... Americans can grasp that the polygamist Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is decidedly not the same as the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And there are plenty of extremist groups in the United States from neo-Nazis to Skinheads to our own homegrown religiously motivated terrorists. That means Americans can get the difference between the millions of law-abiding Muslim believers and the extremist Islamic terrorists. And we actually need to make that distinction for the sake of the millions of good citizen Muslims....That is, there's something distinctive about the way religion goes wrong when it goes wrong, and to think about it rationally, you have to take account of the way it's irrational.
The fact that these terrorists are mobilized by religion sends a message that their apocalyptic horizon is fervently and even feverishly embraced, and that it is not open to rational debate. These are terrorists who share a rigid religious dogma, and we have a long history showing us what religious entities can and will do when they decide to root out apostates. It is horrifying. Without the religious descriptor, it is too easy to treat them as political actors rather than the dogmatic, unbending fundamentalists that they are....
२६ नोव्हेंबर, २०१५
"The opposite of ISIS" is the First Amendment, but "No principle of the First Amendment... requires us to pretend that a religiously motivated terrorist is not religious."
Writes lawprof Marci Hamilton.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
When there are schisms within a religion, they usually fairly quickly find useful names for their various sects, shibboleths that can be used to identify members within and without.
If the "Extreme Muslims" won't budge off the name, it would be nice for the non-Extremists to invent and rally behind a suitable identity so as to not confuse outsiders.
Unitarians?
I believe that there are 'buffet-style' Muslims like there are 'buffet-style' Catholics: they embrace the Spirit but feel free to leave out the parts of Teachings they don't like.
I'd like to think a lot of Muslims here are like that. It would certainly make things easier.
Also: by now I think there should be a Godwin's Law Corollary for Muslim threads: that the first comment that sarcastically mentions "Religion of Peace" is the sign it is about to go off the rails.
However, Godwin's Law doesn't necessarily mean all Nazi references are poorly used.
Finally:
The Muslim Center Mosque and Community Center of Detroit is located on the corner of Woodrow Wilson & Davison.
Woodrow Wilson is Everywhere.
I am Laslo.
And there are plenty of extremist quasi-religious groups in the United States from the pro-choice cult that practices abortion rites and debases human life, to the civil rights groups that denigrate individual dignity, to Feminists that advocate for a war between men and women, to the transgender groups that foster exclusion and a rape culture, to minority supremacist groups that create unsafe areas, to environmentalists that place their backyard (and special interests) before people, to apologist lawprof "Marci Hamilton".
The fact that these terrorists are mobilized by quasi-religious/moral beliefs sends a message that their apocalyptic horizon is fervently and even feverishly embraced, and that it is not open to rational debate.
The behavior of "non-violent" Muslims does not make for confidence about their future behavior.
The support for terrorism is around 50% in many surveys. Surveys in that sort of society are not reliable but asking Somali youth in Minnesota is not reassuring.
Too many case of "instant jihad." I don't think we can trust any Muslims. It seems to be the human equivalent of "Spaniel Rage."
Where these barbarians are concerned, 'this is religion, this is not religion' kind of dialog is futile. Because it is religion used by state actors to perpetuate their control of peasants and other countries and their army is the barbarians.
Please read this article on how some of the ME countries are using this religion and the riled up peasants to their own ends
There are 100s of millions of (in India, SE Asia) that have gone on about their lives without causing harm. They were born into that religion and have adopted it to the best of their abilities and they are not barbarians. It is an affront to those little people to think everything comes from that religion.
Go after the state actors who are misusing the religion. The liberals and the Obama administration want you to cry about the religion and the little people who follow it because they are with the state actors and they don't want you to go after them. Then they can label you an ignorant and intolerant bigot and you become the problem and not them.
So who did Obama side with in the current conflict in the ME that has produced the barbarians? Saudis and Turks. I rest my case. Look for who is buying the stolen oil from the barbarians and who is arming them. Stop talking about THEIR fucking religion.
It would be great to stop thinking in blocks, such as "the Black Vote," "the Hispanic Vote," etc. ("Hispanic" even is an entirely artificial concept; there is no such block in the real world.)
Two of the greatest people I have met in life were devout Moslems, but in no way ever jihadists. (I may have met more people who were "good Moslems;" I do not know, since I don't go around asking people what faith, if any, they profess to belong to. It is not considered polite in these parts.)
According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, this "submit or die, infidel!" part of Islam was not part of his original doctrine, but is something Mohammed preached after he returned to Mecca from Medina to take revenge on his hometown people for kicking him ut earlier. It proved enormously successful. Just 60 years later Islam had conquered the entire south shore of the Mediterranean, and the Berbers jumped across at Gibraltar in 692 A.D.and conquered Spain. 40 years later they were halfway up into today's France until they were turned back in the Battle of Tours in 735 A.D.
It is not a doctrine to govern by, but great for conquest. It must speak to something in human nature. See the similarity to the behavior of other cults that have swept areas of the world since, including varieties of Communism, Nazism, etc., in our own time.
"irrational" apparently equals "not understanding it"
And by "it" I mean human nature more than religious issues.
"irrational" also suggests a very Modern sensibility.
If you don't understand a system it can seem very irrational to you. Then the response is either to dismiss it (the Modern way) or coddle it as needing protection like a 2 year old (the Postmodern way).
Meanwhile, the system can be very rational and coherent within its own framework.
The author of the article does get this, it seems.
Most approaches don't, trying to fit the discussion within a Habermasian attempt at rational communication, rational being defined by one side. If we just talk to each other as reasonable beings, we can sort it out. That's Idealism and it never quite works with sorting out the real differences between people.
And it took an equally intolerant version of Roman Catholicism to turn the Moslems out of Spain 750 years later again.
Some stats would be helpful. What fraction of Christians or Jews are "extremist" in the sense she describes? What fraction are sympatico with extemists, even if they wouldn't do it themselves?
To pick up on her example with a case close to home for me, what fraction of the most extremist Jews she mentioned, "Ultra-Orthodox", are known to be willing to use violence against innocents? What fraction are okay with it? In my experience, the fraction is essentially zero.
I'll leave it to Christians to give the stats for Christians, in the US and worldwide. But not too many pine nostalgically for the Spanish Inquisition.
Now, what about Muslims? Well, there's ISIS, which controls a significant fraction of the Arab World. There's Al Qaeda. There's Iran. There's the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. Etc.
And then there are those who think they're okay, even if they won't do it themselves. What fraction? A tenth? Maybe in the US. Every survey I've ever seen of worldwide Muslims says that the fraction is more than a quarter. Of a billion people.
Be real.
Does the wave of PC intolerance sweeping our colleges have anything in common with the "submit or die, infidel!" impulse? What if these young people got arms, like the Pol Pot adherents in Cambodia got in the Communist/Shmommunist wars?
I am not Muslim, but I understand that it is difficult for'moderate' Muslims to criticize 'extremist' Muslims on religious grounds (as opposed to humanitarian grounds).
The Koran may say 'there is no compulsion in religion', but, of course, Mohamad himself coerced people into joining his religion. Mohamad himself also used violent means to spread his religion and to fight its enemies.
I don't think that a comparison with Christian theology or Christian history is helpful. Christianity is a peaceful religion adopted by a violent people in Roman and post Roman Europe. The New Testament is clearly the work of humans, and does not claim to have been written by God. Those who say that Islam needs a 'reformation' haven't thought through what reformation would mean to a religion like Islam. There can be no struggle between an Islamic papacy and reforming theologians. There can be no contest between nomialists and anti-nomialists. At any rate the Christian reformation was accompanied by over a century of bloody warfare and bloody persecution.
Wait a minute, great thinker. Sharia will condemn you to death for such loose talk. But your 800 lashes will come first. And since it is rumored that you flirt with married and single women, it must be 1600 lashes.
But then you have valiantly put down all the bombastic Presbyterian believers saying Merry Christmas.
Except that extremist strains of Christianity are almost universally and publicly reviled by the bulk of that faith. Even when staunchly non-violent they are widely ridiculed (I hear you knockin', but you can't come in). Mainstream Muzzies on the other hand, raise nary a peep when the bloodthirsty shitfuck wing of their faith swings into action.
So are you agreeing with me that the practice of granting religious exemptions is an implicit acknowledgement that the religious are irrational and prone to fits?
Oh, and Religion of Peace, my ass. Thanksgiving in the Emeralld City today too, Laslo. Hope yours is good.
The vast of majority of Muslims are complicity in the conspiracy to wage jihad. Go look at the moderate Muslim political parties and will find 50+ percent that support jihad but do not want to get hands dirty. They provide money and safe haven. They cheer when infidels die. They are the problem. Sorry to tell you the truth
Muslims are complicit in waging jihad
I'm not convinced that the danger Hamilton writes about is limited to religious doctrine. Take radical "Scientific Marxism" in the old Soviet Union for example. Then there is Nazism with all of it's non-religious symbolism. Both doctrines laid claim to "The Truth" based on irrational "scientific " principles.
"That is, there's something distinctive about the way religion goes wrong when it goes wrong, and to think about it rationally, you have to take account of the way it's irrational."
Obfuscation. The only "religion" that goes wrong this way is Islam. And it goes "wrong" because in Islam it is not wrong. Violent eschatology is baked in. It is commanded. Islam is about the oneness of the One, so no buffet allowed. Therefore the burden of proof is always on the "moderates" to show why "moderate" deviation from obvious commands is more truly, traditionally, before-the-Prophet-did-x Islamic. There are indeed very serious Muslims trying to change the culture, but they are going against much text and tradition.
The damage to our revered and great Christian patriarchy that devotees of the hateful and despotic religion called feminism subscribed to by Althouse has just about left us defenseless against the depredations of Jihadists.
I'm waiting on Althouse to apologize and repent for her part in her childish and stupid attacks on our patriarchs. She's decided, apparently, that the recent generations of pampered kids playing "I'm a nigger, too," are ridiculous. She did it, too. In fact, she continues to play this game. Her embrace of this game in order to play the system for herself and her son was just as ridiculous as what the current crops of kids are doing.
Let's hope that destructive crazies like Althouse one day see the light and cease spreading the hateful feminist religion. The intellectuals always think they've thought of a new and enlightened reason to reject Christianity and the patriarchy, but they're always wrong. Althouse is just another sinner dancing around the Golden Calf, a childish rebel thumbing her nose at the great patriarchs who built the institutions she's done so much to destroy.
Althouse's great campaign to pussify and faggotize men will ultimate destroy the institution where she lives and works. I used to think she didn't understand. Now, I think that this is what she intends.
Happy Thanksgiving.
I think Althouse 'moderation' is faulty.
It may be true that many of the terrorists are motivated by religion (although the reports of 9/11 hijackers frequenting strip clubs point to other reasons), but what matters is what motivates the guys calling the shots. The foot soldiers really don't matter.
Iraq under Hussein and Iran under the Shah were not big exporters of terrorism. There was no shortage of people ready to die for their religion in either country, but the central governments kept them under control.
The region didn't suddenly become more religious. Jimmy Carter destroyed the Shah's regime and the 1979 hostage crisis, Hezbollah, and the current Syrian regime all have their roots there. Bush destroyed Hussein, but he also tried to rebuild an effective government there and was making good progress when he left office. But Obama destroyed Gaddafi and greatly weakened the Iraqi and Syrian governments, and now ISIS thrives in all three of those places. To top it off, Obama doesn't mind if the Iranians get nuclear weapons, which will soon make it very hard for anyone to force the Iranians to do anything they don't want to do.
It appears we are screwed for decades to come.
Without the religious descriptor, it is too easy to treat them as political actors rather than the dogmatic, unbending fundamentalists that they are....
There is nothing the modern secular mind understands less than apocalyptic spirituality. The secular mind can't grasp it because it simply doesn't believe that the adherents are sincere in their bizarre & illogical faith. Or, if the beliefs are sincere, then the adherents are really being buffeted by other cultural or economic forces, and are expressing their alienation in religious language about non-religious problems.
As noted by Paddy above, within the ambit of an apocalyptic worldview, such a worldview can make perfect sense. Those who profess it see themselves, not as the alienated & adrift lumpenproletariat, but as the agents of God's Holy Will in the world. Such beliefs are, needless to say, powerful weapons for morale & recruitment.
Indeed, what we have between modern secular liberalism & radical Islam are competing historical teleologies. The problem is made all the worse by the fact that secular liberalism will deny that it has an historical teleology at all, yet it believes in "progress". When an ideology such as radical Islam makes secular liberalism face up to the teleologies that liberalism would prefer to let lie dormant, obfuscation is the result. Thus, our present political discussion over "radical Islam" vs "Islam" among the candidates.
That is, there's something distinctive about the way religion goes wrong when it goes wrong, and to think about it rationally, you have to take account of the way it's irrational.
Yes! The problem isn't the Muslim religion per se. The issue is an extreme sect of Islam called Wahhabism that believes in propagating their version of Islam by violence. Saudi Arabia is the home of this sect, but it is the driving religious underpinnings of Boko Haram and ISIS (though apparently not the Taliban nor Hezbollah nor Hamas). Hamas and Hezbollah appear to be motivated by anti-Semitism as much as by anything else.
As long as the west needs Saudi oil it will be tough to stamp out Wahhabism.
"That is, there's something distinctive about the way religion goes wrong when it goes wrong, and to think about it rationally, you have to take account of the way it's irrational."
Lawyers are supposed to be able to argue both sides of case. I would tread carefully here as what is religion can be argued to be is rather expansive and what is irrational (as argued above in another comment) is also contextual. In other words don't assume there is a mutually agreed upon frame of reference.
Did she just equate people who simply want to love those whom they choose to love with terrorists and neo-Nazis?
Young Hegelian writes, about apocalyptic beliefs:"The secular mind can't grasp it because it simply doesn't believe that the adherents are sincere in their bizarre & illogical faith."
This reminded me of a very close friend, although her beliefs did not include, as far as I know, anything apocalyptic. However, her beliefs were extraordinarily deep, strong, and sincere.
I never worried about her harming anyone because of them. She was a literal angel of mercy; a literal life saver.
You shall know them by their fruits. Matthew 7:16
"Sebastian said...
"That is, there's something distinctive about the way religion goes wrong when it goes wrong, and to think about it rationally, you have to take account of the way it's irrational."
Obfuscation. The only "religion" that goes wrong this way is Islam. "
Not the only one. I'd particularly point to various flavors of Socialism as wildly exceeding Islam in their violence. And however much we seem to be past this now, the history of Christianity is full of extreme violence, mostly against other Christians over relatively minor doctrinal differences. WWII Japan can be seen as a violent explosion of radical Shinto. And on and on.
Don't really disagree with the rest, though. The point that a fundamental adherence to the New Testament includes turning the other cheek and a fundamental adherence to the Koran includes subjugating nonbelievers by the sword is one that many people seem to go out of their way to ignore these days. Most muslims are peaceful. It doesn't follow that Islam is peace.
"And it goes "wrong" because in Islam it is not wrong. Violent eschatology is baked in. It is commanded. Islam is about the oneness of the One, so no buffet allowed. Therefore the burden of proof is always on the "moderates" to show why "moderate" deviation from obvious commands is more truly, traditionally, before-the-Prophet-did-x Islamic. There are indeed very serious Muslims trying to change the culture, but they are going against much text and tradition.
11/26/15, 10:13 AM"
What horseshit! If Muslims follow their holy book, they kill or enslave others and espouse oppressive sharia law. If Christians follow their holy book they love their neighbors regardless of faith.
Moreover, it is unlikely that any religion "gone wrong" will ever duplicate the death and suffering imposed by atheist political regimes "rooting out apostates"* in the 20th century.
Silly, godless law prof offering up secular progressive dogma as fact for consumption by her fellow circle jerkers.
*Professor Hamilton appears confused about the meaning of "apostate."
I don't care what people think religiously, so long as their religion doesn't lead to them chopping off people's heads. If those doing the head chopping are doing so as a religious organization their religion is relevant.
There is a question as to what the real Islam is. Is it violent or is it peaceful? What are you basing it on?
I would think you could look at history, but more importantly what their prophet is like.
Mohammad, the most holy of prophets, Allah be praised, was a brigand. Based on the hadiths. He was also a warlord. Based on the hadiths. When he was criticized by critics, he had his henchmen murder his critics, even women. Based on the hadiths. He spent the last half of his time as a prophet waging war against the Jews. And HE was the one who instigated most of those battles. He was brutal with those that were captured as prisoners and many were decappitated.
Dare I say it, he sounds an awful lot like ISIS and how they treat people they capture.
That is islams true face.
There are many peaceful Muslims who are not waging jihad. But maybe they are in fact the ones who are twisting Islam. And good for them. Twist Islam more. But don't pretend like Islam doesn't have at its core, violent expansion.
Religion is a philosophy of morality or a classification of behaviors.
Faith is a personal bias or prejudice that rationalizes perceptions outside of a limited scientific frame of reference.
Then there is narcissism, where psychological defenses are enacted to project, or in the extreme case displace personal faults on other people. In its worst realization, narcissism is realized as a god-complex in minority-dominated religions, cults, regimes, institutions, etc.
That said, the imperial Muslim and atheist communist (i.e. left-wing) regimes have enslaved and killed more people than any other class of religion or cult in history. So, it was religion. It was faith. And it was narcissism or a god-complex.
Then there is the pro-choice cult. Dissociation of risk is equally the opiate of the masses and elites.
The hadiths ended with the death of the prophet and the beginning of the expansion of Islam I to Europe. That was one of the last things Mohammad told he acolytes to do. Spread Islam. How to do so? By the sword.
Look then at history, all prior to the crusades at Islams expansion. By the sword. The crusades was a belated response to centuries of Muslim aggression against formerly Christian lands. Libs love to villify chrisitanity because of the crusades. But it ignores that there was already a crusades u dear Islam and that all the lands the Muslims controlled were formerly Christian, or at least not Muslim, and they the Christians were trying to take land BACK.
"Scientific Marxism" (as mtrobertslaw notes)
Ran across that term recently - appropriately enough in "Three Empires on the Nile" discoursing on Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani. The term is, Hammond posits, a non-sequetur.
"Scientific" alludes to the "scientific method" wherein hypotheses are formulated, tested, then accepted or rejected based on results of the tests.
SFAIK Marxism has, wherever tested, not worked out well.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but few of the Founding Fathers could be characterized as religeous fanatics. Franklin, Jefferson, Washington seemed to be deists. (As a college chum once expressed it: "We think God exists, but He does not believe in people.")
"...the First Amendment, whose Religion and Speech Clauses require the state to be neutral toward religion and require believers to obey the neutral, generally applicable laws that apply to everyone else."
The relevant portion of the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". This does not require that the State be neutral toward religion. The first clause requires that the State refrain from selecting one religion as preferable over all others, a practice which was widespread at the time the Amendment was written.
The second clause is more problematic. Do laws against polygamy interfere with the "free exercise" of a religion that endorses polygamy? Do laws against murder "prohibit the free exercise" of religions that practice human sacrifice? The SC seem to have decided that the answer to these questions is "No", although there have been exceptions.
But the Amendment does not require that the State take a neutral attitude to religion. In particular, it would not violate the First Amendment to prohibit the immigration of members of a particular religion. Given what we see happening in Europe, it would be simple common sense to prevent Muslims from coming into our country.
"Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump careened to the other side of the road when he suggested there be a Muslim registry. This use of “Muslim” aggressively misses the mark (and pits Trump against the First Amendment’s mandate of neutrality)."
Again, the First Amendment does not require "neutrality". It prohibits the selection of one religion in preference to all others. It prohibits the restriction of the exercise of any particular religion. But making a list of all the Muslims in this country would not be either of those things, nor would keeping a close eye on them, or refusing to allow any more to enter. Ms. Hamilton is conflating the First Amendment's clear-eyed limitation on the power of the State to meddle in matters not of its concern, with the candy-ass "values" of multiculturalism, which supposes that calling your gangster death cult a "religion" somehow magically makes it a desirable organization. If she is what passes for "one of the leading church/state scholars in the United States", we are in even more trouble than I thought.
Interesting article in the Guardian;
http://preview.tinyurl.com/mp4ks8t
Says that there is "no easy way to identify those who become involved in terrorism in Britain". Then proceeds to dance multiple circles around the elephant in the room.
Got Muslims? Got terror!
The Constitution isn't a suicide pact nor does it compel or require the country to alter it's demographics or it's dominant culture. This is why Trump is striking such a chord. He is the only one saying America doesn't have to change it's culture and it's demographics. He is saying in so many words I'm running for President Of The United States Of America, not the for the presidency of The United Mexican States or The United Nations. Agree or disagree on this but the point is it resonates with a lot of people and among them a lot of blue-collar Democrats. A billionaire New York City real-estate hustler and developer is the populist candidate. Strange days.
A white Canadian invented basketball:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Naismith
Anytime a black kid gets on a court somewhere and plays he is appropriating culture. According to the rules they have no right to it, only whites have a right to it. And if you want to be more precise, only white Canadians.
So, stop playing basketball negroes.
"Obfuscation. The only "religion" that goes wrong this way is Islam."
Study the history of the world and get back to me. The wrongness of bad religion may be most obvious in Islam these days, but all religions are susceptible to this. What are the 100 worst things that have been done in the name of Jesus?
And what would Jesus think of the things you are saying about Muslims?
@Althouse: It ought not to be too difficult to distinguish between the Koran's admonitions to do violence to, or enslave, unbelievers and the New Testament admonitions to love our neighbors and turn the other cheek. That is, to follow the law of the Prophet as opposed to ignoring the directives of Jesus "in the name of Jesus."
As for what Jesus would think about "what (we) are saying about Muslims." Jesus would expect that we not bear false witness against them or, as is the case with the current progressive talking points, for them.
This whole business of the perils of religion unmoderated by reason (and for that matter the perils of positivistic reason unmoderated by a transcendent vision of reality) is one of the main themes of the theological project of Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI. His Regensburg address, which made quite a stir when he gave it a few years ago, was on precisely that subject. He appears to have been ahead of the curve.
"Study the history of the world and get back to me."
This is considered sophisticated rebuttal. And by a progressive! ISIL taking over huge swaths of the Levant and we are asked to consider the Crusades. Bring up a head-chopping and we are urged to discuss the Inquisition. Attacks in New York or Paris or Madrid? Please explain Hiroshima, the ultimate betrayal of so-called "Christian" values. Airplane blown up over Egypt? Remember that LDS slaughtered Indians.
Which religions have failed to progress, oh Progressive?
as for sanctuary for terrorists,
http://www.cfr.org/israel/abu-nidal-organization-ano-aka-fatah-revolutionary-council-arab-revolutionary-brigades-revolutionary-organization-socialist-muslims/p9153
there is no scriptural support for the crusades, even though they were a defensive response to assaults on christian shrines,
First, Althouse, thank you for calling attention to Dr. Hamilton’s piece. It makes a significant contribution to understanding the religious component of some of our current problems.
You say: “That is, there's something distinctive about the way religion goes wrong when it goes wrong, and to think about it rationally, you have to take account of the way it's irrational.”
I’ve thought about that, and I’m not sure it’s a useful way to deal with the challenges that we (by which I guess I mean “western civilization”, broadly understood) are facing. “Goes wrong” implies a value judgment. So does “irrational”.
I suggest that religious “extremism” seems to come in two distinct flavors. One is for members of the particular religion to adhere to the beliefs and practices of that religion to a greater extent than most members of that religion. For example, among Christians, in early days hermits and some monks, and later some nuns, withdrew from the world to devote their lives to prayer and other religious disciplines. Later, other religious orders formed communities that were less detached from worldly contact, while mendicants lived within the secular world but were not “of it”.
The other flavor of religious extremism is one that would impose its values and practices on others, by force, the threat of force, or intimidation. Thus, after the Emperor Constantine recognized Christianity as the favored religion of the Roman Empire, non-Christian religions were targets of persecution, but so also were Christians whose understanding of scripture and doctrine differed from the views of the Christians who enjoyed Imperial support.
These categories can bleed into each other. In Colonial America, particularly in Pennsylvania, Quaker pacifism, which under most circumstances would fall into the first category, was felt by many colonists to interfere with their rights to defend themselves against attacks by Native American tribes.
So, while recognizing that these distinctions are imperfect, we may find them useful in dealing with the challenge of “Islamic extremism”. The aspects of Islam that cause us to worry are not “extreme” adherence to Islamic practices and beliefs. If some Muslims pray more frequently than others, if they follow dietary practices more strictly, if they insist on marriage within the faith, etc., I don’t think most of us non-Muslims would have a problem with that. But if Muslims have or seek the political power to punish those who criticize Muslim beliefs, and even to punish non-Muslims whose practices Muslims find objectionable, then, yes, we do object.
In a sense, ALL religious beliefs are irrational. They deal with issues that go beyond the ability of human beings to comprehend through their reason. A person who rejects all “irrational” beliefs must reject all religious beliefs. Read Thomas Jefferson’s redaction of the New Testament, as an example. He excludes all passages that he considers irrational, and what’s left is empty and essentially meaningless.
I believe that it is still true that the religion provisions of the First Amendment are our best protection against religious extremism and persecution of religions.
The problem isn't the Muslim religion per se.
There’s a certain tipping point – if a Muslim majority exists in a regime, any regime, freedom is nonexistent. That’s a worrisome fact. What could be the problem except the religion?
I agree with those who see the jihadis as part of a Muslim reformation.
And, respectfully, to those that compare the present jihadis to an admittedly violent Christian Reformation they need to realize that those actors did not have the dire weapons available today and I’m not talking about guns. As soon as the jihadis can get their hands on anthrax, fissionable nuclear material, or some other modern death-dealer the result could make Christian-related violence that happened centuries ago look like a Sunday picnic. We just do not have the luxury of allowing a modern version of the Christian violence, which lasted over a hundred years(1524 to 1648).
https://tinyurl.com/ouan8g3
naturally, Prof Hamilton, throws a squirrel, he proposed a registry of Muslim refugees, not those currently here, she has shown a strong aversion to Christianity in the past,
What are the 100 worst things that have been done in the name of Jesus?
I have no idea of what the other 99 are, but I bet one of them is making false comparisons between Christianity and Islam.
One of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam is precisely the fact that Christianity has reformed several times, while Islam not only has failed to reform, but still regularly punishes those who attempt to reform it.
"by now I think there should be a Godwin's Law Corollary for Muslim threads: that the first comment that sarcastically mentions "Religion of Peace" is the sign it is about to go off the rails.
However, Godwin's Law doesn't necessarily mean all Nazi references are poorly used."
i.e. Godwin's law is a tool in the arsenal to head off certain discussions. A sort of intellectually approved version of Beavis and Butthead's "You said_ __"
Name the loudest Muslim critic of radical Islam.
Zuhdi Jasser?
He manages a site that used to have an under construction section for "Reform". Now that section is gone. But he's all over media nonetheless...
The first explicitly non-religious, rationalist regime in Europe took power in 1793. That era of French history is commonly called the 'Reign of Terror.'
Grackle wrote:
They deal with issues that go beyond the ability of human beings to comprehend through their reason
I don't think that this is right, Grackle. Reason doesn't mean 'evidence of the senses', it means 'this followed from that.'
The last pope got into trouble because he compared Islam with Protestantism. Both do not believe in a God bound by reason. Protestants are accused of believing this because to say God is bound by reason is to say that God is bound by something other than his will. The theological argument gets thick fast, but I think that it is not true to say that religion and reason are in conflict.
The worst is the religion of secular socialism, which murders apostates by the hundreds of millions. Islam is closing in on the back stretch, though.
Big Mike,
"The issue is an extreme sect of Islam called Wahhabism that believes in propagating their version of Islam by violence. Saudi Arabia is the home of this sect, but it is the driving religious underpinnings of Boko Haram and ISIS (though apparently not the Taliban nor Hezbollah nor Hamas)."
Agreed.
The Taliban's brand of Islam is a Hanafi/Deobandi school of Islam that is very heavily mixed with pre-Islamic Pashtunwali, a "code of life" that the rural Pashtuns developed during prehistoric times and continue to live by to this day. Most Talib (indeed the vast majority of Afghans) can't read Arabic and haven't actually read the Koran, they can probably recite lots of passages but they don't really know what the words mean and interpret it as whatever their teachers have told them it means. (True story: my brother claimed after his bar mitzvah that he didn't know what half the Hebrew words were that he was reading, just that he knew how to pronounce them). Most Talib wouldn't really know where Islam ends and Pashtunwali starts, but it's important to note that they all believe it's all Islam.
Hamas is a more Islamist competitor to Yasser Arafat's PLO (now Fatah), which was a secular, socialist and nationalist movement seeking to destroy Israel and establish a Palestinian state (Fatah, to this day, includes significant numbers of Palestinian Christians). Yet, for th emost part and with numerous examples during the first and second Intifada notwithstanding, Hamas doesn't really advocate for or carry out Islamist policies, instead kicking that can down the road while they unite around their singular goal of the destruction of Israel.
Hezbollah is of course radical Shi'a not Sunni, and therefore quite incompatible with Wahhabi doctrine. Hezbollah's ideology descends directly from Ayatollah Khomeini, though you are correct that it is much more anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist than own Iran's vision (which is quite astonishing that there's space there, right?) and it's also nationalistically Arab (in their choice of language, symbols and depictions) rather than Persian. Which makes sense given where they operate.
Grackle,
" if a Muslim majority exists in a regime, any regime, freedom is nonexistent. That’s a worrisome fact. What could be the problem except the religion?"
Except that it's not a fact. Freedom is not "non-existent" in Muslim-majority countries Indonesia, Mongolia or Senegal. It's not even "non-existent" (an absurdly absolutist standard) in Muslim-majority countries like Albania, Bosnia, Malaysia or Tunisia.
Once again, attempting to explain everything in the world using only religious affiliation as your variable is going to yield woefully oversimplified and incorrect results. The world is slightly more complicated than that.
"I believe that there are 'buffet-style' Muslims like there are 'buffet-style' Catholics: they embrace the Spirit but feel free to leave out the parts of Teachings they don't like."
In other words, it is what some around these parts call "lightweight religion." It really is the best kind, if you're gonna have one at all.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
And what would Jesus think of the things you are saying about Muslims?
Which Jesus?
The one from the New Testament?
Or the post modern Jesus?
And what would Jesus think of the things you are saying about Muslims?
Surely how he would feel about those things is more important?
"Study the history of the world and get back to me."
The whole world?
"The wrongness of bad religion may be most obvious in Islam these days, but all religions are susceptible to this."
The only one I can think of that comes even close is the Aztec death religion.
What are the 100 worst things that have been done in the name of Jesus?
Uh. The creation of the state of Israel?
Howsabout we deal with the situation as it exists.
Because right now ISIL is in control of the historical narrative.
What would Jesus think?
Which Jesus?
The biblical jesus or the post modern jesus?
Freedom is not "non-existent" in Muslim-majority countries Indonesia, Mongolia or Senegal. It's not even "non-existent" (an absurdly absolutist standard) in Muslim-majority countries like Albania, Bosnia, Malaysia or Tunisia.
Two of the commentor’s examples, Bosnia and Mongolia, do not possess a Muslim majority. Readers, it’s always better to get the facts straight before accusing others of inaccuracy.
From the US State Department’s Human Rights Report on Albania:
… human rights problems included police beating and other mistreatment ofsuspects during detention and interrogation, sometimes to elicit confessions;substandard prison conditions; an inefficient judiciary subjectto political pressureand corruption; and child abuse.
https://tinyurl.com/jc8bpce
Malaysia:
Freedom of Speech: … laws may impose restrictions on freedom of speech … law prohibits … public comment on issues defined as sensitive, such as racial and religious matters or criticism of the government, king, or ruling sultans. Sedition charges often stemmed from comments unrelated to those matters and especially by vocal opposition leaders. Civil society groups claimed the government failed to investigate and prosecute similar “seditious” statements made by progovernment or pro-Malay individuals. The law also limits freedom of speech by criminalizing defamation and controlling printing methods and publication.
It’s a long and damaging report of which the above is only a small excerpt.
https://tinyurl.com/6sgb4wd
Tunisia:
… human rights problems included torture and otherphysical abuse, poorprison and detention center conditions, arbitrary arrest and detention, a lack ofjudicial independence and a lax prosecutorial environment with poor transparency,reliance on forced confessions, and barriers to the economic and politicalparticipation of women.
Read the full report at: https://tinyurl.com/zkaz6ja
Indonesia:
The government applied treason, blasphemy, defamation and decency laws to limit freedom of expression and assembly by peaceful independence advocates,
religious and social minority groups, and others. Despite high profile arrests andconvictions, widespread corruption in the government, judiciary, and securityforces remained a problem.
https://tinyurl.com/hxepzxr
And finally Senegal:
Other major human rights problems included: physical abuse, including torture, bysecurity forces; arbitrary arrests; questionable investigative detention; lack ofjudicial independence; restrictions on freedom of assembly; rape, domesticviolence, sexual harassment of and discrimination against women; female genitalmutilation/cutting (FGM/C); child abuse; early and forced marriage; infanticide;violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender(LGBT) persons; discrimination against persons with HIV/AIDS; trafficking inpersons; and child labor, including forced child labor.
https://tinyurl.com/jdqgwwr
Two of the commentor’s examples, Bosnia and Mongolia, do not possess a Muslim majority.
Readers, it’s always better to get the facts straight before accusing others of inaccuracy.
Grackle,
Yeah, you're right: I should have said Muslim-plurality (not majority) in Bosnia, as while Islam is the largest religion in Bosnia, it is not over 50%. Amended, sorry, about that.
In any case, you marshal good evidence demonstrating that the countries I listed have reduced freedoms or fewer freedoms than, say, the US or a Western democracy. I'm not disagreeing with that now nor would I have disagreed with that then. If you care to re-read my response, I disagreed with your use of the term "nonexistent." That word is problematic because there are some freedoms in Albania, Malaysia or Senegal that, say, a North Korean (or even a Cuban) might find quite refreshing... Which means that freedom in the former countries, by definition, can't be non-existent. Was this just natural Trump-like hyperbole- like did you perhaps just mean to say "freedom is reduced" or "freedom is limited" but not non-existent because it's just natural to pick an exaggerated word?
Rusty:
What are the 100 worst things that have been done in the name of Jesus?
Uh. The creation of the state of Israel?
Say what?
I disagreed with your use of the term "nonexistent." That word is problematic because there are some freedoms in Albania, Malaysia or Senegal that, say, a North Korean (or even a Cuban) might find quite refreshing...
Really? Well, then, I think the commentor is obligated to tell us all just which freedoms there are in, say, Senegal, that a North Korean would “find quite refreshing.”
Let me put it another way:
It is not possible to live a free existence in any country with a majority Muslim population. What could be the problem except the religion?
You are screwed if you live under the regime of a Muslim majority country. You are screwed in so many ways that arguing that some examples screw you in a thousand ways while others manage only 999 ways is pointless. Arguing that some examples may have a slightly different way of subjugating human rights than other examples may be mildly interesting to a sociologist but is ultimately irrelevant.
Hillary can't find any similarity between the women her husband raped and molested, and current campus rape accusers. And we expect her to differentiate between mass murdering jihadists and normal Muslims?
What makes you think she can do that, in her head?
Grackle,
"Really? Well, then, I think the commentor is obligated to tell us all just which freedoms there are in, say, Senegal, that a North Korean would “find quite refreshing.”"
Challenge accepted.
In Senegal, there are more than 80 political parties from which any Senegalese person is free to join and associate with at their pleasure, and political leaders are elected through participatory elections; in North Korea, there is only one political party and there are no elections, and one must be careful about participating in any organized activity as it can lead to a death sentence.
In Senegal, there are more than 15 newspapers, multiple television stations and numerous radio stations- journalists have increasingly faced government efforts to pressure them into silence and/or more favorable coverage. This is not a problem in North Korea, however, where they have only state-run newspapers, television and radio stations, and journalists are executed if they do not promote state-approved messages.
In Senegal, private citizens are allowed to own guns (conservatives tell me this is the most important right of all)- there is gun control, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition, but the regulation of guns is categorized as permissive. In North Korea, only members of the military or state officials are allowed to possess guns and violation can result in- you guessed it- execution.
In Senegal, there is freedom of religion- it is true that 94% of the country identifies as Muslim, but (unlike many other Muslim countries) there are no laws against or penalties for apostasy (that is, one can leave Islam and not be sentenced to death as in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia). North Korea is an atheist state where public religion is discouraged but- for once- you might not be executed for it.
I could keep going, but you get the point- these are just a handful of rights that a Senegalese possesses which a North Korean would find "refreshing." One could declare that freedom in North Korea is "nonexistent"; one could not accurately say that about Senegal.
Readers, if you don't know the difference between freedom in Senegal versus freedom in North Korea, you should take a trip to your local library and get educated. None of this is to indicate that Senegal is a western-style democracy- it's not- but compared to North Korea, it's a veritable political paradise.
In Senegal, there are more than 80 political parties from which any Senegalese person is free to join and associate with at their pleasure, and political leaders are elected through participatory elections …
Sounds great … until we read this from the State Dept. Human Rights Report:
… the government denied authorization for demonstrations. For example, in August the government denied authorization for a rally the Senegalese Democratic Party planned to hold in Dakar … During the 2012 presidential election campaign, police used violence to disrupt political rallies of opposition parties, resulting in several injuries and deaths.
It seems some of the “80 political parties” are not allowed to hold rallies. And some are killed by police when rallies are attempted. A party not allowed to hold political gatherings is a sham. A “right” denied is a hollow right.
In Senegal, there are more than 15 newspapers, multiple television stations and numerous radio stations- journalists have increasingly faced government efforts to pressure them into silence and/or more favorable coverage. This is not a problem in North Korea, however, where they have only state-run newspapers, television and radio stations, and journalists are executed if they do not promote state-approved messages.
True, a journalist might live after criticizing the government in Senegal whereas a journalist would probably die for doing the same in NK. And the commentor even claims this, the Senegal government trying to silence journalists, “refreshing.” But it’s not freedom.
In Senegal, private citizens are allowed to own guns (conservatives tell me this is the most important right of all)- there is gun control, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition, but the regulation of guns is categorized as permissive.
Yes, people are allowed to own guns in Senegal but all guns are required to be in an official register so that means that anytime in the future the government may confiscate all the guns if it so desires. Furthermore, even “licensed” gun owners are NOT allowed to carry a gun. The “license” is only to own a gun, NOT carry it. Only an anti-gun person would call this policy “permissive.”
https://tinyurl.com/j2w5oa9
But I’ll grant the commentor his point that Senegal is better than NK in allowing some of its citizens to keep guns in their homes.
I’ll also grant that an apostate from Islam in Senegal is much better off than the same in, say, Saudi Arabia. But I also found this tidbit:
Muslims may choose either the civil family code or sharia to adjudicate family conflicts, such as marriage and inheritance disputes. Civil court judges preside over civil and customary law cases, but religious leaders informally settle many disputes among Muslims …
It seems that even though there is a secular legal system in Senegal that Muslims(no other group is cited) are allowed to ignore it in favor of sharia. A “secular” government but over 90% of the population is allowed to ignore it. Wow.
https://tinyurl.com/bor9yjm
I read the State Department’s own Human Rights Report …
… major human rights problems included: physical abuse, including torture, by security forces; arbitrary arrests; questionable investigative detention; lack of judicial independence; restrictions on freedom of assembly; rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment of and discrimination against women; female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C); child abuse; early and forced marriage; infanticide; violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons; discrimination against persons with HIV/AIDS; trafficking in persons; and child labor, including forced child labor.
… and it sure doesn’t look like freedom to me.
https://tinyurl.com/zdk2bcp
Grackle,
Yes- thank you, you've conceded my point! Freedom, like many things, occurs on a spectrum, not a binary coded either "yes" or "no" (for example, American conservatives think Europeans are less free than Americans because of European gun control laws, but I'm sure you don't think America is the only "free" country on Earth- like I'm sure you accept that Germany goes in the "free" category even though they don't have a Second Amendment). By your admission, you agree with my earlier point that the Senegalese have some rights and freedoms that a North Korean does not. If we set North Korean freedom as being "non-existent," and Senegal is more free than North Korea, then we know- by definition- Senegalese freedom cannot also be "non-existent" (simple mathematics). And that's true even if Senegal is the next least free country in the world (which of course is not true- in between are dozens of Muslim, Socialist and other countries from Asia and Africa- and one from the Caribbean!- alike).
Your earlier point, which you've now refuted yourself, was that "if a Muslim majority exists in a regime, any regime, freedom is nonexistent." Now if you want to rephrase and say you meant something like, "if a Muslim majority exists in a regime, Western democracy style freedom is nonexistent" then that could yield a different result- hell, I'd probably even agree with you that, so far in human history, that is very true. But that's not what you said. And by your own admission, you've proven that what you actually said- which I responded to- was not accurate. I'm glad you're able to come around and see that.
One thing I would also leave you with, with respect to Senegal, yes, of course it is challenged and its freedoms are far from perfect- I never claimed otherwise and even explicitly said so in my last post. However, laying that solely on the feet of their religion is extremely simplistic-- all of sub-Saharan Africa- Christian and Muslim- is struggling to develop governments that can balance freedom and human rights. All of Africa. Senegal is not even in the bottom half of Africa, in that respect. So maybe- just maybe- you can understand that there might be something besides just religion that shapes a nation's approach to carving out freedom for its population: culture, geography, economy, legal institutions, civil society, education, natural resources, etc. etc.
As I repeatedly say here, it's very complex.
… you agree with my earlier point that the Senegalese have some rights and freedoms that a North Korean does not.<
Readers, when we go from Senegal to NK we are going from bad to worse - much worse. But Senegal is still bad even though NK is worse. To imply that because NK has a more dire suppression of rights than Senegal that Senegal is “free” is missing my point. My point is that no country with a Muslim majority approaches anything like freedom. That there are some despotic regimes that may be worse in no way contradicts my point.
… if you want to rephrase and say you meant something like, "if a Muslim majority exists in a regime, Western democracy style freedom is nonexistent"
I guess I’m missing the ‘nuance’ again but to me freedom is simply freedom, wherever it might bloom. To try by implication to divide freedom up into “Western” as opposed to, I guess “Muslim,” seems very tortured to me – aside from the fact that majority-Muslim countries routinely suppress human rights.
Also the term, “democracy style freedom,” is bothersome in that there is no freedom without democracy. There is no “style” of freedom, except perhaps among democracies such as those described in Europe by the commentor. But there is no “style” of freedom among totalitarian regimes – or Muslim-majority countries. What “style” exists is a “style” of suppression. Some do the suppression a little differently than others but none of them are free.
One thing I would also leave you with, with respect to Senegal, yes, of course it is challenged and its freedoms are far from perfect …
Far from perfect?! Readers – again – from our own State Department’s report:
Other major human rights problems included: physical abuse, including torture, by security forces; arbitrary arrests; questionable investigative detention; lack of judicial independence; restrictions on freedom of assembly; rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment of and discrimination against women; female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C); child abuse; early and forced marriage; infanticide; violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons; discrimination against persons with HIV/AIDS; trafficking in persons; and child labor, including forced child labor.
Quite a litany of suppression of human rights. It just won’t go away despite the commentor’s attempts to whitewash it.
… you can understand that there might be something besides just religion that shapes a nation's approach to carving out freedom for its population: culture, geography, economy, legal institutions, civil society, education, natural resources, etc. etc. As I repeatedly say here, it's very complex.
Not very complex, really. If you move to a Muslim-majority country you can say a fond goodbye to freedom.
And I never claimed or even implied that there are no other despotic regimes in the world other than the Muslim kind. Certainly there are. I’m just looking at a fact: Freedom does not seem to catch on in Muslim-majority countries. You cannot say this about Christian-majority countries, or Hindus, or Jews, etc.
Readers, there is a certain point on the human rights continuum when freedom cannot be claimed, despite the hair-splitting by the commentor. All Muslim-majority countries are way over on the suppression end. What could the problem be except the religion?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा