Middle East

We Don't Do Backlashes

Violent religious extremists are a tiny minority, but so are violent racists

|

There has already been enough blogger outrage and cable host sputtering on the absurd notion that Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) when he shot 40 people last week at Ft. Hood, Texas, despite the fact that he had never served in a war zone. (In a masterful bit of don't-mention-the-war hypothesizing, Time magazine suggested that Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, could be suffering from some type of secondhand PTSD.)

Evidence did quickly accumulate that Hasan was, in fact, afflicted with an excess of religious belief, something his fellow soldiers recognized after viewing Hasan's PowerPoint presentation on Islam, informing them that he, as a Muslim, loved death more than they, filthy kaffirs the lot of them, valued life.

The huffing and puffing pundits, who correctly identified the murder of Dr. George Tiller an act of domestic terrorism, who rightfully bemoan Fred Phelps-ian religious extremism in almost all of its manifestations—with the emphasis on almostwere perplexed. What could have motivated an advocate of suicide bombing, a man who refused to be photographed with women? What could have inspired the pious chap who attended the same radical mosque as two 9/11 hijackers, the gun-toting psycho psychiatrist that shouted Allahu Akbar while shooting unarmed servicemen and women in the back? It's a mystery that would doubtless confound even Hercule Poirot.

On the other end of the debate, though, religious weirdos of a very different sort warned against allowing Muslims to serve in the military, at least while the United States was engaged in combat against an enemy that prays towards Mecca. One needn't look very far to find lunkheaded bloggers and rent-an-Islamologists suggesting that, after weakening American security by preventing gays from working as Arabic translators, the military should go one step further and scrutinize—or sack—the 15,000 Muslims currently serving in uniform. A minority position for sure, but a troubling one nevertheless.

If Muslims are incapable of fighting within (or alongside) the American military, this will come as news to those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside native translators and members of the local armed forces; those who don't believe that a common faith prevents them from hunting down a co-religionist responsible for blowing up the Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra. If we are to give creedence to the mad ravings of Hasan and Osama bin Laden, and exonerate their mutually held view that Islam is engaged in perpetual warfare with non-believers, one might have a difficult time explaining the brutal Iran-Iraq War, which—regardless of a century's old Sunni-Shiite schism—pitted Muslim against Muslim. And if there is indeed a Muslim fifth column operating in our military ranks, they've certainly taken their sweet time in unleashing jihad.

So it isn't unreasonable for Gen. George Casey to express concern that Hasan's radical vision of how a Muslim should serve the Prophet might have adverse consequences for other active duty Muslim soldiers. But this was soon followed by warnings from President Barack Obama, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and countless pundits and journalists, that there existed a very real possibility of a backlash against Muslim-Americans. The Guardian, shaking in fear at the prospect of an American pogrom, offered this headline: "Obama acts as anti-Muslim anger threatens to engulf US."

Other headlines emphasised that American Muslims are currently crippled by "fear and frustration" over increased "racial tensions." But as long as the press is busting myths related to Islam and terrorism, perhaps it is time to revisit the deeply entrenched idea that America experienced a post-9/11 backlash against Muslim-Americans—and will likely experience a new wave of Islamophobia.

After months of hand-wringing from the national media, who clearly distrusted those rubes in flyover country to restrain their "get the Muslims" anger, the tragic tally was one American—a Sikh gas station owner in Arizona—shot and killed as "revenge" for the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. An act, incidentally, perpetrated by a man, according to the court that sentenced him, suffering from "mental illness and [a] low IQ," and unclear on the differences between Islam and Sikhism. A 2002 investigation by The Washington Post found there to be "little proof of [a] post-9/11 backlash" against Muslims. And while the FBI reported a large increase in hate crimes against Arab and Muslim-Americans, the number of incidents were still microscopically small, the offenses often vague (most falling under the category of "intimidation") and rarely violent, and still significantly lower than those classified as anti-Semitic.

Indeed, the Pew polling service found that Americans were more positive towards Islam and Muslim-Americans after September 11. According to a 2005 Pew report, "the day of the first terrorist attacks in London [the July 7 subway attacks by Islamic supremacists], and July 17, finds a majority of Americans (55 percent) saying they have a favorable opinion of Muslim-Americans. That is roughly the same proportion that expressed positive opinions of Muslim-Americans in Pew surveys conducted in July 2003 and March 2002, and significantly higher than the 45 percent holding favorable views in March 2001, prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon" (emphasis added).

After September 11, former Washington Post religion reporter Gustav Niebuhr set out in search of the great backlash against Muslims, finding instead anecdotal evidence in support of the Pew figures: "In the very week when the nation suffered a grievous injury from a stateless criminal gang that identified itself by its members' religion—as Muslims—some Americans chose to express concern and friendship toward their Muslim neighbors."

So despite having the mother of all opportunities for a national convulsion of violence and discrimination against a religious minority, America, for the most part, chose investigation over emotion:, lay conversations about the tenets of Islam were ubiquitous, books detailing doctrinal differences between Muslim sects flew off the shelves, and the president beseeched his fellow Americans to understand that, despite acts of violence in its name, Islam was a religion of peace.

One can always find, in a nation of 300 million people, examples of boorish behavior towards religious minorities. But if Muslims that embrace violence against non-Muslims are a tiny minority, it is time to acknowledge that attacks on Muslims by non-Muslims in the United States are perpetrated by an even tinier minority. That the United States doesn't do backlashes needs to be restated frequently and forcefully, rather than ignored in favor of exploiting a "teachable moment" of religious tolerance.

So let's stop frightening our fellow Americans, telling them that they will soon be "engulfed" in ethnic and religious violence, and acknowledge that we have, once again, acquitted ourselves rather well.

Michael C. Moynihan is a senior editor of Reason magazine.

Advertisement

NEXT: Police Defend, Lie About Devices That Extract Money From and Cause Bodily Harm to Citizens

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. What could have motivated an advocate of suicide bombing, a man who refused to be photographed with women?

    So, the Barbara Walters interview is out?

  2. Most excellent article MCM! I shared it on The Facebook.

    Check John’s article on the blog too.

  3. I enjoyed the piece, but with one quibble.

    Moynahan says that “lay conversations about the tenants of Islam were ubiquitous.” If a local mosque turned out to be the owner of my apartment building, then I guess I’d be a tenant of Islam. (And if Reason is looking for a good copy editor, I’m available.)

    1. Oy. Thanks for pointing that out (and embarrassing me). Fixed!!

  4. Oh, Lord. Moynihan, Moynihan, MOYNIHAN! [Kinda shoots the whole “good copy editor” thing, don’t it?]

    1. joez law? 🙂

  5. Evidence did quickly accumulate that Hasan was, in fact, afflicted with an excess of religious belief[…]

    It may not be all that important, but . . . how can there be an “excess” of religious belief? Compared to what?

    1. Gloria in excess dei.

    2. christianity in america. IMHO

      1. Re: brotherben,

        christianity in [A]merica. IMHO

        I cannot accept that, since it would mean that there is an acceptable level of belief from which to determine what is excessive and what is not. If it were up to me, then my level of belief would be just right, and anything beyond that is “excessive”. This would not be acceptable by many, especially since I am a non believer(!)

        1. In theory, we agree. In practice, many christians live with differing levels of belief, letting society dictate how much is acceptable. At least that has been my experience when discussing such matters with christians.

          1. So it’s kind of like speeding? On the highway anyone slower than you is a slowpoke, while anyone faster than you is a maniac?

    3. I know a doctor who holds religious beliefs. He uses science and medicine and teaches the same. I would say he does not suffer an excess of religious belief.

      I have read of men who step into crowd with an exploding vest after taking part in a final religious ritual. I would say they suffer an excess of religious belief.

      1. Re: Briaerus,

        I have read of men who step into crowd with an exploding vest after taking part in a final religious ritual. I would say they suffer an excess of religious belief.

        I would rather call that a lack of respect for other people’s lives, but not excess of religious belief. One either believes, or does not – there are no gradations of belief. A person may be WRONG about what he believes, but that does not mean he is believing in “excess”.

        I am a non believer. I cannot accept that there could be an acceptable “level” of belief from which to determine what is excessive and what is not – leaves too much to subjectivity.

        1. That was good. I like.

          I am a believer (Christian) but not an attender or regular worshiper.

          1. Religious belief—->Fanaticism—->Dangerous Fanaticism

            1. Then I need a severe session. I shall inform beloved boyfriend* immediately!

              *Who just spit beer watching me type that.

              1. You have a boyfriend?

                1. Uh, yea and have never made a secret about it here either.

        2. I was intending to be mostly tongue-in-cheek, but I’m interested in your comment.

          I agree that there are not distinct ‘levels’ of belief. But religious belief is idealism, strictly speaking, because there is no way the rational senses can prove or detect the diety or dieties being believed in. It takes the active disbelief of what the rational senses report of the actual world to have religious belief. Let’s face it, anyone who fears imaginary beings is not rational.

          But the moment someone chooses to disbelieve their senses doesn’t mean they lose all their connection to the real world. They still walk around and interact and pay at least that much attention to their senses to be able to function. So it can’t be an all or nothing proposition. I think it can be said that one can be ‘more’ or ‘less’ idealistic (perhaps in terms of religious belief one can put it as ‘more or less detached from the rational world’); it might be said that someone has more or less religious belief. Examples would be someone being described as “very” religious or “not very” religious.

          I think someone who can be religiously motivated–either by himself or others–to harm people in support of that belief can be suffering from an ‘excess’ detachment from the rational world. Excess religious belief; dearth of rational belief.

          1. You misspelled deity and deities.

          2. Let’s face it, anyone who fears imaginary beings is not rational.

            That, my dear sir, is what is known in logical circles as “begging the question.”

            1. Let’s face it, anyone who fears imaginary beings is not rational.

              Like Al Gore?

              1. MANBEARPIG is real!

            2. “That, my dear sir, is what is known in logical circles as “begging the question.””

              I disagree.

              To imagine is to form a mental image of something that is not present or that is not the case. Your functional senses cannot report what is not there to sense. That is not rational; rationality is the method one uses to analyze data gathered through observation–essentially gathered through facility of your senses–to most efficiently attain a goal such as survival, crossing a creek, or building a plane. You can disbelieve biology or gravity all you want but you’re still going to need to trust your senses to hunt and gather your food or to build a bridge to cross that river or to exploit the Bernoulli principle.

              How can fearing something that does not exist be rational?

              1. ‘How can fearing something that does not exist be rational?’

                Not begging the question at all!

                1. If the senses cannot apprehend something; if something cannot be observed with any known implement of detection of any kind or aid to the senses, it cannot be said to exist outside of an idea. Idealism is the theory that ideas are reality.

                  Fearing a deity [thanks pmains] that cannot be said to exist outside of an idea is epistemological mysticism. Epistemological mysticism is irrationalism.

                  1. All that Dark Matter hooey is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors, sans the smoke and the mirrors?

                    1. Actually dark matter was postulated to balance the cosmic books. The great accountancy had come up short and the equations could not be wrong – so find something that balances them out! Stuff we don’t see? Brilliant!

                      Mathematics was the language of priests & mystics long ago, and it is today.

      2. Perhaps they just suffer an excess of explosives…

  6. Funny how you don’t note the people on the right that didn’t count Tiller’s gunman as a terrorist but think that Hasan is a terrorist.

    BTW, do non Muslims that get attacked because people think they’re Muslim count?

    1. UR doing it rong

    2. BTW, do non Muslims that get attacked because people think they’re Muslim count?

      Thanks for bringing this up. I’ve been growing a beard since January, and it’s pretty long now, and you’d be shocked how frequently and audaciously people make racial comments about/near me.

      In the fucking grocery store last week, this dude stared me down, and as soon as he passed me he said, “This mother fucker looks like he’s from Islam or something”. That was funny for so many reasons.

      A funny counter to that is the homeless guy the next day who was convinced that I’m Jewish simply because I have a long beard.

      By the way, I’m neither.

      1. Not that I’m equating those comments with having been attacked.

    1. According to the link, the guy who attacked the Greek priest in Tampa is a testosterone and HGH huffer with at least one prior rage incident on his record. The assailant gave police various excuses, including that the priest was a homer-sexual and that the priest had tried to rob him, in addition to his claim that the priest had yelled “Allahu Aqbar.”

      So I’m not sure that would count as an anti-Muslim incident, though I hope Sgt. Jasen Bruce will be put away for a long time, not least because he doesn’t know how to spell Jason.

    2. I’m not sure you read the NRO article you linked to. It doesn’t say what you seem to think it does. They do condemn Roeper, while claiming that it does not, in and of itself, delegitimize the entire pro-life movement. Whatever point you were trying to make, you failed.

      1. Te point is they didn’t call him a terrorist. Just like in the link Moynihan provided, Olbermann denounced Hasan, but did not call him a terrorist.

  7. Before we protect Muslims from violent American bigots, can we first protect Americans from violent Muslim bigots?

    1. Nice bit of jingo logic there, meat-head.

      The story is pretty clearly about muslims in America.

      Once again: Muslims. In America. The vast majority of which are muslim AMERICANS.

      1. And the majority are not unpatriotic terrorist infiltrators. But MJ is clearly talking about the small minority, not the majority.

      2. And I include non-bigoted American Muslims in the word “American”, the violent radical Muslims are just as much a threat to that subgroup of Americans as they are to any other.

        1. Of course, someone who was not a politically correct ass would not have had to have that explained to them.

          1. I’m anything but politically correct.

            Words have meaning. Try choosing them more effectively.

            1. If I am so dumb why did I understand him fine and you didn’t? LOLZ

            2. I did. That you read meanings in that were not there is your mental deficiency, not mine.

    2. racist

  8. This guy was a terrorist. Quit apologizing for him Mo.

    1. Moynihan’s story can only be contrived as an apology for Hasan if you don your Shit Goggles.

      1. methinks he was replying to the Mo in the comments above… though such confusion could be remedied by simply threading.

      2. Misunderstood. I thought you meant Moynihan by ‘Mo’ and didn’t notice the commenter named Mo.

        1. ROFL! OKAY, thank you.

  9. Moynihan,
    Thanks for this. It really sickens me when these disasters get reduced to left-right catfights. Although, to be fair, I do love Islamic terrorism.

    1. I hate catfights, when I am in them. Prefer to watch, on a monitor if possible 🙂

  10. He was a psychopath and a lunatic. Terrorists deliberately target civilians to achieve a political goal. The Fort Hood murders don’t qualify under either criteria. Terrorist is not synonymous with bad Muslim. One can be an evil person and not be a terrorist. This guy just lost it. Saying that what each side calls a guy is politically motivated isn’t apologizing for the guy.

    1. That’s much better. Good boy.

      But he didn’t “lose it” he was a plotting, plodding, evil terrorist.

      1. Is a man who steps onto a bus with an exploding vest a “terrorist”? Can we not agree that such a person has ‘lost it’ at some point?

        Just as every grandfather is a man but not every man is a grandfather, every terrorist may have lost it but not everyone who loses it is a terrorist.

        1. Maybe, but from what I have read, Hasam does not sound like he “lost it” it sounds like he was going along with a program for his side. He was just wearing a US Army uniform for over 20 years and working for the other side. At least he was working for them the last part of his time in the Army.

          It’s not like he was a dedicated soldier who went nuts and killed his peers after being in battle too long.

      2. Once again:
        murderer != terrorist
        bad person != terrorist
        Only in Suki world and that of the right wing does:
        Muslim that does bad thing = terrorist

        Tiller was a terrorist because he a) targeted civilians for the b) political purpose of creating fear in pro-choice supporters.

        What was Hasan’s political motivation and which soldiers on the base were actually civilians?

        1. He was more like a spy who was working for others instead of being loyal to his oath and nation.

          As for the rest of your shit, that is what it is.

          1. So it’s shit because you refuse to answer it. Convenient.

            1. I was talking to Mo’s bullshit being shit:
              Only in Suki world and that of the right wing does:
              Muslim that does bad thing = terrorist

              I never said or wrote anything like that and I don’t believe it either.

              When some guy infiltrates our military, tries to get our side to stop fighting against terrorists just because they share his cause AND religion, and follows it up by FUCKING MURDERING BRAVE AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS, then yea, I sorta think terrorist.

              1. What civilians? The doctors are soldiers too. The lack of civilians is what doesn’t make it terrorism. What evidence do you have that he tried to stop us from fighting the war, his presentation was on allowing Muslim soldiers to opt out of Iraq and Afghanistan as conscientious objectors, which is completely different. To borrow a turn of the phrase, it’s like you’re training for the day that the 100-meter Violently Missing The Point event finally becomes a part of the Olympics.

                1. One of the thirteen murdered was a civilian, Mo.

                2. My word you ass.
                  What civilians?

                  I think a few of the other people this traitorous rat bastard hospitalized were civilians too. Along with the baby he murdered when he murdered a pregnant person and one of the total 13 murdered (so far) was a civilian. Happy enough?

                  The doctors are soldiers too. The lack of civilians is what doesn’t make it terrorism. What evidence do you have that he tried to stop us from fighting the war, his presentation was on allowing Muslim soldiers to opt out of Iraq and Afghanistan as conscientious objectors, which is completely different.

                  Stop your selective reading. He was doing all sorts of shit, from praising the Arkansas recruiter murders to trying to convert his peers and patients to his version of ‘faith.’

                  To borrow a turn of the phrase, it’s like you’re training for the day that the 100-meter Violently Missing The Point event finally becomes a part of the Olympics.

                  Fuck you troll.

                  1. “Stop your selective reading. He was doing all sorts of shit, from praising the Arkansas recruiter murders to trying to convert his peers and patients to his version of ‘faith.'”

                    How is that trying to get our side to stop fighting?

                    By the way, I would take all the early reports coming out of the Pentagon with a grain of salt. They’re in full CYA mode right now. Remember Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch?

          2. Someone fighting for the other side is called a traitor, which Hasan is. English is a robust language with tens of thousands of words that have their own meaning.

            Examples:
            DC Sniper = terrorist (targeted civilians)
            John Walker Lindh = not terrorist (fought soldiers on a battlefield), but is a traitor
            shoe bomber = terrorist (targeted civilians)

            1. Yea, traitor is good too.

            2. Interesting that Padilla–who didn’t actively attack anyone–was tried as an enemy combatant and not as a US citizen, while John Walker Lindh fought soldiers on a battlefield in a foreign country and was tried as a US citizen civilian.

              Gotta love the arbitrary convenience of the national security state.

              1. Not up on the Padilla stuff, but Lindh was an American Citizen in the service of a hostile entity. I always thought that “counted.”

                You say Padilla didn’t “actively attack anyone,” was he involved in the plotting of an attack or something?

                Sorry, law is not my field.

                1. PADILLA:
                  “Jos? Padilla (born October 18, 1970 in Brooklyn, New York), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists.

                  Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts.”
                  http://is.gd/4SZGJ

                  LINDH:
                  “John Phillip Walker Lindh (born February 9, 1981) was captured as an enemy combatant during the United States’ 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. An American citizen, he is now serving a 20-year prison sentence in connection with his participation in Afghanistan’s Taliban army. He was captured during the Battle of Qala-i-Jangi, a violent Taliban prison uprising where American CIA officer Johnny “Mike” Spann was killed.

                  Lindh received training at Al-Farouq, an alleged Al-Qaeda training camp located in Afghanistan. There, he attended a lecture by Osama bin Laden before the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Lindh had previously received training with Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, an internationally designated terrorist organization based in Pakistan”
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_lindh

                  The first guy was an American captured in Chicago but held as an enemy combatant. The second guy was captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban, tried as a US citizen criminal. Padilla was not allowed any contact with his lawyer for years because he was somehow not really a citizen anymore, while Lindh was able to exercise his due process rights because he was tried as a criminal not a terrorist.

                  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

                  1. Maybe you missed my comment that law is not my field? If we were talking GC-MS then maybe I could be more versed.

                    So, one guy was a foreigner, captured in America working for a foreign enemy.

                    The other was an American, captured in a foreign country, working for a foreign enemy.

                    And you think they are the same or do you think they are different?

                    I think they are different, so maybe different processes and charges are appropriate.

                    1. Both were Americans. Did you miss “Jos? Padilla (born October 18, 1970 in Brooklyn, New York)”?

                    2. Mo,

                      Thank you for taking to the time to point out the painfully obvious. Apparently it is an unfortunate aspect of my point that it requires words.

                      Sincerely,
                      briareus

                    3. Mo, I misundersomethinged here:
                      Interesting that Padilla–who didn’t actively attack anyone–was tried as an enemy combatant and not as a US citizen

                      So, I am still not getting this complicated legal issue. They did different things and got charged in different ways. I’m not defending or attacking anything, but even I can tell they are different circumstances.

                    4. Suki, the point is that the cases were logically inverted. The American in enemy service in a foriegn country was treated as a citizen with all rights, and the American arrested in the U.S. was classed an “enemy combatant” despite not engaging in any combat in any theater and denied all his rights as an American.

        2. It is an unfortunate fact that when many–perhaps most–people hear the word terrorist they think of a muslim, especially when some of the most diabolical terrorism in history was perpetrated by christians, buddhists, and jews.

          1. I don’t think that. I think an extremist enemy of some sort.

            1. Credit to you that you don’t.

            2. Except that’s not right either. Nazis were extremist enemies, but were uniformed soldiers fighting on a battlefield (except for their spies, but everyone’s got spies so nothing wrong with that). The overuse of the term terrorism is idiotic and counter-productive. Words have meanings so that when they’re used you can glean what the speaker means. When a bunch of word are lumped together to mean the same thing, it renders the word pointless.

              1. Does traitor rat bastard work better for you Mo?

                1. Yes, I’m cool with that description.

              2. Actually let me modify this. The Nazis did use terrorism, in events like Kristalnacht, during their rise to power. However, during the war, they were not terrorists. Inhumane monsters, yes.

                1. Wasn’t Kristalnacht an operation by their gay brownshirt constituency that they threw under the bus not long after getting control of the government?

                2. Presumably the widespread use of terror against civilians during the Second World War by the Nazis (throughout, among a number of other places, France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Poland, Russia, Yugoslavia, and Greece), does not count as terrorism then? Interesting.

              3. “The overuse of the term terrorism is idiotic and counter-productive.”

                …TERRIST!!!!!!!!!

          2. especially when some of the most diabolical terrorism in history was perpetrated by christians, buddhists, and jews.

            Citation needed.

            1. Watch out of he comes back with anything with “Protocols” or “Zion” in the title.

          3. Well I used to think Irish, but that was the crowd I ran with and before the peace process on that unhappy island.

            Nowadays, yep, Muslim does seem to float to the top first.

        3. If your arguement is that Hasan is not a terrorist because he targeted the combatants he opposed and not merely civilians (namely, he targeted those he felt guilty in a direct sense), then following the same logic, the murder of Dr. Tiller is not a terrorist either because attacking abortion doctors is similarly targeting the combatants he opposed, those directly guilty (were he to simply shoot demonstrators in favor of abortion as right, that would be terrorism). Dr. Tiller’s Killer (Tiller was the slain abortion doctor, not the man who killer the doctor) attacked only the combatant in his struggle.

          1. Last I checked, doctors were civilians, whether or not one has a beef with them. It’s not like the Bloods and the Crips fighting a turf war. If Tiller was packing heat and shooting pro-lifers, your point would be germane. However, Tiller and extremist pro-lifers were not engaged in a Shark and Jets style gang war.

            1. And what if some of these members of the armed forces had not yet seen combat? Does that then make them innocents?

              1. Tiller was “guilty” in the same way any of the soldiers that Hasan shot were “guilty.” Although he did not carry a gun and shoot people, he aborted fetuses, which was considered killing by the man that shot him (as well as a fairly significant chunk of humanity).

                1. Considering Tiller was doing something that was legal, it’s not really similar. It would be different if Tiller was conducting illegal experiments on human being. But the fact that Tiller was doing something legal, and his murderer was trying to subvert the political process through violence is what makes it terrorism.

                  1. And the soldiers in question are doing what is legal, namely sanctioned by Congress (we can debate the legality, or prudence, of such congressional sanction, but we could similarly debate the merits of Roe v Wade). Killing can be legalized (see: death penalty, Oregon’s physician assisted suicide law), but it doesn’t make it any less killing. Furthermore, I am not even trying to argue that Tiller was a killer, only that his murderer perceived it killing, therefore perceived Tiller as guilty, and therefore was attacking a target he deemed legimate. Furthermore, we do not know if every single one of the armed forces that Hasan attacked has in fact seen combat and/or killed in combat, thus, Hasan may still be a terrorist under your premises and yet Tiller’s killer would not be.

                    1. Just because they haven’t yet seen combat does not make them non-combatants. That would mean every battle where there was at least one casualty that had never seen combat before a terrorist attack. That is prima facie ludicrous.

                      Tiller’s killer didn’t see what he did as terrorism because of what you say. However, using violent means to target civilians for political purposes is pretty much dictionary definition terrorism.

                    2. There is, however, no agreed definition for “terrorism” so quibbling over whether combatants or non-combatants were targeted is somewhat irrelevant given that, in this case anyway, the attack seems to have been the use of violence for political and religious ends.

                      It is true, however, that the term “terrorist” is bandied about too often as a synonym for “bad folks” without much consideration of what the word generally means.

            2. Doctor Major Hasan is not a civilian. He is a Major in our Army and quite possibly an agent of an enemy organization.

        4. You don’t have to target civilians to be a terrorist. You just have to have the intention to create terror in the civilian population. This can also be done by attacking military and police targets. Or by just blowing inanimate objects up like ETA used to do.
          His political motivation was to encourage muslims serving in the military to turn on their fellow soldiers.

    2. One can be an evil person and not be a terrorist. This guy just lost it. Saying that what each side calls a guy is politically motivated isn’t apologizing for the guy.

      Agreed. The old “freedom-fighter” versus “terrorist” argument.

      1. It’s not even that. It’s murderer vs. terrorist.

        1. Terrorists can be murderers, but few murderers are terrorists.

          1. So you agree, then.

            Whiskey Tango Foxtrot were you complaining about above?

            1. I made like a dozen comments here. Which complaint are you talking about and is it even one of mine?

      2. Freedom fighters fight against terrorists. Or they fight for freedom of themselves and others from an oppressor.

        Terrorists are usually on the other side, like the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Soviet Red Army (okay, state cloaked terrorist slavers), the SLA (maybe they were just kidnappers, rapists and bank robbers) the Weather Underground, etc.

        1. …Are you just intentionally trying to waste my time?

          YES, that’s the fucking point: One person’s ‘freedom fighter’ is another person’s ‘terrorist’.

          So, thanks for agreeing with me. Fuck.

          1. I am not agreeing with you, but I am now getting that you are talking about that stupid argument that terrorist supporters use to try to shut up the good side. Sort of like the way liberal racists call everybody else racist, right?

            1. You are wasting my time, and you reason like a duck.

              1. I weigh more than a duck, so you can’t burn me 🙂

                1. You’ve never been turned into a newt, have you, Suki?

        2. How about being both a freedom fighter and a terrorist? By Mo’s definition, Hamas and the PLO fit into this category quite nicely.

          FYI, Mo, I would add one qualifier to your definition of terrorist. The terrorist intends to kill non-combatants to achieve political ends. The US doesn’t intend to kill Iraqi civilians when they raid a mosque where weapons are stored. Al-Qaeda intended to kill American civilians when they flew two airplanes into the WTC. One is obviously terrorism, the other obviously isn’t…

          1. Oh yeah, I agree. Intent is an important part of the definition. Though I can’t take credit for the definition. It’s the dictionary definition.

            1. So terrorism is a thought crime to you guys?

    3. You can troll better than that Missy.

      1. Actually your troling was quite effective.
        Hat’s off to you Ma’am.

    4. He is a violent, murderous traitor. Whether what he did should be considered “terror”, “sabotage” or whatever, he betrayed the country and the comrades who had placed their trust in him.

      Whatever depraved ideology motivated him, he was not necessarly crazy but he is uttrely without honor.

  11. Time magazine suggested that Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, could be suffering from some type of secondhand PTSD.

    At least that explains why it has been banned in all of the bars and restaurants.

    1. Time has been banned from all of them? Nice!

    2. PTSD? PRICK-TEASING SLUT DISEASE?

        1. The recent article in The Onion about “pre-traumatic stress disorder” caused some to believe there actually IS such a disorder.

          Alan Colmes used it just recently. Hand to God, some people are just fuckin’ stoopid.

          1. Alan Colmes said that…priceless! In what context if you can say? I bet it maid him feel good to say it. 🙂

  12. When the words lash, back, and Muslim are that close together, I don’t like the image that surfaces.

    1. Thinking about The Haj and the self inflicted chain beatings?

      1. Chain beatings inflict something on themselves?

        1. Maybe I worded that bad. Was talking about the people during the Haj that beat themselves across the back with chains.

          1. An envelope that addressed itself had ‘splained that to me :-).

          2. Those are Shia. They are whipping themselves during ashura in penance for the death and betrayal of ali.

            Hajj is when they go to mecca to the kabaa. All muslims do this. There is no whipping involved.

  13. The fear-mongering about anti-Muslim backlash is simply the liberals’ indirect way of insulting conservatives. They desperately want us to be 1950s-vintage Klansmen. That way, they can feel superior to us and ever so heroic for defending our innocent Muslim “victims.” Also, the worst thing a liberal can imagine is Americans uniting against a common enemy. To them, that equates to fascism – as does any sort of patriotism that doesn’t involve criticizing ones own country. They try to prevent a united front by framing conservatives, Christians and Republicans as the “real” enemies – forces far more dangerous to our liberties than any external threat. This has been their constant refrain since 9/11. Judging by some of the blogs I read, it’s worked.

    1. Well, I almost agree with this comment. But how do you reconcile this with the DHS report that claimed that domestic right-wing terrorists are a big threat to our country? Was that report not commissioned and finished under George W. Bush? Or is he a liberal?

      1. There are willing terrorist groups within the CONUS, yes. Every administration for decades has known this.

        Janet Napolitano–a woman who rose to Bill Clinton’s notice with her farcical prosecution of Viper Militia in 1996 Arizona during a time when Bill Clinton himself was fanning flames of resentment following OKCBOMB–has made a lot of hay over such ‘right wing’ groups in the US. It is as insulting as it is unsurprising to me that she surfed that wave right into the Arizona Governor’s mansion and on into the Obama White House as the ‘hard on terror’ head of DHS.

        That she now circulates content from the SPLC and ADL and other such garbage interest groups is disgustingly convenient and should speak volumes about her viewpoint. Such a DHS report as you mention serves her interests well, as it helps her stoke the fire under the only thing she knows how to cook: Bullshit.

        1. Oh, I agree that Napolitano is full of shit and that the report helped stoke her fire. No questions there. My point is that said report highlights the differences (or lack of them) that we see in between the ‘right’ and ‘left’ when it comes to politics. Imaginary lines drawn and perpetuated by the ‘higher ups’ do nothing to further our country.

      2. Nope. That sad piece of shit (and you would know this if you had actually read it) was rushed out (obviously) after the administration change.

        1. Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me! I had heard some nonsense that it was actually written during the GWB administration, but now I know from an expert in bullshit (yourself) that I’m wrong.

      3. True, but in general since the height of the militia movement in the early to mid 90s, liberals have been using “domestic terrorism” (i.e., terrorist acts committed by white, Christian, and/or right-wing Americans) to distract us from discussing terrorist acts committed by members of designated victim groups (i.e., anybody other than white, Christian and/or right-wing Americans).

        1. Bingo, Bugs.Timothy Mcvie hated what his government was doing in the way of policy disagreements, he plotted and actively took part in the murder of well over hundred americans, including some children. Hasan hated what his government was doing – and from what we can surmise, he was plotting and actively took part in the murder of more than a dozen people. I get the sense that some people think it is bad to point out that soldiers as opposed to civilians were killed, kind of like a mindset of “well they signed up to be soldiers, they knew the risk”, and that it is discriminatory to point out that a man of middle-eastern descent committed an act of terror.

          I think the PC mindset has taken on the quality of mass hypnosis to some degree, nowadays.

    2. Maybe much older? Even before FDR rounded up every Japanese person on the West Coast and imprisoned them in the 1940s.

      FDR wasn’t exactly a conservative either, was he.

      1. Shhh! You can’t use common sense on this thread!

  14. Mo, you I posted this above, but I think it got lost in the infintely long thread.

    You assert that the murderer of George Tiller is a terrorist but not Maj. Hasan. You say that because Maj. Hasan attacked soldiers, namely people that are directly guilty in his mind of atrocities (as opposed to enablers who are the mere supporters of the wars), it is not terrorism because he didnt target civilians.

    Under such logic, it would seem to me that the murderer of Dr. Tiller was NOT terrorism either. Tiller was an abortion doctor, and as such, was directly guilty of the offenses that his murderer perceived. He (Scott Roeder, the man that murdered Dr. Tiller) would only be a “terrorist” under your definition if he had killed people demonstrating in support of abortion rights (enablers) instead of an actual abortionist (the moral equivalent of a soldier in the perceived struggle). Dr. Tiller was “guilty” in the same way members of the armed forces are “guilty.”

    1. forgive the double post. I noticed that you did respond above but I had already posted this. I still think the point is salient, though.

      1. The perspective Mo comes from is that terrorism means the intentional killing of non-combatants to further a political goal.

        In other words, terrorism is an act of war enacted on civilians (which is contrary to international law) not Islam + murder. Sinn Fein blowing up an Anglican priest’s car (assuming he wasn’t actively engaging in hostilities) is terrorism, whereas Sinn Fein blowing up a British general’s car isn’t terrorism.

        Because soldiers are combatants under international law, the claim of terrorism really doesn’t apply in the Ft Hood case.

        1. Incorrect. Soldiers killing other soldiers OF THEIR OWN ARMY are not regarded as “combatants.” It’s an internal matter having nothing to do with international law. The soldier’s country decides his legal status. Hemay be designated a traitor, a mutineer, a murderer – or maybe even a “domestic terrorist.”

  15. I alone got on record declaring the post-9/11 backlash to be a media panic before that sad week was even over. (For reasons unknown, ojr.org redated the thing to April 2002, but you can see from the context it was written a few days after the attacks.) I also named Leona Helmsley as the prime suspect in the 9/11 attacks, and the FBI still refuses to examine my evidence.

    1. Yet another feather in your cap of ROCK, TC!

  16. It’s so tiring hearing how we must hold ourselves back and not retaliate against Muslims as if we were thinking of doing such in the first place.

    The only case of anything that could be considered retaliation occurred directly after 911 in my hometown of Phoenix, AZ. Some ding-dong murdered a man who he allegedly thought was a Muslim because he was wearing a headwrap. Phoenix has no shortage of imbeciles, believe me, it does not. This individual is not a representation of anything except a tiny minority among the mentally challenged minority.

    It’s the harm done by these imbeciles in media and the government that irritates me. So they have no idea who the American people are and have no confidence in them. Fine, that’s understood.

    The reason I say this is because just following the attack I went into the tobacco store I’d patronized for over a decade, these are friends of mine who own it, and they were trembling. They are Iranians. And they are good people, they help make the neighborhood worth something. They are patriotic and committed capitalists, and their store has great prices. I looked my friend the family patriarch in the eyes and asked “Something wrong?” He lifted his hand holding a loaded .44 magnum from behind the counter and set it down in front of me.

    My friend didn’t know he could trust me, I was personally hurt by that. We had spent many hours over the years sitting at the store table drinking these little tiny cups of coffee, smoking cigarettes, and talking about everything. Smart people, a real pleasure to shoot the breeze with.

    Not that it would make any difference, but, they were not exactally Muslim-Muslims, it’s a tobacco store, but they sell everything from porno magazines to booze.

    Concerned, I stayed and calmed them down. As we talked the reason they were terrified came out. Apparently the warnings to not attack Muslims had them thinking people wanted to attack them. A perfectly reasonable assumption, it’s not difficult to understand why they would’ve gotten the wrong impression, given the frequency and volume of the misinformation, why wouldn’t they have.

    Now I realize Libs are imbeciles, they hate America, and have no confidence in Americans whatsoever, they can’t change any of that, but, they can do this:

    QUIT SCARING THESE PEOPLE FOR NO DAMN GOOD REASON THEY’VE DONE NOTHING TO YOU SO LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE!!

    A Chinese philosopher once said “We can not know the outcome of our actions.”

    A few weeks later I was buying tobacco and my friend has a huge gold cross necklace, he’s all excited, calls his sons from the back, they all have them. They were so pleased I didn’t want to tell them it wasn’t necessary. The whole family had converted to Christianity, dunked in water and the works. In a way I suppose it’s a little funny, hard to say who Libs hate most, they seem hate pretty much everyone, but from what I’ve seen quite a few certainly hate Christians more than Muslims, well, they lost seven Muslims and gained seven Christians on that one.

    Oh well, they aren’t really Christian-Christians, they still sell smutty magazines and booze.

    By the way, good point concerning the interpreters, Mr. Moynihan, those guys have taken and are taking incredible risk working with our military. For them they are more than targets in general, they are targets for who they are, considerably more dangerous.

    1. An excellent, excellent comment. Thank you.

    2. Thank you! That was the first long post here that was not a “word wall.”

      One minor thing:
      Some ding-dong murdered a man who he allegedly thought was a Muslim because he was wearing a headwrap tea towel.

      FTFY!

  17. is there a religion that lets you off the hook for killing liberals? cause i’m in!

    1. It’s called manhood. You should try it sometime.

      1. That was bad, in a cool way 😉

      2. i guess that was extreme, sorry, but how am i supposed to respect the life of a socialist? they’re trying to take our manhood away! most real americans are totally reasonable, but we’re being ruled by insane politically correct communists, and somethings got to give.

        1. If you fear socialist taking your manhood away you never had any to start with.

          Oh yeah, when that “something” gives you could always go on a shooting spree, or blow up a federal building. Really show them socialist women and children that you are all man.

        2. “they’re trying to take our manhood away!”

          THUR TEKKIN ARE JOBS!

  18. How about ‘anti-American jihadist?’

  19. ‘Traitor’ probably works, too.

    1. I prefer traitor rat bastard and Mo seconded.

  20. Clarification; “kafir” is unbeliever. Kaffir is a slang term for black people used in South Africa. It’s small, but given that it’s the South African equivalent of the n-word, it’s not a mistake you want to make.

    1. TERRIST!!!

    2. Actually, when I read that sentence in the post it sent my Pedant-O-Meter to eleven.

  21. I find this debate over what makes a terrorist somewhat incoherent.

    It’s obviously true that radical Islam formed at least some part of the man’s motivation, and I think it’s silly to suggest that extreme beliefs don’t make a man somewhat more likely to “lose it”.

    Perhaps unstable people are attracted to extreme beliefs, and perhaps Osama and all the rest fit in this category too.

    Yet, I don’t think you can negate the possibility that a radical ideology can suck in adherents, and turn them into unstable lunatics, who subsequently “lose it” and become suicide bombers.

    There aren’t clear dividing lines between the sane and the insane, and between normal stable people who just happen to believe in a suicide death cult, and crazy people who just happen not to have been inducted into a cult yet.

    The terrorist vs. freedom fighter argument is equally stupid. How about just admitting that Muslims tend to be significantly more likely to commit acts of mass murder, and that it has something to do with a particular radical ideology.

    It’s not like ideas have no relationship to human behavior.

    1. Hazel, maybe you need to read Amy Alkon a little. It isn’t really that Muslims are more prone to mass murder. There are plenty of casual Muslims who are like “Christmas Christians” and both are very common in the West, probably the most common.

      The “cause” ideologists, similar to the violent IRA terrorists of old are the ones to worry about. Not the drunk green wearing St. Patric’s day getting arrested in Boston ones.

      1. Speaking of “cause” ideologists, every time I see some lib wearing a Kaffiyeh, I want to choke her (in most cases) with the damn thing…

        1. So I am not the only one? Thank you!

        2. I don’t wear a kaffiyeh, but I do wear a shemagh when I’m out camping in the desert. A very functional and effective item.

        3. Hmmm…funny…being a libertarian, I pretty much let people wear whatever they want.

          I went to a Antiques Fair in Georgia and came across quite a few Nazi memorabilia stands, but even though I am Jewish, I would not dream of getting offended by someone else’s freedom of expression.

          I think the real Nazis aren’t necessarily the one who collect WWII stuff, but the people like Joe H who gets the urge to murder a woman for showing political dissent.

      2. Of course. But it happens that radical Islam is producing lots more “cause” ideologists than any other ideological fringe group in any other culture at the moment.

      3. Hi Suki!

        I had no idea any one else here read Amy Alkon. I interviewed her on my podcast a few months ago.

        It’s up on http://www.thebigcigarette.com

        (Episode 28)

        -Fat Steve

    2. Hazel, I allot myself five minutes of Ed Schultz’s radio show per day (after which I am tempted to steer my work vehicle into oncoming traffic), and a while back he and one of his fellow booger-consuming compatriots viewed the recent actions of Michelle Bachman as “an act of terrorism”.

      Of course, were it Code Pink doing the protesting… well, we know they get a pass.

      1. “Of course, were it Code Pink doing the protesting… well, we know they get a pass.

        Not always. A couple of years ago during the run up to the elections, our local shitbird representative Harry Mitchell(D-AZ) was attending an event sponsored by an Arizona chapter of the Democrat Party while security personnel ejected Code Pink people from the venue for wearing antiwar t-shirts. Code Pink hadn’t even said a word. Libertarian and other antiwar activists were also ejected.

        The whole thing was broadcast live on the air on Charles Goyette’s radio program here in Phoenix through the cell phone of a listener who was present.

        A Democrat, Harry Mitchell of Arizona’s 5th District, did nothing while the Democrat Party thugs kicked out Democrat antiwar protesters during a general atmosphere of Democratic antiwar protest against the ‘Republican’ war in Iraq.

        Smell the freedom.

  22. Good stuff from Mr. Moynihan.

  23. briareus|11.11.09 @ 6:38PM| …”muslim AMERICANS”

    “Muslim” is not a race, briareus. Anyone can convert to the religion known as Islam, but such conversion doesn’t turn anyone into another skin hue.

    1. The racist epitaph is not limited to race, silly guy.

      1. Sorry, but it just doesn’t fly with me to equate the name of a religion to skin tone. My parents went to a Baptist church when I was younger – did that make them Baptist-Americans?

        Besides, the [insert something]-American label is beyond horseshit.

        1. I didn’t equate a religion to a skin tone.

          If I say christian Americans, I am talking about Americans who are christian. It is NOT beyond horseshit to use another word with American. What if one is talking about American males? What if someone is talking about American veterans? Can one not say veteran Americans? After all, I didn’t commit that cardinal sin of creating those fictional HYPHENATED AMERIKANS we both seem to despise.

          But thanks for caring.

  24. Who was that dumbshit that compared the Ft. Hood killer – er, ALLEGED killer – to McVeigh and the Columbine kids?

    And why isn’t “the Unabomber” ever used as a terrorist reference model by liberal commentators?

    Wait, we know the answer to the last question. (Most of us do, anyway.)

  25. Hazel Meade answer me this: are the Catholics of Northern Ireland (IRA variety)freedom fighters or terrorists? Please explain your reasoning…good luck

    1. Who cares?

      How about this: Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland are somewhat more likely to commit terrorist acts, because of a widespread belief among some Irish Catholics that Northern Ireland should rightfully be a part of a unified Irish state.

      Similarly, Muslims are somewhat more likely to commit terrorist acts because of a widespread radical version of Islam that teaches them that killing infidels is a Muslim duty.

      Does we really need to identify them “terrorists” or “freedom fighters” to recognize the obvious like between what they THINK and what they DO?

  26. kaffir originally meant heathen but doesn’t it basically mean “nigger” now?

    1. there was something on Penn & Teller Bullshit about how Gandhi hated blacks and called them that.

  27. Offtopic, but does anyo0ne wonder how he became a psychiatrist?

    1. Most ‘mental health’ people are completely fucked up.

      They go into the profession to meet people who might possibly be more fucked up than they are and make them feel better in comparison.

    2. The difference between a psychiatrist and his patients is who has the keys to the office.

  28. But if Muslims that embrace violence against non-Muslims are a tiny minority, it is time to acknowledge that attacks on Muslims by non-Muslims in the United States are perpetrated by an even tinier minority.

    A more fit comparison would be between non-Muslims reactions to Muslims post-9/11, and Muslim reactions against non-Muslims post-Danish cartoons.

  29. Perhaps the overblown media coverage of anti-whatever “backlashes” contribute to the actual restraint we see in the US? I doubt it, but there are worse things for the media to harp on than the evils of bigotry, real or imagined.

  30. I never get tired of harping on imaginary bigotry, warning people not to do things they weren’t going to do anyway, making them feel guilty about things they haven’t even thought about doing. Especially in the wake of an event that killed or seriously injured dozens of people.

  31. This reaction strikes me as largely a nice way for (largely liberal) elites to feel good about themselves. If the normal is a brutish thug who wants to “get them ragheads”, then the elite stands out for its tolerance.

  32. So the dust has settled.
    Hasan was a terrorist, albeit acting alone, motivated by the vile filth of the Mohammedan Manifesto, and supported silently by the majority of Mohammedans in both the US and around the world.

  33. If this had been a white guy screaming “Kill for Jesus!” instead of a brown guy screaming “All?hu Akbar!”, I suspect we’d be hearing more analysis of his motivations from brain-dead cunts like Chris Matthews.

    1. With the obligatory “Timothy McVeigh” reference, of course. Cunts like Chris Matthews love to toss that one into the salad.

  34. I don’t see why it’s so crazy to argue that people who voluntarily associate with nut-bars should not be allowed in the military. To me, I’m sorry, but that includes all Muslims.

    At a basic level, Christianity teaches that all people are deserving of respect and should be treated well. At the same basic level, Islam teaches that Muslims are superior and the only people worthy of consideration.

    In my opinion, that makes them unfit to serve in the military in any capacity.

    1. “At a basic level, Christianity teaches that all people are deserving of respect and should be treated well.”

      Deu 13:12-18 – If you hear it said about one of the towns that the LORD your God is giving you to live in, that scoundrels from among you have gone out and led the inhabitants of the town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods,” whom you have not known, then you shall inquire and make a thorough investigation. If the charge is established that such an abhorrent thing has been done among you, you shall put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, utterly destroying it and everything in it – even putting the livestock to the sword. All of its spoil you shall gather into its public square; then burn the town and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It shall remain a perpetual ruin, never to be rebuilt.

      “At a basic level, Christianity teaches that all people are deserving of respect and should be treated well.”

      Yeah hmkay NO.

      1. I can’t believe you’re making me defend christians:

        Deuteronomy is in the Old Testament. The whole point of Jesus (and by extension, christianity) was to usurp those laws and principles.

        1. “The whole point of Jesus (and by extension, christianity) was to usurp those laws and principles.”

          Good point. So let’s let Jesus do the talking:

          Matthew 10:34-37 – Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

          Nice. How respectful of others.

        2. Hmm, I’m not sure, maybe I should let Jesus say a bit more just to be sure:

          Luke 12:51-53 – Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

        3. So I guess at the very least, Matthew and Luke, in their own words, both recall Jesus saying basically the same thing, and it doesn’t read much differently to me than the ‘hate filled’ passages that people like to quote from the “holy” books of other religions.

          Now, I do believe that some of Jesus’ words (more correctly, those attributed to him) are some of the best I’ve read. But to say that a Muslim should not serve where a Christian can because one is somehow ‘better’ than the other is a sort of ethnocentric bunk.

          I think it all comes back to the individual. Are you the kind of person who is equipped to adapt to a military lifestyle? If yes, join if you want. If not, then don’t. But an arbitrary bar based on a whichever flavor imaginary being you choose to fear? Farcical.

          Giggity.

          1. I guess this proves the recently Reason-ed adage: You can’t spell Messiah without the Me.

          2. That whole cultural narrative about the god of the jews being cruel and wrathful and the god of jesus like, ‘upgraded’ to nice happy god who will give you cupcakes and smiles is such utter dishonest bullshit that it would be funny if it wasn’t so ubiquitous.

            People need to read revelations and quit kidding themselves. God tortures and kills millions, possibly billions of people in this prophesied anti roman fantasyland

  35. “creedence”

    Tut; no spellchecker?

  36. “If we are to give creedence to…”

    “Creedence”? It is not a word. The only justifiable use of it is in reference to Creedence Clearwater Revival, a band of the 1960s whose members also didn’t know how to spell credence or were trying to be cute.

  37. “If we are to give creedence to…”

    “Creedence”? It is not a word. The only justifiable use of it is in reference to Creedence Clearwater Revival, a band of the 1960s whose members also didn’t know how to spell credence or were trying to be cute.

  38. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on.

  39. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on.

  40. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.