Wednesday, January 7, 2015
The Barbaric Assault on Charlie Hebdo's Staff
UPDATE BELOW
Charlie Pierce says it best:
It was an act of medieval, anti-Enlightenment barbarism, and the fact that a lot of people who aren't usually so tender toward France and its leftists -- or towards the Enlightenment itself, for that matter -- have attached themselves to the horror in order to proclaim their righteousness atop a pile of corpses ought not to obscure the truth of it. There are genuine values -- honored only in the breach by some, but no less genuine for that -- under armed assault here. Charlie Hebdo's staff was murdered to stifle the publication's voice, no less than Elijah Lovejoy was murdered to stifle his.
This is the mass, unbridled, brainless Id of the barbarian at war with modernity in all its expressions. This is where anti-science leads, where a contempt for education leads, where the suppression of women leads, where marrying political fanaticism to religious fervor almost always leads. This is where theocracy brings us, over and over again.
In 1572, in Paris, on St. Bartholomew's Day, 3000 French Huguenot Protestants were butchered by Catholic mobs. (The death toll throughout France is thought to have been over 70,000.) None of this is new. It rises from the same foul ground it always has. This is why Mr. Madison believed that the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine to be one of the worst things that ever happened to both religion and government.
Official religions end in blood, always. That's why we don't have one here.
Nous sommes Charlie, I guess, but, deep in us all, in that part of us that reeks of stale incense and the smell of old and guttering candles, nous sommes des barbares, aussi. And "political correctness," that empty, impotent phrase, is inadequate to account for the monsters that lurk in the shadows there.'
UPDATE:
Please read George Packer's essay on the Charlie Hebdo assassinations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
As the barbaric acts of 21st century Islamic extremists continue to grow throughout the world. So, what's it ti be? Tolerance and understanding for the religion if "peace" or condemnation followed by swift and decisive justice?
It seems impossible to have it both ways with these sub human animals.
But should we try? Shrug...
I feel that these horrors are not so much religious expression so much as an expression of anger and alienation.
The two brothers in this attack were orphans and the third man, an 18 year old, was homeless with no known country of origin.
Mix that with easily available guns, rising neo-fascism and a violent sick cause broadcast on social media and you have a ready made disaster.
RN: By "sub human animals" do you mean Islamic extremists or Muslims in general? If the former, "swift and decisive justice" is already under way. The police have already caught at least one of the attackers, and they'll be tried and sentenced for the murders. If the latter, then you're including the Kurds and Iraqis who are fighting against ISIS, and the European Muslims whose cooperation with police has already prevented many terrorist attacks by the extremists.
Ducky: Sorry, no. It's religious expression. Islamic terrorists come from a full range of personal backgrounds and circumstances. The only common denominator is religious extremism. Read what Sam Harris has to say about this. Secular Westerners who can't comprehend the profoundly-religious mind come up with a thousand distractions to try to convince themselves that the problem is something other than religious extremism. The problem is religious extremism.
European countries that have had state sponsored religions appear to be much less religious today than the U.S. is.
If our secular and religious leaders are in bed together, it is hard to revolt against one and not the other.
“Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg
Juan Cole has a response worth reading
Jeffrey Taylor of Salon:
From Ducky's link, Juan Cole:
"For those who require unrelated people to take responsibility for those who claim to be their co-religionists (not a demand ever made of Christians), the al-Azhar Seminary, seat of Sunni Muslim learning and fatwas, condemned the attack, as did the Arab League that comprises 22 Muslim-majority states.
We have a model for response to terrorist provocation and attempts at sharpening the contradictions. It is Norway after Anders Behring Breivik committed mass murder of Norwegian leftists for being soft on Islam. The Norwegian government launched no war on terror. They tried Breivik in court as a common criminal. They remained committed to their admirable modern Norwegian values.
Most of France will also remain committed to French values of the Rights of Man, which they invented. But an insular and hateful minority will take advantage of this deliberately polarizing atrocity to push their own agenda. Europe’s future depends on whether the Marine LePens are allowed to become mainstream.
Extremism thrives on other people’s extremism, and is inexorably defeated by tolerance."
That last statement on extremism should be read by those hot heads who believe all Muslims should be deported from this country, whether they're citizens or not. We saw what that ignorant, anti-American attitude brought us during WWII, when all Japanese were suspect because of Pearl Harbor. It brought us SHAME.
Some hateful anti-Americans still believe this is how to solve the terrorism problem.
"I have to admit I laugh when Obama and his minions talk about the importance of a free media in relation to this awful situation when they’re so often slamming FOX and its journalists every chance they get…have you thought the same thing I have?"
No. And no intelligent person thinks the same thing. That's because criticizing, "slamming" what some dumbass cable newz program and its jounanimalists say is EXACTLY freedom of speech.
You and your "minions" and Fox Snooze criticize the DemocRATS, libruls, and "Obummer/Obongo" every day of your miserable lives, and no one shoots up your homes and offices for doing so.
See, what you and your ilk like is the freedom to criticize, slander, and make fun of the president and librals, but when they exercise the same freedom, you don't like it.
You call it "slamming." You have no concept of what free speech is.
I would also recommend today's Democracy Now!
The panel was an editor of Harper's, a French Muslim and Art Spiegelman.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be forced to debate Spiegelman, he's a very skilled advocate for free expression.
The Muslim was clearly backed into a position of not fully supporting the cartoon publication while also clearly expressing sorrow over the atrocity.
But he said something I thought was very telling to the effect that the West has contributed to creating a mess in Muslim countries and expects Muslims to be solely responsible for the consequences.
... at the same time the Muslim was not able or willing to counter Spiegelman's comment on the vile characterization of Jews in any number of Muslim publications.
Infidel753: To clarify, I am speaking of all Islamic extremists. I have Muslims friends who are not extremists and therefore know first had up close and lersonal that all Muslims are not sub human animals.
Contemporary Christians kill doctors who provide a legal medical procedure.
It;s worth pointing out that one of the police killed and one of the magazine employees killed were Muslim.
Huffpost has an interview up with the significant other of the magazine's editor who was killed.
She's Muslim.
There just isn't a consistent mold.
We do know that not all Muslims are extremists, and there are many secular Muslims. It's also possible that the killers didn't know the religious or cultural make up of all those they murdered.
That's why the insane suggestion by the extremist teabaggers that ALL Muslims be deported, even Americans [where would they be deported to?] is folly and the idea of mad men.
Generally speaking, not in direct reply to anyone here, I find amusing the tact taken by a lot of media outlets I've seen in the past two days.
E.g.: America, nobody's saying you cannot critique Islam. But when you deliberately act provocatively by drawing their prophet, demeaning their religion,
or doing other things to incite Muslims, these are the results you can expect. You can have your freedom of speech without inciting others to violence. Your freedom to speak and to express is not an obligation to provoke Muslims.
Seems fair enough. Nobody's really blaming anybody, right? Well, change a few words.
Women, nobody's saying you cannot dress how you want. But when you deliberately dress provocatively by showing your body, whetting a man's appetite, or doing other things to incite the male libido, these are the results you can expect. You can have your freedom of dress without inciting others to rape. Your freedom to dress and to act provocatively is not an obligation to provoke men.
We have "Teach Men Not to Rape" campaigns and slogans and movements, but seemingly no "Teach Terrorists Not to Kill" equivalents.
Instead, its' better to placate Islam and to blame the victim, in a sense.
Of course, nobody wants these maniacs out there killing people. At least nobody sane. But I find it tragically ironic that often is the case it's considered acceptable to blame Muslim prodding for radical retaliation, yet attempting to use this standard elsewhere will get you ran out of town on a rail.
Of course all Muslims aren't bad. Of course all Muslims don't root for terror. But these maniacs are Islamic extremists, and the Howard Deans of the world do no one any favors by pretending they aren't. These Muslim radicals demand that people know they are not only Muslims but the true Muslims, and it seems to me saying they aren't is going to incite them every bit as much as their prophet drawn in satire.
As to extremists calling for all Muslims to be deported, where is this at? I haven't seen it and would like to voice my opinion--if they'd allow such--on the topic. Multiculturalism, as in the whittling away of what's existing to make room for the separate, is a bad idea for any nation, but deportation certainly isn't an answer. It's a non-answer; it's a declaration of territorial war, only needing a beheading to become exactly what ISIS is doing.
What I read in this forum, in news accounts unfolding by the hour, and in commentary across Cyberspace are competing – often self-serving – narratives each trying to negate and nullify the other.
Is one religion inherently more violent than other? If one commenter gives examples of Muslim violence, there will be competing comments that give examples of Christian violence. Tit-for-tat. Point, counterpoint. Or are all religions inherently violent and unworthy relics of a superstitious and less civilized time?
Do hardscrabble beginnings account for violet behaviors? Sometimes the answer is ‘yes.’ Common knowledge and numerous studies support the view that deprivation and oppression turns people bitter. We know that childhood deprivation and trauma through war and violence radicalizes people. Pent up resentments lead to violent behaviors.
Shall we speak of centuries of colonialism, of economic exploitation, of wars fought over resources, of oppression, of human greed and corruption? Given the atrocity of the moment, is this the right time to speak of such matters?
So which self-serving narrative is the more valid one? Either none are valid, or all are valid. Let’s look at the historical record:
Christian against Muslim, Muslim against Christian, Christians against Christians, Muslims against Muslims, whites enslave blacks, blacks resent whites, Hutu against Tutsi, them against us, us versus them … it appears no group has a monopoly on bigotry, oppression and violence. Meanwhile, these comments pile up and serve as the strophe/antistrophe of a grim Greek chorus on human history.
I am thinking of the diversity of life on this planet, of the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of species that have evolved over eons of time. Yet, here is a single species almost as diverse as life – divided by language, culture, and customs: All committing acts of war and violence upon each other.
There is much to be recommended about the viewpoint of a cephalopod. Let’s just say it give you a more detached perspective on the human condition.
Josh: "As to extremists calling for all Muslims to be deported, where is this at? I haven't seen it and would like to voice my opinion--if they'd allow such--on the topic."
Here's the thread where the loonies are calling for deportation of American-born Muslims:
"Some of them are natural born citizens."
"So what? Active participation in or Conversion to Islam in ANY of its many virulent forms SHOULD constitute official grounds for REVOCATION of citizenship and immediate DEPORTATION, PERIOD!"
"You want to deport over a million Americans to SA based on religion?"
"Not necessarily I'd give them a clear choice: EIther GET OUT or GET SHOT to DEATH by a FIRING SQUAD.
"The US Constitution is NOT a SUICIDE PACT." If YOU want to commit religious, cultural, ethnic, political and national suicide, please emigrate to an Islamic Republic to do it. Support for Islam is a de facto form of TREASON."
Of course the above is just hyperbolic, swaggering buster, full of sound and fury and signifying insanity.
"If adherents of all religions simply worshiped as they saw fit, and quit seeking a personal validation of their faith in via the political and legal system....the world would be a far better place."
I agree with this statement and that's why we here in the US find it appalling that the fundamentalist Christians, evangelicals, etc., would try to get legislation passed that agrees with their religious beliefs:
prayers in school
prohibiting gay marriage
prohibiting abortion
"Shall we speak of centuries of colonialism, of economic exploitation, of wars fought over resources, of oppression, of human greed and corruption? Given the atrocity of the moment, is this the right time to speak of such matters?"
In my opinion, as not-so humble and ever self-serving as it is, I think this is a valid argument -- for a Highlander who is 389 years old. Or a vampire. Not a human being.
An argument I often hear which is basically the equivalent is that oftentimes young black males act out in America (e.g. knockout game, killing for shoes, drugs, etc) because of years of systemic oppression and poverty. And that is the easiest pill to swallow, because that sugar-coated smoothness of an easy target (read: society) is just so slick and comfortable to the throat. But when one starts dissecting the individuals and not the situations, one might reach a very different conclusion.
What does a punk born in 1998 know about oppression and systemic injustice? Are we to believe that DNA not only carries with it information to build flesh and bone but also vivid memories? And if people are acting out because they're poor and deprived, then why are they not acting out to pay the rent, the light bill, medical bills, to pay for job training programs, etc? It's always for Air Jordans or rims for the ride or the newest PlayStation or smartphone. Why murdering innocent people?
I wouldn't claim I grew up oppressed, but I grew up incredibly poor. I didn't live outside of a slum until adulthood. But rather than that experience breeding selfishness, which is what we get with these criminals we make excuses for, what it taught me was selflessness. Do for your people and your community with what you have and earn. Make everyone's plight better, not just your own.
There's something else at play rather than simply being downtrodden when individuals take it upon themselves to act so selfish as to hurt others. That's not about a system. They're not helping their friends, their community, or even their family members. They're causing more grief and strife and pain and anguish. That is not on society, but rather the individuals.
There is not a single thing society can do to change that behavior. Or maybe I should say "should do." Somebody needs a spanking.
....
"Of course the above is just hyperbolic, swaggering buster, full of sound and fury and signifying insanity."
People who fear Sharia and fear that America will eventually cave more to Muslims don't typically earn my ire. We only need to look at the UK for an example where this can easily happen in western nations, or other places like Sweden. But when folks go so overboard with it, wanting to become nationalists to such an extreme level, they lose me.
No American who enjoys the freedoms they're afforded today should be looking forward to sharing a multicultural nation with Muslims tomorrow. Might sound harsh, but few Muslim communities in the entire history of the world have stood out as bastions of freedom. Raza Aslan would have trouble arguing such. But tossing people aside isn't a solution. Better they assimilate, I'd agree, but unless people are acting in a takeover fashion, they can believe whatever they want.
"Are we to believe that DNA not only carries with it information to build flesh and bone but also vivid memories?"
Actually, yes, that is a scientific possibility:
Scientists have found that memories may be passed down through generations in our DNA
People are scared, and they feel helpless and weak. That usually leads to naming, blaming, and defaming. Which leads to more hostilities, anger, and carnage. The world is in a vicious cycle of hate.
As the bios on the assassins come out there is a familiar fact.
They were all well known to police and had histories of violence.
The Tsernaev brothers were known to have turned extremely radical and a Cambridge mosque expelled them.
What steps do we take when a radical with a stated violent intent is identified. Seems to me to be a critical question.
"Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semi-respect. Racists and anti-Semites are heard through the filter of opprobrium and disrespect. People who want to be heard have to earn it through their conduct."
@StCs: "I have to admit I laugh when Obama and his minions talk about the importance of a free media in relation to this awful situation when they’re so often slamming FOX and its journalists every chance they get…have you thought the same thing I have?"
Free speech is an important part of our society, but, it should always go without saying, free speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Criticism is also free speech.
@ Shaw,
Trauma hard-wiring the brain to give a new individual the advantage of recognizing a new threat is one thing. It jibes with what we know. It fits perfectly with evolution. It's incredibly advantageous.
Having actual memories in DNA, ala Assassin's Creed, is something very different.
What I'm trying to say is that I do not know what it was like to be in WWII just because my grandfather was. I can hear the stories and empathize. But I do not have those memories. I just don't. That would be more on par with those folks who claim past life experiences, who by the bye never happen to be peasants or slaves but rather great figures in history. lol
Phobias and anxieties which may spring genetically due to a fear response etched into code through trauma is a far sight different than a memory. My mother and grandmother are both afraid of heights. I'm deathly afraid of heights. Like, can't move or breathe. But I can't recollect the time in my ancestor's life that sprung that initial fear.
Two completely separate things.
Josh, I think the study is about ancient DNA memories. WWII is recent history.
"DESPERATE TIMES CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES."
Said the March Hare.
So, at some point in time, DNA stopped coding traumatic experiences into memories? It has to have happened BC to work? lol
People starting breeding differently? DNA started working differently when things went from black and white to in color?
It's sounding ever more like a video game.
I certainly wouldn't rule it out as a possibility, but until which time actual evidence presents itself, I will continue to view passed down memories as fantasy. Like dragons.
Passed down phobias and anxieties and tragic experiences of ancestors making one more predisposed to fear things? Different story. Things being etched into the brain as a threat is something I never questioned to begin with. Even fish, which many believe to be stupid, know to haul ass when the water ripples. They got that from somewhere, and not in their 3 weeks of life experience.
Passed down memories from experiences like movie clips? Only in Hollywood.
Interesting stuff. Through evolution humankind has indeed been hard wired for a lot of "stuff".
Mostly for self preservation.
It's interesting that so many people hate heresy more than any other "crime". It threatens their identity. And heresy extends (diluted some), to other concepts of identity such king & country or democracy or communism.
On a semi-related note: Something that strikes me odd about whenever conversations of evolution and hard-wired responses come up is the reluctance of many to admit that perhaps all races and cultures are not the same after all, as if they can just be zeroed out and start from scratch with each generation.
If we're to accept that memories and fears and phobias and such can be passed down, why not skin tone preferences or cultural habits like violence and chaos or educational habits or other things? These things possibly being passed down are often not even explored for PC reasons. I'd guess for fear they may bear the wrong kind of fruit. But whatever the reasons, they're not examined at all. Or to the extent they are, they're largely ignored.
It's like we want to know about ourselves, but don't really want to know about ourselves. Like we'd Google our names to see what's there, but wouldn't click on and actually read the links.
RN has a current post on the reactions of a certain infamous blogger who mistakenly thinks crude epithets can match the artistry of Charlie Hebdo.
Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State, has made this strategy known: He WANTS to foment a paradigm war between the secular democracies of the West and militant jihadis of the Islamic world. His purpose behind brutal and savage tactics is to engender mutual enmity and foment a vicious cycle of reprisals and revenge. Atrocities are recruitment tools, and bloggers – in adding fuel to the fire of mutual hatred through incitement - fall sucker to these tactics. They are giving al Qaeda and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi exactly what they want.
You will not defeat extremism by wantonly and gratuitously stereotyping every person of the Islamic faith, thus feeding into this vicious cycle … which serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists.
Subject blogger and his followers are more than “unhinged” and “irrational.” They are also IRRESPONSIBLE in the extreme! However, there is more than merely self-righteous indignation on display in subject blog. The man is a shameless pathological narcissist who grandstands and broadcasts his grandiosity without regard to the implications of his blather. Please note how subject discussion thread beneath subject post metastasizes cancer-like into a rage against the French, against ‘Zionist communists,’ against the Jews, against old WWII grudges, and of course “libruls.” The place is a veritable cesspool of hatred.
Josh: “No American who enjoys the freedoms they're afforded today should be looking forward to sharing a multicultural nation with Muslims tomorrow.”
Vampires, indeed! Just because you rose from the hardscrabble side of the railroad tracks, does this mean you hold some special license for self-justification and a monopoly on opinion? Or are you merely grandstanding too?
OT:
"Mrs. De Blasio wore jeans to the funeral?
You know, it's a silly detail but it's packed with a lot, isn't it.
Who'd DO that? She's not 15 and has to wear the latest punk stuff...she's a mature mother and wife."
The wormbrains on the right repeat anything they hear or read from the conservemedia, and the above proves that they haven't the critical thinking skills to determine what is true or what is not. Like dull-witted cows, they just regurgitate whatever smears a librul.
NYPD Furious Mayor’s Wife Wore Jeans to Cop’s Funeral; Except She Really Didn’t
But that particular lamebrain wouldn't know enough to keep the mouth shut until facts were known. Typical of the rabid hatred on the right.
"Just because you rose from the hardscrabble side of the railroad tracks, does this mean you hold some special license for self-justification and a monopoly on opinion?"
Not sure how that comment correlates with my text you quoted, so I'm left pretty much guessing to your meaning. If you're suggesting that I'm somehow dissin' Muslims by claiming any freedom-lover shouldn't want to live alongside them, then I can only say:
Western society is better than Islamic states. That's how it is.
That might cause much butthurt to spread throughout the cheeks of PC puppets, but living in the west we all--every last one of us, save the worst criminal scum--have what I'd argue to be an obligation to point out our superiority over Islamic states in every conceivable regard.
We are better.
We are not perfect. We are not bereft religious maniacs who sometimes do stupid things, nor idiots rioting in the streets. But we are superior morally, technologically, logically, and every other way I can fathom.
The Muslims who are the most miserable and oppressed in the world live in Islamic states. The Muslims who are happiest and freest live in the west -- yet still have bozos trying to transform the western nations into the cesspits which breed oppression and misery. It's a paradox. Everywhere you find large populations of Muslims, you find butthurt and lawsuits and rape and terror. Not from all Muslims, but we have ample examples of what the Islamic culture brings with it. No one who enjoys freedoms should want Muslims setting up shop beside them. Diversity is not our strength.
But if you don't mind it, that's on you.
Define "butthurt."
"Define 'butthurt.'"
If that's for my comment about Muslims being butthurt, a good way I would define it is thus:
Muslim living in the UK claims discrimination from the white Christians in hiring, so grocery store owner breaks down and hires Muslim on fear of being labeled a bigot. Muslim then sues grocery store for owner making employee slide bacon across the scanner.
Cries of "MUH OPPREZZEN!" and "MUH RELIJENS!" and wanting separate, special snowflake treatment at every possible turn.
Much butthurt, I sense.
I think I may have lost the context earlier. I'm in about 12 of these discussions strewn out all over.
My initial comment was about the PC police being butthurt. To define that, I'd point at Ben Affleck speaking to Bill Maher. His reaction to even very minor criticisms of Islam pretty much sums up the butthurt felt by the toucy-feely lot who cannot divorce "Muslim" from "racial minority" and thus treat them like a protected class of mentally handicapped children.
Josh: Everywhere you find large populations of Muslims, you find butthurt and lawsuits and rape and terror. Not from all Muslims, but we have ample examples of what the Islamic culture brings with it.
I'm probably going to regret letting myself get drawn into this, but.....
Have you ever actually known any Muslims personally? Have you ever actually walked around in an Arab city and interacted with people person-to-person, in their own language? I have. Knowing people on an individual level is the best inoculation against seeing them all as a faceless mass.
Yes, Western societies are better than Islamic societies, because they are far more secularized (which is why we now call them "Western" rather than "Christian"). Yes, the Islamic religion itself is irredeemably evil and disgusting, as Leviticus and Paul are. And yes, there are far more Muslim extremists who want to wage jihad and kill infidels than there are Western Christian extremists who blow up abortion clinics and murder Jews. But in both cases the majority is not like that.
On some level you seem to recognize this, yet still generalize. Perhaps an analogy will help. Most terrorists are Muslim, so even though most Muslims are not terrorists, you don't want them around you. Well, almost all rapists are males, even though most males are not rapists. Based on your stance, all males should be similarly stigmatized for that, even though the great majority of those so stigmatized are completely innocent. See how unjust it is when you yourself are among those being targeted?
More to the point, the Islamic world now stands at a tipping point. The ghastly violence of ISIS against ordinary Kurds and Arabs, and the hideous mass slaughter of children by the Taliban at Peshawar, are turning hundred of millions of Muslims against the extremists. The last thing we should be doing is trying to reverse this development by tarring all Muslims with the brush of the monsters whose evil they, at last, can clearly see. Cooperation of the secular West with millions of ordinary Middle Easterners, who have become revolted by the extremists, is the best path forward to finally defeat this problem. Reverting to the discredited clash-of-civilizations model just means perpetuating the problem far into the future.
Okay. Go with your "diversity is our strength" slogan into those Muslim strongholds in France or the UK or Sweden et al. Or, like Tim Wise, are you gonna live in a 98% homogenous town while telling everyone else they're monsters for not forcing diversity? lol
This isn't anything about a Muslim or few. Or even a hundred. This is about the Islamic culture whittling away at existing culture wherever it goes. It's about society being forced into showing special treatment. It's about a once safe location or even entire nation (Sweden, UK) becoming danger zones that turn a blind eye to the rape of women and even children all because government officials are scared shitless that someone's going to ask them, "Do you know any Muslims? Is it all Muslims? Is it really a Muslim problem? Can't you see that's racist?" etc.
People cannot divorce "Muslim" from "brown" and thus give a psychotic religion the oppressed black treatment and act as if white privilege society is just smearing Islam.
I'm not sure how the man-rape example is analogous. Where, outside of prison, does the presence of men alone indicate a spike in rapes or crime in general greater than the average of existing men?
How many more examples do we need in the world of France's "no-go zones" wreaking havoc on the existing culture of a nation? Honestly. How many? How many more children need to be raped in the UK, or women in Sweden, or people tried throughout Europe for simply offending others?
Wherever Islam goes in the world, it brings with it this garbage. Because Islam is this garbage.
It's bad news. Doesn't mean all Muslims are, but how in the hell do you know most aren't strict adherents to the worst parts of the faith anyway? What is the standard by which you judge it? Not killing someone = moderate? Is that how low we've sank in judging people? Do you have a secret correspondence happening where you're hearing from the silent majority while the rest of us await word?
That's not saying every Muslim is like that. You can probably find quite a few good, honest, freedom-loving Muslims around and about everywhere. I know a few from my town. One owns a store, one family is just like every other family. But I'm not speaking about moving next to a street that has a few Muslims on it or a Muslim becoming your neighbor. I'm talking about having the equivalent of Little Islam in your town or in your neighborhood, ala France's zones, or London's, or Sweden's. I'm talking about a miniature Islamic society setting up shop in a location near you.
No freedom-loving American should ever want that! And it's not like I'm going out of my way to offend the Ben Afflecks of the world with hyperbole and smack talk. We can look directly over at the UK and Sweden and such to see what happens.
From the cesspits Muslims flee because they're miserable, e.g. Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi, etc, they migrate to the west to be freer, to be more prosperous, and to get out from under heel of oppression. Then turn right around and want to institute the same thing in western society that they fled from in the first place: Sharia.
How am I generalizing? You can shop for examples of this happening and having happened like watching Comcast's On Demand section.
I'm willing to bet my life that there are many, many Muslims who are fantastic people. They just so happen to be bad Muslims.
Josh, I think you've made your opinion clear, and I thank you for participating in the discussion.
Infidel753's knowledge of Middle East issues is extensive and worth reading. You may want to start with these two:
HERE.
HERE.
Shaw, thanks. It's rather obvious that Josh's knowledge of the subject is both limited and out-of-date. For how things are changing now, he might also want to try this one.
how in the hell do you know most aren't strict adherents to the worst parts of the faith anyway?
Opinion polls, and mass public reactions to jihadist atrocities like the one in Peshawar.
Where, outside of prison, does the presence of men alone indicate a spike in rapes or crime in general greater than the average of existing men?
Actually, that does fit the analogy. If there were communities consisting entirely of women and no men, obviously there would be almost no rape there -- just as communities to which Muslims have no access experience less terrorism (though there are other terrorist groups, such as the KKK). But that doesn't change the fact that most men aren't rapists and don't deserve to be stigmatized because of those who are -- just as most Muslims aren't terrorists or extremists.
So, that's that then?
"Josh, thanks, but without Infidel actually refuting your points, we'll just go by popular consensus at Progressive Eruptions and say you're wrong, he's right, because apparently he has knowledge and you don't"?
I would say that there's one way to find out, but that doesn't appear to be a viable option.
Okay by me. It's your world.
"Opinion polls, and mass public reactions to jihadist atrocities like the one in Peshawar."
Okay, Raza Aslan. Cherry-pick a poll. But what about the slew of polls and data which suggest that upwards of 80% of Muslims in even otherwise benign countries considered "moderate" support the death penalty for homosexuality and apostates? That doesn't seem too moderate to me.
A Christian in America believing homosexuality is a sin is considered in the extreme, yet we must use lower standards when judging Muslims, I guess. If you don't blow people up, we'll just assume you're moderate.
The Muslim faith requires homosexuals be put to death by beheading, stoning and other barbaric means.
That is inhuman.
But only recently did Western civilization stop its own barbaric punishments of homosexuals.
Alan Turing, for example was given the choice of prison or medical castration when he was convicted of having sexual relations with his lover. He chose the latter, and eventually, at the age of 41, killed himself. Homosexuality was a crime in the UK and other "enlightened" Christian countries.
In Colonial America, homosexuality was a crime punishable by death.
Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor.
In the military, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, was the rule, but if you were found out, you were thrown out of the service no matter how long or how distinguished your service was, just for being who you were.
Ask any fundamental Christian about what the Bible (God's word) says about homosexuality. It's not that different from the Koran.
Thank goodness we are not a theocracy like the Middle East, but a secular country where we can change laws as we become more enlightened.
Islam has not caught up with the rest of the civilized world, and we came to being civilized toward homosexuality only just recently.
However, there are still groups of people who believe homosexuality is an offense against their god. Luckily, our laws are not based on those beliefs.
"However, there are still groups of people who believe homosexuality is an offense against their god. Luckily, our laws are not based on those beliefs."
And those people believe being gay is a sin because a bunch men living in a desert wrote that it is.
"Islam has not caught up with the rest of the civilized world,"
Hence no freedom-loving American should want an Islamic society setting up shop beside them.
Why this observation is actually being argued with and I'm being told I'm not informed enough on the issue, I haven't the slightest idea.
My observation is fairly benign.
I am objectively correct that Islamic societies eat away at freedom rather than helping it prosper. World history ancient and current bear this out. Nearly every single Islamic nation in this planet's history has stifled freedom rather than supporting it.
Christianity has the advantage of being dragged against its will into modern times thanks to secular lands; Islam is attempting to drag the other direction.
"It's rather obvious that Josh's knowledge of the subject is both limited and out-of-date. For how things are changing now"
Yeah. The problem lie with me. Not with theocracies and societies and push for Sharia and dozens of terrorist groups and millions upon millions of so-called "moderate" Muslims who support Sharia and stay silent as maniacs murder and maim innocents. My limited knowledge, not their evil.
Post a Comment