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
No Other God Watch
The interruption of Rajan
Zed's Hindu invocation of the Senate was caught by C-Span
cameras and the folks at Josh Marshall's empire grabbed a video.
(Insult to injury: the man introducing Zed is Sen. Bob Casey, the
slayer of Rick Santorum in 2006.)
Related: Avi Lewis' remarkably
dunderheaded interview with Ayan Hirsi Ali. "They shoot
abortion doctors in the United States of America!"
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.14.07 @ 1:00PM|#
They shoot abortion doctors in the United States of
America!
and horses, John Lennon, presidents, drug dealers, and old ladies
with pistolas who are roused from a troubled sleep by the cops
breaking down the door.
|7.14.07 @ 1:03PM|#
I love how some Canadians think the United States is full of violent imbeciles, when they are probably closest to us culturally--at least in the Anglo provinces--of any country in the world with the possible exception of Australia.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.14.07 @ 1:05PM|#
OMIGOD! That was horrifying. Why the Christian extremists
dragged that poor guy off the podium and set him on fire.
I'm glad you posted that though because one video is worth a
thousand printed words and I honestly thought this was something of
much greater significance than it actually turned out to be.
|7.14.07 @ 1:11PM|#
I love how the articles by the fundies were entirely devoid of details. Because they knew that if they wrote "We interrupted the Senate's opening prayer because a Hindu priest was giving it" they'd look like the idiots they are.
Bee|7.14.07 @ 1:28PM|#
If Judeo-Christian church leaders wore beautiful silk robes the color of flowers, perhaps they would win more converts.
|7.14.07 @ 1:29PM|#
What a bunch of a-holes.
If three Muslims interrupted a rabbi, it would lead on CNN.
|7.14.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Yeah I'd have to say that was pretty minor, as far as religious fundamentalism goes these days. Sure, those people were jackasses, but the Capitol is still standing and the Hindu priest still has a head on his shoulders. I'm betting Christian fundamentalists will not launch suicide attacks on Hindu temples around the United States in response.
ktc2|7.14.07 @ 1:42PM|#
You just gotta laugh . . . but then again these are the types
who are keeping the religious right at all relevent politically.
So, it's more sad than funny.
You know it wouldn't be but a few years after they got their
"Christian Nation" dream that they'd be just as hysterically
fighting over which denomination, which version of the 10
commandments, etc.
Those who do not learn from history . . .
|7.14.07 @ 1:43PM|#
I'm betting that Christian fundamentalists would most certainly launch suicide attacks if suicide didn't send them straight to hell. They're stupid as shit is all I'm saying, and even that's an insult to some charming turds.
|7.14.07 @ 2:03PM|#
Somebody, anybody, name an American suicide bomber for me.
I didn't think so. There have been spiteful and offensive
disruptions of mosques and Muslim religious practices all over the
country, such as the asshats in Florida who decided to have pig
races on the property next to the new mosque on Friday evenings.
Dave, care to remind me of the death toll from the suicide bombings
that followed that?
I'm sick and tired of people slandering Muslims in America as
terrorists and fanatics because of their religion. These people are
Americans, and respond with exactly the same outrage, sadness, and
litigation as any other group of Americans when people screw with
their religion.
God Bless America.
|7.14.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Joe, who said anything about Muslims on this thread? Are you talking about the interview with Ayan Hirsi Ali?
|7.14.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Somebody, anybody, name an American suicide bomber for
me.
How about that guy who blew himself up so his wife could collect
the insurance money in the first Airport movie?
|7.14.07 @ 2:16PM|#
FingFangFoom,
I didn't think Dave's reference to suicide bombings was all that
opaque.
|7.14.07 @ 2:22PM|#
Errol Flynn in the Flying Tigers.
Joe,
I'm still not sure what the deal is there. I didn't think Dave was
suggesting that we were undergoing wave after wave of assault from
American Muslim suicide bombers.
|7.14.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Joe again-
A couple weeks ago, several attempted bombings and suicide attacks
were carried out because the author Salman Rushdie was honored by
the British govt. Does the fact that it occured in the UK and not
here have some important impact on the idea that Muslims are being
painted as fanatics because of their religion? Personally, I
thought that I was suggesting that Muslim fanatics are more prone
to engage in that sort of extreme violence than Christian fundies.
Turn on CNN and you can be pretty sure there will be some solid
evidence of that at least every 24 hours or so.
|7.14.07 @ 2:25PM|#
The interviewer in that Ayan Hirsi Ali clip is a smug prick who thinks he's so sophisticated, yet has a pathetic understanding of America.
|7.14.07 @ 2:28PM|#
FingFangFoom,
See?
And for a second there, you had me thinking I was imagining
things.
I gotta trust my instincts more.
Dave,
Go sell your bigotry at RedState.
|7.14.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Whats the obsession with suicide bombing? If the Muslim fanatics simply bombed innocent people without killing themselves, would it make them anymore moral?
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.14.07 @ 2:37PM|#
no Cesar, it would not make them more moral. I think what makes
for the obsession with suicide bombing is just that. It is morbidly
fascination that anyone would plan for and deliberately kill
themselves just to take revenge on some innocent beings in the name
of the Almighty.
But you knew that I suppose.
|7.14.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Well, I just said that because if you just say, have there been any Americans that have bombed innocent people, I can name plenty. Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber for starters.
|7.14.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Cesar,
There's a great line in Don Delillo's new book. A woman is looking
at her former-radical German lover, and thinks, "Maybe he was a
terrorist, but he's one of ours. White, godless, educated..."
Something like that.
The IRA, Baader-Meinhoff, Eric Rudolph - none of those terrorists
did suicide bombings. That's something those people
do.
Yeah, the obsession with the only aspect of the terrorism that
marks it as Muslim is pretty telling.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.14.07 @ 2:39PM|#
I'm also wondering why the ACLU hasn't filed suit to stop these ridiculous prayers in the US Senate that are clearly in violation of the modern day interpretation of the first amendment.
|7.14.07 @ 2:42PM|#
People have filed cases to ban the opening prayer, TWC. They
lost.
"Ceremonial Deism," dontcha know. No actual religious expression,
just the use of a religious ceremony like so much crepe paper, to
class the joint up. Obviously, for a 99% Christian organization
like Congress to have Hindus and whatnot offering the prayer, it
shows that a genuine communication with the divine is not what
they're going for.
Personally, that sounds an lot like taking the Lord's name in vain
to this Christian.
|7.14.07 @ 2:43PM|#
I don't know if there is anything particularly strange about the morbid interest/horror at suicide bombings. Martyrdom is a totally weird thing.
|7.14.07 @ 2:46PM|#
"Dave,
Go sell your bigotry at RedState."
I'll assume that RedState is a website. Haven't seen it.
Bigotry!? HAHAHAHA! Ok Joe, guess it's not Muslims doing all those
suicide bombings, and if I wasn't such a racist I'd see that.
Are you for real? Are you telling me the suicide bombings,
beheadings, arsons, etc. against the unfaithful are NOT being done
by Muslims? Pray tell, who is it then?
I can't speak for everyone, but my "obsession" with suicide bombers
as opposed to the IRA and Baader-Meinhoff might be that I don't
wake up every morning to see that Baader Meinhoff has killed 100
people in a marketplace, 20 in a medical clinic, 40 in a school,
etc. Muslim fundamentalists on the other hand....
|7.14.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Dave-
There are plenty of bombings (even suicide bombings!) in non-Muslim
countries. In fact Sri Lanka is #1 in the world for suicide
bombings, they perfected it before it was exported to the Middle
East.
And who was doing it? A Hindu-Nationalist group, the Tamil Tigers.
In the entire history of the Middle East up until 1982, guess how
many suicide bombings there were in the Middle East? Zero.
Until 1993, guess how many there were in the Palestinian
territories/Israel? Zero.
It is a very recent phenomenon in the Muslim world.
|7.14.07 @ 2:53PM|#
Cesar-
That's great. So when I wake up every morning to hear about
attempted or committed suicide attacks, who is it?
|7.14.07 @ 2:53PM|#
That's great. So when I wake up every morning to hear about
attempted or committed suicide attacks, who is it?
Statistically its most likely to be the Tamil Tigers. But our media
generally doesn't focus on Sri Lanka.
Dave|7.14.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Cesar-
While I appreciate the history lesson, that's like saying the guy
at VA Tech didn't invent guns. And the point is?
|7.14.07 @ 2:56PM|#
The point is suicide bombing is not native to the Middle East, nor to Islam. I guess you were to dense to get that.
|7.14.07 @ 2:58PM|#
No, Dave, if you weren't such a racist, you wouldn't stereotype
American Muslims based on what you see happening on the other side
of the planet on the teevee news.
You know what I notice about the terrorists in other countries that
I see on the news? They're all gun owners, as anti-gun people are
so quick to point out. They're all religious believers, as atheists
with an agenda are quick to point out.
You aren't fooling anyone, bigot.
|7.14.07 @ 3:01PM|#
TWC, Cesar, FingFangFoom,
I suppose it's plausible that people could focus on the suicide
aspect for various reasons.
Can we acknowledge that I got Dave's motive for doing so
dead-to-rights?
|7.14.07 @ 3:03PM|#
|7.14.07 @ 3:04PM|#
What makes the interrupters really look foolish is the prayer
itself:
"We meditate on the transcendental glory of the deity
supreme"
Sounds like a strange translation of the opening to any Christian
prayer. The rest is equally sufficiently vague. I didn't realize
the meaning of a prayer was dependent on the person reciting the
prayer aloud instead of the heart of the person praying.
So if someone is leading a prayer in a Christian church, and
secretly in his heart is intending the Muslim God instead of the
Christian God when he says "God", could he secretly get a Christian
congregation to pray to Allah?
|7.14.07 @ 3:04PM|#
I remember on September 10, 2001, my then-girlfriend and I went
to see a lecture by Salman Rushdie at a downtown theatre. There was
a huge line to get in, and there was also a huge Muslim protest
outside. They were chanting things like "Die die Salman Rushdie!"
and the like.
There were entire families of protestors, from greybeards down to
tiny children, but you could tell it was the older men that were
the angriest, by far. You could practically see the spittle flying
from their lips. It was fascinating. We picked up one of their
leaflets explaining why Salman Rushdie had to die for his
crimes.
We couldn't get in, but the show outside made it worth it anyway.
It was also an incredibly bizarre prologue to the events of the
next morning.
|7.14.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Can we acknowledge that I got Dave's motive for doing so
dead-to-rights?
Yes, he does so because its the only thing that makes it
foreign.
Whats weird is, if some Arab came on here and said "Whenever I turn
on the TV and hear about innocent children being killed or
suffering in Palestine, guess who is doing it? THE JEW!" He would
rightly condemn such a statement as anti-semitic.
(on the above post, I clicked "submit" by accident).
|7.14.07 @ 3:07PM|#
dead elvis,
Did you ever see a dog who marks a tree, but only a little, because
his bladder was empty?
It's not the substance of what gets spouted off that matters, it's
WHICH DOG OWNS THAT TREE.
Let there be no confusion anymore - when these people try to get
religious actions and messages inserted into government activities,
they're doing so to markt the government as their turf, for
everyone to see.
What a disgusting perversion of prayer!
|7.14.07 @ 3:09PM|#
"These people" meaning right-wing, theocratic Christians, like those who disrupted the prayer.
|7.14.07 @ 3:13PM|#
I think my computer wouldn't play it, Gro.
Was there a transcript link I missed?
tros|7.14.07 @ 3:21PM|#
"There are no Christians who want the Bible to replace the
Constitution"
You can tell she works for the AEI. I don't think Islam is
necessarily any more barbaric than Christianity or any other
religion. They just don't bother to hide it. Also I think poverty
has a lot to do with it. Hindu fundamentalists in India can be just
as bad.
|7.14.07 @ 3:28PM|#
There are no Christians who want the Bible to replace the
Constitution
No, just a major party that claims to have a monopoly on the
political opinions of authentic Christians, which asserts that the
Constitution was framed for the purpose of imposing the Law of the
Bible on the country.
Grotius|7.14.07 @ 3:32PM|#
I'd be curious to see which statements by either Ali or Lewis that folks here agree with.
tros|7.14.07 @ 3:38PM|#
No, just a major party that claims to have a monopoly on the
political opinions of authentic Christians, which asserts that the
Constitution was framed for the purpose of imposing the Law of the
Bible on the country.
Forgive my cynicism, joe, but you are the only libertarian
Christian I know about. You could argue that Christian fascists
aren't really Christians, and I would agree with you, but it
doesn't change the fact that there is a sizable population of
biblical fanatics in the United States.
Lava|7.14.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Wow, Avi Lewis is an ass. I'm glad she put him in his place
at the end.
Yes he is..I dont know why canadians would watch this show.. Never
been to canada.. but most candians live within a earshot of
US..they know whats happening here...
Rick H.|7.14.07 @ 3:46PM|#
tros: Although he is one of the better posters on H&R, joe
is definitely not a libertarian.
If you're looking for self-described christian libertarians, I
believe thoreau fits that bill, among a few others here.
|7.14.07 @ 3:46PM|#
tros,
I'm not a libertarian. I'm a liberal.
Good lord, where did you get that idea?
For the record, I think there are a lot of Christian fascists, and
fascist Christians, in the US. Hence my previous comments.
I'm just saying, they are not the only Christians.
tros|7.14.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Wow, thats the first time I've seen joe called a
libertarian!
Oh, I just assumed, since he was posting here. Perhaps I shouldn't.
What do you think about the war on drugs, joe? That's the best
litmus test for Christian fascism I can think of. If a conservative
Christian can accept a free market in drugs I think that makes them
libertarian.
I'd be curious to see which statements by either Ali or Lewis
that folks here agree with.
"America is the best place to be"
Assuming we don't have a coup in 2008 I would tend to agree.
"America has the best Democracy"
I think this is a crock of shit. I would be much happier with a
Parliamentary system. Has Ali heard of the electoral college?
|7.14.07 @ 3:53PM|#
I think this is a crock of shit. I would be much happier with a
Parliamentary system. Has Ali heard of the electoral
college?
The Electoral College sucks.
However, Parliamentary systems usually suck harder. Would you
really want people with the views of Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader to
be able to hold the federal government hostage because they won 10
seats in Congress?
One thing that are system is very, very good at is holding
far-right and far-left extremists in check.
Look at Europe were Communists and hard-right racists regularly win
seats in their Parliaments.
Grotius|7.14.07 @ 3:58PM|#
Cesar,
Yes, they do win a few seats but never anything close to a majority
of seats and they are as a general rule not often part of even a
coalition and even if they are they lack a strong voice in
such.
|7.14.07 @ 3:59PM|#
tros,
WoD? I'm agin it. We should have learned from prohibition.
It's me. RU OK?
|7.14.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Booing a Hindu invocation to the divine is also, by extension, booing an oppressive caste system that makes the Jim Crow south look like libertopia.
|7.14.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Yes, they do win a few seats but never anything close to a
majority of seats and they are as a general rule not often part of
even a coalition and even if they are they lack a strong voice in
such.
In Austria and Denmark far-right parties dominate the coalitions in
Parliament.
In Belgium only an agreement between the classical liberal and
socialist parties (!) keeps the far-right nationalists from being
members of the ruling coalition. And as you can imagine, such a
coalition is not very stable!
Somehow the UK and Canada ended up with a "2 1/2" party and 4 party
system respectively, and avoids having 500 different parties and
governments breaking up every year.
Ramsey|7.14.07 @ 4:08PM|#
I love how far this has gotten from the original article, and how quickly it went to "terrorist bombing", "Muslims are teh suxxor" and "are not, rascist" (Muslims not a race, BTW, can't be racist against a non-race). It would be better to say that all religious fundamentalism and violence is bad.
|7.14.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Another good thing about a Presidential-Congressional system
from a libertarian standpoint is that it slows government down.
Divided government, in a Parliamentary system, is impossible.
The party or coalition that holds the most seats gets whatever it
wants, period. Parties vote in blocks, and do what the P.M. wants,
knowing if they don't the government will fall.
Joshua Holmes|7.14.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Christian libertarians? Try lewrockwell.com.
There are Christians who want the Bible to replace the
Constitution, or who think the Constitution is actually a document
purporting to create an Old Testament government. They're called
Reconstructionists. There aren't many of them, though.
|7.14.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Avi Lewis did not impress me. He just acted lame and got
detoured into arguing about America with a platitude-spouting Ali,
instead of asking her about what she had to say.
Which was pretty shaky in spots. First, she used a lot of the 'no
true Scotsman' fallacy. When Avi asks her if she realized that
there were Muslims that her denunciations didn't apply to, she
starting bringing up "Muslims who mean it" and "unreformed,
unmediated Muslims." Um, OK, good answer. But that raises some
flags for her broad-brush denuciation theme.
Second, her denial that Islamophobia didn't exist was just
semantic. She doesn't want a belief system confused with immutable
characteristics, yeah, that's great. Problem is, Islamophobia is
prejudice and antagonism towards people for being Muslim (or
thought to be Muslim, which happens in a depressing number of the
religious-based hate crimes you see). Is she saying this is ok
because it's based on a belief system? I don't think this is a
logical statement she's thought through; I think it's a deliberate
obfuscation for political purposes that demonstrates a huge hole in
the political progam she's working for.
tros|7.14.07 @ 4:16PM|#
It's me. RU OK?
I SWEAR there is someone else who posts here w/ the name Joe. Or I
could be crazy.
|7.14.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Capital-J Joe is one of the many fake handles of our favorite H&R troll, Dan T. Lower-case j joe is Massachusetts liberal joe.
Bee|7.14.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Booing a Hindu invocation to the divine is also, by
extension, booing an oppressive caste system that makes the Jim
Crow south look like libertopia.
Huh. Hadn't even gone there. I don't suppose that was the
motiviation of these particular protestors, however.
tros|7.14.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Booing a Hindu invocation to the divine is also, by
extension, booing an oppressive caste system that makes the Jim
Crow south look like libertopia.
Yeah, why don't we blame the non-fascist Hindus for the apes that
appropriate their spiritual tradition. Did you miss the entire
conversation?
|7.14.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Muslims not a race, BTW, can't be racist against a
non-race
Sure you can, Ramsey. You can be a dumbass.
People who single out others for discrimination or abuse based on
their physical characteristics are engaging in racism. If they are
doing this by doing it to people who "look Muslim," that's racism.
If they do it because they think that Muslims represent a foreign
culture or nation, that's racism as well. The mistake in conflating
race and religion on the part of the racist doesn't make him less
racist.
You can absolutely be a racist and a dumbass at the same time.
|7.14.07 @ 5:12PM|#
You can absolutely be a racist and a dumbass at the same
time.
Or you can be either/or, like you.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.14.07 @ 5:15PM|#
Yeah, why don't we blame the non-fascist Hindus for the apes
that appropriate their spiritual tradition.
Yeah, why don't we blame the non-fascist Christians for the apes
that appropriate their spiritual tradition.
A Canadian|7.14.07 @ 5:27PM|#
BTW, Avi Lewis is the husband of "No Logo" author Naomi
Klein.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28915.html
|7.14.07 @ 5:34PM|#
I'm not a libertarian. I'm a liberal.
Good lord, where did you get that idea?
Maybe it's 'cause you sound so much like a libertarian, especially
when you're right.
...I think the libertarian tent's big enough to include you, joe. I
know I couldn't drag you in kicking and screaming, but if a
"libertarian" is somebody who's concerned with ensuring the rights
and liberties of everybody, then I don't think there's anything
about joe that couldn't fit under the label "libertarian".
|7.14.07 @ 6:55PM|#
"Booing a Hindu invocation to the divine is also, by extension,
booing an oppressive caste system that makes the Jim Crow south
look like libertopia."
nonono! didn't you play Civ4?! Those are two different
things:
The Caste System is one of the Labor Civics, requires the Code of
Laws technology, and allows unlimited conversion of spare citizens
into merchants, scientists and artists.
Hinduism falls under the Religon category and it is automatically
adopted and spread by the first to discover Polytheism.
Caste System doesn't even affect religions; those which do
are:
Paganism
Organized Religion
Theocracy
Pacifism
and Free Religion
Get it right!
David (no, not that one)|7.14.07 @ 7:13PM|#
As far as Christian libertarians go, take a gander over at lewrockwell.com . They've got a ton of em...
Massachusetts Multiculturalist|7.14.07 @ 7:23PM|#
Don't forget the Racist Redneck Asshats who would mockingly advertise steaks or burgers in the same town as a Hindu Temple- White america is the REAL TERRORIST.
|7.14.07 @ 8:44PM|#
Some of the bullshit that gets posted at me is just so
juvenile.
"Yeah, like you!" What are you, kidding me?
Brian Sorgatz|7.14.07 @ 9:34PM|#
I know I'm not the only non-atheist here. Just in case anyone cares, Westerners are reportedly mistaken when they describe Hindus as polytheists. They're actually monotheists.
Brian Sorgatz|7.14.07 @ 10:10PM|#
Lewis' "American clichés" are basically true (with a few
important and unfortunate qualifications, of course).
At the same time, Hirsi Ali fails to distinguish Islam from
Islamism (like Christianity versus Christianism). I think she's
still running away from Islam, just as I think George Carlin is
still running away from his Catholic upbringing by doing his
embittered atheist shtick. In both cases, the bitterness is
understandable in context. But it can distort civic reasoning.
|7.14.07 @ 11:08PM|#
Sam-hec,
Yeah, but if you go to theocracy before you've even converted to a
religion it's pretty weak.
|7.14.07 @ 11:12PM|#
Joe,
Honestly, if you can't judge a person by the faith they profess, by
what CAN you judge them?
|7.14.07 @ 11:16PM|#
Bee | July 14, 2007, 4:22pm | #
Booing a Hindu invocation to the divine is also, by extension, booing an oppressive caste system that makes the Jim Crow south look like libertopia.
Huh. Hadn't even gone there. I don't suppose that was the motiviation of these particular protestors, however.
Of course it wasn't their intent, but it wasn't coincidence that
Hindus didn't stop pushing their widows onto funeral pyres until
the Christians arrived.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.14.07 @ 11:32PM|#
"A British district officer, coming upon a scene of suttee, was told by the locals that in Hindu culture it was the custom to cremate a widow on her husband's funeral pyre. He replied that in British culture it was the custom to hang chaps who did that sort of thing. There are many great things about India-curry, pyjamas, sitars, software engineers-but suttee was not one of them."-Mark Steyn
Dave B.|7.15.07 @ 12:57AM|#
Hindus may have stopped pushing widows on funeral pyres, but things aren't much better now. What a civilizing influence we've had!
Fritz|7.15.07 @ 1:10AM|#
What I don't understand is why they're still doing opening prayers at the beginning of a Senate session. The government is a secular institution that functions properly on rational decision-making, so there's no reason why they need or should have any religious invocations in the building at all, even if their sole reason is to appease religionists. (The same goes for any religious displays on or inside government property)
Ramsey|7.15.07 @ 1:20AM|#
joe | July 14, 2007, 5:05pm | #
Muslims not a race, BTW, can't be racist against a non-race
Sure you can, Ramsey. You can be a dumbass.
People who single out others for discrimination or abuse based on
their physical characteristics are engaging in racism. If they are
doing this by doing it to people who "look Muslim," that's racism.
If they do it because they think that Muslims represent a foreign
culture or nation, that's racism as well. The mistake in conflating
race and religion on the part of the racist doesn't make him less
racist.
You can absolutely be a racist and a dumbass at the same
time.
Now, alongside your childish name calling, there are so many things
wrong with this statement that I barely know where to begin
A North African Muslim does not look like an Asian Muslim, who does
not look like a White Muslim, who does not look like an Eastern
European Muslim. I realize this is some complicated shit, so you
might need to reread that. The rest of us can wait for you to
finish, I realize you have problems seeing through the angry
spittle you splattered on your mom's computer screen.
The point of the above is that Muslim=/Arab dude with a
beard.
Now, try to keep up here, cause this is a little tricky. If a
person is discriminated against because he looks Arabic, that is
racist. If he is discriminated against because he chooses to pray
to the east 5 times a day and does not worship the same sky-friend
as you, then that is not racist. That is another thing entirely.
Yes it as bad as racism, but that does not make the person
reflecting the view racist.
Now, I hope that you took your meds, joe, and managed to stay
focused this long, cause I really want to help. Calling people a
dumbass because they do not agree with your made-up definition of a
word is insulting behavior. It is almost as insulting as
insinuating that they behave in certain manners because of the
racial characteristics handed them by their ancestors. It is in
fact the behavior of a mouth-breathing crotch stain that should
have been swallowed by its mother. I wouldn't expect a microcephaly
sufferer like yourself to understand without being told, but
insulting people over the internet is not a great way to make
friends, and just might get some insults passed back your way. In
fact, if I wasn't such a nice guy I might find myself insinuating
that your lackluster intellect and casual disregard for rational
thinking was the product of some genetic disorder, perhaps caused
be incest or other inbreeding, rather than a general lack of
manners. I am sure if you keep your discourse slightly more civil
you will find that others will return the favor. Just something to
keep in mind.
wayaway|7.15.07 @ 1:49AM|#
I would just like to say that i had just put together a damned
good post on subtlety and that in the striving for certainty in all
things so much is lost and that when i tried to post it vanished
into the ether...
FUCK IT.
|7.15.07 @ 2:04AM|#
Who exactly were the churlish hecklers? Were they in the
visitors gallery, or were they congresscrittes?
-jcr
|7.15.07 @ 5:10AM|#
Interesting how little it takes for one to be a racist these
days. This all started off by my thinking that as far as religious
fundamentalist reactions go these days, what happened in the
Capitol was very tame. Very lame, but very tame.
This stands, of course, in comparison to what those OTHER religious
fundamentalists (who won't be named because apparently that is
racist, and really they could be anybody in general why are you
singling them out in particular just because it is virutally always
them) are up to every day in a very big very public way. I mean,
why would I even think about that? Must be racism. Because I'm
totally cool with white religious fundamentalists who do that sort
of thing. Founding member of the Eric Rudolph fan club right
here.
Oh, and I'm totally a racist for thinking that Muslim
fundamentalists sure get up to a lot of bombings in Iraq, Lebanon,
Israel, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Europe, etc. Because
Tamils do it too, in Sri Lanka (and by the way, Tamils have brown
skin so Cesar must be a racist for mentioning that they suicide
bomb). And maybe some other people even did it before the Muslims.
So that again somehow makes me a racist for noticing that pretty
much every day Muslims use suicide attacks to intentionally target
people whose major crime seems to be trying to live a normal life.
Or drawing a picture they don't like. Or writing some words they
don't like. We have to pretend that doesn't happen, or we are
racists.
Joe, when Donahue, Roberston, and company protest things like the
Last Temptation of Christ, do you support them? If not, does that
make you an anti-white anti-Christian racist? If instead of
marching around with signs, they stabbed their note of protest
through Scorsese's heart ala Theo Van Gogh, is that something you'd
feel honor bound not to ever mention, in the name of sensitivity?
If instead of trying to get theatres not to run the film, they
committed suicide bombings at showings of Last Temptation, does the
fact that suicide bombings have been done before by others mean
that this somehow doesn't count, or shouldn't be thought of as
something they do? Now imagine they did this constantly. For
decades. With almost no Christian voices opposing them, and most
either silent or making excuses about how Christianity is so
put-upon that some feel they must react this way. You're going to
tell me you wouldn't think about that culture's reaction to
something which they could potentially dislike? Is that really
something you'd feel is off limits to mention? Or is it something
you'd bring up every time some christian fundies started to make
threats over, say, the teaching of evolution? Because I'll tell you
what: if christian extremists start blowing up schools that teach
evolution, I'm going to start saying "Shit, watch out for those
christian extremists". And I won't feel bad about it. That's all
we're talking about here.
One more thing. This is my original post:
"Yeah I'd have to say that was pretty minor, as far as religious
fundamentalism goes these days. Sure, those people were jackasses,
but the Capitol is still standing and the Hindu priest still has a
head on his shoulders. I'm betting Christian fundamentalists will
not launch suicide attacks on Hindu temples around the United
States in response."
To that, you responded that you are "Sick and tired of people
slandering Muslims". I'm looking real hard, and I don't see slander
against Muslims anywhere in that post. I did mention that Christian
fundies probably won't do any suicide attacks. Wait, did you see
suicide attacks and immediately think of Muslims, because Muslims
are committing a hell of a lot of suicide attacks? RACIST!
GILMORE|7.15.07 @ 7:30AM|#
If he is discriminated against because he chooses to pray to
the east 5 times a day and does not worship the same sky-friend as
you, then that is not racist.
Semantics. It's certainly bigotry. Are you saying it can somehow be
more easily justified than 'genetically' oriented bigotry? You dont
really make that next step.
I for one will not be satisfied until they let the União do Vegetal
give all of congress whopping doses of DHT and open their third eye
to the oneness of all things. Or at least fuck them up so hard that
they actually say what they mean for one day, rather than what they
think people want to hear.
GILMORE|7.15.07 @ 7:39AM|#
to be clear(er), I was not joining in any chorus of
racism-accusation, just pointing that a particular defence being
offered was kind of thin
blaming islam for suicide bombings is sorta tenuous. The fact that
such brutal and callous means are used by islamist fanatics is
certainly unique, but it's not so much a product of islam as the
nature of the assymetrical conflicts these fanatical elements have
with their perceived opposition. Most suicide bombings over the
last few years have killed more muslims than anyone else, so it's
hard to pin the tactic on some religious difference between whole
religions, per se, versus 'fanatics against pluralism' in general,
especially within their own (muslim) communities
see recent issues in pakistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/world/asia/15attack.html
tomWright|7.15.07 @ 8:13AM|#
Blaming a philosophy for the repeated actions of it's adherents
who commit atrocities in it's name based on the plain reading of
that philosophy is not bigotry, and it certainly is not racist as
many leftists like to accuse.
It is rational judgment of what people say and do, regardless of
whatever else they may be, based on empirical evidence.
This is true in the case of fascism/fascist.
This is true in the case of communism/communist.
This is true in the case of racism/racist.
Why should it be anything else just because the 'ism/ist' in
question has been labeled a religion?
islamism/islamist or christianism/christianist.
Same Old Stuff, Different Deity.
If the plain text of your philosophy compels you to commit
atrocities, kill innocents, enslave others or even yourself,
whether your god is a political god like hitler, marx, stalin, mao,
or a scientific god like galton, or a mythical god, like allah,
ganesh, gaia, kokopelli, yahweh, noweh or weh, then condemnation of
your philosophy is not bigotry.
It is rational truth.
GILMORE|7.15.07 @ 8:22AM|#
Tom,
if the plain text of your philosophy compels you to commit
atrocities...
Of course. But the plain text of the Koran has been around for
quite a while, and the percentage of atrocities commited in islams
name hasnt over history been particularly different compared to
other religions. It's a product of recent history and the unique
situation of the middle east.
This is not apologism for suicide bombing. Its a call to at least
try to provide clarity between the broad practice of islam,
contrasted to the actions of a psychotic few who are in truth
insurgent political activists, not characteristic of the religion
in general.
If you want to point fingers at isms, secular 'baathism' was pretty
fucking brutal as well. The nature of the beast has more to do with
political issues than theology.
GILMORE|7.15.07 @ 8:38AM|#
one last thing,
its a rational truth
Do you mean a rational argument?
I thought truth was the stuff that requires 'faith'. Saying your
logical approach is unassailable because it is self evidently true
is anti-rational. There are many entirely rational ways to reach
totally different conclusions. They are superior to each other
based less on their element of pure reason than they are the actual
usefulness of application
Grotius|7.15.07 @ 8:52AM|#
tomWright,
When it comes to the Qu'ran (as for the Bible) one can find exactly
what one wants to find there. Now I'm not saying that it is
impossible to understand the text as it was generally understood by
folks in the 7th century, but that is not generally the way that
adherants of any religious text deal with the text itself.
|7.15.07 @ 9:30AM|#
I would just like to say that i had just put together a
damned good post on subtlety...
Yeah, the whole problem about criticising someone for their lack of
subtlety, as I was telling a colleague from Scotland who whined
about what he thought of as naive American crudity, is that you
can't deliver it with the proper je ne sais quoi.
Nobody gets my jokes.
|7.15.07 @ 10:31AM|#
coincidence that Hindus didn't stop pushing their widows
onto funeral pyres
They stopped? When?
|7.15.07 @ 11:00AM|#
I personally feel that all of this enmity between religions/creeds/breeds etc, is the fault of the Negro presence in America.
rational soul|7.15.07 @ 11:09AM|#
If the Christian viewpoint is so self evident and true, why on Earth do they have to shut other viewpoints down?
|7.15.07 @ 11:16AM|#
Playing "find horrors done in the name of religion" is a fun game that can be played by all, but it doesn't really do us any good. Humanity is a crazy, messed up group of animals that will find almost any reason to impose their will on each other. Personally, I think we'd all be better off without religion, but I have a sneaking suspicion that we'd find some other reason to kill each other (cf. Communism).
libertreee|7.15.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Saying your logical approach is unassailable because it is
self evidently true is anti-rational. There are many entirely
rational ways to reach totally different conclusions. They are
superior to each other based less on their element of pure reason
than they are the actual usefulness of application
Spoken like a true Chicago School adherent!
Adam W.|7.15.07 @ 11:22AM|#
So, since I guess this is the weekend open thread? some good
news and bad news.
Dr. Hurwitz was found guilty, BUT instead of the maximum of life,
or the 25 years originally, his new sentence is "only" 57 months (4
years and 3 months), and according to
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2007/jul/14/hurwitz_receives_lesser_sentence
he could be out in 17 mo.
Yeah, it sucks, but coulda been a hellofalot worse.
|7.15.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Dave, please go read Dying to Win by Robert Pape. It discusses the reasons why various groups engage in suicide bombing, be they Muslim or not.
Ramsey|7.15.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Gilmore, I am wondering if you read the sentence immediately
after the one quoted in which I stated that religious bigotry is
equally as bad as racial bigotry? GFT "Yes, it is as bad as
racism."
I think that we are arguing the same side here, and you stopped
reading a mite too early.
|7.15.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Woke up to this story:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/15/pakistan.violence/index.html
God damned Sri Lankans.
|7.15.07 @ 12:59PM|#
Heres an excerpt from Pape's book
Beneath the religious rhetoric with which [such terror] is
perpetrated, it occurs largely in the service of secular aims.
Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather
than a product of Islamic fundamentalism.
|7.15.07 @ 1:05PM|#
And I would like to hear Joe answer my question. Muslims were not mentioned in my original post. The potential of Christian fundamentalists to suicide bomb was. Yet somehow joe linked suicide bombing to Muslims. In fact, I think he was the first in the thread to make that connection. How does he explain his racism?
|7.15.07 @ 1:09PM|#
"Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation
rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism."
Just like those Pakistanis who blew up those ...uh...Pakistanis.
Foreign occupation or religious fundamentalism?
|7.15.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Pape did a study of all suicide bombings from 1983 to 2003, and 95% of the time the bombing was done in order to compel modern democracies to withdraw occupying forces from their territory.
|7.15.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Well I think you're on to something there. But as we get farther along, it looks like suicide bombings are not so much about thwarting foreign democracies as about thwarting deomocracy period. Take Lebanon, Pakistan, and Iraq as examples.
|7.15.07 @ 1:24PM|#
"about thwarting foreign democracies as about thwarting
deomocracy period. Take Lebanon, Pakistan, and Iraq as
examples."
There may be a point in there, but including Pakistan doesn't fit
the argument.
|7.15.07 @ 1:31PM|#
I amend that comment with regards to Pakistan. Let's just say they're trying to thwart anything short of a Taliban state.
|7.15.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Dave--
I would venture to guess the vast majority of the other 5% of
suicide bombings between 1983 and 2003 had to do with sectarian
politics in confessional states. Lebanon is a good example of that,
as is Pakistan.
India, a truly secular country and a real democracy has one of the
largest Muslim populations in the world. Yet, there have been few
suicide bombings among them.
|7.15.07 @ 4:05PM|#
I took my family to Ruby Tuesday's last nite and we parked near a car covered with Notre Dame stickers. It also had a sticker that read "One Nation Under God, as the Founders Wanted" that pictured Old Glory beside the Virgin Mary. It struck me that these folks had no knowledge that several early states had anti-Catholic laws on the books. I wonder if they would want to go back to "how the Founders wanted" it on those grounds...
ktc2|7.15.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Fundies for the most part are truly ignorant or completely
misled about the founding of the USA.
Wish we could set the record straight but they wont listen and dont
want to know.
Our founders were of many differing opinions from atheism to
christian evangelism, and lots in between.
They quite wisely decided the best way to deal with that was to
keep matters of religion with the people and not the
government.
|7.15.07 @ 5:59PM|#
Cesar
The problems you are referring to are not problems inherent in
"parliamentary" systems but rather a result of "Party List"
Proportional Representation systems which are widespread in
continental Europe. Britain, Canada and Australia, among others, do
not have these problems.
The problem with parliamentary systems in those countries is that a
relatively small faction of the ruling party or coalition can ram
legislation through with little opposition.
Also witness the fact that Tony Blair was able to claim a "mandate"
in spite of having only about 37 percent of the popular vote. Part
of that is a result of multi-party elections with a
"first-past-the-post" counting method. With this MPs can get seats
with quite small pluralities. The Australians handle this with
Preferential or "instant runoff" voting for the Federal House of
Representatives.
If FDR had been a PM in a parliamentary system we would have gotten
the New Deal a lot harder and deeper than we did. While that
thought might make New Deal nostalgics happy It is well to remember
what GWB would be capable of with Prime Ministerial powers.
rho|7.15.07 @ 7:46PM|#
As a Christian, that display just embarrasses me. The proper
response for the Christian is to witness personally to the Hindu,
because that is the most effective way of changing the Hindu's
mind. This kind of emotional, public display is purely for
self-aggrandizement, which is not typically one of Jesus'
teachings--"the meek shall inherit the Earth; oh, and also the
bigmouthed crybabies, they'll get a piece as well".
That Hindu accepts the supernatural--that puts them way ahead of,
say, Christopher Hitchens. I bet Shouting Christian Man isn't going
to go interrupt a Hitchens speech to decry his neocon propaganda as
heresy.
GILMORE|7.15.07 @ 7:56PM|#
you stopped reading a mite too early.
Yeah. That happens.
But there was also some vituperative fat on there worth
overlooking. :)
|7.15.07 @ 8:15PM|#
When it comes to the Qu'ran (as for the Bible) one can find
exactly what one wants to find there. Now I'm not saying that it is
impossible to understand the text as it was generally understood by
folks in the 7th century, but that is not generally the way that
adherants of any religious text deal with the text
itself.
It's interesting- I'm in the middle of reading "Discovery of
Freedom" by Rose Wilder Lane. She speaks very well of Mohammed and
older Islamic civilization. It's amusing to read in light of recent
history, as you don't often hear libertarian praise for
Islam.
Her basic premise regarding religion was that the God of Judaism,
Jesus, and Mohammed all "taught the truth, that men are free," but
people have ignored this, perverted it, and insisted, with only
rare exceptions, on being ruled by "the false pagan God of
Authority."
|7.15.07 @ 8:27PM|#
All racism is bigotry, but not all bigotry is racism. (You'd think that would be self-evident, but apparently not.)
Joshua Holmes|7.15.07 @ 9:39PM|#
That Hindu accepts the supernatural--that puts them way
ahead of, say, Christopher Hitchens.
But ultimately, God is going to send them both to everlasting
torture, isn't he?
rho|7.15.07 @ 10:40PM|#
But ultimately, God is going to send them both to
everlasting torture, isn't he?
Not if they REPENT! REPENT! REPENT! I'm just suggesting you've got
a shorter row to hoe with a damned pagan Hindu than you do with a
mouthy, know-it-all British atheist.
(Sorry, ex-British.)
|7.15.07 @ 11:11PM|#
It actually doesn't matter AT ALL what religions the Founders
believed in. Can you guess why?
...
That's right! Because we have the Constitution! Now, what does the
Constitution say about religion...hmmm...not much...oh wait!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..
Wait, that's it? Huh.. ok, well, that doesn't tell us much at all.
Fucking Founders.
|7.15.07 @ 11:13PM|#
That Hindu accepts the supernatural--that puts them way
ahead of, say, Christopher Hitchens.
That's not fair. Believing in the supernatural and Christopher
Hitchens are BOTH stupid.
|7.15.07 @ 11:20PM|#
Her basic premise regarding religion was that the God of
Judaism, Jesus, and Mohammed all "taught the truth, that men are
free,"
She obviously didn't bother to actually READ the Bible or the
Qu'ran.
|7.15.07 @ 11:38PM|#
She obviously didn't bother to actually READ the Bible or
the Qu'ran.
It did cross my mind as I was reading that she was cherry picking.
What I do like about it is that she lays out a good case for a very
libertarian Christianity (or Islam). She might be cherry picking,
but then again so does anyone else. It's just refreshing to see it
done in the service of good instead of evil.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.16.07 @ 12:37AM|#
God damned Sri Lankans.
I've had it with Malaria. It is time to declare war on
Malaria.
We need to send in the Green Berets, Force Recon, 2nd Marine
Division, and a whole pile of close air support.
Those god damn Malarians have gone too fargin' far this time.
[shakes fist and stomps out of the room]
|7.16.07 @ 3:51AM|#
Ramsey - joe, I don't think anyway, was not calling you
a dumbass. He was just saying that one could be a racist
and a dumbass.
As to whether Hinduism is mono- or poly-theistic: there is a
question as to whether Christianity is mono- or poly-theistic,
considering that Christians believe in this God-Jesus-Holy Spirit
thing. The orthodox Christians (like the Byzantines) did not agree
with this polytheistic vision.
|7.16.07 @ 7:32AM|#
there is a question as to whether Christianity is mono- or
poly-theistic, considering that Christians believe in this
God-Jesus-Holy Spirit thing.
Actually, the the saints in Catholicism serve pretty much the same
role that the multiple gods do in Hinduism.
|7.16.07 @ 7:58AM|#
If they do it because they think that Muslims represent a
foreign culture or nation, that's racism as well.
By this standard, the anti-Christians here at H&R are
racists.
|7.16.07 @ 11:14AM|#
JKP,
Honestly, if you can't judge a person by the faith they
profess, by what CAN you judge them?
Their behavior? The entirety of the beliefs they profess, rather
than just the theology?
Anyway, making judgements about a person's character and decency
based on their religious tradition and its scriptures seems unwise.
Am I to judge Russ Feingold based on Leviticus?
|7.16.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Ramsey,
Don't ever lecture me on being smart enough to follow your juvenile
thought process. It's really just a self-stroking bit of
ego-boosting at the best of times, but when you're employ on
someone who quite obviously hasn't missed any point, it just looks
like you're trying too hard.
What part of "you can be a dumbass" are you misunderstanding? Yes,
assuming that you can tell someone's religion by their appearance
is dumb. Do you know what sort of person would do that? Here's a
hint - I referred to that type of person in this very
paragraphy.
Really, how much time did you just use explaining to me that the
people I called dumbasses are using faulty reasoning?
If he is discriminated against because he chooses to pray to
the east 5 times a day and does not worship the same sky-friend as
you, then that is not racist. That is another thing entirely. Yes
it as bad as racism, but that does not make the person reflecting
the view racist.
I'm really not terribly interested in a semantic argument designed
to make bigots feel that their bigotry is a of a more elevated
sort.
As for losing your friendship, I think I'll get over it; it's not
as though you bring a great deal to the table anyway.
|7.16.07 @ 11:24AM|#
She obviously didn't bother to actually READ the Bible or
the Qu'ran.
A basic pillar of the whole Judeo-Christian world view is that
humans have free will. Probably the source of the concept of
liberty that you hear so much about around here. No cherry picking
required. Aquinas and then Milton both emphasized the free will
theme, putting it in the forefront for the Christian thinkers
around the time the US was being conceived.
|7.16.07 @ 11:25AM|#
No, Dave, once again, and I hope you can get it this time:
You are not a racist for condemning Muslim fanatics for committing
acts of violence in far-off countries. You are a racist for
assuming things about American Muslims because of the acts
committed by very different people in far-off countries.
Yeah, you keep dodging that point. Yeah, it's really obvious that
you're doing so.
Joe, when Donahue, Roberston, and company protest things like
the Last Temptation of Christ, do you support them? If not, does
that make you an anti-white anti-Christian racist?
Nope. And, once again, in the hope that you won't decide to use
your agonizing gymnastics to miss the point: that wouldn't make me
a racist. However, if I began accusing ordinary people on my block
of being movie-protesting, theocratic cretins because they go to
Christian churches, because of what I've seen Pat Robertson and his
band of merry lunatics do, that would make me a bigot.
|7.16.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Oh please, Dave. The "you're a racist for noticing my racism"
card is something the defeated throw over their shoulder as they
retreat.
You pretty effectively outed yourself as a Muslim-bashing racist in
your subsequent posts. Your meaning was perfectly clear, and you
later explicated on exactly what you meant with your raving about
Muslims being suicide bombers.
pwned, bee-atch. Like I said, go sell your bigotry as RedState.
|7.16.07 @ 11:42AM|#
All racism is bigotry, but not all bigotry is racism. (You'd
think that would be self-evident, but apparently not.)
So "racist bigot" is not pleonastic, but "bigoted racist" is?
And here I thought they were both tautological.
Race = arbitrary grouping of people based on subjective
criteria.
Religion can serve as a criteria for grouping people into a racial
category (c.f., antisemitism). When this is done, anti-religious
bigotry can properly be called "racism."
To distinguish meaningfully between racism and other forms of
bigotry requires that you believe race categories have more
objective reality than they do, imho.
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/
|7.16.07 @ 11:44AM|#
"So if someone is leading a prayer in a Christian church, and
secretly in his heart is intending the Muslim God instead of the
Christian God when he says "God", could he secretly get a Christian
congregation to pray to Allah?"
There isn't a choice between a Muslim God and a Christian God --
it's not a marketplace. We all have the same God -- the squabbling
is about which denomination has the least faulty view of His (or
Her) nature.
Ramsey|7.16.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Wow joe, way to dodge every argument thrown your way. You were
in fact the first one to bring any Muslim at all into this debate,
just like Dave stated, if you look up there is a written record of
it. In fact, this whole thread, up until your angry ranting began,
was about a group of Christians booing a Hindi.
Now, I realize that I may have come across a little harshly earlier
(vituperative fat is a good description), but your subsequent posts
do very little to dispel the image of anger and poor manners that
your earlier postings formed. I need to search for the blocking
functionality to ignore your future posts. You immediately resort
to name calling and circular logic, and dismiss any correction as
"semantics." This is not the work of an intelligent person or a
skilled debater. Semantics are important, since words are how we
communicate ideas, so try to use the right words. Trotting out the
racist card every time you mean bigot demeans the word racist.
|7.16.07 @ 11:53AM|#
All of your arguments were based on the flawed proposition I
already pwned.
And no, you were the first person to bring up Muslims - as you
confimed the clear meaning of your "suicide bombers" comment in
subsquent comments - and your attempts to crawfish away from it now
are just pathetic.
Here's a hint for next time - if you want people to believe that
you weren't referring to Muslims when you talked about religions
groups engaging in suicide bombings, don't follow it up with a half
dozens posts about how Muslims are the ones engaged in all the
suicide bombings.
Anyways, I could give damn about your feelings about me. It's been
nice pwning you.
Ramsey|7.16.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Sorry, no Dave here, I am another cat entirely. I am the one that said can't be racist against a religion. Try to pay attention, please?
|7.16.07 @ 12:22PM|#
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1275602
A nice review of genetics and race in science.
http://www.geocities.com/ru00ru00/racismhistory/18thcent.html
A nice set of historical quotes.
From George Washington,
-1779 George Washington (1732-1799) first American president;
soldier, surveyor, farmer.
"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us than the enemy's
armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties
and the great cause we are engaged in. It is much to be lamented
that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pests to
society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of
America." [Maxims of George Washington by A.A. Appleton & Co.
]
Is this a racist statement?
GILMORE|7.16.07 @ 7:13PM|#
re: George "the joos" Washington
Yes. But altogether unsurprising given the world these guys lived
in. Nobody liked financiers. Still dont. There are a few on here
that think israel is still the puppetmaster of the world. I think
they're mostly hoist in their own petard to be honest.
|7.17.07 @ 3:48AM|#
Well, as retarded as it may be to continue this:
"Here's a hint for next time - if you want people to believe that
you weren't referring to Muslims when you talked about religions
groups engaging in suicide bombings, don't follow it up with a half
dozens posts about how Muslims are the ones engaged in all the
suicide bombings.
Anyways, I could give damn about your feelings about me. It's been
nice pwning you"
My original post said that as far as RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM (that
would be anybody's religion) goes these days, ten seconds of
shouting was really tame. I also suggested that there wouldn't be
any bombings or beheadings, which was one of those things that made
it a lot tamer than what the aforementioned RELIGIOUS
FUNDAMENTALISM gets up to these days. I never said shit about
"American Muslims", who you keep bringing up over and over. You
find the post where I talk about American Muslims doing anything.
You were the first to introduce Islam specifically into the thread,
because when you heard acts of religious extremism being discussed
(especially suicide bombings and beheadings), your mind went to
Islam. Which, considering day to day reality, it probably should.
You didn't think of them because you're a racist, you thought of
them because they're the ones who carry out those acts. I mean, who
else would you realistically think of? Which pretty much proves
your own mind stands on the other side of the argument you're
making. You then lashed out at the rest of us for thinking the same
way.
Well, most of the recent suicide bombings and beheadings I (and
anyone reading this) can think of were done by Muslims. If saying
that is racist, then it's racist to say water is wet, the sky is
blue, and grass is green. Noticing that Islamic extremists are
violent is racist. That's your argument. Ok, joe, I guess they're
not.
|7.17.07 @ 4:00AM|#
Let me re-write my post, making the same point, in this way, and
we'll see if you still have a problem with it:
What a bunch of losers. I really, really don't like Christian
fundamentalists trying to interfere with our government. But if
this shouting incident were as bad as religious fundamentalism got
in the world today, things would be much better. Things which are
much worse than shouting are being done in the name of religious
fundamentalism every day.
I mean, you can't argue with that, right?
|7.17.07 @ 11:44AM|#
"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in. It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pests to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."
According to Snopes, Washington
didn't say anything of the sort. Here's the actual quote from
Maxims of George Washington (which someone later
bastardized into the above statement):
This tribe of black gentry work more effectually against us, than the enemy's arms. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties, and the great cause we are engaged in. It is much to be lamented that each State, long ere this, has not hunted them down as pests to society, and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.
The kicker? Washington was talking about currency
speculators, trying to take advantage of the conditions of the
Revolutionary War.
Snopes goes on to quote Washington when he really was
talking about the Jews:
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.
[ . . .]
May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.
I highly recommend checking Snopes whenever encountering shocking
quotes purportedly uttered by famous people.
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