New at Reason

April 9, 2007

Cathy Young reports on a flag desecration that liberal college administrators decided they didn't like.

Comments

Fluffy|4.9.07 @ 3:11PM|#

Wouldn't the solution here be to file complaints about the other types of political speech Young references until the university administration collapses from exhaustion?

Double standards don't stand up well to deliberate, repetitive and provocative abuse.

|4.9.07 @ 3:11PM|#

Cathy, wake me up when Holocaut deniers are not jailed for their views. Then, we can talk about double standards.

|4.9.07 @ 3:13PM|#

Obviously the schools don't give enough homework. I never had enough time in college for stupid political shenanigans.

|4.9.07 @ 3:16PM|#

Annon,

Holocaust deniers are not jailed for their views in the United States. They are, however, jailed for their views in Germany and Europe. Since those are the countries responsible for the holocaust, it is a reasonable concession to freedom that those countries not allow anyone to deny the existence of the holocaust.

Further, there is no moral equivalence between object to murderous fanatics like Hamas and denying the holocaust.

|4.9.07 @ 3:24PM|#

"it is a reasonable concession to freedom that those countries not allow anyone to deny the existence of the holocaust"

What could that possibly mean? I'm not even disagreeing, mind you -- I'm just bewildered.

|4.9.07 @ 3:25PM|#

So will the school investigate anyone who destroys anything naming or depicting spaghetti? After all, Pastafarians have rights too!

|4.9.07 @ 3:27PM|#

John, bullshit.

Making holocaust denial a crime is not a consession to freedom. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to deny the holocaust. It is a concession to those who would suppress dissent.

The holocaust deniers are wrong, and I have in the past mocked and jeered at people who seemed to be doing that. However, there is absolutely no justification for throwing them in jail. Regardless of which patch of mud they were standing on at the tiem they made their hateful speeches.

ed|4.9.07 @ 3:35PM|#

Didn't Galileo get in trouble for denying...what was it...something about the earth being at the center of the universe...anyhow, his views were unpopular, so he got what he deserved.

|4.9.07 @ 3:37PM|#

Incriminating Holocaust denial doesn't end Holocaust denial, it just sends most of it underground. Better to allow people to air such ideas in public, where we can counter their ideas. And, I suppose, to give them an opportunity to clearly identify themselves to law enforcement in the event that they couple actions to their ideas.

In the area of speech, the U.S. is way ahead of our fellow travelers in the West. Even Canada lacks our liberal speech rights.

VM|4.9.07 @ 3:44PM|#

ed -

nah. that's the sanitized story. He was charged with public indecency (a sex crime, of course) when he threw his balls off the tower.

edna|4.9.07 @ 3:45PM|#

there's a lot of things i'd like to change in european law; the holocaust denial thing is certainly one. but fact remains, it ain't a crime here and no-one is in jail because of it. so put away that red herring.

|4.9.07 @ 3:48PM|#

Since when is "blasphemy" a problem on a college campus???

|4.9.07 @ 3:53PM|#

Cathy, wake me up when Holocaut deniers are not jailed for their views. Then, we can talk about double standards.


Uh yes, anon, first we have to free all those holocaust deniers sitting in American jails. Only then can we rightfully start addressing the issues of religious censorship. Idiot.

|4.9.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Additions to the "what could that possibly mean?" list:

"This isn't the first time the authorities have rushed to protect Muslims from what alleged blasphemy."

|4.9.07 @ 4:09PM|#

You should always let college kids blab. Counter blab if you like, but understand - these are college kids. The whole point of being a political creature in college is so you can say things you later regret as insufficiently thought out.

Mabel!? Where are my teeth!?

|4.9.07 @ 4:10PM|#

At the end of World War II, the victorious parties banned the Nazi party in Germany and Austria. It makes perfect sense that the perpetrators of the crime are not allowed to deny the crime later. As far as it being a bullshit crime, it is not a bullshit crime at all in a society that was responsible for the holocaust. Perhaps now as the holocaust fades from living memory, it would make sense to re-examine these laws. But certainly the generation that perpetrated the crime can never be allowed to deny it. That is what those laws are about and why they make sense.

VM|4.9.07 @ 4:13PM|#

What JasonL said!

Well spake!

You need to understand and challenge borders. No violence, etc, but expression - even expression that looks ridiculous (any kind of flag burning) - is part of exploration.

Living in a free, pluralistic society, you have to realize that behaviors that even are personally offensive are protected.

Boo on those colleges.

ed|4.9.07 @ 4:24PM|#

It makes perfect sense that the perpetrators of the crime are not allowed to deny the crime later.

Many holocaust deniers were born well after the fact. They should be denied freedom of speech why, then? Because their views are idiotic? Vicious? Stupid? Hell, we'll have to ban Hollywood if that's the case.

MikeT|4.9.07 @ 4:27PM|#

I wonder how long it will take before libertarians start to realize that Islam really is not a "religion of peace" and that at its core it is as violent and totalitarian as Communism and the other collectivist ideologies of the past. It always seems to get a free pass because it's a religion. God forbid that a religion be judged like a political ideology.

VM|4.9.07 @ 4:30PM|#

About as long as evangelical christians sure aren't into "peace", either.

Minaret.org

Also|4.9.07 @ 4:38PM|#

A Muslim Prayer for Peace
In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful.
Praise be to the Lord of the Universe who has created us and made us into tribes and nations, that we may know each other, not that we may despise each other.

If the enemy incline towards peace, do thou also incline towards peace, and trust in God, for the Lord is the one that heareth and knoweth all things.

And the servants of God, Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when we address them, we say, "Peace."

Prayer for Unity

N THE NAME OF GOD, THE COMPASSIONATE, THE MERCIFUL, look with compassion on the whole human family; take away the controversial teachings of arrogance, divisions and hatreds which have badly infected our hearts; break down the walls that separate us; reunite us in bonds of love; and work through our struggle and confusion to accomplish Your purposes on earth; that, in Your good time, all nations and races may jointly serve You in justice, peace and harmony. (Amen)

(and if you're a christian, that's the same god)

hier is also something interesting.

|4.9.07 @ 4:41PM|#

"Incriminating Holocaust denial doesn't end Holocaust denial, it just sends most of it underground. "

Exactly. It creates a black market in Holocaust denial and invites a criminal element in. It turns recreational Holocaust deniers into full blown criminals, and makes it impossible for hard-core Holocaust deniers to get treatment. By making it more risky for Holocaust deniers to produce material in their homes, it offshores production to Mexico, compounding the illegal immigration problem. And soon, we can expect to have to produce ID and sign our names when purchasing pens and paper, and having quantities we purchase limited under the theory that Holocaust deniers are purchasing these goods to produce their harmful materials.

But more seriously, Holocaust denial is a gateway denial to more serious denials, such as denial of anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) denial.

Cesar|4.9.07 @ 4:41PM|#

MikeT-

I see the problem with Islam today as similar to the problem with Shintoism during World War II.

Shinto was a traditional Japanese religion that was peaceful until the Japanese Imperial state perverted it into violently nationalist Emperor-worship in the late 19th century.

Similarly, Islam as someone's personal faith is not threatening. It is only when it is mixed together with the garbage bin of western philosophy--marxism and nihlism--that you get something like Al Qaeda or Wahabbism.

|4.9.07 @ 4:55PM|#

I wonder how long it will take before libertarians start to realize that Islam really is not a "religion of peace" and that at its core it is as violent and totalitarian as Communism and the other collectivist ideologies of the past. It always seems to get a free pass because it's a religion. God forbid that a religion be judged like a political ideology.

That is the most sensible thing I've read on Hit & Run in a long time.


About as long as evangelical christians sure aren't into "peace", either.

Blah, blah, blah. Yes, Christians have committed barbaric acts in the distant past, and they are far from perfect now, but the are much, much, MUCH more tolerant of non-believers than Muslims. Say you aren't Christian in the deep south and the worst you're likely to get is an unwanted "sermon". Say you aren't a Muslim in Saudi Arabia and you'll be lucky to stay alive.

highnumber|4.9.07 @ 5:04PM|#

NAL,

I have never been to Saudi Arabia. Is that true - they'll kill you if you say you aren't Muslim?
Wow.

Cesar|4.9.07 @ 5:06PM|#

Highnumber-

If that were the case there would be no western oil workers, and there would have never been any american soldiers there.

|4.9.07 @ 5:10PM|#

I see. So, now we are talking about the US. I thought free speech separated the enlightined west and the backward middle east. O.k., here are some examples from this side of the bond. disguising suppression of speech with operative words such as "providing support to terrorist groups" does not make it any less so.

|4.9.07 @ 5:12PM|#

Say you aren't a Muslim in Saudi Arabia and you'll be lucky to stay alive.

That would be news to the millions of Christian and Hindu expatriates working in Saudi Arabia.

highnumber|4.9.07 @ 5:16PM|#

Shush, Cesar!
(Let NAL answer the question.)

thoreau|4.9.07 @ 5:18PM|#

I also agree with JasonL.

I didn't say anything nearly as dumb as most college kids, but I still look back in horror.

Hell, even when I was still a liberal Democrat I looked back in horror.

VM|4.9.07 @ 5:18PM|#

High#:

[saucy tone of voice]I don't think he's been there[/stov]

*light goes on!

Unless, like, he runs real fast. Real fast.

Or can kick ass like Chuck Norris rammed up Jean Claude Van Damme's ass (sort of a martial arts version of turducken).

Now that's tough!

|4.9.07 @ 5:25PM|#

Say you aren't a Muslim in Saudi Arabia and you'll be lucky to stay alive.

Just to pile on to a totally ignorant statement:

I've been to Saudi numerous times, never made any secret that I'm a non-muslim, and last time I checked I'm still breathing. There are thousands of non-muslim expats in SA and surrounding countries, and they're treated well. Of course it's best to keep active non-muslim worship to yourself, but it's not persecuted when expats practice it.

SA has its drawbacks if you're not a muslim, but the threat of death isn't among them.

|4.9.07 @ 5:27PM|#

I see. So, now we are talking about the US.

The event in question occurred at a university in the United States, and is subject to the 1st Amendment per the US Constitution. So, yes, we are now, and have been, talking about the United States in this thread.

|4.9.07 @ 5:35PM|#

Since when is "blasphemy" a problem on a college campus???

Well, that seems to be Mrs. Young's take on the charges of incitement, creation of a hostile environment, and incivility. It is apparently true that the students that complained did so because the word 'Allah' was on the flags but the College Republicans were not charged with blasphemy. Does that make the filing of charges any less egregious? I don't think so but it does make the story a bit less sensational.

Rhywun|4.9.07 @ 6:04PM|#

Similarly, Islam as someone's personal faith is not threatening.

"Personal" faith? I guess it does usually take at least two people to come together and decide to stone some gays or some raped women. I for one would sleep safer at night if everyone kept their faith to themselves.

NAL|4.9.07 @ 6:07PM|#

That would be news to the millions of Christian and Hindu expatriates working in Saudi Arabia.


Perhaps I should have been more specific. It should read, "Say that you are no LONGER a believer (muslim) in Saudi Arabia and/or say you try to convert other muslims to some other religion, or say something against Allah or Muhammad."

My point is still valid, Islam (as it's practiced in most of the Middle East) is an intolerant, oppressive violent religion.

|4.9.07 @ 6:12PM|#

Say you aren't a Muslim in Saudi Arabia and you'll be lucky to stay alive.

That would be news to the millions of Christian and Hindu expatriates working in Saudi Arabia.

He was exaggerating. Change it to "hold a Koran in full public view" or "say a loud prayer to Jesus Christ and ask the passers-by to convert to Christianity". My bet is either would be an effective suicide, or at a minimum a severe beating, and your attackers will not be punished.

|4.9.07 @ 6:16PM|#

Shinto was a traditional Japanese religion that was peaceful until the Japanese Imperial state perverted it into violently nationalist Emperor-worship in the late 19th century.

Similarly, Islam was a peaceful traditional Arab religion, and the only reason it spread outside the environs of Medina was the gentle preaching of Mohammed and his disciples, whose non-violent witness and willingness to endure persecution and even death for their faith so inspired the masses of the Byzantine and Persian Empires and of the Visigothic kingdom of Spain that they converted en masse. A group of unarmed Moslem preachers even spread the word about Islam into the Frankish kingdom, where they were mowed down by troops under the command of Charles Martel at the "battle" of Tours in 732.

In the so-called "siege" of Constantinople in 1453, unarmed Turkish preachers prayed as they walked around the walls of Constantinople, at which point the walls of the city fell down, and the inhabitants converted to Islam.

As every schoolboy knows, "militant" Islam was created to bolster Saudi nationalism after the Saudi family took power in the Nejd in 1902.

cesar|4.9.07 @ 6:25PM|#

Seamus-

Show me one empire during the middle ages--western, muslim, or eastern--that was peaceful and liberal.

|4.9.07 @ 6:40PM|#

Right NAL, there's no such thing as violent Christian fundamentalists over here. Apparently, only those Muslims can be violent and illiberal.

Which makes it surprising that pre-911 most terrorist attacks on US soil came from fundamentalist Christians.

Of course, if you limit the count to terrorism from citizens (to control for cultural and political reasons), Muslims are pikers in the terrorism department compared to Christians.

thoreau|4.9.07 @ 6:54PM|#

It isn't polite to talk about the siege of Constantinople. That's nobody's business but the Turks.

highnumber|4.9.07 @ 7:08PM|#

I thought it was Istanbul, not Constantinople.

|4.9.07 @ 7:27PM|#

Abortions for some, miniature Hezbollah and Hamas flags for others!

nextmike|4.9.07 @ 8:17PM|#

As an agnostic I still find it amazing how atheist libertarians, who pride themselves on their objectivism, so easily fall prey to moral equivalence. Take, for example, the comments above which try to equate the violence of modern-day Christians with militant Muslims.

Give me a break. I'm sure the pyschology in play is simply a blanket assumption that all religion is bad, therefor there is no need for distinction between Chrisitanity and Islam.

Of course, one could say that being assailed by a thug with a weapon is always bad. But if you had a thug with a loaded gun and one with a knife, objectively, one would need to differentiate and prioritize between the two threats accordingly.

Catch my drift?

|4.9.07 @ 8:26PM|#

Well, that seems to be Mrs. Young's take on the charges of incitement, creation of a hostile environment, and incivility. It is apparently true that the students that complained did so because the word 'Allah' was on the flags but the College Republicans were not charged with blasphemy. Does that make the filing of charges any less egregious? I don't think so but it does make the story a bit less sensational.

So if The College Republicans decide to become The College God's Own Party, by the arguments from the plaintiffs, the CR -- sorry CGOP -- could bring equally childish charges against their own critics. After all, they are creating a hostile environment based on their religious belief. Did the plaintiffs ever consider that? Or were they convinced that speech codes and harassment codes were their possession and prerogative and theirs alone?

I despise speech codes but I must concede that one of the more "effective" ways to get schools to voluntarily drop 'em without bringing in the law is to get the people who the codes are supposed to shut up, instead, to embrace them and insist on "equal protection from losing an argument." Want to keep them from saucing up the goose? Gravy down that Gander!

And arguably peaceful religionists of all stripes (ooo! and let's bring in the Baha'i for good measure -- God-thingiemahoozitz! I'm naughty!) could have countered Hamas and Hezbollah apologists for defiling their peaceful image of the god of their choice since both Hamas and Hezbollah are "monotheists" and their belief in their own one and only God is the only one that counts by their own reckoning. What is it they say about religion, politics and whirlwinds?

dhex|4.9.07 @ 8:43PM|#

"But if you had a thug with a loaded gun and one with a knife, objectively, one would need to differentiate and prioritize between the two threats accordingly."

so you're proposing we have the muslims shoot the christians?

i don't really approve of sectarian violence.

nextmike|4.9.07 @ 8:51PM|#

dhex,

Well, implicit in your comment is the notion that Islam is the thug with the gun.

I agree with you.

Cesar|4.9.07 @ 8:53PM|#

Nextmike--

Do you seriously think Islam is one big monolith?

nextmike|4.9.07 @ 9:09PM|#

Cesar,

That question is rhetorical, right? Of course I don't think Islam is monolithic. In fact, I believe continuing Shiite vs. Sunni rivalries help to insulate the West from a more concerted Islamic attack (cultural, terrorist , etc.)

But this doesn't change the fact that the religion of Islam is a huge threat to those values which libertarians hold dear.

|4.9.07 @ 9:09PM|#

You Islamo-apologists make me sick.

Someone says that non-Muslims get killed in Saudi Arabia. You say no, that's not the case. Its only people who renounce Islam that get killed. Therefore its ok.

Do you seriously think Islam is one big monolith?

Is Communism or Nazism? No, of course not. But the faith itself is a source of destruction and evil. There are things in the Koran uglier than amything found in Mein Kamph.

As a whole, if the Muslim religion is not evil then the word has no meaning.

What a nice world we'd live in if the biggest threat to liberty was porn banning Christians.

I'm a registered libertarian but I'm starting to feel relieved that we never get more than 2% of the national vote.

Cesar|4.9.07 @ 9:16PM|#

I think fanatical religions are a threat to libertarian values, but I also think a warfare-welfare state and reckless foreign adventures in the name of a "long war" are, too.

You can't put radical Islam in the same category as Communism or Fascism. Both Communism and Fascism had a world-wide appeal, radical Islam has little appeal to people outside of the Middle East. Both Communism and Fascism had huge industrialized sates with massive standing armies to back them up, which Muslim nation has even a fraction of the military power of the former USSR? I don't see them as the same thing, and its stupid to treat them as such. If you do you are fighting yesterday's war.

|4.9.07 @ 9:31PM|#

You can't put radical Islam in the same category as Communism or Fascism. Both Communism and Fascism had a world-wide appeal, radical Islam has little appeal to people outside of the Middle East.

Chechnya, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Somalia, London.

To steal an old joke from Mark Steyn, the biggest globilization success story in the modern era hasn't been McDonalds, its Whabbism.

Both Communism and Fascism had huge industrialized sates with massive standing armies to back them up, which Muslim nation has even a fraction of the military power of the former USSR? I don't see them as the same thing, and its stupid to treat them as such. If you do you are fighting yesterday's war.

You're basically right. We might not find grand wars against Muslim nations but we can take steps to delay our own end. Just off the top of my head: restrict Muslim immigration, stand up to the PC police and use hard and soft power to make sure Muslim countries have as little influence as possible. And those that deny the problem or try to find equivalency between Christian fundies and Muslim ones have their heads in the sand.

Cesar|4.9.07 @ 9:43PM|#

*To steal an old joke from Mark Steyn, the biggest globilization success story in the modern era hasn't been McDonalds, its Whabbism.*

Do you know why Wahabbism gained such appeal? The older more moderate scholars in Egypt and other places in the Muslims world were shut down by Nasser and other socialist regimes in an effort to monopolize power. Think of the France and the Catholic Church during the French Revolution. What happens when you cut down a forest? The weeds come in--petrodollars in the 1970s and 80s from Saudi Arabia funded Wahabbism in Egypt and Afgahnistan to name a few places.

It has appeal to the youth in London mainly because the Wahabbi mosques preach in English, while the older more moderate mosques speak in Urdu which many of the youth cannot understand.

Shutting off the Saudi petrodollars by finding an alternative to oil while funding Muslims who oppose Wahabbism would help a great deal. But if we think of all Muslims as monolithically evil and fanatical, that is going to hurt us much more than help.


*You're basically right. We might not find grand wars against Muslim nations but we can take steps to delay our own end. Just off the top of my head: restrict Muslim immigration, stand up to the PC police and use hard and soft power to make sure Muslim countries have as little influence as possible. And those that deny the problem or try to find equivalency between Christian fundies and Muslim ones have their heads in the sand.*

There isn't going to be an "end". Mark Steyn has been wrong on just about everything up until now and he won't be right about Muslims taking over Europe. The birth rates of Arab immigrants to France, for example, now approach that of native Frenchmen. The youth--including the rioters of 2005--are almost entirely secular. They are angered by discrimination and a lack of economic mobility due to the massive French welfare state, not because France is not Islamic enough for them.

We also need to quit further inflaming the Muslim world by carrying out massive military interventions in their countries and acting as though we own the entire region. I thought Libertarians were supposed to be against interventionism?

Pendulum|4.9.07 @ 9:59PM|#

There are things in the Koran uglier than amything found in Mein Kamph.

Have you ever read the Bible?

Pendulum|4.9.07 @ 10:00PM|#

There are things in the Koran uglier than amything found in Mein Kamph.

Have you ever read the Bible?

highnumber|4.9.07 @ 10:13PM|#

Mein Kampf is possibly the worst book I have ever read. In every way.

And I read a book by James Patterson once.

|4.9.07 @ 10:18PM|#

Do you know why Wahabbism gained such appeal? The older more moderate scholars in Egypt and other places in the Muslims world were shut down by Nasser and other socialist regimes in an effort to monopolize power. Think of the France and the Catholic Church during the French Revolution. What happens when you cut down a forest? The weeds come in--petrodollars in the 1970s and 80s from Saudi Arabia funded Wahabbism in Egypt and Afgahnistan to name a few places.


That's one theory.

I think its one based on wishful thinking. Extremism is caused by opression.

My theory? Arabic (and most Muslim) societies are cultures that have characteristics that lead to faliure. For example, in an Arabic country a government official that didn't hand out jobs to incompetent family members would be considered a bad man. A woman who thinks for herself is the devil. Conformity is valued over individualism.

This leads to economic faliure. Once your society fails you have two options:

A) Take responsibility for these faliures and change.

B) Blame somebody else. A CIA or Mossad conspiracy will do just fine.

People never choose A.

Combine this with an absolutist religion with 100% confidence in its supremecy over others, a culture of respect and honor that belongs in the middle ages and the threat these traditionalists feel from American culture they see as an attack on their values. That's a recipe for violent, genocidal hatred. And its not for anything we did, its simply historical factors combined with who we are.

highnumber|4.9.07 @ 10:26PM|#

My theory? Arabic (and most Muslim) societies are cultures that have characteristics that lead to faliure.

You should get with the flemur. He can tell you it's genetic.

Either way:
Wheeeeeee!!!

|4.9.07 @ 10:27PM|#

And that is why people hate the Dallas Cowboys.

They jealous!

Cesar|4.9.07 @ 10:28PM|#

*My theory? Arabic (and most Muslim) societies are cultures that have characteristics that lead to faliure. For example, in an Arabic country a government official that didn't hand out jobs to incompetent family members would be considered a bad man. A woman who thinks for herself is the devil. Conformity is valued over individualism.*

Ahh yes, cultural determinism. Just like how Catholicism is incompatible with Democracy, because Catholicism demands unquestioning obedience to hierarchical authorities. Therefore, a Catholic country can never have a liberal democratic government.

Yeah, tell that to Italy, Spain, and Portugal today.

Or how East Asian Confucian culture is incompatible with capitalism, because money-making and trade is looked down upon in said culture. Tell that to South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and China.

BTW, both above theories were believed for a very long time.They have since been shown to be terribly wrong and inaccurate. There are many nations today that are both Catholic and Democratic, and East Asia is one of the fastest growing areas in the world.

Both theories, btw, where once widely believed and accepted as true. They have since proven to be terribly wrong.

Its simple to say "X culture has problems because thats just the way it is". But that ignores larger historical realities, and the capacity for change.

|4.9.07 @ 10:43PM|#

Its simple to say "X culture has problems because thats just the way it is". But that ignores larger historical realities, and the capacity for change.

Hey if Islam wants to change and join the civillized world I'll be the first to applaud.

Just because other cultures changed doesn't mean that all others will and at a convenient schedule. If Islam ever does become a "religion of peace" its gonna take a long time. It could happen, but the trend seems to be in the other direction. I see it as just likely that it will just stay as a constant antagonist to the West or outbreed and take us into a new dark age.

Only time will tell.

|4.9.07 @ 10:47PM|#

Chalupa-Isn't Malayasia a Muslim country? It's not an economic failure. But then thats the kind of fact you won't find regularly on Fox news or Townhall.com... So the whole "Islam is incompatible with economic success" stuff is a hard sell.

And MikeT, love your comment:"God forbid that a religion be judged like a political ideology." Now lets turn the focus on fundamentalists and conservative opus dei type catholics. Oh snap, I doubt that's what you had in mind!

Cesar|4.9.07 @ 10:54PM|#

*Hey if Islam wants to change and join the civillized world I'll be the first to applaud.*

Well theres Dubai, Singapore (large Muslim minority) and Malaysia. None seem like very awful places to live in spite of their Muslim populations.

*I see it as just likely that it will just stay as a constant antagonist to the West or outbreed and take us into a new dark age.
*

Fertility rates of Muslims are dropping, they are already at or below replacement level in North Africa for example. Among third generation immigrants in Europe its just as low.

And how is this a direct threat to the United States, exactly? The vast majority of our immigration comes from Latin Americans--Spanish speaking Catholics. The rest comes from east Asia.

thoreau|4.9.07 @ 10:57PM|#

We might not find grand wars against Muslim nations but we can take steps to delay our own end. Just off the top of my head: restrict Muslim immigration, stand up to the PC police and use hard and soft power to make sure Muslim countries have as little influence as possible.

So, you want to make it really hard for Muslims to assimilate into our culture and economy. You'd rather that they be angry and alienated. Got it.

Never mind, I shouldn't be arguing with this guy. It's time to drop the chalupa.

|4.9.07 @ 11:03PM|#

Well theres Dubai, Singapore (large Muslim minority) and Malaysia. None seem like very awful places to live in spite of their Muslim populations.

This is just silly. You don't disprove my point by pointing to two Muslim countries (out of how many) and going a-ha.

Islam in most places and at most times is a destructive force. Maybe that's not the way it always will be but that's the way it it now.

And by the way even the two majority Muslim countries you cited have Sharia courts. Being a good place to live by Islamic standards still falls short of the life enjoyed by Western or far Eastern standards.

Rhywun|4.9.07 @ 11:32PM|#

Isn't Malayasia a Muslim country? It's not an economic failure. But then thats the kind of fact you won't find regularly on Fox news or Townhall.com...

Also not mentioned is that it's the 30% Chinese minority who run most of the successful businesses, while all political power is reserved for the Muslim majority. And while it's no Saudi Arabia, there are pockets of Islamic extremism. There is no freedom of the press or speech, while the political form can most charitably be described as a benevolent dictatorship. Yes, there are worse places to live, but let's not for a moment mistake it for a good place to live.

Cesar|4.9.07 @ 11:45PM|#

Im amazed at how many people think nations should go straight from backwater colonies to functioning prosperous democracies.

Excuse me, it took the United States *how long* to eliminate plantation slavery after independence? And how long after that before there were real civil rights for non-whites?

|4.10.07 @ 12:18AM|#

Im amazed at how many people think nations should go straight from backwater colonies to functioning prosperous democracies.

Excuse me, it took the United States *how long* to eliminate plantation slavery after independence? And how long after that before there were real civil rights for non-whites?

That has nothing to do with anything. Unless you're saying reform takes a long time, which has been a point I've repeated many times.

This was a good conversation, and I think we've reached the end of it.

To sum up, neither of us know if the Islamic/Arabic world will reform and you are more optimistic than I.

|4.10.07 @ 3:49AM|#

"Well theres Dubai, Singapore (large Muslim minority) and Malaysia. None seem like very awful places to live in spite of their Muslim populations."

If you think Singapore is some kind of "liberal democracy" try getting caught with drugs in their bastion of freedom. For that matter, try chewing bubble gum over there.

edna|4.10.07 @ 8:01AM|#

For that matter, try chewing bubble gum over there.

there's a cane and able joke in there somewhere, trying to get out.

frequent visitors to malaysia and indonesia can't help but noticing a rapid acceleration of "fundamentalist" islam in those countries. even in places like thailand, there are regions where it is no longer safe to be anything but.

Excuse me, it took the United States *how long* to eliminate plantation slavery after independence?

about 87 years, if you count from the declaration (rather than victory over the brits and the establishment of a constitution). still waiting for the ancient muslim-arab civilization to give up the practice.

edna|4.10.07 @ 8:02AM|#

damn server squirrels. i had closing tags and everything!

Fluffy|4.10.07 @ 8:50AM|#

The "there's something special about Islam that keeps it from embracing modernity" people would be more convincing if they could explain to me why for the first three quarters of the 20th century, all the major social and political movements across the Middle East were secularizing and modernizing influences.

Ataturk was a secular nationalist. Nasser was a secular nationalist. The Ba'ath party was a party of secular nationalists [and still is, which makes the whole "Syria is part of the march of radical Islam!" argument from the other thread a bit stupid]. Yassir Arafat was a secular nationalist and the PLO was a party of secular nationalism.

Somehow or other, the trend towards secularism and modernity in Islam lost momentum in oh, about 1973, and the trend towards militant Islam started gathering force.

This couldn't have anything to do with the way we made sure Israel pummelled and humiliated just about every secular force in Islam outside of the Pahlavi throne. Nope. It couldn't be that. It couldn't have anything to do with the way the inability of secular forces in the Middle East to get a decent deal on the Palestine issue out of the West, and the way this discredited secularism in the eyes of Muslims. Nope, it couldn't be that.

It's GOT to be the Islam is fundamentally different from all other religions, and it's GOT to be because Muslims are untermenschen. Thanks. [Of course, if Islam was fundamentally different, there should never have been any secularizing movements in the Middle East in the first place, and Muslims should have hated the US before we became Israel's chief supporter.] Interesting theory of causality there.

|4.10.07 @ 9:48AM|#

"This couldn't have anything to do with the way we made sure Israel pummelled and humiliated just about every secular force in Islam outside of the Pahlavi throne."

Bunk. Yes, it sure was humiliating when they tried to finish the job Hitler started and got whooped.

One tiny Israel. An entire middle east. And as I recall the arab states have indeed been able to get far more than a tiny deal out of Israel when they have decided that they would stop outright trying to exterminate the Jews living there. Ask Egypt and Jordan. The PLO and Hamas have had ample opportunities to create a forward thinking state (or a working prototype of the same) and I am truely sad to see that they have shown that they have other priorities. But blaming "humiliation" by the Jews for not dying is not a valid reason.

Militant Islam (be it Wahabist or secularist-ish PanArabism that calls on their imaginary friend when it's suits them like most worldy governments) have their problems and indeed they are complex and not paintable by a single brush. But they are their own problems (just as Slavery was ours and we coped with it, and are still working with its legacy while the world tosses the odd selfrighteous spitball at us).

Spare me when you try to blame the problems of Wahabism, Naaserism and Baathism on the Jews and the West. I suspect if it weren't for the Jews, the same dysnfunctional branches of Islam would be going after the Baha'i as one poster above indicated or any of the other non-approved people of the book (or outside if it). For example, we could be seeing even more animosity between the Suni, Shia, Alawide, Muslim Kurds etc.

But it IS so mcuh easier to blame the west and the Jews.

|4.10.07 @ 10:01AM|#

Show me one empire during the middle ages--western, muslim, or eastern--that was peaceful and liberal.

I was responding to your post, which referred, not to an empire, but to a religion. If your point is that Shintoism went bad when it got linked to the Japanese Empire, that's fine, but my point is that Islam was linked with Islamic imperialism from its very inception, which is why your analogy with Shintoism doesn't work.

VM|4.10.07 @ 10:20AM|#

instead of the political symbols (flags), what about the treatment of religious symbols.

would, for example, banging a "Virgin" Mary (that's what she tells us, anyways, ha ha) blow up doll, etc, get the same treatment from the administration? should it?

and since Allah is a graven image, and christians aren't supposed to have 'em, it gets really complicated quickly.

Bill|4.10.07 @ 10:36AM|#

Caesar:

"You can't put radical Islam in the same category as Communism or Fascism. Both Communism and Fascism had a world-wide appeal, radical Islam has little appeal to people outside of the Middle East."

I'm not so sure. Communism and Fascism have an almost religous appeal speaking as a godless heathen, myself. That appeal is power, the rest is window dressing or how you were brought up. If you grew up in a religous household, I suspect that religious authoritarianism looks good to you when you can get a piece of the action. If you live in an intellecutaloid household, wanting a secular pseudo-logical reason to grind your adversary's bones in to dust will send you to Marxism or Fascism. It doesn't matter in either case because each has its own higher power so you can feel morally uppidy about it in any case. There is a reason the "secular" governments in the Middle East often find some strange common cause with Islamic Fundementalism (Hezbolah and Syria for example) - At the end of the day they worship the same golden jackboot! I don't care how they wash their feet, I just don't want a boot on my neck!

As such (and getting back on subject kids!!) there is a resason that SFSU student government tried to side with Hamas and Hezbollah, two militantly and "religiously" (small-R as well as big-R) authoritarian movements in their initial condemnations against the CR and right through the hearing when people were complaining that the CR held opinions to which they disgreeed and it was unforunate that they were voicing ONLY THEIR opinions at this rally (heaven forfend!). Once again, it was Power. The power to make someone you don't like squirm before you crush them. In this case, they went to great lengths as a "secular" student government to make them squirm in a genuine "religous-sans-God" Inquisition before the higher constitutional law made them relent (and even then they could pretent to be "magnanimous" in letting off the charges at the 12th hour).

It doesn't matter if you go to a mosque, tent revival or a SWP meeting. Whenever there is a boot on a human face, there is alwasys someone saying "oooo I gotta get me some of that!"

Bill|4.10.07 @ 10:46AM|#

instead of the political symbols (flags), what about the treatment of religious symbols.
would, for example, banging a "Virgin" Mary (that's what she tells us, anyways, ha ha) blow up doll, etc, get the same treatment from the administration? should it? and since Allah is a graven image, and christians aren't supposed to have 'em, it gets really complicated quickly.

Yes. Even me saying "I'm an atheist" would likely be seen by someone wanting to shut me up as creating a "hostile environment" since I was basically saying "There is No God and Mohammed is a whackjob."

But it was never about creating an environment of religious tolerence or civility given SFSU's track record, it was about shutting up and possibly shutting down the College Republicans.

I can see "right wing" christian groups trying to play the same card, but for them it would likely make them be seen as "hypocrites." The same groups that tend to accept plurality of opinion (or to be more accurate, try to keep that image of plurality as an idelogical campus minority!) right now don't play the speech code game to their own favor, even if it is to challenge the very premise of speech codes.

Rhywun|4.10.07 @ 10:59AM|#

Im amazed at how many people think nations should go straight from backwater colonies to functioning prosperous democracies.

Why not? In today's global economy everything happens faster. But it won't ever happen unless these countries grasp the concept of separation of church and state.

VM|4.10.07 @ 11:13AM|#

"even if it is to challenge the very premise of speech codes."

I likey! Let the challenge of those idiotic codes begin!!!!!

"I can see "right wing" christian groups trying to play the same card, but for them it would likely make them be seen as "hypocrites.""

I agree!

Fluffy|4.10.07 @ 11:27AM|#

Look Kevin, I am not trying to hash out the Israeli-Arab conflict here.

I actually don't have to. The question of who is right in that dispute is irrelevant to my point.

I was addressing SOLELY the extremely narrow question of whether there is something specific about Islam that makes it impossible for it to modernize. Period.

And the presence of robust secularizing movements [robust enough to come to power across much of the Middle East] pretty much proves that can't be true.

If the proximate cause or causes of the rise of militant Islam are political and not cultural, that strongly implies that a political solution is possible. That means if the Israeli-Arab dispute [along with the Mossadeq incident and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan] gave birth to militant Islam and not some Muslim cultural death gene, regardless of who is historically "right" in those disputes we can look for political solutions in the Middle East and don't have to put some kind of "soft and hard" wall around the permanently evil Muslims.

edna|4.10.07 @ 11:38AM|#

Muslims should have hated the US before we became Israel's chief supporter.

they did. remember which side the arabs were on in ww2? and brits and turks, palestine, 1917? ever read qutb?

Fluffy|4.10.07 @ 12:16PM|#

Wrong answer, Edna.

I didn't say "hate Britain and France". I said "hate the US".

The United States was actually quite popular in Arab circles in the interwar period.

Fluffy|4.10.07 @ 12:37PM|#

Actually, I think I should extend my remarks from my above post to say that there were, again, political reasons for Arab nationalists to oppose the Mandate powers. We don't need a Huntingtonian theory to explain why the Mufti lined up with the enemy of Britain any more than we need a Huntingtonian theory to explain why Britain lined up with Joe Stalin.

|4.10.07 @ 3:39PM|#

The United States was actually quite popular in Arab circles in the interwar period.

According to the King-Crane Commission Report (1919), public opinion in Syria (which included what is now Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip) held overwhelmingly that Greater Syria ought to be independent as a single unit, but that it that was not possible a League of Nations mandate over Syria should be given to the United States.

|4.10.07 @ 4:16PM|#

"they did. remember which side the arabs were on in ww2? and brits and turks, palestine, 1917? ever read qutb?"

If I recall my history correctly, they weren't too fond of us back in the days of the Barbary Pirates either.

|4.10.07 @ 4:24PM|#

If I recall my history correctly, they weren't too fond of us back in the days of the Barbary Pirates either.

I thought we were talking about whether the Arabs hated the U.S. I wouldn't call what the Barbary Pirates did to us "hate," unless you believe that wolves "hate" sheep. (Maybe you were referring to their feelings toward us once we started fighting back, but again, I'm not sure "hate" is the right word here.)

|4.10.07 @ 10:23PM|#

The problem with attacking Islam as the source of the very legitimate problems with many Islamic countries is that there is nothing inherently violent in the religion itself (at least not anything inherently more violent than Judaism or Christianity). It is valid to say that the fundamentalist Christians of today are not as violent as the fundamentalist Muslims, but there is a moral equivalence between a group like Al-Qaeda and say those responsible for the Spanish inquisition or the crusades. Would it have been fair for an observer during the crusades to say "Christianity is inherently violent"? I would argue that it is not. Religion has a great potential to create terrible things due to it's appeals to faith and emotion, but usually when religion is used to a negative end it is usually because people are perverting the teachings of the religion, not because they are embracing them. If you lump peaceful Muslims in with radical Islam, then you really will create the us versus them type mentality you are trying to avoid.