A fourteen-year-old girl was flogged to death for the crime of being raped.
[Update a day or more later]
This poignant photo gallery seems related somehow.
What was the religion of the people who took over that country three decades ago? Gee, it’s right on the tip of my tongue.
[Bumped]
A more useful tool for what? A better guide for what kind of policy? If George W. Bush is trying
I think the window between our universe and Bob-1’s just closed unexpectedly.
Carl said “I see you are confirming my point in my response to Daveon. Your most recent example of Christian militant missionarianism is from the 16th century.”
Carl, are you stupid? you asked me to: “give an example of a Christian campaign of conquest comparable to al-Ġazawāt.”
So now you try to condemn me for doing exactly what you asked.
Whoops. Please ignore that last comment. I didn’t mean to hit send.
You’re looking for stereotypes to shortcut thinking. If I say “he’s a muslim” or “the object is a star”, you’ll jump to certain conclusions – that’s how our brains work and its very useful. These shortcuts are particularly useful if you don’t have a lot of time — maybe you don’t have a lot of time to think (if you’re being chased) or maybe you don’t have time to talk (if you’re in a casual conversation and don’t want to have to spell out every damn thing because you hope the other person knows what you mean). But if you doing science or politics, you’re probably better off taking a little time, and spelling things out a little more carefully, particularly if your ideas are already being challenged, to benefit from increased accuracy,and to take into account that you may be talking to someone who doesn’t agree with you.
If someone says “Should I buy pork chops for the group lunch?”, and I answer “Well, the guest of honor is a Muslim”, maybe that’s a good enough answer — maybe he is fine with pork, maybe not, but we don’t need an accurate answer. We don’t need to know if the Muslim in question is typical or not – we can assume he is, and make a good decision.
If the Army asks “Will he be a loyal soldier?” and B. Lewis answers “Well, he’s from Pakistan – he can’t fit in”, the Army needs a better answer. It is fine (and desirable) for the Army to know about what is in the Koran, and what the average guy in Pakistan thinks of the US Army, but the Army needs a more accurate assessment of a candidate soldier in order to be the best it can be. In particular, it could use loyal soldiers from Pakistan right now!
“Everyone knows the only folks who can be held collectively guilty and responsible are white Christian Americans, or Jews in Israel.”
Carl, you’re a moron, throughout this thread I’ve been arguing that in all cases that it’s not justified to blame a whole religion for the actions of a few of its members. If anything it’s you that’s applying double standards.
Andrew, Portuguese and Spanish colonialism in South and Central America in the 1500s and 1600s are in no serious sense comparable to the Muslim conquests immediately after the death of Muhammed. Different times, different combatants, different purposes, different outcomes. About the only similarity is that both involved a certain amount of fighting and changes of political and religious allegiance.
If nothing else, your comparison here…
Oh there were plenty of military actions involved in the expansion of Islam in the first thousand years of its existence, but so what? There were also plenty of military actions involved in the expansion of the domains of the European powers across the world in the following centuries, with missionaries doing their best to promote Christianity
…is either utterly pointless, or you are trying to compare the initial spread of both religions, Islam and Christianity, and arguing that both began by militant expansion. There is no question that the initial expansion of Islam was by the sword. But when asked to name the comparable Christian initial missionary conquest, you come up with a side-effect of European colonialism one thousand years after Christianity had fully established its dominance (by persuasion only) in Europe.
If you don’t agree, then be quite specific about your point in the above passage. What do you mean by that key word “also,” hmm?
I’ve been arguing that in all cases that it’s not justified to blame a whole religion for the actions of a few of its members.
Also: I have a dream that I will live in a nation where people are judged by the content of the character, and not by inaccurate over-generalizations about a group that contains 1 billion people, with all the variety that such an enormous number suggests.
If the Army asks “Will he be a loyal soldier?” and B. Lewis answers “Well, he’s from Pakistan – he can’t fit in”, the Army needs a better answer.
Bob, you are caricaturizing the other side unreasonably. I suspect B. Lewis’s actual answre would be “Well, he’s from Pakistan — you better double check.” That is, he uses the “stereotype” to warn about when you should dig deeper into individual particulars, and when you can afford to be more efficient in the use of your time and resources.
It’s like the TSA, bob. Does it really make sense for them to absolutely refuse to stereotype travelers, and therefore to insist on the same level of screening of 2-month old infants traveling in arms with clearly American 22-year-old mothers who’ve never left the United States, versus young bearded clearly Middle Eastern young men with passports stamped all over from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? That’s crazy, and an attempt to do so just means the available resources will be spread too thinly.
Consider the costs of the alternative policy, where you nobly refuse to consider the “stereotype,” and every time Major Nidal Hasan starts muttering about the evils perpetrated on Muslims by the US Army, you just say well, Flora in Accounting bitches about the gays, too, so it must mean nothing.
This shouldn’t be about B. Lewis, but you must have missed some of his more racist comments and references. It is people like him, people who share his beliefs, that I don’t want to pretend are being reasonable. I assume you would have no problem with having a Muslim for a neighbor. Security at airports is really a special case — I’m talking about tolerant co-existance.
Again, I don’t care much about B. Lewis, but I do care about the problem of bigotry in this country, and with that in mind, look at the similarities between this conversation and another one with B. Lewis: transterrestrial [dot] com/?p=32826#comment-215079
“Different times, different combatants, different purposes, different outcomes”
So to make a fair comparison, I need to find examples of Christian and Muslim expansion that happened at the same time, with the same combatants, for the same purposes, with the same out comes.
Do I cry or laugh?
You have to add “www” to the front to make the comment-specific part of the link work correctly. (Or just scroll down to the end of that thread.)
I have a dream that I will live in a nation where people are judged by the content of the character, and not by inaccurate over-generalizations about a group
Well, I have a dream, too, that 1960s narcissism passes from the scene with its first converts, and instead of everyone sitting around on their inscrutable smug adolescent asses saying hey, maybe I look incompetent, lazy, arrogant, crazy, et cetera, but it’s up to YOU to dig deep into my character and figure out what the hell I mean by what I just did or said, and instead each one of us prizes the time and effort and liberty of others, and so we take some responsibility for how we are judged by them. We respect their right to take reasonable evidence-based shortcuts if it will make their lives much easier, and we do what we need to do to ensure that those shortcuts don’t cut us short.
So we’ll be courteous — so no one takes the shortcut of assuming that discoutesy means you’re a selfish bastard. We’ll dress reasonably and take the trouble to read, write and speak standard English — so no one assumes slovenly and idiosyncratic habits of dress or speech means slovenly or idiosyncratic habits of work. We’ll choose the associations we make, and the causes to which we donate, with some care, knowing that folks might draw shortcut conclusions from the money we sent to an al Qaeda front, or from our membership in the local Klan chapter. We’ll apply strong criticism to the wayward among our co-religionists or our fellow workers in the same field, knowing that folks might take shortcuts in judgment of us if another Christian or another lobbyist or Congressman or lawyer acts like an asshole.
In short, we’ll understand clearly that there’s a big difference between liberty and license, and that if you insist on the liberty to judge others freely — to not be forced to trust or not trust according to some central authority — then you will have to submit to the judgment of others. It’s a two-way street.
So to make a fair comparison, I need to…
Please don’t bother, Andrew. I think I’ve amused myself responding to your scatterbrained inanity just about as much as I care to.
I do care about the problem of bigotry in this country.
Fair enough, bob. Who wouldn’t be? But then you ought to wake up and smell the coffee, Rip. The major problems of bigotry in the United States are no longer Jim Crow or Puritans burning witches. You’re at least 50 years behind the times. Today’s problems of bigotry are more the inverse racism of Eric Holder, or the suicidal PC blindness of the TSA, or the grotesque caricaturization of gun owners and Tea Partiers in the national media, or the routine mockery and demonization in popular culture of avowedly religious Christians, or Southerners, or veterans, or businessmen, or men in general. You’re fighting yesteryear’s wars, which have already been won as much as they’re ever going to be won, and letting today’s victims fend for themselves. Your concern is admirable, but its direction of application out of date and seriously misplaced.
Well, good! I’m sure you’ll be very judicious in your standards, because I know you don’t want to be a total asshole toward people who don’t deserve it.
You asked “Which do you suppose is a more useful tool, a better guide for policy?”
Carl, I think I finally figured out what I want to say. I want people (including myself) to have a useful tool, a better policy guide, for thinking about what it would be like to have someone described simply as “a Muslim” as their neighbor, their friend, the teacher of their children, their neighborhood beat cop, and so on. Someone described only as “a Muslim” might turn out to be someone horrible — that’s always true when you get a generic description like “a Muslim” or “an Irishmen”. But I want people to know what the other possibilities are. A more useful tool, a better policy guide should help us understand that “A Muslim” might turn out to be a physics teacher from Bangladesh who wants to take the time to write an op-ed piece condemning the actions of fundamentalists who used her religion as a reason to commit murder.
Regarding African-Americans: it varies by region. The issues you mention get national attention as political fodder, but the old issues are still there. Whether I’m right or wrong about that, it is for another thread — this one is about Islam, and bigotry toward Muslims is not yesterday’s concern. Concern about Islamist terrorism and concern about overseas wars doesn’t cancel out my concern about bigotry, and the same should be true of you.
@Bob-1: Uh-oh! You called me a racist — the ultimate weapon has been used! Yet here I am, whole and untouched, bearing no damage of any sort.
Your puny ad hominemattempt to intimidate me by name-calling has failed, Bob-1. It’s failing more and more frequently wherever it is used. People are no longer terrified of the dreaded R-Word. No matter how much you malign those who represent reality, Bob, reality will always win in the end.
You’ve played your trump, Bob. Now what have you got?
Nothing, that’s what.
B Lewis does have a point in questioning the stability of multicultural societies. I think in times of prosperity they can be stable, but in times of hardship it’s very easy for rabble-rousers to create division. it times of extreme hardship societies fragment and collapse, cultural differences are one of the first fault-lines to split open.
And Carl I think is right about “inverse racism”, I suspect a lot of kids in minority cultures are brought up being told by family that they will always battle to succeed because they’re discriminated against, and so, whenever they fail to get a job, that’s what they blame. But the discrimination is more perceived than real.
Yeah Andrew, B. Lewis is the sort of person who wants to destabilize society, and so we should worry about his warning regarding the stability of society. Great. Lets be clear: he thinks there is one “Black American culture” and one Islamic culture, and if African-Americans or Muslims bring their culture to the American suburbs, we’ll see “ethnic cleansing, genocide, rape camps, and the whole nightmare scenario of civil war” in America. But as his video link explains, we don’t know this because of the Zionist-dominated media.
@Bob-1: Come on, Bob. Now I’m a Nazi, too? Is that the best you’ve got?
Your arguments are weak, so you resort to schoolyard name-calling. Pathetic.
I was quoting you.
Ahh, sorry Bob, what was the question?
@Bob-1: No sir.. I never said a damned thing about any Zionist media or anything of the sort. I don’t believe in that sort of nonsense and have never uttered or written a single word to indicate otherwise.
You, sir, are a damned liar, and I demand an immediate retraction and apology.
Is B Lewis a bigot? Certainly.
Are there lots of bigots about? Yep.
Will there always be bigots? Yep.
Will bigots use their prejudices to demonize people and groups of people because putting others down they can elevate themselves in their own eyes, and in the eyes of like-minded bigots? Yep.
In times of adversity are there more opportunities for bigots to exploit with their bigotry? Yep.
B. Lewis, review the video link you provided here: www dot transterrestrial dot com/?p=32826#comment-215085
Andrew, regarding the question of whether there will ALWAYS be bigots, it is hard to predict the future. Technology might make it easier to look past the superficial differences bigots thrive on.
Oh noes, Andrew W and Bob-1 have brought out the Bigot™ and Racist!&trade big guns! Head for the hills, head for the hills, hea–
Hey wait a minute. All that’s coming out of those barrels are cotton balls and bellybutton lint!
Oh– oh– cotton. That was racist. I denounce myself.
Andrea, what are you talking about? I’m not saying B Lewis is a bad person for being a bigot, heck, one of my favourite bloggers is thefatbigot, who understands the meaning of the word: “By definition a bigot is someone who is intolerant of one or more things with which he disagrees. TheFatBigot is intolerant of everything that makes him angry.
Would B lewis deny being intolerant of Islam? Are you kidding?
It was at this point the troll calling himself Andrew W. gave the game away. Well played, troll, well played!
I was using this definition of bigot: “one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
Andrea, how do you think you’d score on those FPD Symptoms? I recon you’d outscore me in most of the points, but I guess there’s a lot of subjectivity to it.
1.Namecaller: This defines the flamer. “Flamer” means “namecaller”… –>
2. Competitive/argumentative: flamers are fighters; verbal brawlers. We greatly enjoy arguments for their own sake, and will start flamewars intentionally…. –>
3. Amoral: we think that our insults, verbal abuse, character attacks, and even death threats are perfectly acceptable behavior, once “justified”… –>
4. Vengeful: flamers believe that once an insult has been received, it becomes perfectly acceptable to return the insult, or even to embark on a longrunning insult stream… –>
5. Deceitful: we see nothing wrong with deception and distortion as long as we’re not caught… –>
6. Narcisstic: we have extreme vanity, taking the form of an exquisite sensitivity to anything which even SLIGHTLY resembles an insult… –>
7. Paranoid: we flamers constantly display secretive behavior, being careful to never freely discuss personal info about our schooling, experience, everyday lives… –>
8. No self-doubt. Perfect people never monitor themselves to avoid mistakes… –>
9. Self-blind: No insight into our own flaws and foibles… –>
10. Hypocritical: totally enmeshed in a self-serving bias: “when I do something, it’s a pure and justified deed, but when you do exactly the same thing, it’s a shameful and disgusting PLOY.” –>
11. Self-important: we have a very low opinion of others, and an exalted (if dishonest) opinion of ourselves… –>
12. Denying/projecting: We cannot see reality honestly, but must constantly manipulate it by erasing some parts and distorting others. –>
Bob, I guess just about everyone could be fairly labeled a bigot, after all, who thinks that rapists and murderers shouldn’t be treated with hatred and intolerance? Getting back to the topic of the post, in this instance it’s more about defining “the group” is it the people who did the raping and murdering, or all of Islam?
You’re right, Andrew W. You are SO RIGHT. The scales have fallen from my eyes! Everything you say (and think and believe) is CORRECT, and RIGHT — dare I say RIGHTEOUS? And everything I say, think, and believe is WRONG. O! Let this be a lesson to you, others who have commented here — only Andrew W. knows the TRUTH about ALL THINGS. I’d say that I wish I could be like Andrew W. when I grew up, only — *sob* — it’s too late for me! But maybe it won’t be too late for some of you. Save yourselves if you can from a lifetime of error! Listen to Andrew W. — or rather, read his Wise Words. (Well you can copy and paste his words into one of those text reader things and thus “listen” to him, if you like. Try to pick the robotic male voice, for that hypnotic effect.) I only wish I had, but now it’s too late! I am doomed! DOOOMED!
@Bob-1: Here is my supposedly anti-Semitic post, in its entirety:
Proved: There is not one jot nor tittle of anti-Semitism in that post.
Your attempt at character assassination has failed. I demand a retraction and apology at once.
Yeah, I think you probably get extra points for sarcasm.
my above comment was of course to Andrea
Criticize an Imam? Andrew/Bob can’t do it. Call B Lewis a Racist, Bigot, Nazi? Andrew/Bob will do it everytime. I guess they know where to direct their outrage.
Many of us fingered Andrew/Bob as hypocrits from the beginning, and all they have done is prove that’s what they are. They tell us we shouldn’t judge others, but yet they have no issue doing it. Blame Christians, yep. Blame Americans, yep. Blame Muslims for murdering a 14 year old girl? They won’t do it.
Carl, I think I finally figured out what I want to say. I want people (including myself) to have a useful tool, a better policy guide, for thinking about what it would be like to have someone described simply as “a Muslim” as their neighbor, their friend, the teacher of their children, their neighborhood beat cop, and so on
Why would you need such a guide, for any of the people mentioned? Don’t you have experience and common sense to guide you? Why do you need broad social philosophical theories to inform how you react to your fellow man? That the teacher of my children is a Muslim is as relevant as whether she’s a Christian or believer in the divinity of the Sun. Why should I care, until and unless she injects her religion into her teaching? Same with the beat cop, and even more so for the neighbors. This is America. As a rule, we don’t give a damn about your religion — until it gets in our face.
And there’s the rub, eh? The issue you’ve swept under the rug here. Because we’re not talking about how to react to an American cop or teacher who goes to a mosque instead of a church or synagogue: we’re talking about how we react to aspects of Islam that do get in our faces, e.g. what to do about non-Americans flying into American cities on one-way tickets and no baggage, who also happen to be good Muslims — whether we want the TSA to apply “prejudice” and “profiling” and X-ray their asses good, instead of ours or our aged grandmother’s. Or how we react as a nation to the sharia-approved murder of a 14-year-old girl — do we shrug our shoulders and say ah yes cultural differences, tut tut — or do we react as General Napier is said to have reacted to the tradition of suttee in colonial India, viz.:
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
That’s the subject under discussion, Bob. Nobody’s looking for a monolithic, monochrome, blind response to every single Muslim. There is the question of whether Islam in general is a good idea — it doesn’t seem to be, at the time, although probably with appropriate care it can be used successfully, like marijuana or ECT — and the question of US foreign policy and how it should be informed by what we know of foreign Islam and its adherents. It’s a common rhetorical trick to argue that a theory or method is unusable if it cannot be applied to every single instance. But it’s a logical fallacy, and you should know better. We can, as a nation, decide that Islam in general and on the world stage is dangerous and somewhat wicked, and that foreign nations and individuals (particular of certain nations) who ardently profess Islam deserve special scrutiny before we trust them — while at the same time leaving the issue of how Americans treat each other individually, Muslim or not, to their good sense. There is no necessity for conflating the issues.
Nobody’s looking for a monolithic, monochrome, blind response to every single Muslim.
Nobody? Nobody here? Or do you mean that, to your credit, you aren’t doing that.
Here’s an article that covers the case of Hena Akhter in more detail, and also covers another rape case in Bangladesh in which the Catholic church had a role in the local arbitration, with a similar unjust result.
http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2011/03/01/special.htm
Inspirational video here: http://youtu.be/Qeyrp-V3Jvc
(youtu dot be slash Qeyrp-V3Jvc)
I disagree with other aspects of your comment Carl – since there are hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims, some of whom are US allies or are being courted as allies, the idea that we would “as a nation” decide that Islam in general is not a good idea, that it is dangerous and somewhat wicked – seems completely obnoxious to me. If we can be fair at home, why not be fair abroad as well? And the idea that people could believe Islam in general is dangerous and somewhat wicked abroad and yet still give Muslim-Americans at home a fair shake seems dubious. But since some people in this very conversation don’t have a “not all Muslims worldview”, since some people in this very conversation are indeed looking for a monolithic monochrome blind response, it doesn’t matter.
==
Here’s the kind of balance I’d like to see:
http://www.ajcboston.org/site/c.mwL7KmNZLtH/b.6318885/k.CD46/Combating_AntiMuslim_Bigotry.htm
The first paragraphs express my views for the most part, the middle paragraphs address the legitimate concerns that you and Rand have (and that I share too, by the way), and the final paragraphs explain my motivation for participating in this thread.
While she makes a few reasonable points, it’s a pity Ann Barnhardt is so repugnant, she’s angry, abusive, insulting. I watched all of that video, and most of another, in the other video she argued that the Bible was the only “Holy” book that existed, well I suppose that’s her opinion, but she didn’t act like she thought it was opinion, she acted like it was fact. To me that’s the type of thinking, one of a complete lack of empathy with those of with a different opinion to your own, is almost a definition of evil.
I also thought it was ironic that none of the four videos of hers that I checked, didn’t watch much of two others, allowed comments to be posted. I think she’s probably someone who’s all in favour of freedom of speech, so long as it’s hers.
The way we interpret the principle of freedom of speech is I think worth considering, because it’s not a universally applied principle, there’s the old line that freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to yell “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater, and it also doesn’t give you freedom to defame people or corporations. So why does it give people the right to defame religions, are corporations more important than religions?
A while ago a local museum decided to put a piece of “art” on display, it was a Madonna covered by a condom, local Catholics were, not surprisingly, up in arms about it (and no, they didn’t riot and kill lots of people), (my sympathy’s were with the Catholics), the artist claimed freedom of expression, but, heck I’m sure to many people the “art” was as offensive as public sex, so why shouldn’t freedom of expression be a legitimate defense if charged for the latter?
I guess there are always going to be double standards when writing and enforcing law, that’s how it is, but there are unwritten laws about respecting other peoples beliefs that, because they’re unwritten and so unenforceable, don’t exist to people like Ann Barnhardt, they’re still real though to the people whose religious artifacts are being desecrated.
Nobody’s looking for a monolithic, monochrome, blind response to every single Muslim.
I count myself with Carl. But Bob, if you are looking for a monolithic, monochrome, blind response; well I’m not surprised.
Because a “religion” does not have rights, like a person or a corporation. Note well, one does not have the right to defame a church for that same reason. Also, these are torts, not crimes — so defamation must entail specific damages or there is no case.
Wrt “FIRE” in a theater, one is creating a clear and present danger (people getting hurt in a mad dash to the exits), same as with “fighting words” and other potentially criminal forms of speech. It’s all well-and-good for us to sit back and discuss the murder of a 14-year old girl, but we cannot, should not, riot in the streets over it, mkay?
Wrt “condom Mary” vs public sex, it’s more apples and oranges. Was “condom Mary” in a private venue or on the sidewalk? You’re allowed to display offensive art in a private venue just as you’re allowed to display titties in a tittie bar. (I doubt she or Piss Christ would fare as well on the median in front of city hall.) Rememer, States are well within their right to curtail libertine behavior to preserve the peace. Preventing disorderly conduct (e.g.: public sex and violence) and preserving public safety is their raison d’etre. (I realize that in this age of High Speed Subsidized Cowboy poetry it’s difficult to remember why they even exist…)
Titus, you sound like you know what your talking about, so here’s another couple of questions, when you say “church” would that include the “Roman Catholic church?” Could the RCC, at least in theory, seek damages if I said things that could cause damage to their reputation, and/or their financial well being?
Could a religious organisation seek protection for the use of their name through registering a trade mark, and how religious artifacts are used by copyrighting (I know copyright expires, but that could be changed relatively easily ).
Andrew, I’m not fluent on international contract law (IIRC, Europe is more strict than the US — defaming the Pope might get you hanged there, dunno…), so let’s keep it state-side: if I Facebooked that the pastor down the street was eating babies and it hurt their donations and the pastor was, in fact, not devouring children, then his church could sue my ass for the loss of revenue, yes.
As for Religion and IP (and interesting blend of ideas…), bear in mind that civil law carves out very few special cases here. Also, much of religion is in the public domain: you cannot trademark or copyright Jesus on a Cross, if that’s where you’re going with this…lol
since there are hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims, some of whom are US allies or are being courted as allies, the idea that we would “as a nation” decide that Islam in general is not a good idea, that it is dangerous and somewhat wicked – seems completely obnoxious to me
International politics is not a morality play, Bob, where we gain game score points for Being Nice. Nations are not individuals, and we cannot appeal to a nation’s vanity or gratitude — because, not being persons, they don’t have any. We don’t court Islamic allies by saying nice things about Islam, we do it by various concrete carrots (trade agreements, security assistance, cash) and sticks (military and economic threats). Furthermore, there are plenty of historical cases where we have condemned a national philosophy — imperialism, Guallism, socialism, communism — and yet had productive practical working relationships with the nations that espouse them.
Requiring that the United States build relationships with only those nations whose governing philosophy is entirely congenial to our own means we can build very few, which is stupid. Conversely, becoming philosophical sluts, and uncritically accepting as co-equal to our own the philosophy and practises of any nation with which we want to trade, negotiate security agreements, et cetera, is to abandon even ordinary pride in our values and become groveling panderers whom no one, least of all ourselves, will respect.
If we can be fair at home, why not be fair abroad as well?
Because “home” and “abroad” are ipso facto different, Bob. If you can appreciatively fondle your wife’s breasts as she leans over you in the morning, why not the waitress at the coffee shop? Or more precisely, what is “fair” at home, citizen to citizen, is quite a different thing than what is “fair” nation to nation, or nation to alien. If you want to be a citizen of the Federation, where all national distinctions have been erased except for cute cultural fashions, like a cup of Earl Grey, hot, versus a beaker of single-malt, or calling your mother mum instead of maman, then you’ll need to wait some time, or take the sling-shot shuttle to a perpendicular universe. In this universe nations exist because men differ on the best conditions of existence and government — and these differences are real and important, not just a question of bad translation of idioms.
And the idea that people could believe Islam in general is dangerous and somewhat wicked abroad and yet still give Muslim-Americans at home a fair shake seems dubious
Really, Bob? Just how sheltered are you? My ex mother in law was born in Nagoya in 1930, and during the last stages of the war trained to hide in a pit with a sharpened stick to poke into American soldiers. She emigrated to the United States in 1950, and, so far as I can tell, was as welcome as any other immigrant — even by families whose sons or fathers had been slaughtered on Iwo Jima. As a scientist I met plenty of Soviets during the Cold War, with whom I had excellent personal relations, while holding their regime in utter contempt.
I see in this comment the underlying contempt of the leftist for his fellow man: you lack faith in your fellow Americans. You think we cannot distinguish between a wicked philosophy and decent people, who may, as it happens, be in the grips of a wicked philosophy.
Well, consider yourself, Bob: I distinguish between yourself and any philosophy that may claim your allegiance at the moment. (I say at the moment because, like a good Christian, I keep always alive the hope that you will receive enlightenment.) And elsewhere, too: there are flaming liberals (or devout Muslims) I think are sound and excellent men, with whom I would be glad to share a lifeboat. And there are libertarians and conservatives I would cheerfully see sent on a one-way rocket to Mars with a bottle of O2 and a pickaxe. Men are far more than vessels for a philosophy, Bob. I can make those distinctions, and I think most people can. That’s why we can have separate conversations on philosophies and people, although I agree the boundary is neither clean nor bright.
Spoken like someone who’s never run a blog or posted much in the way of youtubes. It is “ironic” that you don’t invite every jackass in to your living room to spew bile? I post videos on youtube that are completely uncontroversial, and I don’t allow comments because I don’t want to moderate them for all eternity. The First Amendment doesn’t enter into it because youtube comments are, like it or not, on private property.