather live next to neither.
i mean, there are plenty of people who believe in a literal
eschaton for humanity, either religious or secular (ecological
disaster, etc); taken at plain face value, i should be terribly
afraid of them, because they've foreseen a world that has an
expiration date, often in their lifetimes.
Thomas|1.5.07 @ 8:47PM|#
Some sources suggest that male homosexuality is rife throughout the Middle East - although this is mostly homosexuality of the prison variety, with older men dominating younger men and boys, and who identify themselves as opportunistic heterosexuals rather than Western-style homosexuals.
Parr|1.5.07 @ 9:30PM|#
Some sources suggest that male homosexuality is rife
throughout the Middle East - although this is mostly homosexuality
of the prison variety, with older men dominating younger men and
boys, and who identify themselves as opportunistic heterosexuals
rather than Western-style homosexuals
In Afghanistan, Western troops refer to it as "Man Love Thursday"
and it's very common.
Women are only for procreation.
Young men and boys are recreation.
They don't refer to themselves as anything at all - it's a cultural
norm for the area.
Burr|1.5.07 @ 9:42PM|#
Well as another gay poster here I think the issue of
homosexuality's mistreatment in the Middle East is far bigger and
more complex than just pointing the finger at Islam. Let's remember
that homosexuality was still a crime under Saddam's comparatively
secular regime, which at the same time gave women vastly more
rights than any of its neighbors.
Religion is no doubt a source of the problem, but as others have
pointed out most of them have violently anti-gay passages (or at
least poorly interpreted as such). To solve that requires changing
the culture that ignorantly takes it so literally. We've made great
strides in the west towards that end. Most of Islam's problems are
tied to this same issue of not being able to let go of
fundamentalism. Even if we wiped out Islam, they'd probably clutch
onto some other ignorant cultural philosophy to persecute gays.
Burr|1.5.07 @ 9:53PM|#
Also, maybe if the west weren't so invasive and meddling in the Middle East to their constant disadvantage, Arabs wouldn't be so quick to scapegoat things as Western and reject them, a counterproductive behavior that impedes progress. Many moderates are caught on the fence between embracing our ideals of freedom and hating our foreign policy, and the extremists capitalize on it.
Mark in Texas|1.6.07 @ 12:49PM|#
The Lounsbury:
I would really, really love for there to be an Islamic
reformation so that a new and, quite frankly, acceptable verson of
Islam could arise and Muslims could choose to adhere to that
version as the "True" Islam.
I would love that too, but considering that Islam already had a
Reformation in the 18th century with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab
playing the role of John Calvin, I suspect that the chances for
reform are not real good. Sad to state, but I think that the future
is going to look a lot like 15th and 16th century Spain than I am
really comfortable with. Still, as unpleasant as that future looks,
it is preferable to 15th century Constantinople.
|1.6.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Islam doesn't define many things the way the West does.
Homosexuality is one of these.
1. Sex with an boy under the age of puberty is not considered
homosexual.
In heaven, Muslims are promised the sexual vigor of 100 men so then
why only 72 virgins? Because they also get 28 "young, hairless
boys."
2. In sex between two men, only the "catcher" is considered to be
homosexual.
Thus Yasser Arafat, who was a homosexual, could also be a
leader.
|1.8.07 @ 11:55AM|#
"A picture that reads rather like the West c. 1960 or so re
gays"
Balderdash.
Show me the stonings.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245