Dean and I go back a ways, to GEnie days and the Apple II RoundTable.
I regret to say I think he's run off the rails on this question of the Muslims.
I very much want to think that Muslims in America can be good citizens in a pluralistic society, but every day I see reason to worry. I don't want to be ruled by Puritans, whether they proclaim allegiance to Christ or to Mohammed.
And, my Queen, my mother's family was Polish, in Jersey City. Our church was Our Lady of Czestochowa, as was my grammar school.
Rosemary, I'm so disappointed in Dean. He had been so good about allowing discussions on his blog thru the years. But I'm sorry, Islam treats women worse than dogs.
I don't know how you guys can get along with these huge differences of opinions - but then, you have a very strong relationship!
Beth: Thanks. Dean and I try to keep our online world separate from our home life. But we have had a few shouting matches on politics. Only a few though because I'm way better at face to face debate than written. :-)
In case anyone wants to know what the other Bill is referring to it's Our Lady of Czestochowa. Czestochowa is pronounced [chen sto hova] the o's are hard o's. Polish rocks!
The following, however much ++ungood protests, is not common knowledge, and I'm surprised he thinks it should be, unless he believes, as I do, that we all should study every little war in every little country, although knowing a little about a lot of wars hasn't made he and I agree on anything.
The Tamil Tigers pioneered modern suicide bombing in their ongoing attempt to break free from Sri Lanka. But suicide attacks are not new. Kamikazes come to mind.
But Muslims did adopt the tactic and spread it far and wide.
I understand what Dean is doing, but I can't say I agree with it, either. I've always found his eagerness to stand up for Islam somewhat strange (not his willingness, but his eagerness). I read quite a few blogs, and the nasty or snide comments made toward Christians or Jews seem to outweigh those made towards Muslims. It seems that over at Dean's, you don't even have to insult Islam, but criticize it mildly, and you get accused of being an Islamophobe. I have to admit, I've read his blog less and less as a result.
I guess I just don't get it. Of all the nastiness that I see directed at Christians and Jews, it's hard for me to think that Muslims are the ones most in need of protection from words. Hell, with the exception of a few blogs that make Islam-hating an art form, it's been my experience that people go out of their way not to insult Muslims, while they don't worry much about insulting Christians or Jews at all. (And for the record, I'm not religious at all, so I have no particular love for any religion; I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.).
BTW, the funny thing about Polish is the disconnect between how it looks on the page and how it sounds. It looks like Klingon, but sounds like music. Just an astonishingly beautiful language.
Wince: The following, however much ++ungood protests, is not common knowledge, and I'm surprised he thinks it should be, unless he believes, as I do, that we all should study every little war in every little country, although knowing a little about a lot of wars hasn't made he and I agree on anything.
I believe that when making broad statements like the one made by Rosemary that one should know what one is talking about. If one is postulating that a religion encourages suicidal behavior in its adherents because a small proportion use suicide bombs, then one should be equally critical of other religions whose members do the same. Yet I have heard no criticism of Hinduism from our lovely hostess.
Regarding common knowledge, I myself do not believe that ignorance is its own excuse.
Rosemary, thanks for the gesture! I mentioned in Bill's comments that it seems a little unseemly to me to run to a man's wife for succor after he's looked at you funny (or whatever) but I did want to thank you for being a mensch.
I used to think that, when it comes to blogs, you reap what you sow. You know: if you are attracting a lot of jerks, well, you ought to consider what you're saying that brings out the worst in your audience.
But, more and more, it seems to me that any blog is always going to attract people who like to flame away on whatever topic you choose -- it's just what people do when they have the tools at hand. The immediacy, the anonymity, it all enables, encourages!, the nutjobs to spew all sorts of crap.
So, in my experience, the decision every blogger has to make is whether or not to have a comments section at all -- you know, like a light switch; either on or off. Nothing in between.
Clearly, large, successful blogs like dailykos.com DO edit (and ban) commenters -- largely through fairly sophisticated technical systems that enable the other commenters to identify and tag the trolls.
Other successful blogs like LGF are defined by the nutjob-audience.
Shy of those examples, it just seems like a collossal waste of time, sifting through all the comments, allowing some, not allowing others, allowing some people to have new accounts, not allowing others, banning some not banning others. I'm exhausted just thinking about it.
Unless you get some emotional satisfaction from playing the part of a highly-involved God in a world of your own making, what's the point? After all, Dungeons and Dragons is so....70's.
Bottom line: you either grow elephant hide, or you shut off comments altogether.
Bottom line: you either grow elephant hide, or you shut off comments altogether.
Or commenters can do as I have done, and use a GreaseMonkey script to replace certain posters' dialog with nice remarks about pie. I find it keeps the blood pressure down and brightens up the place. And we can all agree on pie, right?
I may regret jumping in here, but I don't think Rosemary postulated that Islam encourages suicidal behavior in its adherents, only that its adherents are more likely to commit suicide in the name of their religion than adherents of other religions.
Also, do the Hindus that commit suicide bombings do so in the name of Hinduism, or do they just happen to be Hindus? I honestly don't know the answer here, but it does make a difference.
But, more and more, it seems to me that any blog is always going to attract people who like to flame away on whatever topic you choose -- it's just what people do when they have the tools at hand.
Or people like me, who flame away on particular topics you choose....
I believe that when making broad statements like the one made by Rosemary that one should know what one is talking about.
As I see the majority of these terrorist attacks as political terrorism couched in religious fundamentalist claptrap, I don't see much of a difference, especially as the majority of the attacks are against fellow Muslims. And I think the suicide bombings against Israel are clearly political in nature, and not religious in intent.
"But there are some problems in the muslim world and it doesn't make me a racist to say so."
Yeah, well. Rumor has it that, in this country, if you point out problems in the Christian or Jewish worlds (I've heard of a couple), you get called some pretty nasty stuff. And if you made a blanket statement characterizing either (like doing so with muslims), you'd probably have it coming.
I'm not a Liberal or Conservative, and I dismissed any form of Mysticism at age 9 as being incompatible with reality. The fact of the matter is you can't live or communicate in this world without having to accept the reality of those who chose labels.
The problem is 'drawing a line in the sand' and saying either/or which is like the bully in the schoolyard saying "I dare you, to cross that line!" as Dean has done. You are left with two choices, fight or walk away.
There is an old anonymous question that goes; "How am I to face the odds of mans bedevilment , and of Gods.? I alone and afraid, in a world I never made." The answer of course is simple: "Why didn't you?"
Dean and the "labels" created that world, and since I'm just a man with an active mind, I find that because of how it was created, the line would be drawn at some point in time, and so it has. So, perhaps a lesson in, "You can't eat your cake and have it too."
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
I totally agree with Dean on this issue...he's completely correct. However, since all religion is false the point is probably moot. There are thousands of examples of terrorist or terrorist-like conduct carried out by people of all faiths throughout history. Devout followers of nearly every religion are true peace lovers. A note to you Christians out there....if there is a God, he's not American, he's not an advocate of democracy or capitalism. The friggin disciples never voted on what path to take or what leper to heal. Jesus never turned to his followers and said, "hey, all in favor raise your hands, ok, I'll turn the water into a Pinot Noir."
Being intolerant of racists is ok in my book. Timothy McVeigh's point of view didn't deserve to be heard.
If it makes Shep feel any better, I think Michael Moore apologists and people who run around talking about how America is an imperialist nation and American troops are slaughtering people by the hundreds of thousands in the Middle East are just as awful.
:-)
As for Andrew's point: Oh rubbish Andrew. You know as well as I do that there are plenty of Muslims in the UK who aren't in the least bit your enemy. You ARE evincing a John Birch Society paranoia. The only difference is, you're also carrying water for a con artist (Robert Spencer) who makes his entire living selling books and booking speaking engagements full of this silly, irrational bilgewater. (The clock's ticking on his nonsense though; I notice his books are getting more and more shrill and strident. Know why? My guess is it's because his market's limited and his publisher is undoubtedly telling him he's going to have to get more provocative if he's going to keep selling. Why d'you think the bloke's so obsessed with me anyway? My guess is he knows I've put my finger on exactly what his line of bullshit amounts to, and it bugs the crap out of him. He's also afraid his income source is going to dry up. He just needs another terrorist attack on the American homeland, a big one. You shouldn't doubt that he's hoping for that--otherwise, he'd have to go out and get a real job. Anyway, I hope Kevin Dombrowski sees how he's being used by this jackass.)
Anyway, I'm sure you've met some Muslim immigrants that acted very poorly. You've also had a few incidents of violence from some Muslim hooligans who set off Irish Republican Army-style bombs. But inflating that into a worldwide looming Muslim threat is like looking at the riots in the wake of the LA Lakers winning the NBA championship and talking about the worldwide Basketballist threat. (Or looking at the IRA and talking about the looming Irish and/or Catholic threat.)
What I'd say is that you folks in the UK need to do a better job of integrating your immigrants and making them respect the common British culture. Depicting their entire faith as part of a vast worldwide threat just makes it look to them like you hate them all, and aggravates the problem.
By the way, Beth: I'm disappointed in you. Islam does not treat women worse than dogs. Some Muslims do. You want me to refer you to some Muslim women I know? They can set you straight.
(You know, I'm often astonished at how Islamophobes utterly refuse to do simple things like talk to some Muslims who share their values, which aren't hard to find. It speaks volumes to me, and illustrates why I'm not playing host to these "debates" with Islamophobes anymore.)
This is all sounding like some sort of beer party that got too noisy in one apartment on the first floor, which got chased upstairs and reconstituted itself in someone else's apartment on the second floor of the same building.
Too weird for words.
About talking with some Moslems, Dean. I've tried doing that a few times with Ali, but he never answers anything I ask.
For sure, I wrote some of those requests in my worst Arnold Harris tone. (To which I probably would have fuckyou'd him had he written to me in the same tenor.)
But he would have busted my argument wide open if he had answered me, I think.
Anyway. Now I now what happened to Ara Rubyan.
Dean, think about letting all these good folks come home. Even if they all get on your nerves now and then. You're a big enough guy to take criticism and disagreement.
And if you don't let them all come home, how in hell will the younger ones among be able to hold a 50th anniversary online party in memory of you and all this, some time around the middle of this century?
(Immortality in the blogworld age is going to be solidly digital. Which means the next Moses, the next Jesus, the next Mohamad will all be bloggers with good style and a string of posters and commenters.)
Yes, Islam treats women worse than dogs - read the Koran. I do know Muslim women, and I am appalled that they cannot pray in their mosques in the same place men pray. In the Koran, women are pretty much for man's pleasure. And they can be dismissed by the man - women don't have the same rights as men in Islamic law - sorry, Dean - that is absolutely true.
Arnold, if you were to email Ali with the same tone of the above two comments, I think he'd come to your house and cook you dinner.
Incidentally I am moving to Marshfield in June. I'll feed you some spicy ass Indian fare at some point.
At any rate this is one of those rare times of agreement between us and I have emailed the Dean with my own plea for amnesty, including for Ron and Kevin.
I like to think that Ive never blown you off on an honest question. i might have missed one or two given the hgh refresh rate of comments at DW, but have I ever ignored an email from you? You cant in conscience claim that you odnt know a muslim willing to talk.
Beth, orthodox Jews also compel women to pray in a separate part of their synagogues, and practice at least a milder form of the islamic female dress code, with women cutting their hair short and wearing wigs outside the home. So maybe these facets of the super-monotheistic religions simply reflect semitic cultural attributes.
On the other hand, when my wife and I lived and studied in Israel more than 30 years ago, we noticed that women there played major roles in society and in the family, in a manner that probably is not at all the case in islamic cultures. Certainly, no jewish women ever are put to death for trifling with men not approved by their families, as happens not infrequently among Arabs.
Aziz, now that I know you're a Chicago guy, you'd be welcome just about any time. Besides, from the little I think I already know, your particular sufi Islamic sect is living proof that Islam can be a creed that welcomes modernity, civil liberties, the idea of living in peace with believer and unbeliever alike, and all the rest of what secular American society -- including folks like me -- honors so frequently more in the breach than in the observance.
But what is there in Marshfield, Wisconsin that would bring you up this way? In wintertime, Marshfield to a Chicagoan might be something akin to Vorkuta to a Muscovite, back in the grim days.
Well, I somewhat admire your intolerance of close-minded bigotry (preferably without the authoritarian-style threats and bannings). Your intolerance of painful truths that offend your partisan sensibilities, not so much.
I think I know where Dean's coming from, even though I also think he got way too authoritarian with this one.
If I read him correctly, he sees anti-islamism mostly as old-fashioned religious bigotry. This kind of demeanor and the behavior it masks, mostly clouds any argument we can make about responding rationally and effectively to the Islamofascism that has been a real threat to the rest of the world, including islamic societies that we of the West might otherwise be able to engage in accommodation of the type that we have with some of the cultures of southeast Asia that are neither christian nor islamic.
In this light, he drew his line in the sand as a sort of defense mechanism against what he sees as a trend that threatens rather than aids the war against terrorism.
Dean, here I am, an amateur mind-reader, telling you what I think you are thinking. But have I made at least a halfway good argument, or have I just spread bullshit?
Rosemary, thank you for the kind offer, but I think given the polarization of the Esmaysphere over the issue of Islam, and the Exodus of people who think my faith is inherently evil from there to here, my blogging here would be rubbing salt in everyone's wounds :( Plus, I'm too fond of Dean to dilute my gig there any further than it already has been insanelydiluted by my endless commitments...
Arnold, I'll spill the beans in detail about Wisconsin more publicly later on - easier to do it once than multiple times :) The short version is that my wife is beginning a residency. FYI< my sect isn't Sufi, it's a Shi'a one - and we are considered extremely conservative and orthodox in our islamic practices by mainstream sunnis, so we aren't some "liberal fringe". Part fo what Dean was trying to do at DW wasto point out that the filyters by which Islam is perceived here in the US are themselves SO distorted, that you actually think mainstream practices like that of my community are somehow fringe, and that fringe practices are somehow mainstream.
Actually, I've said enough. The last thing we need is to have another big argument about Islam carry over here. As a newbie commentor I am not keen on trowing fuel on the fire. Let me just say that I think you were unfair to Ali Eteraz up above upthread, and that you know where to reach me if you ever have questions.
Beth, I am sorry about my harsh response to your "art and music" comment on Dean's world. I've written a more substantive response here.
On women in Islam, I think you are mistaking cultural practices for inherent beliefs. In the Qur'an it is written that
Behold, men who surrender to Allah, and women who surrender, and men who believe and women who believe, and men who obey and women who obey, and men who speak the truth, and women who speak the truth, and men who persevere [in righteousness] and women who persevere, and men who are humble and women who are humble, and men who give alms and women who give alms, and men who fast, and women who fast, and men who guard their modesty and women who guard [their modesty], and men who remember Allah much and women who remember. Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a vast reward. (33:35)
Has God prepared a "vast reward" for dogs? The Bible also commands women to cover their heads
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (1 Corinthians, 11:5-6)
to be silent in church:
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians, 14:34-35)
and states that they are created for the benefit of men:
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (1 Corinthians, 11:9)
But the point isn't to show that Christianity is "inherently" anti-woman. It isn't. Most Christian denomenations treat women well. So religions are not determined by selective quotations of texts. (And I am sure we can find Quranic verses that speak of women in a less than equal light, as we can find Bible verses that speak of women positively.)
Finally, did you know that women scholars were actually more common in the Middle Ages than more recently: see this article. I am not saying that women's condition in Muslim countries is perfect or even good in many situations, nor should we downplay the bad conditions, but the present is not destiny. Islam is flexible and has produced many different things over time, and will produce things not yet seen in the future. I think the Women's Protection Bill in Pakistan, which was sponsored by many Muslim scholars, represents real progress in that country.
Okay, Aziz. You've caught my interest, so I'll try to spend some time learning a little more about your sect before I get presumpteous about you again.
Maybe this stuff is easier for me, precisely because I am a none-believer.
Meantime, good luck with Marshfield. If you're in luck, they may just have a coffeehouse around town that beats the usual Starbucks battery acid.
"In this light, he drew his line in the sand as a sort of defense mechanism against what he sees as a trend that threatens rather than aids the war against terrorism."
Arnold,
Wow, I actually see Dean in a better light than that (shoot me now). While he is pathologically hawkish, I hope that Dean is offended by religious bigotry for its own wrongness. And any bigotry for its own sake, because it limits understanding (you know, liberalism) above that of the practical matter of dealing with a moderate global security threat.
Good thing he’s a foaming jingoist and an irrational anti-Democrat partisan or I might actually have to like the guy.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Shep, if you keep defending Dean you're gonna hate yourself in the morning.
Hi Arnold, I missed you too!
DPU: I found some great Kool Aide recipies that the trolls love to suck up.
Hey, Dean. Go back to your own echo chamber. The adults are trying to have a grown-up conversation here and don't need to be distracted by your tantrums. You got work to do anyway -- scrubbing your lists of all thoughtcrime perpetrators, don't you? Idiot.
(I think I just got cloned cuz I'm filled with more schadenfreude than twins could handle!)
FWIW, the problem isn't with Islam (or any other religion for that matter). The problems come when religion and government cease to run on parallel tracks.
More specifically, when the clergy sits in final judgement of a secular government, then you have a recipe for chaos and disaster.
The religion might be Islam; it might be Judaism; it might be Christianity, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and/or anything else you can think of.
When it happens, it's all bad and the people suffer.
That’s a very good point Ara. And one reason secular Europe and secular-government America were able to industrialize. Which, in turn, made us more enlightened and, eventually, more democratic.
That is, until recently, when Republicanism started to break down the wall between government and religion and we began an alarming turn against both enlightenment and democracy. So:
"Republicanism: it's all bad and the people suffer"
AH: Dean, think about letting all these good folks come home. Even if they all get on your nerves now and then. You're a big enough guy to take criticism and disagreement.
No he ain't. Dean has a sore spot a mile wide for criticism and disagreement.
I got kicked because I said that the Canadian health care system wasn't crappy. For that, I was deemed a Canuck piece of shit spitting on the American flag.
I'm hoping to get nominated for sainthood after I die. :-)
My own theory is that Dean has made some kind of horrific deal with Satan for your hand, and presumably heart as well. So, as you don't have any choice in the matter, no sainthood. Sorry.
I am not a bomber I am scoffer and a harumpher. :D
As for Andrew's point: Oh rubbish Andrew. You know as well as I do that there are plenty of Muslims in the UK who aren't in the least bit your enemy.
I am overwhelmed by those "moderate" Muslims shouting down the Islamists and extremists. Have you actually read what is said by the so-called mainstream Muslim organisations in the UK?
I read a blog called Harry's Place that does its best to discover moderate Muslims making an effort to speak up. There are some, but not very many.
Dean I cannot believe that you don't see a clear difference between the behaviour of Muslims in the US and the UK. I wonder what percentage of British-born Jihadists fighting jihad abroad is to those eminating from the US? Have you not seen the multiple polls about Muslim sentiment and opinion in the UK?
BTW, I got banned secretly. Plus Dean erased my comments. Dean disabled my account months ago without informing me or anyone else. He did so during a fit of rage he was having over at INDC Journal. He had a post on anonymous accounts and I wrote a comment under that post expressing the fact that people might well need them on Dean's blog just to protect themselves from Dean.
I didn't mind not having the account so long as he stopped slandering me by writing that I said things that I had not said, and did not believe. But he was continuing to do so. I was merely using the account at his site as a means for me to defend against his misinformation.
For instance claims that "any Muslim who disagreed with him about the Koran was a liar.". Where did he get that? I was talking about one Muslim about one issue and even then it wasn't a claim she was a liar in general, nor a direct liar on the single claim in question. If Dean doesn’t have the mental gifts to understand the nature of the deception this woman was practicing then he should have asked for clarification.
It just bothers the hell out of him that I should challenge a Muslim. I guess he sees Muslims as a protected species (or something) that is too fragile to handle open discussion. Or perhaps he sees their moral authority as imbued in them by Allah as unquestionable. Frankly, I have no clue since his whole traitor theory is ridiculous and would in fact mean that Dean should ban himself from his own website for his statements about evangelicals or even communists.
This was over a simple question of whether the Qur’an gives out rewards for violence. Of course, I gave the sources and quotes to support my side and the position of the other side was the extreme statement that "Nowhere in the Quran does it say, 'Kill and you will be rewarded.'". Which is utter nonsense. Anyone making such a claim either has not read the entire Koran and is thus lying to the listener in that regard, is going by a secondhand source so is lying about their own authority to answer the question, or knows the truth and is straight out lying. She also might have been lying via the playing of word games since literally this particualar statement as worded is not in the Koran. There are many kinds of lies including lies of omission, lies of false authority, and leading the listener to draw the wrong conclusion. This stuff is too subtle for Dean however.
I for instance could claim to be an authority on the bible and that nowhere in the Bible is the term Crusade used. However if I fail to disclose that I haven't read the entire bible in thirty years and am relying on what might be a faulty memory then I am in fact lying to you.
If we were having an argument about whether the concept of holy war was in the Bible and I brought this up then. I would also have been misleading you (a form of lying) if the bible did contain the concept of Crusade (as in holy war) but just not the word itself.
BTW, I did search for the word Crusade in the bible and did not find it. I have no idea if the concept of holy war is in there or not. I do know that God did call certain peoples to war against certain others but that's not the same thing as a Crusade (as in holy war).
The woman in question was lying about something. Either she wasn't an authority worth listening to and was lying about that, or she knew about the rewards for violence in the Koran and lied about them, or she was deceiving by being too literal, or was using some other form of deception that is related. She failed the authority test since one of the hallmarks of an scholar is to verify and test what they believe. She certainly didn’t do that since a short search turns up lots of instances of the Qur’an rewarding violence.
Nor does one need to be an authority to dispose of certain claims. I'm not and never claimed to be an Islamic authority. For instance, I didn’t need to be an Islamic scholar to disprove her false claim, and at the same time destroy her claims to authority on the issue of the Qur’an. Any true scholar of Islam would know about such statements.
I need not be either an Islamic authority nor a Islamophobe to expose falsehood. There are other options to explain my actions but Dean likes to impose his personal favorites.
What does motivate me is a respect for the truth. If someone is going to claim that Muslims have invented something or that certain ancient Muslim societies were "tolerant" and that is false then I will call them on it. The fact is Muslims didn't invent the zero. The fact is that that those societies were worse that the pre-antebellum South with regards to both slavery and second-class citizenship for non-Muslims. Of course I'm going to call them on those issues. Not because I wish to humiliate them but because they are using such examples to establish their moral authority over non-believers, Christians, and Jews.
The beliefs of the Muslims are false and one of the most heinous of those beliefs is that their religion gives them authority over others. Not only moral authority over others but the political kind as well. Dean supports them in this regard with his litmus tests for non-Muslims. If we cannot critique Islam then we cannot defend ourselves from its evil tenets. Dean thinks he’s on the side of the underdog but in fact he acts as a spokesman for the oppressors.
I think all these behaviors by Dean, the secret banning, the litmus tests, false testimony about the statements of others, shows that he has quite a large gap in his understanding of moral behavior himself. So it’s no wonder he has no issue with Islam. It’s totally off his radar. He cannot read the Quran and Hadiths (if he even has) and see the inherent moral errors in Mohammed’s teachings and behavior. The utter moral double standard that is Islam. He just cannot fathom the outrage that others feel over the treatment that non-Muslims have gotten from Islam over the centuries, and in the present day. How else to explain someone who fights those who expose the oppression that is inherent to Islam via it’s teachings.
It’s no coincidence that non-Muslims (and women) are treated as less the full human beings in Muslim countries. The religion teaches such double standards. Surprise, surprise, the followers practice them.
Dean is not afraid to fight unfairly. That’s the whole purpose of the number three on his litmus test. It assumes the very thing it sets out to prove. It assumes that it is Islam that is not the problem and uses that assumption to label those who disagree as evil. You are an Islamophobe if you don’t agree with Dean on this point. In doing so he does the vile thing that Islam has always done, to dismiss questioners of Islam as evil.
A fully moral ideology cannot include the belief that the mere questioning of the ideology is tantamount to a sin, nor grounds for punishment, retribution, censorship, dismissal, or domination. The degree to which an ideology makes questioning grounds for such bad behavior is the degree to which it sinks into evil.
I think someone needs to define Islamophobe in a way that doesn't assume the facts they are setting out to prove in the first place.
Islamophobe is being used by the apologists for Islam in the same way that Marx used bourgeoisie. In his theory the bourgeoisie were exploiters of the proletariate and thus moral pariahs. Bourgeoisie was a perfect term because it implicitly contained Marx's false assumptions and at the same time served as a slur against his intellectual opponents. It didn't even really matter to him whether his opponents actually owned any productive captital he could always accuse them of having a bourgeoisie mindset. Thus his theory contained its own means of self defense independent of whether it was actually true.
Islam is the same. One of the tenents of Islam is that anyone who disagrees is evil. Thus one need not debate or have a dialog with the non-believer because they are evil. Even minor questioning by believers can also be suppressed in this manner.
Christianity has similar built in beliefs that denegrate anyone who dares to question. As a child I recognized this. The story of doubting Thomas comes to mind. The idea that the tree of knowledge was a bad thing also comes to mind. As does the fact that the mere non-belief in the system is on the list of sins. Those are a few of the reasons I decided that Christianity was not a path to the truth.
You'll notice that all three of these Marxism, Christianity, and Islam have had their fair share of atrocities. Mostly based on the belief that the people they were slaughtering were evil and deserved what they got.
Other less respectible ideologies also use this tactic. A more crude version of this being the white racists use of the term nigger-lover. This was for them a way of labeling someone as morally unfit while at the same time indicating that they could not be trusted with the truth. The truth of white superiority in their minds. It was the racists who were perpetrating evil and yet they felt morally superior. When their victims fought back they had their derogotory term ready.
This is precisely what Dean is doing. Islam is the oppressive ideology here. It's the equivalent of racism in that it sees it's members as superior to outsiders. Based on this belief some of it's members are persecuting those outsiders, the non-believers. Those being persecuted are trying to defend themselves and Dean has sided himself with the ideology that sanctions that persecution. Not being a muslim he is not doing as a muslim would do and just calling us infidels (or the equivalent). No he's using a newly coined word, Islamophobe, in order to shut up the critics of Islam.
He is the equivalent of a racist who is running around calling people nigger-lovers on his web site. Not only that but he is intentionally misrepresenting what people have said even after having been corrected. So it is no wonder that not only the people being attacked but other peopler are attracted to his web site to debate this slanderous and defamatory behavior. Since Dean doesn't want debate he is now forced to censor anyone who questions his opinoion from his site.
The reason Dean doesn't have as much of a problem with Islam as some others is because he agrees with these kinds of tactics. Christians, Marxists (and others on the left), and also Muslims all use this tactic and are in no position to defend against it without being labeled hipocrites. Well I for one have clean hands and I'm calling Dean out on this vile behavior.
Horsefeathers. There really are anti-Islamic bigots. Dean recogizes this. There are also people who think Islam is uniquely inherently incompatible with modernity who are not anti-Islamic bigots. But I think that's a pretty small number. Interestingly enough, by Dean's own definitions, you do not appear to be an Islamophobe - since you believe that both the Marxist and Christian religions are incompatible with modernity.
Let's see.
#1 - You don't believe in Satan, so you don't believe #1.
#2 - Well you might believe this, but I doubt it, since you don't go in for oversimplification.
#3 - You don't believe this. See above.
#4 - You are too polite to behave this badly.
#5 - You appear to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I don't think you beleive this either.
Oddly, I also think Robert Spencer might not fail all five tests.
#1 - He may, as a Christian, believe this. But Dean put in an exception that he wasn't going to require people to forego their faith.
#2 - He probably believes this.
#3 - When arguing with Ali, he apperently believes Islam can be reformed, so I'm not sure he fails this test.
#4 - In actual discussion with polite people, he behaves well. When angry or referring to well known people he may let this lapse.
I saw the link to here from Mary at Exit Zero and read down. I wasn't going to comment, as I said I wouldn't in my apology for defending Dean so vigorously here, but this is just not true Wince.
In actual discussion with polite people, he behaves well. When angry or referring to well known people he may let this lapse.
At INDC, Dean attacked me merely for disagreeing with him. Notice how he viciously attacked me for things I've never said. Viciously attacks me. Of the four things he claimed I said, I had only said one of them, and I had retracted at least part of it, he doesn't call everyone who disagrees with him on Islam a 'traitor', but the list is pretty darn long. I've been further vindicated by events since then.
As for Brian Macker, I have no idea who he is, if he blogs or anything about him except Dean owes him a huge, very public apology for viciously attacking him for writing well-researched, thoughtful posts.
Dean's problems are mostly twofold:
He tries to speak for all of Islam but they refuse to stay on message
and
He can't respond civilly to people who disagree with him and who are intelligent and bolster their points with knowledge and facts.
In other words, he can take disagreement when he's right, not when he's shown to be wrong.
In actual discussion with polite people, Robert Spencer behaves well. When angry or referring to well known people he may let this lapse.
Of the four things he claimed I said, I had only said one of them, and I had retracted at least part of it
I've no doubt you are correct. I've noticed Dean misreading or misrepresenting things on more than one occasion. I frequently read too fast myself. When called on them I've seen Dean correct his mistakes. I've also seen him not correct them. Sometimes he may miss the 'call out'. Sometimes he may not. So it goes.
I've no doubt he treated you unfairly. I believe he treated ++ungood unfairly. I know he treated Brian Macker unfairly. Sooner or later he'll probably treat me unfairly. I'm glad he has what appears to be an shakeable liking for Arnold Harris.
I seem to remember I once treated you unfairly. I seem to remember apologizing, but if I didn't you have it now. I'm not sure how much an apology for a vague memory is worth.
I don't think you owe me an apology, at least I don't remember it, and I don't want one from Dean, I'm done with him, I respected him and defended him and I was wrong about him, it embarasses me because I usually figure out people pretty well.
Read the link in my comment above, he viciously attacked me for things I never said and never admitted it, even after I and others pointed out that I hadn't said what he attacked me for saying.
I thought we were friends or at least friendly enough that we could disagree respectfully, it bothers me to be that wrong about somebody. Especially since he said stuff to me safely through the internet and called me a coward.
I made that mistake with somebody else on the intertubes, but I didn't like that guy very much, he was far too impressed with himself, I just thought he could take dissent.
I think I've seen that link before. Dean was totally over the top. I can't excuse his behavior, but for some reason I still like the guy. Go figure. You did very, very well on that thread, and Brian was stellar. I wish to heck Dean would learn the lesson of Ann Coulter.
Yours,
Wince
That's an odd statement. The inventors of the suicide bomb and still leading champions in terms of number exploded are actually Hindu, not Muslim.
Regarding Dean's position, well, I understand the impulse, but I think it's dumb. His blog, though, his rules.
Well, they need better press coverage. In Iraq, Israel and the ME in general - not so much Hindu.
I'm trying to figure out whether this is one of Dean's over-the-top moments or if he's actually thought this out.
The media are not paid to go to your house and scream information into your face.
I regret to say I think he's run off the rails on this question of the Muslims.
I very much want to think that Muslims in America can be good citizens in a pluralistic society, but every day I see reason to worry. I don't want to be ruled by Puritans, whether they proclaim allegiance to Christ or to Mohammed.
And, my Queen, my mother's family was Polish, in Jersey City. Our church was Our Lady of Czestochowa, as was my grammar school.
Bill Dooley
I'm here for you!
I don't know how you guys can get along with these huge differences of opinions - but then, you have a very strong relationship!
Hugs to you and the boys!
Beth: Thanks. Dean and I try to keep our online world separate from our home life. But we have had a few shouting matches on politics. Only a few though because I'm way better at face to face debate than written. :-)
The "other Bill"? I'm the only Bill. That other fellow is an impostor.
No offense, imposter.
Just a thought: could it possibly be post-partum depression, transferred unconsciously to Dean? :)
AAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!
I have a co-worker who, viewing a picture of the Eiffel tower, said, "Ah. England."
This is Sunni vs. Shiite level ignorance.
Hindus pray to Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu, among many, many others, but most certainly not Allah.
The following, however much ++ungood protests, is not common knowledge, and I'm surprised he thinks it should be, unless he believes, as I do, that we all should study every little war in every little country, although knowing a little about a lot of wars hasn't made he and I agree on anything.
The Tamil Tigers pioneered modern suicide bombing in their ongoing attempt to break free from Sri Lanka. But suicide attacks are not new. Kamikazes come to mind.
But Muslims did adopt the tactic and spread it far and wide.
Yours,
Wince
I guess I just don't get it. Of all the nastiness that I see directed at Christians and Jews, it's hard for me to think that Muslims are the ones most in need of protection from words. Hell, with the exception of a few blogs that make Islam-hating an art form, it's been my experience that people go out of their way not to insult Muslims, while they don't worry much about insulting Christians or Jews at all. (And for the record, I'm not religious at all, so I have no particular love for any religion; I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.).
Oh, well. His blog, his rules.
I believe that when making broad statements like the one made by Rosemary that one should know what one is talking about. If one is postulating that a religion encourages suicidal behavior in its adherents because a small proportion use suicide bombs, then one should be equally critical of other religions whose members do the same. Yet I have heard no criticism of Hinduism from our lovely hostess.
Regarding common knowledge, I myself do not believe that ignorance is its own excuse.
But, more and more, it seems to me that any blog is always going to attract people who like to flame away on whatever topic you choose -- it's just what people do when they have the tools at hand. The immediacy, the anonymity, it all enables, encourages!, the nutjobs to spew all sorts of crap.
So, in my experience, the decision every blogger has to make is whether or not to have a comments section at all -- you know, like a light switch; either on or off. Nothing in between.
Clearly, large, successful blogs like dailykos.com DO edit (and ban) commenters -- largely through fairly sophisticated technical systems that enable the other commenters to identify and tag the trolls.
Other successful blogs like LGF are defined by the nutjob-audience.
Shy of those examples, it just seems like a collossal waste of time, sifting through all the comments, allowing some, not allowing others, allowing some people to have new accounts, not allowing others, banning some not banning others. I'm exhausted just thinking about it.
Unless you get some emotional satisfaction from playing the part of a highly-involved God in a world of your own making, what's the point? After all, Dungeons and Dragons is so....70's.
Bottom line: you either grow elephant hide, or you shut off comments altogether.
Or commenters can do as I have done, and use a GreaseMonkey script to replace certain posters' dialog with nice remarks about pie. I find it keeps the blood pressure down and brightens up the place. And we can all agree on pie, right?
Also, do the Hindus that commit suicide bombings do so in the name of Hinduism, or do they just happen to be Hindus? I honestly don't know the answer here, but it does make a difference.
Or people like me, who flame away on particular topics you choose....
I believe that when making broad statements like the one made by Rosemary that one should know what one is talking about.
Talk about shutting down discussion!
Yours,
Wince
Well, yeah, I guess. :)
Yeah, well. Rumor has it that, in this country, if you point out problems in the Christian or Jewish worlds (I've heard of a couple), you get called some pretty nasty stuff. And if you made a blanket statement characterizing either (like doing so with muslims), you'd probably have it coming.
Ara?
The problem is 'drawing a line in the sand' and saying either/or which is like the bully in the schoolyard saying "I dare you, to cross that line!" as Dean has done. You are left with two choices, fight or walk away.
There is an old anonymous question that goes; "How am I to face the odds of mans bedevilment , and of Gods.? I alone and afraid, in a world I never made." The answer of course is simple: "Why didn't you?"
Dean and the "labels" created that world, and since I'm just a man with an active mind, I find that because of how it was created, the line would be drawn at some point in time, and so it has. So, perhaps a lesson in, "You can't eat your cake and have it too."
I had not. I listened to the NPR piece. Wow! I like her.
"Do You Know What It Means To Miss New Orleans?" I tear up when I hear that.
She' great, isn't she? And I bet you can drive to the Columns Hotel in like an hour-and-a-half. Bastard.
As I have said before...if the Islamist threat ever gets closer to home he will change his tune as many of my friends have after 7/7.
Being intolerant of racists is ok in my book. Timothy McVeigh's point of view didn't deserve to be heard.
:-)
As for Andrew's point: Oh rubbish Andrew. You know as well as I do that there are plenty of Muslims in the UK who aren't in the least bit your enemy. You ARE evincing a John Birch Society paranoia. The only difference is, you're also carrying water for a con artist (Robert Spencer) who makes his entire living selling books and booking speaking engagements full of this silly, irrational bilgewater. (The clock's ticking on his nonsense though; I notice his books are getting more and more shrill and strident. Know why? My guess is it's because his market's limited and his publisher is undoubtedly telling him he's going to have to get more provocative if he's going to keep selling. Why d'you think the bloke's so obsessed with me anyway? My guess is he knows I've put my finger on exactly what his line of bullshit amounts to, and it bugs the crap out of him. He's also afraid his income source is going to dry up. He just needs another terrorist attack on the American homeland, a big one. You shouldn't doubt that he's hoping for that--otherwise, he'd have to go out and get a real job. Anyway, I hope Kevin Dombrowski sees how he's being used by this jackass.)
Anyway, I'm sure you've met some Muslim immigrants that acted very poorly. You've also had a few incidents of violence from some Muslim hooligans who set off Irish Republican Army-style bombs. But inflating that into a worldwide looming Muslim threat is like looking at the riots in the wake of the LA Lakers winning the NBA championship and talking about the worldwide Basketballist threat. (Or looking at the IRA and talking about the looming Irish and/or Catholic threat.)
What I'd say is that you folks in the UK need to do a better job of integrating your immigrants and making them respect the common British culture. Depicting their entire faith as part of a vast worldwide threat just makes it look to them like you hate them all, and aggravates the problem.
(You know, I'm often astonished at how Islamophobes utterly refuse to do simple things like talk to some Muslims who share their values, which aren't hard to find. It speaks volumes to me, and illustrates why I'm not playing host to these "debates" with Islamophobes anymore.)
Too weird for words.
About talking with some Moslems, Dean. I've tried doing that a few times with Ali, but he never answers anything I ask.
For sure, I wrote some of those requests in my worst Arnold Harris tone. (To which I probably would have fuckyou'd him had he written to me in the same tenor.)
But he would have busted my argument wide open if he had answered me, I think.
Anyway. Now I now what happened to Ara Rubyan.
Dean, think about letting all these good folks come home. Even if they all get on your nerves now and then. You're a big enough guy to take criticism and disagreement.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
(Immortality in the blogworld age is going to be solidly digital. Which means the next Moses, the next Jesus, the next Mohamad will all be bloggers with good style and a string of posters and commenters.)
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Yes, Islam treats women worse than dogs - read the Koran. I do know Muslim women, and I am appalled that they cannot pray in their mosques in the same place men pray. In the Koran, women are pretty much for man's pleasure. And they can be dismissed by the man - women don't have the same rights as men in Islamic law - sorry, Dean - that is absolutely true.
Incidentally I am moving to Marshfield in June. I'll feed you some spicy ass Indian fare at some point.
At any rate this is one of those rare times of agreement between us and I have emailed the Dean with my own plea for amnesty, including for Ron and Kevin.
I like to think that Ive never blown you off on an honest question. i might have missed one or two given the hgh refresh rate of comments at DW, but have I ever ignored an email from you? You cant in conscience claim that you odnt know a muslim willing to talk.
(Rosemary, permission to come aboard?)
Everyone is welcome here. Always. Did you want to co-blog here? If so, I'm cool with taht too. Let me know.
On the other hand, when my wife and I lived and studied in Israel more than 30 years ago, we noticed that women there played major roles in society and in the family, in a manner that probably is not at all the case in islamic cultures. Certainly, no jewish women ever are put to death for trifling with men not approved by their families, as happens not infrequently among Arabs.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
But what is there in Marshfield, Wisconsin that would bring you up this way? In wintertime, Marshfield to a Chicagoan might be something akin to Vorkuta to a Muscovite, back in the grim days.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Well, I somewhat admire your intolerance of close-minded bigotry (preferably without the authoritarian-style threats and bannings). Your intolerance of painful truths that offend your partisan sensibilities, not so much.
Thanks just the same, though.
I think I know where Dean's coming from, even though I also think he got way too authoritarian with this one.
If I read him correctly, he sees anti-islamism mostly as old-fashioned religious bigotry. This kind of demeanor and the behavior it masks, mostly clouds any argument we can make about responding rationally and effectively to the Islamofascism that has been a real threat to the rest of the world, including islamic societies that we of the West might otherwise be able to engage in accommodation of the type that we have with some of the cultures of southeast Asia that are neither christian nor islamic.
In this light, he drew his line in the sand as a sort of defense mechanism against what he sees as a trend that threatens rather than aids the war against terrorism.
Dean, here I am, an amateur mind-reader, telling you what I think you are thinking. But have I made at least a halfway good argument, or have I just spread bullshit?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold, I'll spill the beans in detail about Wisconsin more publicly later on - easier to do it once than multiple times :) The short version is that my wife is beginning a residency. FYI< my sect isn't Sufi, it's a Shi'a one - and we are considered extremely conservative and orthodox in our islamic practices by mainstream sunnis, so we aren't some "liberal fringe". Part fo what Dean was trying to do at DW wasto point out that the filyters by which Islam is perceived here in the US are themselves SO distorted, that you actually think mainstream practices like that of my community are somehow fringe, and that fringe practices are somehow mainstream.
Actually, I've said enough. The last thing we need is to have another big argument about Islam carry over here. As a newbie commentor I am not keen on trowing fuel on the fire. Let me just say that I think you were unfair to Ali Eteraz up above upthread, and that you know where to reach me if you ever have questions.
On women in Islam, I think you are mistaking cultural practices for inherent beliefs. In the Qur'an it is written that
Has God prepared a "vast reward" for dogs? The Bible also commands women to cover their heads
to be silent in church:
and states that they are created for the benefit of men:
But the point isn't to show that Christianity is "inherently" anti-woman. It isn't. Most Christian denomenations treat women well. So religions are not determined by selective quotations of texts. (And I am sure we can find Quranic verses that speak of women in a less than equal light, as we can find Bible verses that speak of women positively.)
By the way, what do you think of the recent fatawa issued by the Grand Mufti of Egypt regarding women in politics, hymen-reconstructive surgery, and FGM?
Finally, did you know that women scholars were actually more common in the Middle Ages than more recently: see this article. I am not saying that women's condition in Muslim countries is perfect or even good in many situations, nor should we downplay the bad conditions, but the present is not destiny. Islam is flexible and has produced many different things over time, and will produce things not yet seen in the future. I think the Women's Protection Bill in Pakistan, which was sponsored by many Muslim scholars, represents real progress in that country.
Maybe this stuff is easier for me, precisely because I am a none-believer.
Meantime, good luck with Marshfield. If you're in luck, they may just have a coffeehouse around town that beats the usual Starbucks battery acid.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold,
Wow, I actually see Dean in a better light than that (shoot me now). While he is pathologically hawkish, I hope that Dean is offended by religious bigotry for its own wrongness. And any bigotry for its own sake, because it limits understanding (you know, liberalism) above that of the practical matter of dealing with a moderate global security threat.
Good thing he’s a foaming jingoist and an irrational anti-Democrat partisan or I might actually have to like the guy.
Very well put.
Hi Arnold, I missed you too!
DPU: I found some great Kool Aide recipies that the trolls love to suck up.
Hey, Dean. Go back to your own echo chamber. The adults are trying to have a grown-up conversation here and don't need to be distracted by your tantrums. You got work to do anyway -- scrubbing your lists of all thoughtcrime perpetrators, don't you? Idiot.
(I think I just got cloned cuz I'm filled with more schadenfreude than twins could handle!)
She's great. And I bet you can drive to the Columns Hotel in like an hour-and-a-half. Bastard.
Not only that: I can have a go-cup in my hand all the way down ... and back.
Who's got it better than us, baby?
:^)
Now I now what happened to Ara Rubyan.
Nothin but love for ya, dude!
More specifically, when the clergy sits in final judgement of a secular government, then you have a recipe for chaos and disaster.
The religion might be Islam; it might be Judaism; it might be Christianity, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and/or anything else you can think of.
When it happens, it's all bad and the people suffer.
That is, until recently, when Republicanism started to break down the wall between government and religion and we began an alarming turn against both enlightenment and democracy. So:
I like it!
No he ain't. Dean has a sore spot a mile wide for criticism and disagreement.
I got kicked because I said that the Canadian health care system wasn't crappy. For that, I was deemed a Canuck piece of shit spitting on the American flag.
I mean, take from my example. I got kicked because Dean said Michael Moore is fat and I said he was just big boned.
I just took it in stride and bought myself a stairmaster so I wouldn't turn into another MM. That way, some day, Deam might love me again.
It's been all lemonade since then.
(/snark)
Rosy, you have phenomenal patience.
NEVER!
< sob >
I'm hoping to get nominated for sainthood after I die. :-)
My own theory is that Dean has made some kind of horrific deal with Satan for your hand, and presumably heart as well. So, as you don't have any choice in the matter, no sainthood. Sorry.
As for Andrew's point: Oh rubbish Andrew. You know as well as I do that there are plenty of Muslims in the UK who aren't in the least bit your enemy.
I am overwhelmed by those "moderate" Muslims shouting down the Islamists and extremists. Have you actually read what is said by the so-called mainstream Muslim organisations in the UK?
I read a blog called Harry's Place that does its best to discover moderate Muslims making an effort to speak up. There are some, but not very many.
Dean I cannot believe that you don't see a clear difference between the behaviour of Muslims in the US and the UK. I wonder what percentage of British-born Jihadists fighting jihad abroad is to those eminating from the US? Have you not seen the multiple polls about Muslim sentiment and opinion in the UK?
I didn't mind not having the account so long as he stopped slandering me by writing that I said things that I had not said, and did not believe. But he was continuing to do so. I was merely using the account at his site as a means for me to defend against his misinformation.
For instance claims that "any Muslim who disagreed with him about the Koran was a liar.". Where did he get that? I was talking about one Muslim about one issue and even then it wasn't a claim she was a liar in general, nor a direct liar on the single claim in question. If Dean doesn’t have the mental gifts to understand the nature of the deception this woman was practicing then he should have asked for clarification.
It just bothers the hell out of him that I should challenge a Muslim. I guess he sees Muslims as a protected species (or something) that is too fragile to handle open discussion. Or perhaps he sees their moral authority as imbued in them by Allah as unquestionable. Frankly, I have no clue since his whole traitor theory is ridiculous and would in fact mean that Dean should ban himself from his own website for his statements about evangelicals or even communists.
This was over a simple question of whether the Qur’an gives out rewards for violence. Of course, I gave the sources and quotes to support my side and the position of the other side was the extreme statement that "Nowhere in the Quran does it say, 'Kill and you will be rewarded.'". Which is utter nonsense. Anyone making such a claim either has not read the entire Koran and is thus lying to the listener in that regard, is going by a secondhand source so is lying about their own authority to answer the question, or knows the truth and is straight out lying. She also might have been lying via the playing of word games since literally this particualar statement as worded is not in the Koran. There are many kinds of lies including lies of omission, lies of false authority, and leading the listener to draw the wrong conclusion. This stuff is too subtle for Dean however.
I for instance could claim to be an authority on the bible and that nowhere in the Bible is the term Crusade used. However if I fail to disclose that I haven't read the entire bible in thirty years and am relying on what might be a faulty memory then I am in fact lying to you.
If we were having an argument about whether the concept of holy war was in the Bible and I brought this up then. I would also have been misleading you (a form of lying) if the bible did contain the concept of Crusade (as in holy war) but just not the word itself.
BTW, I did search for the word Crusade in the bible and did not find it. I have no idea if the concept of holy war is in there or not. I do know that God did call certain peoples to war against certain others but that's not the same thing as a Crusade (as in holy war).
The woman in question was lying about something. Either she wasn't an authority worth listening to and was lying about that, or she knew about the rewards for violence in the Koran and lied about them, or she was deceiving by being too literal, or was using some other form of deception that is related. She failed the authority test since one of the hallmarks of an scholar is to verify and test what they believe. She certainly didn’t do that since a short search turns up lots of instances of the Qur’an rewarding violence.
Nor does one need to be an authority to dispose of certain claims. I'm not and never claimed to be an Islamic authority. For instance, I didn’t need to be an Islamic scholar to disprove her false claim, and at the same time destroy her claims to authority on the issue of the Qur’an. Any true scholar of Islam would know about such statements.
I need not be either an Islamic authority nor a Islamophobe to expose falsehood. There are other options to explain my actions but Dean likes to impose his personal favorites.
What does motivate me is a respect for the truth. If someone is going to claim that Muslims have invented something or that certain ancient Muslim societies were "tolerant" and that is false then I will call them on it. The fact is Muslims didn't invent the zero. The fact is that that those societies were worse that the pre-antebellum South with regards to both slavery and second-class citizenship for non-Muslims. Of course I'm going to call them on those issues. Not because I wish to humiliate them but because they are using such examples to establish their moral authority over non-believers, Christians, and Jews.
The beliefs of the Muslims are false and one of the most heinous of those beliefs is that their religion gives them authority over others. Not only moral authority over others but the political kind as well. Dean supports them in this regard with his litmus tests for non-Muslims. If we cannot critique Islam then we cannot defend ourselves from its evil tenets. Dean thinks he’s on the side of the underdog but in fact he acts as a spokesman for the oppressors.
I think all these behaviors by Dean, the secret banning, the litmus tests, false testimony about the statements of others, shows that he has quite a large gap in his understanding of moral behavior himself. So it’s no wonder he has no issue with Islam. It’s totally off his radar. He cannot read the Quran and Hadiths (if he even has) and see the inherent moral errors in Mohammed’s teachings and behavior. The utter moral double standard that is Islam. He just cannot fathom the outrage that others feel over the treatment that non-Muslims have gotten from Islam over the centuries, and in the present day. How else to explain someone who fights those who expose the oppression that is inherent to Islam via it’s teachings.
It’s no coincidence that non-Muslims (and women) are treated as less the full human beings in Muslim countries. The religion teaches such double standards. Surprise, surprise, the followers practice them.
Dean is not afraid to fight unfairly. That’s the whole purpose of the number three on his litmus test. It assumes the very thing it sets out to prove. It assumes that it is Islam that is not the problem and uses that assumption to label those who disagree as evil. You are an Islamophobe if you don’t agree with Dean on this point. In doing so he does the vile thing that Islam has always done, to dismiss questioners of Islam as evil.
A fully moral ideology cannot include the belief that the mere questioning of the ideology is tantamount to a sin, nor grounds for punishment, retribution, censorship, dismissal, or domination. The degree to which an ideology makes questioning grounds for such bad behavior is the degree to which it sinks into evil.
(Not) coincidentally, this attracts a lot of "Islamophobes."
As a result, he fights back, writing about it some more.
Which attracts yet more "Islamophobes," or at the very least, stiffens the resolve of those he labels in that way.
Which causes him to write about it some more.
It's the blogging equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.
Yawn.
Yours,
Wince
Islamophobe is being used by the apologists for Islam in the same way that Marx used bourgeoisie. In his theory the bourgeoisie were exploiters of the proletariate and thus moral pariahs. Bourgeoisie was a perfect term because it implicitly contained Marx's false assumptions and at the same time served as a slur against his intellectual opponents. It didn't even really matter to him whether his opponents actually owned any productive captital he could always accuse them of having a bourgeoisie mindset. Thus his theory contained its own means of self defense independent of whether it was actually true.
Islam is the same. One of the tenents of Islam is that anyone who disagrees is evil. Thus one need not debate or have a dialog with the non-believer because they are evil. Even minor questioning by believers can also be suppressed in this manner.
Christianity has similar built in beliefs that denegrate anyone who dares to question. As a child I recognized this. The story of doubting Thomas comes to mind. The idea that the tree of knowledge was a bad thing also comes to mind. As does the fact that the mere non-belief in the system is on the list of sins. Those are a few of the reasons I decided that Christianity was not a path to the truth.
You'll notice that all three of these Marxism, Christianity, and Islam have had their fair share of atrocities. Mostly based on the belief that the people they were slaughtering were evil and deserved what they got.
Other less respectible ideologies also use this tactic. A more crude version of this being the white racists use of the term nigger-lover. This was for them a way of labeling someone as morally unfit while at the same time indicating that they could not be trusted with the truth. The truth of white superiority in their minds. It was the racists who were perpetrating evil and yet they felt morally superior. When their victims fought back they had their derogotory term ready.
This is precisely what Dean is doing. Islam is the oppressive ideology here. It's the equivalent of racism in that it sees it's members as superior to outsiders. Based on this belief some of it's members are persecuting those outsiders, the non-believers. Those being persecuted are trying to defend themselves and Dean has sided himself with the ideology that sanctions that persecution. Not being a muslim he is not doing as a muslim would do and just calling us infidels (or the equivalent). No he's using a newly coined word, Islamophobe, in order to shut up the critics of Islam.
He is the equivalent of a racist who is running around calling people nigger-lovers on his web site. Not only that but he is intentionally misrepresenting what people have said even after having been corrected. So it is no wonder that not only the people being attacked but other peopler are attracted to his web site to debate this slanderous and defamatory behavior. Since Dean doesn't want debate he is now forced to censor anyone who questions his opinoion from his site.
The reason Dean doesn't have as much of a problem with Islam as some others is because he agrees with these kinds of tactics. Christians, Marxists (and others on the left), and also Muslims all use this tactic and are in no position to defend against it without being labeled hipocrites. Well I for one have clean hands and I'm calling Dean out on this vile behavior.
Horsefeathers. There really are anti-Islamic bigots. Dean recogizes this. There are also people who think Islam is uniquely inherently incompatible with modernity who are not anti-Islamic bigots. But I think that's a pretty small number. Interestingly enough, by Dean's own definitions, you do not appear to be an Islamophobe - since you believe that both the Marxist and Christian religions are incompatible with modernity.
Let's see.
#1 - You don't believe in Satan, so you don't believe #1.
#2 - Well you might believe this, but I doubt it, since you don't go in for oversimplification.
#3 - You don't believe this. See above.
#4 - You are too polite to behave this badly.
#5 - You appear to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I don't think you beleive this either.
Oddly, I also think Robert Spencer might not fail all five tests.
#1 - He may, as a Christian, believe this. But Dean put in an exception that he wasn't going to require people to forego their faith.
#2 - He probably believes this.
#3 - When arguing with Ali, he apperently believes Islam can be reformed, so I'm not sure he fails this test.
#4 - In actual discussion with polite people, he behaves well. When angry or referring to well known people he may let this lapse.
#5 - I've seen no evidence either way.
Yours,
Wince
In actual discussion with polite people, he behaves well. When angry or referring to well known people he may let this lapse.
At INDC, Dean attacked me merely for disagreeing with him. Notice how he viciously attacked me for things I've never said. Viciously attacks me. Of the four things he claimed I said, I had only said one of them, and I had retracted at least part of it, he doesn't call everyone who disagrees with him on Islam a 'traitor', but the list is pretty darn long. I've been further vindicated by events since then.
As for Brian Macker, I have no idea who he is, if he blogs or anything about him except Dean owes him a huge, very public apology for viciously attacking him for writing well-researched, thoughtful posts.
Dean's problems are mostly twofold:
He tries to speak for all of Islam but they refuse to stay on message
and
He can't respond civilly to people who disagree with him and who are intelligent and bolster their points with knowledge and facts.
In other words, he can take disagreement when he's right, not when he's shown to be wrong.
We have an antecedant problem. I meant:
In actual discussion with polite people, Robert Spencer behaves well. When angry or referring to well known people he may let this lapse.
Of the four things he claimed I said, I had only said one of them, and I had retracted at least part of it
I've no doubt you are correct. I've noticed Dean misreading or misrepresenting things on more than one occasion. I frequently read too fast myself. When called on them I've seen Dean correct his mistakes. I've also seen him not correct them. Sometimes he may miss the 'call out'. Sometimes he may not. So it goes.
I've no doubt he treated you unfairly. I believe he treated ++ungood unfairly. I know he treated Brian Macker unfairly. Sooner or later he'll probably treat me unfairly. I'm glad he has what appears to be an shakeable liking for Arnold Harris.
I seem to remember I once treated you unfairly. I seem to remember apologizing, but if I didn't you have it now. I'm not sure how much an apology for a vague memory is worth.
Yours,
Wince
Read the link in my comment above, he viciously attacked me for things I never said and never admitted it, even after I and others pointed out that I hadn't said what he attacked me for saying.
I thought we were friends or at least friendly enough that we could disagree respectfully, it bothers me to be that wrong about somebody. Especially since he said stuff to me safely through the internet and called me a coward.
I made that mistake with somebody else on the intertubes, but I didn't like that guy very much, he was far too impressed with himself, I just thought he could take dissent.
I think I've seen that link before. Dean was totally over the top. I can't excuse his behavior, but for some reason I still like the guy. Go figure. You did very, very well on that thread, and Brian was stellar. I wish to heck Dean would learn the lesson of Ann Coulter.
Yours,
Wince