Suddenly, the U.S. Religious Right Doesn't Look So Bad

|

From the Wash Times:

Hard-line Islamic clerics in a northern Indian village have declared that a woman's 10-year-old marriage was nullified when her father-in-law raped her—and ordered the mother of five to marry the rapist.

The fatwa, or religious edict, was issued by Darool Uloom Deoband, South Asia's most powerful Islamic theological school known for promoting a radical brand of Islam that is said to have inspired the Taliban in Afghanistan….

The fatwa ordered Imrana Ilahi, 28, to separate from her husband and treat him as her son because she had sex with his father….

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh on June 29 supported the fatwa, saying: "The decision of the Muslim religious leaders in the Imrana case must have been taken after a lot of thought….The religious leaders are all very learned and they understand the Muslim community and its sentiments."

Whole horrible story–which has been protested by many Muslims along with other Indians–here.

The response of Ilahi's husband is worth noting: "My father is dirty and you are clean. I still love you and I cannot desert you." The Ilahis and their five children have fled their hometown.

Advertisement

NEXT: 'No Comment,' Said a Secret, Highly Placed Source

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Darool Uloom Deoband”

    what the fuck kind of name is that?

    look: there’s da-rool all over the pillow.

    (audio reference: python’s “john denver being strangled”)

  2. I have no doubt that the Religious Right and I are drawing exactly opposite conclusions from this article.

    Anon

  3. Amazing, simply amazing. These are the people that inspire bombings in London, and the idiots who car bomb Iraq. If anybody wants to know what the West is fighting against, it’s right here.

  4. This report can’t be accurate.
    Islam is peaceful and forward-thinking and protective of the rights of all its adherents, including its female slaves. I mean womenfolk.

  5. And if you don’t leave breadcrumbs out for the monkey god he steals your breath away in the night.

  6. you bet Ron and ed.

    this reminds me of a case in 1992 where a 13 year old was raped and impregnanted and forbidden to leave her country (where abortion was illegal).

    fortunately, she was, and she did.

    oh, wait. that was in ireland. and those were catholics.

    nevermind.

  7. Maddening, life-ruining irrationality wielded with imperial imunity? No appeals? Institutionalized sexism of the worst possible kind?

    Sounds like a day in US family court…

  8. “If anybody wants to know what the West is fighting against, it’s right here.”

    I would say that is an early leader for Stupidest Statement of the Day, given that the events in the article took place in India.

  9. I guess the phrase “which has been protested by many Muslims along with other Indians” and the husbands words – drawing as they do on Islamic beliefs and understandings – went over the heads of some people.

  10. SR: take it easy on Ron Ribbontrop…it’s so hard to tell one brownskin from another. It’s much easier to just lump all of them together into one big heathen culture.

  11. Oh, I understand the protests and the cultural schizm this represents, I’m just wondering why such primitive, monsterous attempts to dictate social mores by “clerics” who claim to be morally superior aren’t met will peels of deafening laughter by the rest of the world.
    Sorry, it’s 2005. Beasts who wield this magnitude of irrationality and still have positions of power in any social setting need a good slap.
    And yes, that applies to the Right as well.

  12. And I thought my neighborhood association was strict….

    When it comes to sex hang-ups, the Christian fanatics talk a good game but the Islamic freaks really play hardball. Their version of the double standard makes ours look like subtle shades of grey by comparison.

    I want to start franchising chastity belt retailers wherever the Mohammedans rule the roost. If only I could come up with a catchy name…(Rape Escape? Knob Stoppers? Gap Trap?)

  13. That’s because the fatwas of the religious right in the US don’t have the force of law . . . yet.

  14. What’s more, Nick uses this sickening extreme incident to somehow make the loony christian fundies in this country look good. Fucking relativist bullshit! Yes, oh, yes, let me give eternal praise that OUR religious crazies aren’t as extreme as THEIR religious crazies. In fact, I’m writing Falwell a letter right now telling him how great he is, because, at least he doesn’t try to force people to get divorced because the wife got raped.

  15. “My father is dirty and you are clean” has to be one of the sweetest things any husband ever said to his wife. I’m tearing up, but they’re HAPPY TEARS.

  16. Salman Rushdie had a good NYT Op-Ed on this shameful episode recently. But it’s not just the Chief Minister of the state, who leads a populist party that panders to Muslims and lower-caste Hindus, who’s defended the fatwa. The ruling Congress Party, which loves to brandish its “secular” credentials, has made no attempt to denounce the ruling at a federal level and has actually defended it at the state level, out of a fear that acting otherwise would cost them support among Muslim voters. Just as they’ve refused to change the religious civil law system that allows such travesties to occur, and have refused to hold Islamic madrassas to the same educational standards as other schools. It’s not hard to figure out how BS like this has bolstered support for the BJP among people who have no love for Hindu extremism.

    Rushdie, of course, has up-close experience with the perverse brand of secularism that the Congress Party promotes. In 1989, a Congress-led government banned the sale of The Satanic Verses in India after Muslims rioted over the book. Successive Congress-led governments refused to grant Rushdie, who was born and raised in Bombay, a visa. When a BJP-led government finally granted him one in 1997, leading Congress figures strongly denounced the move.

  17. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

  18. The ruling Congress Party, which loves to brandish its “secular” credentials, has made no attempt to denounce the ruling at a federal level and has actually defended it at the state level, out of a fear that acting otherwise would cost them support among Muslim voters.

    Wait, wait…you mean that the government is acting immorally and against principle, just to avoid losing votes!? That sounds kinda familiar…hmm…wait, wait, no, it’ll come to me, just gimme a second…

  19. I’m glad but perplexed that Rusdie is still alive. He must be harder to kill then the Road Runner.

    drf:

    Yeah. “Darool Uloom Deoband”, to me, sounds like some sinister secret Sith sanctuary.

  20. take it easy on Ron Ribbontrop…it’s so hard to tell one brownskin from another. It’s much easier to just lump all of them together into one big heathen culture.

    Could someone please explain what, exactly, the point is in trying to make Rob out to be some kind of Christian supremacist/racist? You can either agree, disagree (or find a 3rd way) with his point, but does it really have to come to this…?

    Good god, but what the fuck is the matter with some of you? And, FWIW, it’s ever so delightful to see an extremist accuse another of being… an extremist.

  21. And if you don’t leave breadcrumbs out for the monkey god he steals your breath away in the night.

    Dammit! That explains my sleep apnea.

    Cue music:”I wish that I knew what I know now…when I was younger!”

    But I agree with Jim…I thought the husband’s sentiment was nice.

    Just another riveting example of some of the pieces of shit in this world that become parents.

  22. Mr. NG:
    LOL.

    Darth Slobber…

    Mike H: see above. see the 1962 arizona case where a victim of rape wasn’t allowed to leave the country. see the ireland case above.

  23. Mr. Nice Guy,

    Oh yes; definately a Sith planet.

    Only time will change these fuckers.

  24. drf,

    These cases certainly shed more light on cultural/religious idiocy the world over (and quite possibly reveal some ignorance on the part of some commenters), yet I still fail to see how this justifies the “brownskins” comment.

  25. Yeah. we’ll have to ask the author.

    my reading was that there was an assumption that we have a monolith over there, which is not the case, and since we’re not at war or fighting Indians or Indian Muslims or anything, it struck me as a blanket statement. But then again, we’d have to ask 🙂


  26. Suddenly, the U.S. Religious Right Doesn’t Look So Bad

    On the contrary, now we see for ourselves where the end result of government pandering to religious conservatives leads.

  27. The problem is fundamentalism in all of it’s forms. This story is no worse than most of the stuff that is spewed by the x-ian right. I wonder why they don’t get along better?

  28. Good lord, it was a quip!

    Nick wants us to cast off our shoes!

    No, we must worship the shoe!

  29. the goard. the goard.

  30. You’ll see crap like that in THIS country the second our fundamentalists are legally allowed to get away with it.

  31. Wait, wait…you mean that the government is acting immorally and against principle, just to avoid losing votes!? That sounds kinda familiar…hmm…wait, wait, no, it’ll come to me, just gimme a second…

    Speaking of “Fucking relativist bullshit!”…

  32. I just don’t get this. I’d understand (although vehemently disagree) if this women wasn’t married with children already. Forcing her to divorce her husband and treat him as a “son” just seems to make no sense. And if she sleeps with him, does that fall under incest? And if he rapes her, does he get her back?

    At least the Deuteronomy passage makes specific mention of marital status. It may be splitting hairs, but it seems to me that the person who has been most wronged here (according to a fundamentalist viewpoint) is the husband. His property has been trashed. Shouldn’t he have the right to kill both the rapist and his wife or something? I guess the fact that the bastard is his father has something to do with this.

  33. Our religious crazies still bomb Abortion clinics.

  34. Sometimes I read comments in these parts and just want to say, WTF. There is a freakish paranoia of the religious right that leads people to say things like, ‘That is no worse that what our ‘fundies’ do every day!’ I’m not a Christian, but even I have to suggest that those feeling that way should get a grip. You have never seen any member of the government in the US daring to suggest anything of this sort. No, wanting to keep a monument on public property isn’t ‘just like’ forcing someone to marry their rapist father in law. No, the fact that there are people willing to blow up abortion clinics who face consecutive life sentences at the hands of the government isn’t comparable, either.

    No offense, but arguments like these contribute to the idea that libertarians are lunatics devoid of the ability to make qualitative distinctions between two things they disagree with.

  35. I’m glad but perplexed that Rusdie is still alive. He must be harder to kill then the Road Runner.

    I’ll have you know that the guy who helped to hide Rushdie right after 9/11 is a Reason contributor.

  36. Jason-
    What is paranoid about saying our Christians would be just as bad if they had a chance? We’ve got people who would be more than happy to imprison if not kill gays, we’ve got respected whackos who claim that 9-11 was God’s punishment for America’s secularism, we’ve got religious nuts who would rather see their kids DIE than have access to modern medicine–and you think that if these people were given real power all they’d do is say, “Ha ha! Just kidding! Carry on with your lives like we weren’t even here?”

    You can’t learn from history if you ignore the similarities and focus exclusively on the differences.

  37. I second the comments of metalgrid and Jennifer. The efforts of the religious right to impose similar controls in the US must be stopped. This fight should be lead by women, as they have the most to lose.

    Keep in mind that this “order” was issued by a non-government organization. The equivalent in the Western world would be the Pope drawing a line down the Western hemisphere and giving one half to Portugal and the other half to Spain. We eventually outgrew this idiocy. However, the current trend is towards a neo-theocracy (this time Protestant based rather than Catholic). Is this just the swing of a giant pendulum or frightened people seeking refuge from the nasty world outside?

    I suggest that Mr. and Mrs. Ilahi simply say “FUCK YOU” to the Islam clerics and get on with their lives. None of us should have to live our lives according to the micromanagement of religious crackpots on a power trip.

  38. Our religious crazies get four consecutive life terms for doing so, however.

  39. What is paranoid about saying our Christians would be just as bad if they had a chance?

  40. The biggest difference between the two sides seems to be that high ranking Islamic religious officials consistently come down closer to the whackos then not. For all the arcane secrecy and bigotry of the Catholic church, and Christianity as a whole, they at least draw the line closer to sanity. They may hate gays, but they won’t condone killing them. They may hate abortion, but they won’t support bombing clinics. Maybe they’re just lying in wait until this supposed theocracy happens.

    And as far as that goes, even if this country accepted religious rule, aside from a few key issues such as abortion, homosexuality and marriage the various christian sects would have plenty to agrue over. Some people have the idea that they’re all very much in rigid agreement, and that’s just not the case. Besides, if theocracy ever happens here, I’m much more worried about Scientology than Christianity. President Cruise and First Lady Katie seems all too possible in that case.

  41. Running around claiming that the US is about to be overtaken by a quasi-sharia neo-theocracy of Christian evangelists is an excellent way of confirming what Jason says above.

    I’m not claiming we’re about to be taken ovr, RC–I’m just saying that our religious nutjobs would be just as bad as their religious nutjobs, if ours had any legal authority to back them up. Fortunately, they don’t. Therefore, such dangerous religious ideas are kept out of the mainstream here, because they don’t have the right soil in which to thrive.

  42. Besides, if theocracy ever happens here, I’m much more worried about Scientology than Christianity.

    The thing about theocracy is the religous sect with the most power wins and all others are immediately executed for heresy. Scientology would be identified as a minor cult that needs to be quickly excised like the tumor it is.

  43. Jason/RC Dean –
    Equating the Christian fundamentalist wackos with the Islamic nutcases may be somewhat melodramatic. However, we should not let our guard down. I am reminded of the expression “give them an inch, and right away they think they are rulers”

    Saturday night, AMC showed the old SciFi classic “invasion of the Body Snatchers”. My favorite part was McCarthy’s line (and I am loosely paraphrasing it) that we allow “them” to strip away our liberties a little bit at a time and do nothing about it. We only stand up and fight when we are confronted with the sudden loss of our liberty all at one time.

    I have spent a lot of time in countries where Islam was the official state religion, and in one nation where Catholicism was the state religion. They all sucked. Any step in that direction, no matter how small, is the wrong step and should be opposed with all our vigor.

  44. The problem might not be any specific religion. Maybe it is too much choice. People need authority because it is easier to obey blindly than to accept responsibility for choosing between unpleasant alternatives. Some Muslims may just have a super-low tolerance for making decisions, even lower than our Fundies.

    The more liberal a society, the more chances each individual has to feel guilty. People do seemingly crazy things to avoid or replace guilt. Libertarians might be more dangerous than any other religion. But, by bringing this up, I contradict the “choice is god” fatwa. Will mullah Nozick cut off my keyboard finger to show the error of my ways?

  45. And our irreligious crazies still burn down condo’s and SUV lots.

    It takes all kinds, I guess.

  46. If this woman is not forced to marry her rapist father in law, the whole traditional institution of marriage as it is known in that area may be undermined.

  47. Maybe you can prove me wrong, but I don’t think the most extreme Xian whackjob in the whole USofA would think that a man who rapes his daughter-in-law deserves to get anything other than a long, long prison term.

  48. Maybe you can prove me wrong, but I don’t think the most extreme Xian whackjob in the whole USofA would think that a man who rapes his daughter-in-law deserves to get anything other than a long, long prison term.

    Maybe. Or maybe he’d say she’s guilty of the “Sin of Scandal,” which is when a woman is so enticing that any male who sees her is helpless to avoid sins of lust.

  49. Is it maybe, just maybe possible that these far-out whackos would be whackos, with their same nutty beliefs, regardless of whether or not someone had invented “God”, “Allah”, or whatever? Doesn’t matter whether it’s Taliban, Fundy Christians, or Heaven’s Gate follower, sometimes there are just nuts in the world, and God/Allah/The Comet is just a convenient excuse for why they believe the way they do and why you are wrong if you don’t agree.

    Like the “Sin of Scandal” thing. Do you really need to be a fundy Xian to believe that? It’s just an insane idea that some people are going to have regardless of religion.

  50. Actually, Jf, the Sin of Scandal is a Catholic doctrine. I suppose the fundie equivalent would be “the harlot was a-beggin’ for it.”

    No, insanity is not confined to any one religion or philosophy; the point I and some others have been trying to make here is that the reason we’re mostly free of such nonsense in America is NOT because Americans are inherently sane, or because Christianity is inherently more humane than Islam–it’s because OUR nutjobs don’t have legal authority, and theirs do. If the US decided tomorrow to implement Bible-based law we’d see just as many atrocities committed in the name of Jesus as other countries see committed in the name of Allah.

  51. jf: I would like to remove the religious descriptors from our various sociopath-fanatic movements. They’re not really “Islamic” terrorists, even if that’s how they self-identify.

    I’m concerned about terrorists, not Muslims. The safe-speech movement hasn’t separated religion from behaviour in the way that race or gender is no longer acceptable shorthand to describe groups who do unwelcome things.

  52. The Washington Times!

    The WT account:

    and ordered the mother of five to marry the rapist.

    From the BBC:

    In its ruling the Darul-Uloom Deoband did not endorse the village council’s order that the victim had to marry her father-in-law but said she could no longer live with her husband.

    ..

    The woman’s father-in-law has been arrested and is in jail.

    From the Times of India :

    The media in-charge of Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband, Adil Siddiqui, clarifying the role of the institution, claimed that the confusion began after a Muzaffarnagar-based journalist, Ashraf Usmani, asked for a written declaration of the said diktat.

    It had no mention of Imrana and only spoke of a hypothetical situation, asking what would happen if a woman was raped by her father-in-law, but wished to remain with her husband.

    This article also provide some more details.

    My point is that Darul-Uloom Deoband are nuts, but the WT should not be trusted.

  53. > “If the US decided tomorrow to implement Bible-based law we’d see just as many atrocities committed in the name of Jesus as other countries see committed in the name of Allah.”

    You might see a slight uptick in such fundie atrocities, but “just as many”? I’d have a very hard time believing that. Civil liberties and tolerance (in relative terms) are so engrained in Western society that there’s no culture for it.

    Sorry, but I just can’t see hundreds (thousands?) of young American men lining up for bomb belts to blow up abortion clinics and assorted buildings of “decadance” (ie bars, casinos, strip clubs, etc) if these actions were suddenly legalized, with newspapers in the aftermath announcing such bombings with glee, and bomber families throwing parties with the reward paychecks given to them by the state-sponsored organizations.

  54. I’m concerned about terrorists, not Muslims.

    All the jihadists you should be concerned about are Islamic. Deal with it.

  55. Amazing, simply amazing. These are the people that inspire bombings in London, and the idiots who car bomb Iraq. If anybody wants to know what the West is fighting against, it’s right here.

    You know, he could have meant the sort of asshats who handed down this ruling. I don’t know that he did, but he could have.

  56. Why would Islamists follow Deuteronomy?

  57. D Allen-
    No, maybe you wouldn’t see suicide bombings (which are usually the last resort of the desperate, not those with power), but you’d probably see a lot more gay-bashing, and gay murder, and abortion-doctor shootings (assuming they’re not just outright executed), and criminalization of consensual sex, etc. I doubt a fundamentalist Christian America would have the exact same kind of insanity as fundamentalist Muslim countries, but it would still be insane.

  58. I think Jennifer is partially right. Imagine if someone like Rev. Fred Phelps had legal authority, what sorts of laws do you think he’d try to impose? But I think the structure and tradition of our society would prevent things from going too far. We’re not used to being required to listen to our cleric class, and many wouldn’t.

    Besides, I don’t think that the bulk of U.S. citizenry is as religiously devout as some would have us believe. Look at how people actually live rather than their answers to poll questions. Not very pious, are we?

  59. “If this woman is not forced to marry her rapist father in law, the whole traditional institution of marriage as it is known in that area may be undermined.”

    Vache Folle, think of the children. Study after study has shown that children do better when they live in a home in which the wife only has sex with her husband. The traditional structure of marriage evolved – no, strike that – was handed to us in its current form for a reason.

    “All the jihadists you should be concerned about are Islamic. Deal with it.” Twba, all the jihadists you should be concerned about are males. Deal with it.

  60. I think Jennifer is partially right. Imagine if someone like Rev. Fred Phelps had legal authority, what sorts of laws do you think he’d try to impose? But I think the structure and tradition of our society would prevent things from going too far. We’re not used to being required to listen to our cleric class, and many wouldn’t.

    In all honesty, David, a couple of years ago, before I started reading this Website and making and reading posts, I’d’ve agreed with you. But after reading here how apparently intelligent people can perform amazing mental gymnastics to convince themselves or ANYTHING– torturing Arabs isn’t really torture, and if it is they deserved it anyway, and the Patriot Act strengthens civil liberties, and Bush has never contradicted himself, and war is peace and freedom is slavery and blah blah blah, I disagree.

    Because Phelps wouldn’t come right out and say “Let’s kill the fags cuz Ah don’t like ’em.” No. He’d invent some reason why killing gay people was vital to our national security, and anyone who isn’t with him is with the terrorists, and a bunch of other people will make excuses about why this really isn’t any big deal. At all.

    Some vile crimes have indeed been committed by gay people; maybe that would be the excuse. “You’re either with Phelps or you’re with the baby rapers!”

  61. Twba, all the jihadists you should be concerned about are males. Deal with it.

    Joe, have you already forgotten about female suicide bombers in Israel?

  62. Imagine if someone like Rev. Fred Phelps had legal authority, what sorts of laws do you think he’d try to impose?

    Frankly, I can imagine a lot of horror from giving various uber-nutball groups legal authority. But conflating Phelps with the religious wing of the Republicans is something like conflating unrepetant gulag-fetishizing Stalinists with the Green Party. This guy sponsors marches with signs saying “GOD HATES AMERICA”, after all.

    (But then, there are at least some rumors that the entire group exists to provoke fights with bystanders as a basis for filing lawsuits. Don’t know anything as to their veracity, but it’s an interesting concept.)

  63. Twba, have you forgotten that the first suicide bombers were Christian Arabs? Have you forgotten about the suicide bombings carried by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a secular Marxist group?

    Thank you for so expeditiously walking into my trap.

  64. Of course, he only has to amend that to “Arabs and Muslims” to escape Joe’s “trap”.

  65. Why bother trying to set a trap when we’re in the same foxhole? All jihadists are Muslim. Most jihadists are male. That is just the sad way of the world.

  66. ll jihadists are Muslim.

    All Jihadists are muslims, but not all terrorists are muslims. A jihadist by definition is a muslim.

  67. Repeatedly people are saying that our religious nutjobs would not be able to take over the country, so would never be as bad as theirs. But as I understand it their nuts are not running the country. Rather there are a few of them in an isolated area that can deliver eddicts that effect a few people. The federal government is still secular, but chooses to look the other way for political reasons.

    This situation is not nearly as difficult to graft onto our country (or yours wherever that may be). Whether such a thing could actually happen in a given country I’m not sure, but the scenario is not as far fetched as some would make it seem.

  68. “Why bother trying to set a trap when we’re in the same foxhole?”

    Because I don’t want you to get me killed. And using our power to blunder about blindly and clumsily is a good way to get a lot of us killed.

    If you don’t know where you’re going, you’re probably not going to get there.

  69. Keep in mind that this “order” was issued by a non-government organization. The equivalent in the Western world would be the Pope drawing a line down the Western hemisphere and giving one half to Portugal and the other half to Spain. We eventually outgrew this idiocy. However, the current trend is towards a neo-theocracy (this time Protestant based rather than Catholic).

    Actually, according to the Rushdie piece, the religious authority in question has been given power by the Indian government to make legally binding decisions on behalf of Muslim citizens (see the section where he describes how secular courts are not allowed to grant alimony to Muslim divorcees because the Koran doesn’t authorize it). So this would be more like if Catholics in the U.S. were prevented from getting secular legal divorces until their religious annulments were granted by the church.

    There is actually precedent for this sort of parallel court system in the western world: the Jewish Beit Din. Religious Jews can use religious courts, the Batei Din (I apologize if I’m getting the transliterations wrong) as binding arbitrators in divorce proceedings, and because both parties agree to such arbitration as a condition of their faith, the recommendations of the Batei Din are legally enforceable by secular courts. Of course, no one can be forced to marry against her will in most western countries, but it’s not unprecedented to let people’s religious authorities make binding decisions about their family lives. The question is whether we can consider the parties’ consent valid, and I would seriously question whether the woman in this case had the opportunity to make an informed choice to submit to the religious authority’s ruling.

  70. Dammit! Comment #70. I’m always a day late and a dollar short.

    Congratulations, Amy.

  71. It is simply impossible to predict what the theocrats in this country would do if given complete control, better to not let it happen at all:

    http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=863

    But despite the crackpot nature of Cameron’s theories and methodology, his “research” was extolled by many in the religious right. In 1986, Summit Ministries, a right-wing Christian group in Colorado, distributed a booklet called Special Report: AIDS, co-written by Cameron, Summit leader David Noebel and Wayne Lutton (Lutton would later be an editor for an anti-immigrant hate group, the Social Contract Press, and act as editorial advisor to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens).

    Special Report argued for a drastic solution: locking up “practicing homosexuals” in the name of public health. After all, the authors wrote, “During World War II we exiled Americans of Japanese ancestry simply because we felt they were a national threat during time of war.”

    Since AIDS has made gay people a “threat to our national survival,” they wrote, “We might well prepare holding camps for all sexually active homosexuals with special camps for homosexuals with AIDS.”

  72. “Since AIDS has made gay people a “threat to our national survival,” they wrote, “We might well prepare holding camps for all sexually active homosexuals with special camps for homosexuals with AIDS.”

    You know, there doesn’t have to be a “theocratic” agenda behind this idea, just a vague concern for “public good.”

  73. Twba: All terrorists are not jihadists. I’m not suggesting we ignore whatever demographic info is available, but if we focus on the terror part rather than the Islam part, we’re more likely to get good solutions that will apply to the inevitable non-Islamic wackos who adopt jihadist techniques.

    this would be more like if Catholics in the U.S. were prevented from getting secular legal divorces until their religious annulments were granted by the church

    Such is not my preferred power-sharing arrangement between the church god and the state god, but it seems serviceable. The state is kind of a mediator and enforcer between different religious factions. If it keep the churches from raising armies, it will likely work toward more civil order. A lot depends on how the rest of such a government is drafted.

  74. smacky,
    I see why you call yourself that now… what with your obsession with sixty-nine.
    As that old Olympic hero, Bob What’s-His-Name (not Newhart), used to proclaim about Wheaties: Breakfast of Champions.

  75. Dynamist,

    I was not referring to all “terrorists.” I stated that all jihadists are Muslims.

    I’m not suggesting we ignore whatever demographic info is available, but if we focus on the terror part rather than the Islam part, we’re more likely to get good solutions that will apply to the inevitable non-Islamic wackos who adopt jihadist techniques.

    But the danger in separating “Islam” from “terrorism” is that it leads the control-freaks of the nanny state into thinking that “terrorism” is something that can be dealt with by border security, ID cards, retinal scans, metal detectors. It can’t.

    Terrorism ends when the broader culture refuses to tolerate it. There would be few if any suicide bombers in the Middle East if “martyrdom” were not glorified by imams and politicians, if pictures of local “martyrs” were not proudly displayed in West Bank grocery stores, if Muslim banks did not offer special “martyrdom” accounts to the relicts thereof, if schools did not run essay competitions on “Why I want to grow up to be a martyr”.

    At this point, many readers will be indignantly protesting that this is all the fault of Israeli “occupation”, but how does that explain suicide bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where there’s not a Zionist oppressor for hundreds of miles? Islam has become the world’s pre-eminent incubator of terrorism at its most depraved.

    Joe:Because I don’t want you to get me killed.

    Because I like you, I promise not to simultaneously depress the Ctrl, Alt and DeleteJoe keys.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.