Islam

Did Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Reason Interview Sink Her at Brandeis?

|

courtesy The Daily Beast

Hat tip: Eric Dondero of Libertarian Republican

After announcing that it would honor author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali with an honorary doctorate, Brandeis University has withdrawn its offer, partly due to statements she made during a 2007 Reason interview

Born in Somalia and raised in Kenya, Hirsi Ali fled to the Netherlands and became an outspoken critic of the treatment of women under Islamic law. She wrote the screenplay for the 2004 short film "Submission" (watch online). The film's director, Theo Van Gogh, was stabbed to death on the streets of Amsterdam by an Islamic fanatic and Hirsi Ali ultimately fled Holland for the United States.

Various student and faculty groups at Brandeis protested and a petition posted at Change.org quoted from Rogier van Bakel's 2007 Reason interview with Hirsi Ali. The petition, which garnered 6,802 signatures as of this morning, argued that Hirsi Ali engages in "hate speech" and as such is not worthy of an honorary doctorate.

Rogier van Bakel quotes her as follows: "Jews should be proselytizing about a God that you can quarrel with. Catholics should be proselytizing about a God who is love….Those are lovely concepts of God. They can't compare to the fire-breathing Allah who inspires jihadism and totalitarianism." Van Bakel notes religions' ability to bring about change for good: "Do you think Islam could bring about similar social and political changes?" Ms. Hirsi Ali responds, "Only if Islam is defeated." Van Bakel asks, "Don't you mean defeating radical Islam?" To that she responds, "No. Islam, period." (Reason, 11-07)

How can an Administration of a University that prides itself on social justice and acceptance of all make a decision that targets and disrespects it's own students? This is hurtful to the Muslim students and the Brandeis community who stand for social justice.

Read the petition here.

Brandeis officials have issued a statement that at best shows themselves to be completely ignorant of her work, especially her best-selling autobiography, InfidelThey claim:

She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women's rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world. That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University's core values.  For all concerned, we regret that we were not aware of these statements earlier.

courtesy Wikipedia

Yeah, whatevs. Try learning about this brand-new resource called the Interweb. You can download a "browser" for it for free from a company called Mozilla. Obviously, a university is fully within its rights to give awards or not to whomever it chooses, just as Mozilla is free to promote or not whomever it wants to CEO. And the Heritage Foundation is free to quickly accept the resignation of policy scholars who are attacked in the liberal media. As I wrote about the Brendan Eich affair, this sort of controversy is only going to become more common as technology empowers more actors to create pressure groups and as our economic and social interactions become more and more symbolic. That's a mixed bag, for sure, but just like Internet piracy, it ain't going away any time soon.

I don't agree with Hirsi Ali's unqualified condemnation of Islam—in the interview with van Bakel, she says "there is no moderate Islam" and calls for banning free speech about the religion—and I'm not surprised that Brandeis caved at the first sign of trouble.

There is something particularly appalling about an institution that is predicated upon the idea of free and open discourse throwing in the towel so quickly. Either the people running the school there are simply total ignoramuses or they are cowards who refuse to defend their choice. Of course, they could be both. In any case, the reputation of the school should suffer, both as a place where ideas can discussed and where smart people congregate. Who wants to be the first person to turn up far more dubious recipients of Brandeis honorary degrees?

Hirsi Ali runs a foundation dedicated to the proposition that "women everywhere, of all cultures, merit access to education and basic human rights." It focuses especially on the issues of female genital mutilation and refugee status in the West of women fleeing the worst sort of patriarchal political and social situations. Read more about it here. One of the great achievements of Infidel, in my opinion, is its description of the brutal reality of female circumcision and the ways in which the practice is often supported by women who have been subjected to it. Infidel is a profound contribution to feminist and libertarian discourse precisely to the extent that it forces all of us in the "tolerant" West to check out assumptions about the universality of our ideas regarding pluralism and the possibility of peaceful coexistence.

And check out Reason's interview with Hirsi Ali, which is relentlessly interesting and provocative. Here's a snippet:

Reason: George Bush, not the most conciliatory person in the world, has said on plenty of occasions that we are not at war with Islam.

Hirsi Ali: If the most powerful man in the West talks like that, then, without intending to, he's making radical Muslims think they've already won. There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passive, who don't all follow the rules of Islam, but there's really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There's nothing moderate about it.

Reason: So when even a hard-line critic of Islam such as Daniel Pipes says, "Radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution," he's wrong?

Hirsi Ali: He's wrong. Sorry about that.

Whole thing here.

Reason TV presents "Tax Day is Coming: Game of Thrones Edition":

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.

253 responses to “Did Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Reason Interview Sink Her at Brandeis?

  1. Typo alert: Born in Somali. Somalia.

    1. Somalia!!! Donderooooooo!!!

      1. ha ha ha. YES

        donderooooooo!

        1. First thing I thought when I saw the article. Let me join in the happy chorus:

          Donderooooooooooo!!!!!!

          1. Old times. Wow.

          2. Also “it’s own students”. Pet peeve of mine.

      2. Dammit, RBS, I was just pretending that part wasn’t there.

  2. “There is something particularly appalling about an institution that is predicated upon the idea of free and open discourse throwing in the towel so quickly.”

    That’s the problem, Gillespie, you bought into the branding.

    1. No kidding. I thought his comment, Either the people running the school there are simply total ignoramuses or they are cowards who refuse to defend their choice was interesting as well. There are a number of other choices besides those two as to what was going on.

      1. And it is also possible that they are both cowards and ignoramuses and a lot of other things, none of them good.

        1. Actually, the really scary thing is that they honestly believe they are defenders or freedom of speech and freedom of expression and that they further believe making this decision is consistent with both of those positions.

          1. The people who do the greatest evil always think of themselves as doing good. If they realized how evil they were, they would stop being evil.

            That is the genius of the concept of original sin that few seem to understand. It doesn’t mean that everyone is born trying to be evil. It means people are so ignorant and prone to error that even, and really especially, when they try to do good they end up being evil. They just can’t help themselves.

            1. In the school’s defense, she did call for an end to the First Amendment as it applies to Muslims. Shouldn’t that be a deal-breaker?

              1. It should be but, as I read their comments (& I may be wrong here), they withdrew the offer because of her criticism of Islam not specifically because of her comments on the FA.

                And giving honorary degrees to Pelosi (2003), Kweisi Mfume (2004), Ed Markey (2005), & Tony Kushner (2006) would, at the least, argue for inconsistency.

                1. Oh, I am sure they’re playing this game for lefty street cred. I was just noting that there are reasons, legitimate ones, for disqualifying her.

              2. In the school’s defense, she did call for an end to the First Amendment as it applies to Muslims. Shouldn’t that be a deal-breaker?

                Not at all. I don’t support that position, but that doesn’t mean that she should be silenced and ostracized.

                Especially by a university.

                C’mon, these are university administrators. They don’t give a shit about the First Amendment. They have been silencing uncomfortable speech for years.

                Its kinda hard to say you’re upholding the First Amendment by silencing anybody.

                1. I hear you, RC, but they’re not silencing her. They’re just not going to confer an honorary degree upon her.

                  I guess I worded my original comment poorly. I meant to say that she shouldn’t be honored because she doesn’t want the 1A to apply…Brandeis’ reasons notwithstanding.

                  1. I hear you, RC, but they’re not silencing her. They’re just not going to confer an honorary degree upon her.

                    People who get honorary degrees generally give a speech as part of the award. I still say they have silenced her on their campus.

                    1. I guess you’re right in that respect…to a degree. But I don’t think refusal to give an audience is the same as a denial of the right to speak.

                      To-may-to
                      To-mah-to

                      Either way, they’re disqualifying her for the wrong reasons, IMO.

                    2. People who get honorary degrees generally give a speech as part of the award. I still say they have silenced her on their campus.

                      Go home, you’re drunk.

                2. RC, I appreciate that you enjoy every opportunity that allows you to point out progressive hypocrisy, but don’t you think you all have whined about it enough? One person was asked to resign for public relations purposes. Another didn’t get an honorary degree.

                  It sucks. And you’re right – it’s unfair and unjust to them. But somehow you guys lose your shit when someone talks about unfairness or injustice for the thousands every year who lose employment or housing over the same issues – only they’re on the wrong side for you guys.

                  1. Butthurt progressive is butthurt. Fuck off.

          2. They believe they are champions of Right Thinking, which trumps all.

            The days of free speech, freedom of action, and of conscience being a Western ideal are over. Sadly, the wielders of academic approval value a completely different set of “rights” than what was contemplated by the pioneers of human liberty.

        2. The rioter’s veto is real, and if there’s one thing Islam is good at, it’s rioting.

  3. Of course, if she had said the same thing about Christianity, it would be thumbs up. Islam is magic, tho.

    1. As the Saudis say, Islam is the Perfect Religion. All you do is submit, follow the Koran and Sharia without critical thinking, and you’re on a rocket ride to paradise.

    2. Yep. There are even guys right here in the Reason commentariat who really get their panties in a twist if you’re too mean regarding the “Religion of Peace”.

      1. Well as long as you attack other religions as well then you’re probably ok.

        Because they all know as a matter of absolute faith, that all cultures are completely equal. In a way they’re a bit like the global warming crowd.

    3. It wouldn’t be thumbs-up, it would probably just be ignored / not even brought to their attention.

  4. I agree with her on Islam. There are moderate Muslims who aren’t particularly devote, but there is just no way to spin the words in the Koran and Hadith to be anything except radical.

    1. I think a better term would be “lay Mulsims” or Muslims in name only.

      Just like there are many Christians that call themselves Christians because their parents, and grandparents were Christians, and they still celebrate Easter and Christmas, but they don’t particularly read the bible, nor follow many of it’s teachings.

      I believe the same is likely true of Islam as well.

      1. Sometimes I call myself Catholic because of my Italian heritage.

    2. Well, that applies to the Old Testament too.

      1. Only to a point. Even the most violent OT passages were very specific about the target of violence or war. There are no blanket statements of violence against non-believers.

        1. Um, the Israelites committed genocide per God’s command.

        2. Um, Deuteronomy 20, 13-20 calls for them to basically commit genocide against the non-believers, even if they weren’t even their neighbors.

          1. Um, Deuteronomy 20, 13-20 calls for them to basically commit genocide against the non-believers, even if they weren’t even their neighbors.

            Wrong. He said treat the far-away cities/nations differently (less harshly) than the lands they would be taking over.

            If you see it as splitting hairs, so be it. But, it wasn’t “genocide against the non-believers, even if they weren’t even their neighbors”.

            Besides, let’s not forget that this was about establishing a nation for descendants of Issac and Jacob, not an ongoing “kill the infidels” order.

            1. You know who else thought genocide was OK as long as it was to establish the land for their nation?

              1. King Friday XIII?

              2. Well, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say they weren’t the Creator of all life, and didn’t have a moral right to control when life begins and ends

                1. I created my son’s life and I don’t have the moral right to control when that begins or ends.

                  You’re just making shit up.

                  1. I created my son’s life and I don’t have the moral right to control when that begins or ends.

                    So….you didn’t decide when he was conceived???

                    ‘Cause it’s kinda sounding like your’re trying to have it both ways with that rebuttal.

                2. Well, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say they weren’t the Creator of all life, and didn’t have a moral right to control when life begins and ends

                  Good point. We must do as Allah commands!

                  1. I like how he thinks that “God exists and we have to do what Soros’ Wank-noose interprets to be God’s commands” is a valid exercise in argumentation.

                    1. WOW!!! Talk about a failure to comprehend. You were saying something about “PLEASE LEARN TO READ” and “cogent and coherent thought”…

                      Where did I ever say you had to do anything?

                    2. This has to be Shreeky. What, with the Kocktopus link and all…

                  2. Eh, it’s your choice.

            2. Let’s take a look, shall we:

              13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

              14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

              15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

              16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

              17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:

              18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.

              19 When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege:

              20 Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.

              1. I don’t see anything about genocide. In fact, in verse 14 they are pretty much specifically commanded to spare the women and children.

                The reference to destroy them in verse 17 I read as meaning you shall destroy them as nations.

                This is pretty much straightforward pre-technology conquest. If anything, it urges restraint – don’t destroy the infrastructure, don’t kill the women and children.

                  1. Other passages seem to call for extermination, sure.

                    There is some ambiguity even in Deuteronomy. Verse 16, for example. The worst interpretation is that God commanded the Israelites to exterminate everyone who was occupying their land, but not, as noted, that they should wage war until the entire world was Jewish. Which is pretty much the Koran requires.

                    One wonders about interpretation, of course.

                1. I don’t see anything about genocide. In fact, in verse 14 they are pretty much specifically commanded to spare the women and children.

                  Your matriarchal and filiarchal views have been noted, RC Dean! I’m sure all the dead men of those cities are happy that their mass murders aren’t considered genocide. 😛

                  1. their mass murders aren’t considered genocide.

                    Naturally, genocide has lots of definitions, but I go with the extermination one. Saving the women and children isn’t extermination.

                    1. Then how are they gonna reproduce? Especially if the Jooz come back every few years and repeat the practice?

                      I’d liken it to a time-release genocide. The Extra Strength Tylenol of genocide, if you will.

              2. Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat

                Damn. What happened to the meat trees? The best things always go extinct.

                1. They used to be common, and legend says they can still be found in eastern Turkey. Others claim they Vatican has them all under lock and key beneath St Peter’s.

          2. 13. And when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword;

            14. but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

            Sounds like standard operating procedure for the warfare of the day; kill the men, take the women and children as servants, split up the cattle and material spoils for yourselves.

            As for warfare within the promised land and the command for total destruction, the concern was

            that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods, and so ye sin against the LORD your God.

            Abiding corrupt people to live among you will eventually lead to your own corruption (which, on a reading of the Bible, turned out to be a legit concern, as the Jews repeatedly turned to idolatry)

            1. Abiding corrupt people to live among you will eventually lead to your own corruption

              And yet the idea of being intolerant of intolerance still eludes you?

              1. Well, different civilizations, with different goals, now.

                It seems pretty clear that Israel (at its establishment) and the U.S. have two very different…what, goals(?) Israel was to be a nation of “God’s chosen people”, where the stated ideas for the U.S. dealt with plurality and openness to just about anyone.

                1. Well, yeah. I suppose that I kind of missed the point.

              2. And yet the idea of being intolerant of intolerance still eludes you?

                Yes brave Susan, go forth and civilize the poor Jew heathen. Teach him that Jew savagery will not be tolerated by “right-thinking” people.

                  1. I’m sure the Anti-Defamation League and the Catholic League found that video incredibly hurtful and offensive.

                    I thought it was funny. But then, I am a thoughtcriminal.

        3. Honestly, how anyone can spend any time at all arguing the fine points of this nonsense is beyond me. “Well, God said to kill and rape only CErtAIN twons and villages, not every town and village, so it’s OK.” What?

    3. I do like her calling it passive rather than moderate Islam, but I’m not sure there’s much of a difference. Couldn’t moderate Jews/Christians be considered passive? I know Christians get the whole “Jesus overrides the old rules” excuse, but Jews are still bound by everything in the Torah, right? The same reasons moderate Jews give for ignoring the could be applied by “moderate Muslims,” couldn’t they?

    4. Same is true for the Old Testament, of course.

  5. “I don’t agree with Hirsi Ali’s unqualified condemnation of Islam”

    Of course not because it goes against the West’s recent fetish for multiculturalism, and complicates a deeply held faith by many here in the virtues of completely uncontrolled immigration, whether the new arrivals decide to assimilate into the culture or not.

      1. hey I ran across a 14 year old article about poppies in Columbus. guess who wrote it?

        1. Some crazy idealistic dude probably long gone — would be my guess.

    1. True enough. They may talk a good game about liberty, but the hill they always choose to die on is equality.

      1. What?

        The arguments for open immigration have everything to do with liberty and nothing to do with equality (besides equality under the law which is essential to liberty).

        1. equality under the law which is essential to liberty

          It is? I’d sure like to hear the argument supporting that!

          1. See the very first Enlightenment figures to develop classical liberalism / libertarianism? Liberty was pretty much defined as equality under the law. From the Levellers to Locke to Jefferson.

            It’s… kind of a big deal in libertarian theory.

            1. Believe me, I’m very aware that libertarians consider it true by definition. But that’s hardly a support of the position.

              As to enlisting early classical liberals as supporters, that’s ridiculous. “All men are created equal” is not equivalent to “all men are equal under the law”. The concept wasn’t recognized in US law until the 14th Amendment, long after Jefferson, et al, we’re long dead. Even the Constitution, as originally ratified, recognizes law applicable to different classes of people.

              1. I wasn’t offering an argument for it; I was giving you sources of such arguments. Hayek is a more modern example of someone emphasizing legal equality’s connection with liberty, probably because most other libertarians take it as an uncontroversial position. An argument for the NAP is usually an argument for legal equality, even if the concept is not explicitly named.

                I don’t much care what the Constitution or US law said or says today.

              2. I think it is obvious that “all men are created equal” is not meant in the material sense. That is clearly not the case nor can it ever be the case. The point is that all people are equally moral agents with the same natural rights. If you think that Jefferson was trying to create some sort of egalitarian society where everyone is materially equal, you are a retard.

                And if you can’t see how equality under law is necessary to liberty, I don’t know what to say. Legal privilege will always create artificial classes who are not free to act in certain ways.

    2. Yeah, those damn Italians will never assimilate.

      1. And don’t get me started about the Irish.

        1. We need to protect our godly country from those fucking Catholic hordes. Some of the heathens even dare to drink beer on Sundays!

        2. And don’t get me started about the Irish.

          Boston is all the argument you need to prove unlimited Irish immigration was a terrible idea.

  6. “After announcing that it would honor author and activist Ayaan Hirsi
    Ali with an honorary doctorate….”

    Would it have come with an honorarium?

  7. Here’s where I think she’s right and wrong: the doctrines of Islam are heinous, but so are the doctrines of Christianity and Judaism. You have to look at the faiths as practiced…but Islam fails that test too.

    1. Aye. This.

    2. Yes three religions founded by completely different people, many centuries apart are exactly 100% equal. Great critical thinking skills there.

      This is exactly how multiculturalism has poisoned thinking. One cannot state that one group, however one defines it, is in any way better, or worse then another.

      So you cannot criticize Islam without first attacking Christianity, and Judaism too, because of some fear that someone somewhere, might think you’re a racist.

      1. You have to look at the faiths as practiced…but Islam fails that test too.

      2. Yeah, Leviticus is a myth invented by multiculturalism.

        1. Re: kbolino,

          You’re talking about the old law of the Hebrews. That’s not doctrine.

          Here is something that comes close to Jewish doctrine:

          http://www.jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm

          Here’s a link to what may be considered universal Christian doctrine:

          http://www.equip.org/bible_ans…..-doctrine/

          1. You’re talking about the old law of the Hebrews. That’s not doctrine

            It is for Jews.

            1. It is for Jews.

              And yet the doctrines are not even practiced in Israel by Hasidics.

              When was the last time a prostitute was stoned to death by Jews again?

              1. And yet the doctrines are not even practiced in Israel by Hasidics.

                That’s the point, yes.

          2. If the Bible.is.the revealed Word.of.God, then.it damn well better be doctrine.

            1. Re: db,

              If the Bible.is.the revealed Word.of.God, then.it damn well better be doctrine.

              kbolino mentioned Leviticus only, not “The Bible.”

          3. Follow my train of logic here and help me to spot the error:

            8. The Written Torah … [was] given to Moses [by G-d]

            So Leviticus (Hebrew name Vayikra), part of the Torah, is the Word of God according to Moses.

            7. … Moses was the greatest of the prophets

            And Moses was a prophet.

            6. The words of the prophets are true

            If Moses said the Torah came from God, then it did.

            9. There will be no other Torah

            So there will be no amendments to Leviticus.

            Hence Leviticus is the true and immutable Word of God.

            Please explain to me how this differs from the Quran in theory. I am well aware that Jews and Muslims are quite different in practice.

      3. Yes three religions founded by completely different people, many centuries apart are exactly 100% equal. Great critical thinking skills there.

        not what I said. Critical reading skills are important too.

        So you cannot criticize Islam without first attacking Christianity, and Judaism too, because of some fear that someone somewhere, might think you’re a racist

        Strike two in the reading department. I never said that and I don’t see a crystal ball on your desk, Kreskin.

        1. “Strike two in the reading department. I never said that and I don’t see a crystal ball on your desk, Kreskin.”

          You’ve never said it, but it’s still true, just admit it.

          1. You’re an idiot and no it’s not true.

      4. Yes three religions founded by completely different people, many centuries apart…

        Non sequitur.

        1. I thought they were all “founded” by the god-person.

    3. That’s a false equivalence. Christian doctrine and Islam are profoundly dissimilar. Judaism is closer in a sense, but has no mandate for conversion, the Jews being God’s people.

      1. I didn’t say they were equivalent. PLEASE LEARN TO READ.

        1. You said they were both the “heinous” which is saying the are equivalent. What you didn’t say is that they were identical.

          PLEASE LEARN WHAT WORDS MEAN BEFORE YOU USE THEM.

          1. they are both heinous, John. did I say they were both equally heinous? No, I didn’t.

            You said they were both the “heinous” which is saying the are equivalent.

            So Idi Amin was heinous, and so was Mao. I guess that means they are equivalent? Logic fail.

            1. Relax fellows, the Tone Police is just flexing his authority.

              Really, Neoliberal, when you can not get along with anyone over and over, maybe it is you, not them. Just a little life advice 😉

            2. Yes I would say that Idi Amin and Mao were equivalent. Mao just happened to take over a bigger country.

              Heinous means heinous. Difference in degrees doesn’t necessarily translate into a difference in kind.

              And if you meant to put in a qualifier, you should have put one in. You said

              the doctrines of Islam are heinous, but so are the doctrines of Christianity and Judaism.

              You wrote it not me. Don’t try to claim we can’t read because we failed to read in a qualifier that you failed to add.

              1. I don’t need a qualifier because I speak English. Do you?

            3. “Heinous” implies something particularly bad. The level of degree involved in superfluous. And yes, there was a great deal of equivalence between Amin and Mao. That the body count was different was more a function of geography than ideology.

              1. you people are looking to fight some battle with me even though I agreed Islam was the greater evil. fuck that.

                1. I see both sides of the argument. I get that you were clearly saying that Islam was the greater evil.

                  I also get that you called the doctrines of Christianity and Judaism equally heinous with the doctrine of Islamism. That is a false dichotomy. They aren’t equally heinous.

                  1. A big difference between Islam and Christianity is that one calls for the death of non-believers and one most certainly does not.

                    I won’t pretend that there weren’t evils done in the name of Christianity, but they weren’t strictly following the teachings of Christ. On the other hand, those killing infidels in the name of Islam are following the Koran.

                    So no, I don’t think Christian doctrine is heinous.

                    1. A big difference between Islam and Christianity is that one calls for the death of non-believers and one most certainly does not.

                      Eh, so one of them gives me an extra 50 years to get my shit together to avoid burning for eternity.

                    2. Is it your position that Christianity rejects the Old Testament, then? Because there’s lots of instructions about what I would consider heinous killing, raping and pillaging in there.

                2. I see both sides of the argument. I get that you were clearly saying that Islam was the greater evil.

                  I also get that you called the doctrines of Christianity and Judaism equally heinous with the doctrine of Islamism. That is a false dichotomy. They aren’t equally heinous.

                3. If you don’t think that Islam is completely evil and Christianity is completely good, then you support terrorists and are a namby-pamby multiculturalist. Duh.

        2. You don’t have to use the word “equivalent” to strike an equivalence. The word “heinous” doesn’t offer much wiggle room in terms of degree.

          1. Idi Amin was heinous, and so was Mao. I guess that means they are equivalent? Logic fail.

          2. Japanese internment: heinous
            The Holocaust: also heinous

            Equivalent? No.

            1. In premise (and doctrine is a premise), absolutely equivalent.

              1. Um Japanese internment was temporary imprisonment of a race of people due to an irrational fear during wartime, while the Holocaust was murder of 12 million people, in an attempt to completely eradicate races of people the Germans thought were “unfit”

                The two are not even remotely equivalent.

                1. The two are not even remotely equivalent.

                  That’s what I said. Jesus fucking christ.

            2. Of course they are not. But if I said

              Sure the holocaust was heinous, but so was the Japanese internment

              How could that be read in any way other than to say the two events were in some way equivalent? If they are not equivalent, why put them in the same sentence? Putting them in the same sentence using the same modifier can only mean I seem them as equivalent. Otherwise, the sentence makes no sense. If the purpose is to contrast the two, I wouldn’t use the same modifier.

              1. The sky is blue and so is my shirt. Does that make them equivalent? No, it means they share one characteristic.
                What the fuck is happening here?

                1. What the fuck is happening here?

                  Certain religions can be critiqued and certain religions cannot. But the parties involved are the inverse of what Brandeis did, so it’s OK.

                  1. Since when is disagreeing mean something can’t be critiqued? Critique all you like, just understand your critique is open for criticism too.

                2. The Rightwing Culture Warriors are getting back up off the mat. Don’t worry, they’re woozy already.

                  1. The Rightwing Culture Warriors are getting back up off the mat. Don’t worry, they’re woozy already.

                    Either that or you are too stupid to even realize you have been hit. And it wasn’t the “right wing culture warriors” whoever they are who turned a discussion of Ali into a discussion of Christianity and Judaism. It was you.

                    There is definitely a culture warrior on this board. The guy who turned the discussion into the culture war? Who could that be?

                    1. I said that Islam was worse than other religions and got hounded for it.

                      And it wasn’t the “right wing culture warriors” whoever they are

                      they’re you, that’s who they are.

                    2. I said that Islam was worse than other religions and got hounded for it.

                      No you didn’t. You said Christianity and Judaism were heinous and are pissed that people corrected you.

                      Sorry, this isn’t the atheist or anyone else’ amen corner. If you want to shoot your mouth off, be ready for people to come at you. Defend your point and stop whining about how all of the culture warriors are being big meanies to you.

                3. “The sky is blue and so is my shirt. Does that make them equivalent?”

                  In terms of color, yes.

                4. “The sky is blue and so is my shirt. Does that make them equivalent?”

                  In terms of color, yes.

                  1. Yes, but there is a lot more to shirts and skies than color. And there is a lot more to religions than whether they have some heinous rules or commandments in their scriptures.

        3. Seems like your writing skills are the common denominator in this.

          1. uhh, more people got what I was saying than didn’t. the theme here is that you idiots with culture war axes to grind don’t bother to read the words in front of you and instead impart all kinds of unwarranted meaning into things despite authorial intent and the plain language in front of your face.

      2. Regardless, this sad attempt to whitewash the bad shit the Christian faith believes is not going to work. You people believe that all sexual thoughts are sins, that it’s right to tear families apart in the name of faith, that nonbelievers are separated from God for eternity based on a scant lifetime on this planet, that masturbation keeps you out of the Kingdom of Heaven…blah blah blah. I could go on, but your faith sucks too.

        1. So you don’t understand Christian doctrine. Got it.

          1. That’s not an argument. Care to refute anything I had to say?

            1. “You people believe that all sexual thoughts are sins,”

              No. Christians (and I am one) believe that committing adultery (sex outside of marriage) in thought is the same as in deed because God examines the heart.

              “that it’s right to tear families apart in the name of faith,”

              You are using vague terminology, here. What does it mean to “tear a family apart”?

              “that nonbelievers are separated from God for eternity based on a scant lifetime on this planet,”

              This is true.

              “that masturbation keeps you out of the Kingdom of Heaven…”

              This is not.

              But rather than dispute, point by point, something your learned on a blog or whatever, I simply assert it is obvious you are not familiar with the doctrines, much less the texts, of any of these religions.

              1. No. Christians (and I am one) believe that committing adultery (sex outside of marriage) in thought is the same as in deed because God examines the heart.

                Right, but that means teenage boys commit adultery every day, and that having a sexual thought about someone other than your partner is a sin even though that happens to every one every day. When you turn something natural and harmless into something that places you at risk of hell, that’s fucking monstrous, I don’t give a shit what kind of half-assed justifications you want to come up with.

                So, despite the fact that you admit I know what I am talking about in #1 and #3, you state it’s “obvious” I don’t know what I am talking about. And you still provide no refutation or evidence that I am wrong about something.

                1. I take it you’re not familiar with the concepts of redemption or salvation.

                  Or, you know, you’re being a fucking troll.

                  1. I’m completely familiar with them. What they say is, “apologize to God for your sexual thoughts.” Well why the fuck should I have to apologize for such a thing?

                    1. Because….you transgressed against His standard…kinda easy concept to grasp, there.

                    2. Or, are you trying to conflate “natural” with “right/correct/morally acceptable”?

                    3. I think sexual thoughts are right and acceptable. Saying they aren’t is like saying urination is not – everyone has to pee at some point, and everyone has sexual thoughts at some point.

                      Whatever crappy form of fundamentalism you’re preaching pack that shit up and take it down the road. We’re full up on crazy here.

                    4. Ahhh…yes, that love of diverse opinions, and the commitment to freedom of conscience. Glad to see it’s strong with you.

                      Really, neither I, nor anyone else (yet) is compelling you to believe the way we do. However, you aren’t right simply because you don’t like what we say countering your crap.

                    5. You’re countering by saying “God exists and therefore He’s right”. That’s not an argument, that’s assuming the argument.

                      I don’t “love” “diverse opinions” that are basically zombified versions of “Goddddddddddd sayyyyyyyyys soooooooooo”, which is all you’ve said here. Unfortunately your God didn’t grant you the ability to form a coherent or cogent thought.

                2. Re: The Tone Police,

                  When you turn something natural and harmless into something that places you at risk of hell, that’s fucking monstrous

                  Really? As heinous as – oh let’s say – imposing Islam by the sword? Dhimmitude? Honor killing? Female vaginal circumcision? Slavery?

                  I’ll take my chances with Christianity. They look much better than if inside an Islamic nation.

                  1. I am familiar that the first two, and maybe the third, is part of Islamic doctrine, but the latter half is questionable. For example, Female circumcision is not practiced in every Islamic country. In most of the Middle East, Female Genital Mutilation is rare. FGM is primarily practiced by ethnic tribes in Africa.

                  2. Some people here are a bit ignorant of history. I would agree that overall, yes, Islamic doctrine is worse than Christian or Jewish, and Islam as practiced to today is certainly much worse than Christianity and Judaism are currently practiced, but that’s not something that has been a universal truth across time and place. Apparently, having the slightest bit of nuance makes you an Islamic terror apologist.

        2. You people believe that all sexual thoughts are sins,

          Citation needed.

          it’s right to tear families apart in the name of faith

          So I have to embrace all of the dumbassed shit my family does because they are related to me? Good to know.

          that nonbelievers are separated from God for eternity based on a scant lifetime on this planet

          Depends on who you ask. Calvinists would say you’re either Elect or you’re not, no matter what you do. Catholics believe you may be able to get rehab time in purgatory (or they did until they tossed the Purgatory doctrine). The Seventh-Day Adventists believe that the “Lake of Fire”, based on additional readings of the Psalms, Revelations, Phillippians, Romans, and Matthew, refers to annihilation of the soul, rather than eternal torment (which is actually more merciful).

          that masturbation keeps you out of the Kingdom of Heaven

          The sin of Onan was disobedience, not whacking his willy (which he never did, he just pulled out of his dead brother’s wife).

          I could go on, but your faith sucks too.

          You could, but why embarrass yourself further?

          1. Citation needed.

            “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife.”

            1. Okay, that takes wives out of the picture. But are all women someone else’s wives? And what about people who aren’t your neighbors? And how about coveting? Is appreciating the fact that your neighbor’s wife has a fine ass the same thing as wanting to fuck your neighbor’s wife in said ass?

              Tone Police said “all sexual thoughts are sins” which is the cite I would like.

              1. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:27-28

                1. Does that include one’s own wife?

    4. Certainly the doctrines of Christianity have been used to do evil. Every doctrine has been used for such. It is what people do.

      If you find the doctrines of Christianity and Judaism “heinous” you either know nothing about what those doctrines are or have a very odd view of the meaning of the term “heinous”.

      1. Yes, because I just invented all of Leviticus.

        1. Sure. And I guess you missed that part where Christians rejected the old Testament law and don’t keep Kosher and such.

          And maybe I invented the entire intellectual history of the Jewish faith where those doctrines were refined and debated such that they are never taken entirely literally by even the most orthodox Jew.

          I believe the term for you would be knowing just enough about a subject to be dangerous.

          1. I guess you missed this part too:

            You have to look at the faiths as practiced…but Islam fails that test too.

            You just agreed with him.

            1. No I didn’t. Christianity rejected that doctrine as part of its doctrine. And the Jews debated and changed their doctrine, not just how it was practiced. He is reading the book literally and saying “this is your doctrine”. A Jew can rightfully say no “we don’t read it that way and our doctrine is not that”.

              I didn’t agree with him at all. You just don’t understand my point.

              1. yes, John, you did in fact agree with my point.

                anyway, so I guess your assertion here is that “Congress shall make no law…” doesn’t really mean what it says it means? We’ve got hundreds of years of interpretation meaning we don’t take that literally.

                No one gets to tell me what the plain words in front of me actually *mean* because, like I said, I can read plain English. If Jewish people aren’t adhering to their laws, it’s because they changed their practice for pragmatic reasons or just because they realize how inhuman the original doctrines are.

                1. “I can read plain English”

                  Yeah, if English was good enough for the authors of the Bible, it’s good enough for me!

                  1. Thanks for that. ROFL. Apart from all the other foolishness in religion, the notion that we can divine the meaning of archaic texts about philosophical concepts that were written in different languages and translated and re-translated–incredible.

                2. Yeah Tone Police, shame on those stupid Jews for not following their doctrine properly. Clearly some jackass who read a few talking points from fellow atheists knows more about what Jewish doctrine actually is than the Jews themselves.

                  Maybe all atheists are not profoundly ignorant when it comes to the subject of religion but it is sure hard to find one who isn’t.

                  1. I’ll remember that next time someone self-labels and you pitch a bitch.

                    1. Tone Police,

                      I don’t write Jewish doctrine, I just know a bit about what it is. Again, if you don’t like it that the Jews are not sufficiently barbaric to confirm your various bigotries, take it up with them. Please stop pretending that they are.

                  2. Maybe all atheists are not profoundly ignorant when it comes to the subject of religion but it is sure hard to find one who isn’t.

                    Bullshit. Disagreeing with your beliefs isn’t ignorance. The average atheist knows far more about religion than your typical pot-luck Christian. Most Christian can’t explain why they believe what they believe, much less examine those beliefs in the light of reason.

                    1. Disagreeing with your beliefs isn’t ignorance.

                      Sure it is not. No understanding and mischaracterizing beliefs that you claim to disagree with is ignorance.

                      The average atheist knows far more about religion than your typical pot-luck Christian.

                      I haven’t taken a poll, so I can’t argue with you. If that is true that says horrible things about Christians and nothing good about atheists.

                      If you are so knowledgeable, good for you. Do me a favor and debase Tone Police of his ideas that Jews still follow the same doctrines they did in 1200BC or that Christian doctrine includes following the law of the old Testament.

                    2. So the Ten Commandments…no longer operative eh? Yes, I’ve heard the argument about the Two Commandments, but you may want to tell the other Christians that, because they’re not listening.

                    3. So the Ten Commandments…no longer operative eh?

                      Sure they are. It is called the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes. It is all explained in the New Testament and especially Paul.

                      Christian doctrine does not include or require adherence to the various dietary and legal restrictions in the Old Testament. It is one of the many fundamental differences between the two religions. If Christians did, they would keep Kosher and live like Orthodox Jews.

                      You are just ignorant. If you want to hate Christianity, have at it. But do yourself a favor and at least understand what you are hating.

                    4. It is one of the many fundamental differences between the two religions. If Christians did, they would keep Kosher and live like Orthodox Jews.

                      Just a minor quibble here, John, but there are several Christian denominations that do some or all of this. My ex-wife is a Seventh Day Adventist and she subjects my older children to the horrors of a no shellfish or ham diet and won’t cook from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, although that may be because she’s lazy.

                    5. Sloopy,

                      I didn’t know that about the Adventists. There are sects out there that do a lot of goofy things. That, however is in no way mainstream doctrine or in any way representative of 99% of Christianity historically or today.

                    6. Adventists are a goofy sect but Christianity is not?

                    7. If it’s all explained then explain it.

                      Again, I understand just fine, John. I know why Christians don’t have to keep kosher – it’s based on an interpretation of Peter’s vision, which is disputed anyway.

                      So let me ask you this: why did the early Christians keep koher?

                    8. So let me ask you this: why did the early Christians keep koher?

                      Just spitballin’ here….Because they were mostly all Hebrews, and that’s what they knew, culturally?

                    9. So let me ask you this: why did the early Christians keep koher?

                      Are you serious? I thought everybody knew this. It’s because they considered themselves to still be Jews but that Jesus had fulfilled the prophesy that the Son of God had come down to deliver the chosen people.

                      You know, there was nothing in the OT that said “once the Son of God comes you can cast off all the stuff you’ve been ritually doing for thousands of years.”

                    10. But Jesus had already declared all foods clean. If anybody should have been able to promulgate that doctrine effectively, it would have been those closest to him.

                    11. Wouldn’t that be up to the individual? Just because Jesus declared all foods clean doesn’t mean everybody’s gonna run out and start shrimpin’ and pig-eatin. They were as culturally taboo as they were religiously taboo.

                      If somebody you believe in came out today and said rats and horses were clean, would you start looking for rat or horse meat?

                    12. So let me ask you this: why did the early Christians keep koher?

                      Because they were JEWS. The first debate in Christianity was whether they were Jews out to reform and convert other Jews or where they something new. That debate was settled primarily by Paul.

                      And Christians don’t keep Koshur for more reasons that Peter.

                      “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is profane of itself, except to him who reckons anything to be profane; to that man it is profane” (Romans 14:14). There is nothing in God’s good created order that is inherently profane, religiously speaking (1 Timothy 4:3-5).

                      That is just two examples. It is all over Paul. Christianity did not adopt the Old Testament Law. That is why it is called the “new covenant”.

                      Just stop it.

                    13. If you are so knowledgeable, good for you. Do me a favor and debase Tone Police of his ideas that Jews still follow the same doctrines they did in 1200BC or that Christian doctrine includes following the law of the old Testament.

                      Rabbinical Judaism did moderate the warlike doctrine of the Jews, but only because they no longer had a nation to defend and they had to blend in with the hostile (or neutral) other religions they had to associate with to survive. Just like the lack of a Temple pretty much wiped out animal sacrifice.

                      Now that they have a nation again and are surrounded by enemies and the sea, the nationalistic doctrines are starting to reassert themselves. Of course, attributing this solely to Judaism is a bit off base given that Jewishness has become more of a cultural identity than strictly a religion.

                      As for Christians and the Old Testament, many seem to take the OT as metaphor when it suits them and literally when it suits them. Given that so many are making up doctrine on the fly, it’s hard to say if they are adhering to it or not.

                      Look at the Apocalyptic Christian “Israelite” movement. Most of them are operating under the more extreme positions of the OT in hopes that a 3rd Temple will bring about the 2nd coming. Or the Christian Militia Movement, however depleted, where violence is encouraged.

                      From the non-believer’s viewpoint, all three religions have violent components, but that fact says nothing at all about any discrete religion as a whole.

                    14. SF,

                      We could debate all year about why the Jewish doctrine changed over the years. It is a bit more of a complex issue than “well they didn’t have a country anymore”. If the Jews know how to do one thing, it is endlessly argue and refine religious doctrine. Saying they changed because they didn’t have a country to defend anymore is a bit like saying the US wrote the Constitution because they didn’t have a King anymore. It is true but not really full story.

                      Yes, Christians take bits and pieces of the Old Testament. That is because they view theirs as the perfection of the old law. The relevence of that to this discussion is that when some jackass points to some particularly brutal law in the Old Testament as evidence of how barbaric Christian doctrine is, they are well being jackasses and showing their ignorance. Christian doctrine borrows from the old testament but it doesn’t adopt it whole cloth. That means if you want to point out flaws in Christian Doctrine, point out flaws in Christian Doctrine not the Old Testament since not all of that was adopted.

                    15. “No understanding and mischaracterizing beliefs that you claim to disagree with is ignorance.”

                      Coming from John, this is priceless.

                  3. John, do you give Muslims the same benefit of the doubt? You are not Muslim, yet you seem to have no problem giving your take on Islamic doctrine, which most Muslims would find plenty to disagree with.

          2. You said this:

            If you find the doctrines of Christianity and Judaism “heinous” you either know nothing about what those doctrines are

            you said AND JUDAISM, John, and then I cited Jewish doctrine, which you promptly refuted by saying, “but Christians don’t believe that!” First of all, wrong, Jesus said he came to complete the law, not overturn it, but regardless of that, we were talking about JUDAISM, so pointing out places where Christianity differs is irrelevant to the point.

            1. “but Christians don’t believe that!” First of all, wrong, Jesus said he came to complete the law, not overturn it,

              Yes. complete the law by telling the Jews to stop following all of these stupid legalistic rules and start worrying instead about how they actually lived their lives and meeting their burden of spreading their faith. Read Paul sometime. He is kind of a big deal.

              but regardless of that, we were talking about JUDAISM, so pointing out places where Christianity differs is irrelevant to the point.

              Yes we are talking about Judaism and you are misreading their doctrine to support your own idiotic prejudices. Their doctrine is not the same today as it was in 1200 BC. If you don’t like that, take it up with the Jews. Whatever you do, please stop pretending it is something that it is not.

              1. If the Jews can reform their brutal and primitive laws, so can Muslims, no? The Koran is fucked up, but so is the Old Testament. The OT God is a genocidal maniac. The laws in Leviticus are insanely cruel and evil by modern standards.
                Islam is still young compared to Judaism or Christianity. Maybe they will civilize themselves too in a few hundred more years.

                1. The OT God is a genocidal maniac

                  Hahahahahahaha!!! Man, that never gets old….

                  1. so the Great Flood was what, just for giggles?

                    1. You don’t understand authority or punishment, do you?

                    2. Mass punishment is immoral.

                    3. So says you.

                    4. Then again, you aren’t in control of the whole shebang.

                    5. You don’t understand authority or punishment, do you?

                      Well, God apparently gave Muslims the authority to punish non-believers, so I guess that’s OK too.

                      Here’s the problem with arguments like this. Unless you already believe in all that stuff, arguments about divine authority and punishment mean nothing. I have no more belief in the Christian version of God than the Muslim version. So your argument about God’s authority in the OT means no more to me than Isalmic radicals’ arguments that they should kill unbelievers and take over the world. They are both based on made up stories and superstition.

                  2. God isn’t a genocidal maniac. Nature is. It takes a quite simple mind to look at something like the Noah story and instead of seeing it as an examination of one of the fundamental problems of human existence (that creation and destruction are linked and necessary for each others’ existence) seeing “that Hebrew God is just a big meanie”. It is just laughable how unsophisticated you people are.

                    1. So, wait, God didn’t cause the Flood?

                      Then the Lord said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth. For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

                      Your blatantly silly attempt to turn a superstitious explanation for a flood into some Camus-like examination of the human condition is fucking hysterical. You remind me of the Lefties who tried to give deeper meaning to Piss Christ.

                    2. What does “cause the flood” mean? Think about it a bit you half wit. People die of cancer every day. Did God cause that?

                      In a sense, sure. He created the universe didn’t he? Of course, to those of us with above room temperature IQs, it is not that simple. If you are the wildebeest being eaten by the lion, God is a vengeful God sending to the lions to eat you. If you are the lion, God is a merciful God providing you supper.

                      That is the problem of life and death. It sucks when grandpa dies but if he doesn’t I never get to be the patriarch. That dichotomy between destruction and creation is something every religion looks to explain.

                      The Noah story is not about Noah. It is about every person who has seen their entire world swept away by forces beyond their control. And no I am not just using metaphor to get around what the text says. I am just understanding that there are more to any text than the literal meaning and any text provides meaning and to make points beyond the literal meaning of the words.

                      You don’t get that either because you are simple minded idiot or you are so dogmatic and closed minded you shut off your mind to confirm your various idiocy. That is your loss not mine.

                    3. yes, I take the Bible as truth and judge on its merits. You take it and invent half-assed literary exercises to explain why it’s not as evil as it sounds, but I’m the simpleton. Again, you sound like some po-mo living Constitutionalist.

                      Yes or no, John, did the Flood happen?

                      People die of cancer every day. Did God cause that?

                      Yes, John, welcome to Phil 100 and “The problem of evil”

                    4. yes, I take the Bible as truth and judge on its merits.

                      No. You completely miss what it is telling you because understanding it would confirm your prejudices.

                      If you can’t understand the confluence between a monotheistic creator God and the horrors life and the natural world, you can’t understand really anything that is going on.

                      It is not a question of whether or not you believe it. It is a question of whether or not you understand what you are rejecting. You clearly have no understanding of what you are rejecting.

                      And don’t tell me “some Christians don’t see it this way”. Sure they do. People often don’t understand the ideas they embrace just like they don’t understand what they reject.

                    5. I understand it fine, john. I’m just not buying your lazy bullshit. Seriously, this is like a freshman coming up with a deeper meaning to Winnie the Pooh. “Like, man, see God killed those people because it’s a STORY about the horrors and futility of life…”

                      just stop.

                    6. So you decide to arbitrarily poke Christians and Jews in the eye with a sloppily constructed generalization. When challenged, you resort to flimsy similes about how pedantic and stupid everyone else is.

                      And this is not trolling… How?

                    7. Kevin, are people not doing the same thing to Muslims in this thread? Christians and Jews get to concoct half-assed literary interpretations (contrary to doctrine) to explain away the harsher parts of their holy book, but Muslims for some reason can’t?

                    8. That’s the problem with trying to introduce rational thought into any discussion of religion.

                    9. There are a good number of Jews and Christians who claim to believe that the Bible is literally true and the direct word of God. There are lots who don’t. But those who do believe that God really caused the flood to kill almost everyone and that God really knocked down the walls of Jericho and ordered the Israelites to murder the whole population. To someone who doesn’t already assume that YHVH is completely awesome and good in every way, that is just plain heinous.
                      If you believe that the Bible is more of a metaphor on the human condition in a big cruel world, fine. But that’s not how everyone interprets scripture.

                    10. I’m not talking about Noah and the flood. I’m thinking Jericho here. I don’t see any morality in that God. Just tribalism and brutality.
                      Sorry, no God of goodness is going to order the killing of an entire city full of people. OT God is an evil fuck.

                2. The laws of Leviticus are the result of primitive tribes attempting to make sense out of natural phenomena. Thank goodness we have advanced in our thinking.

      2. If you find the doctrines of Christianity and Judaism “heinous” you either know nothing about what those doctrines are or have a very odd view of the meaning of the term “heinous”.

        So you know apparently the threat to torture someone for eternity for a few actions or beliefs they held over the course of a 70-year lifespan (a drop in the bucket compared to eternity) isn’t “heinous”.

        1. No, because God is doing it.

        2. But that speaks to Ali’s point. If you believe God is going to torture someone for all eternity if they do not repent, it would be an extraordinary misdeed to kill them. The logical action is to try to convince them to repent. That is not the logical action in response to a doctrine of compelled submission.

          That’s why there are no moderate Muslims, just lay ones and “extremists”.

    5. Re: The Tone Police,

      the doctrines of Islam are heinous, but so are the doctrines of Christianity and Judaism.

      Which doctrines of Christianity and Judaism are heinous?

      Just curious.

      1. The ones that the Spanish inquisition cited to justify their actions.

        The ones Martin Luther cited to justify the murder of unmarried pregnant women.

        List continues but this shit should be obvious.

    6. she was born into a Muslim world and is criticizing radical Islam. Had she been born into a fundie Baptist home and was now critical of that, the university would be giving her a tenured post instead of what it is doing.

      What it is again….principles vs principals. According to the left, some groups are above reproach no matter who is criticizing them.

    7. Hi Tone Police! Unlike anyone else here, I actually read what you wrote.

    8. She’s certainly wrong to call for “banning free speech about the religion”. And if Brandeis University had said they won’t give anyone an honorary degree who calls for bans on free speech, I would sympathize with their position. But, as it is, this looks a lot more like the University just caved into Leftie demands for behavioural conformity.

    9. Citations needed – such a general statement isn’t even worth debating. By “doctrines,” are you talking about the religious texts, how they were interpreted historically, or how the religions are generally practiced now.

      (I think you are off-base on all counts)

  8. That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.

    And here they seem to have shown what they value most.

  9. I don’t agree with Hirsi Ali’s unqualified condemnation of Islam?in the interview with van Bakel, she says “there is no moderate Islam” and calls for banning free speech about the religion?and I’m not surprised that Brandeis caved at the first sign of trouble.

    Ban free speech? But that statement makes her PERFECT for an honorary doctorate from a university!

    Ok, ok, if only she had said that about Catholicism and white males, THEN she would’ve been received with open arms. I guess with proggies, everything is more about style than substance.

  10. How can an Administration of a University that prides itself on social justice and acceptance of all make a decision that targets and disrespects it’s own students? This is hurtful to the Muslim students and the Brandeis community who stand for social justice.

    “How can students that pride themselves on social justice and acceptance tolerate a hateful religion that believes in neither?”

  11. A ‘moderate’ religion is a euphemism for a religion that has been neutered from overt political and temporal power. Since that is obviously untrue in every country where Muslims are a majority, I agree with Hirsi Ali’s assertion there is no such thing as ‘moderate’ Islam.

  12. I heard her speak about 4 years ago and she seemed to have moderated some of her views on religion. It was only a brief comment during the Q&A period and she set herself in something of an opposition to people like Hitchens, et al who were attacking religion.

    It was, however, somewhat odd: I got the impression that she is now an atheist but she supported people being religious if it made them feel content because that would often make for a better society. I know I am not doing justice b/c it was some time ago and I didn’t write it down but I’m pretty sure she included an acceptance of a moderate Islam in that comment.

    1. It’s understandable that someone treated so horribly by Muslims in the name of Islam could hate the religion so passionately, and it certainly discolors my already dim view of Islam too.

      But nonviolent practice of any religion is an absolute right, and I won’t moderate that position no matter how disgusting and abhorrent a particular religion and its adherents may be.

      1. “Nonviolent practice of religion” is not an absolute right. There are other ways of interfering with a person’s constitutionally-protected rights than violence, and people’s exercise fo their religion can be constrained if it interferes with the rights of others.

        1. For example?

        2. “Nonviolent practice of religion” is not an absolute right.

          I would reword non-violent to non-coercive, but with that wording I think it is an absolute right.

          In fact, I would go much further and say that non-coercive practice of anything is an absolute human right.

    2. There is nothing necessarily odd about people being atheists but also thinking people being religious is a good thing for society. Not every atheist is a tiresome fanatic bent on dispelling the world of ignorance.

      1. Agree. It was just kind of awkward the way she went about staking her claim as a rational atheist but then arguing, from her point of view, that it was a good thing to let other rational people believe in a fairy tale.

        As I noted above, it was in the Q&A session so I assume if she did a formal presentation on the issue she would be more cogent. I certainly prefer her position to that of someone like Michael Schermer who argues that he is only of the small percentage (I think he normally cites 10%) of Americans who are rational. The other 90% don’t pass his test b/c of their religious beliefs.

        1. The women was deeply victimized in the name of Islam and has watched a lot of other people suffer the same. It is unsurprising that she has a pretty bad view of Islam.

          If she were a homosexual who had once been picked on by a group of evangelical Christians and had her father not speak to her for being a homosexual, Brandeis would give her tenure and let her teach about the evils of Christianity.

          1. True. For her poor treatment of the FA, I would have deemed it not appropriate to honor her, however Brandeis doesn’t give a shit about that. They’re more interested in appealing to the professionally aggrieved.

            Nevermind that Ali is a true feminist who is actually working to better women’s conditions in the worst of places. Unlike the typical professional feminists who march in NYC to protest microaggressions and men who look a little too long.

      2. Not every atheist is a tiresome fanatic bent on dispelling the world of ignorance.

        Some of us are doing our best, though.

        1. To prove all atheists are tiresome fanatics? Can’t argue with you there.

          1. On a side note I am an atheist…

            The Big Bang is still bullshit.

          2. Atheists are fanatics? In what way, exactly? The ones I’m familiar with are interested in removing the systemic bias in favor of religion (usually Christianity) in aspects of this country’s life that are supposed to be governed by the constitutional doctrine that precludes the establishment of a government religion.

            They are not calling for the elimination of religion or the murder of people who do not agree with them (as some Islamics do).

          3. Seriously? I admit that I and other atheists can sometimes be dicks about it, and you decide to get in one more punch?

  13. “I don’t agree with Hirsi Ali’s unqualified condemnation of Islam”

    but then you and they never lived under sharia law as a woman or had your colleague brutally murdered.

    1. so white privilege then? There is just so much wrong with the university’s stance that it is hard to know where to start.

  14. the practice is often supported by women who have been subjected to it

    Duh, protectionism, pure and simple.

    Obviously the value of mutilated vaginas is going to decrease if there’s younger, non-mutilated vaginas on the market.

    1. Its how they process the horrible crime done to them. They need to justify it to live with it.

  15. Liberal Jewish college in the northeast drops Black human rights advocate Ayaan Hirsi Ali as commencement speaker due to pressure from Muslims

    You really want to give Dondero clicks, Nick? JOOOOOOOOS

  16. Raimonderoooo!

  17. The academic left is the most intellectually constipated group of people on the planet.

    Give ’em hell, Harvey!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHh1WV-81gE

  18. I sure hope none of the 6082 petition signers was planning on being Mozilla’s CEO or anyone else’s.

  19. Brandeis University is named after a Supreme Court justice who is famous for defending free speech, even for Commies who wanted to overthrow the U.S. government.

    So I don’t think they should be giving honorary doctorates who want to close Muslim schools and lock up Muslim preachers. Saying “but their doctrines are awful!” won’t wash, because the Commies’ doctrines were awful too.

    1. So I don’t think they should be giving honorary doctorates who want to close Muslim schools and lock up Muslim preachers.

      Wouldn’t that depend on what exactly those schools and preachers were doing? Is the fact that they are “Muslim” make them immune from criticism or impossible that they could ever do anything worthy of locking them up or closing them down?

      1. Again, compare these Muslims to the American Communists whose rights the schools namesake defended, the Commies wanted to overthrow the government by force and institute a totalitarian regime. And Brandeis defended their rights. Are the radical Muslims worse than they are? And Ali, the censorship advocate, says she wants the West to be at war with *Islam as a whole,* not just the explode-y parts.

        “Is the fact that they are “Muslim” make them immune from criticism”

        I thought you were too intelligent for this sort of lame straw-manning. Seriously, you’re much better than that.

        “or impossible that they could ever do anything worthy of locking them up or closing them down?”

        Sure, apply Justice Brandeis’ distinction between concstitutionally-protected speech and illegal action.

        1. Ali would close the schools for their *teachings.*

        2. You should also point out American Communists were almost universally Stalin communists backed by the USSR.

          You can throw in the GULAG and purges and the forced genocidal starvation of the Ukraine with your criticism of “American Communists”.

    2. We’re talking about SPEECH. Are you that afraid of having her discuss her ideas? And I suspect that the only locking up of Muslim preachers that she supports is related to those who systematically abuse and mutilate females in the name of their religion.

  20. First Gillespie writes in Time about how great the Eich ouster was because it was free markets operating with no govt. involved (despite the tyranny of political donation lists that activists used to demonize Prop 8 supporters & destroy their lives & livelihoods). The original headline (& the article?)was toned down once it became obvious it was a monstrous witch hunt.

    And now this. Don’t criticize Islam. Nancy Fucking Pelosi & other Dems have gotten honorary degrees & they actually banned speech they don’t like. Yet..crickets. But someone who speaks out on female genital mutilation , one of the bravest people on the planet, who lives under armed guards – her speech offends & so there’s no place for her on today’s campus. You’re a leftist masquerading as Libertarian.

    Between this kind of crap and the call for wonky, complicated healthcare replacements to Obamacare, all this publication has left is open borders (with the welfare state in tact since it ain’t going nowhere), pot and police militarization. You do a real disservice to conservatives who despise the Republican party (they are legion) looking for an alternative because they come to Reason, thinking this is Libertarianism. If it is, no thanks, it’s just bad things from the right & left and full of shit.

    Let it burn.

    1. You do a real disservice to conservatives who despise the Republican party

      Pretty sure i can find conservative web sites that cater to its many factions.

      I really do not want Reason to become one of those.

      Also even if Reason was just “all this publication has left is open borders (with the welfare state in tact since it ain’t going nowhere), pot and police militarization.” it would be a place i would want to go and read.

      Also DRINK!

    2. Did you even read the article?

  21. Hirsi Ali: He’s wrong. Sorry about that.

    Meh.

    Christianity was pretty extreme not so long ago.

    Hell its biggest reformer use to execute unmarried pregnant women.

    Pretty sure any ideology religious or otherwise can moderate.

  22. How can a student of a University make the grammatical error “it’s own students”? And I don’t recall the Bill of Rights mentioning “hurt feelings” as a reason for banning speech.

  23. These are the same type of students that think its great to have Ahmadinejad speak, no problem there.

  24. More “Our speech is free but yours must be suppressed” by the Fascists (i.e. those that worship government as god).

    I really despise these people.

  25. Are you looking for Cute Love Quotes For Her From Heart ?

    Then you are at the correct spot. Get the most marvelous and cutest Love Quotes For Her and make her feel loved.
    http://viralrang.com/love-quot…..ve-quotes/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.