even if they believe you are sub-human and ought to be subjugated to Islamic law. [Dan Collins]
Karen Armstrong has a piece in today’s Guardian that goes out of its way to be even-handed about the disparities in freedom between Western societies and Muslim ones. However, rather than call on Islamic rulers to permit more freedom of expression, particularly in the press, she finishes this way:
But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others. Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. When 255,000 members of the so-called “Christian community” signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam. There were similar protests by some in the Jewish community, who, as Seth Freedman pointed out in his Commentisfree piece, should be the first to protest against discrimination.
Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion. When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs. Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.
I’m sorry, Karen, but the jailed Muslims you mentioned were going beyond hate speech. They were agitating for violence and murder. And the cartoons that were printed were printed precisely because they had spawned murderous outrage in the Muslim world, and because some of them were faked, and because it was news, and because we in the West must defend our freedom of expression, even against the sort of person who would murder a filmmaker for criticizing Islam (you stupid twat).
I won’t even go to the issue of whether Christians ought to be able to practice their faith or consult a Bible in Saudi Arabia, or expect not to be murdered in Darfur or East Timor. Let the Turks, in response to the Pope’s visit, permit him to celebrate Mass in the Hagia Sophia, as a show of goodwill.
As far as our freedom of the press goes, I am sure that there are many Muslims who admire it precisely because they would like similar freedom of expression. There are also likely some who understand the wonderful job it does of apologizing for the excesses of some of their co-religionists, in articles such as the one you’ve just had published.
Since when does freedom of speech mean someone can threaten your life? And no free speach does not imply respect for others opinions, Karen. Because not all opinions demand equal consideration. Some opinions are just downright stupid. Like many of those expounded by the Guardian.
Dan:
Perhaps a better title might’ve been: “Being Western means always having to say you’re sorry”?
Or “Being Western means never saying ‘You’re wrong'”?
On a related topic. It Doesn’t Matter that Journalists Misquote Everyone
Posted July 19, 2007 | 04:03 PM (EST)
Read More: Breaking Media News, David Sedaris, Amy Sedaris
stumbleupon :It Doesn’t Matter that Journalists Misquote Everyone digg: It Doesn’t Matter that Journalists Misquote Everyone reddit: It Doesn’t Matter that Journalists Misquote Everyone del.icio.us: It Doesn’t Matter that Journalists Misquote Everyone
As a journalist I hear all the time from people in business that they are misquoted. And you know what? People need to get over that, and I’m going to tell you why. But first, as a point of reference, here’s a story about the biggest misquote in my own life:
* Email
* Print
* Comment
I met my husband when he was in film school at UCLA. He was doing quirky video art instead of mainstream feature films, which made me think he’d be good to date. So when he was interviewing people for a video about memory, I was happy to participate.
I tried to be really charming in the interview — scintillating, funny, adorable — all the things he might want in a date.
Then a year went by with no contact.
Then I got a call from him. He ended up making the whole video about me, and the video was being shown in Europe and winning film festivals and it was part of UCLA film school’s curricula. He said he spent 10 months editing my interview and he felt like he’d been talking with me the whole time.
Of course, I knew this was my cue.
On our second date, I saw the video. He had footage of me telling all the most important stories of my life. He cut up the footage, reordered it, and created a tool that allowed viewers to recombine stories as they unfolded.
He basically made me sound like a lunatic. Like I was probably a liar and maybe delusional, depending on how someone ordered the video.
I fell in love with him immediately. I thought the work was genius commentary on storytelling. We each tell stories that matter to us. We take in the world, and tell it back in a way that creates meaning. My husband’s video is an extreme example, but it resonates in a lot of different contexts, including journalism.
The reason that everyone thinks journalists misquote them is that the person who is writing is the one who gets to tell the story. No two people tell the same story.
Not every example of this is so extreme as my husband’s video. Look at David Sedaris and Amy Sedaris. They grew up in the same house, but they don’t have the same tales to tell from it. They are both great writers who see different stories in the same facts.
Journalists who think they are telling “the truth” don’t understand the truth. We each have our own truth. When you leave out details, you might leave out what is unimportant to you but very important to someone else, and things start feeling untrue to the person who wishes you included something else.
Recruiters, by the way, know this well. If I get fired from three jobs but I only report that during that period I taught dance lessons to toddlers, I am not lying. I am merely telling the part of the story that I want to tell. No one can tell every part of every story. The details are infinite. But in this case, the fact that I left off the details most important to the recruiter makes the recruiter feel like it’s lying. But it’s not. I’m telling my version of the story.
So everyone feels misquoted because people say 20 or 30 sentences for every one sentence that a journalist prints. It’s always in the context of the journalist’s story, not the speaker’s story.
Here’s my advice: If you do an interview with a journalist, don’t expect the journalist to be there to tell your story. The journalist gets paid to tell her own stories which you might or might not be a part of. And journalists, don’t be so arrogant to think you are not “one of those” who misquotes everyone. Because that is to say that your story is the right story. But it’s not. We each have a story. And whether or not someone actually said what you said they said, they will probably still feel misquoted.
And this problem is not limited to text-based journalism. When my husband and I got married, we had a big wedding. When the photos came back, I said to my husband, “These are terrible. He missed all the good photos.” And my husband said, “They seem fine. They’re the photographer’s version of the story.”
See. it’s all our fault.
Liberals have one set of rules for observations of Westerners and one for everyone else, who usually are the victims of Western hegemony in the liberal mind. Rules of conduct for the thugs of Islam, who are not condemned by any major Islamic entity ever, are not conceivable, therefore, to the Western liberal. Christians who happen to be oppressed, dismembered, incinerated, enslaved, or even just “mercifully” dhimmified by their Islamic overlords, simply are unfortunetely-located Westerners who do not pay proper respect to Islam. If they did, they’d get along, eh?
The liberal sweeps Islamic thugs and their deeds into the oubliette of forgetfulness.
The process just makes liberals more comfortable with all the messy internal contradictions the ideology requires.
“But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others.”
Where did this dunce get the idea that “the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others”? The principle of free speech implies respect only for the *opportunity of others to express their opinions* – a respect that “Muslim sensibilities” could do with a massive infusion. Respect for opinions is earned, not presupposed, and these murderous, intolerant barbarians are way in the red on that account.
When 255,000 members of the so-called “Christian community†signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam
Ummm ‘large’? Talk about understatement.
The mosque in question would seat 40,000 people, with an eventual capacity of 70,000. The mosque in question is 4 times larger than the current ‘largest mosque’ in England, which seats 10,000 worshipers. By the way, that largest mosque is 3 times bigger than the largest Christian church.
So there’s zoning issues/property values involved beyond the typical ‘stem the tide of Muslim’ stuff. But, oh by the way –
Reassuringly, the *architect* of the complex says that it’s designed to be a mixed use facilty that’s sure to be open to everybody, muslim and infidel alike. The imam could not be reached for comment.
Forty thousand is a big number. To put it in perspective, here are the seating capacities of the largest Christianist churches in the US.
Crystal Cathedral: ~3,000
Salt Lake City Tabernacle: ~ 7,500
National Cathedral/Washington DC: ~3,700
St Johns Cathedral, NYC: ~5,000
The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels: ~ 3,000
So, were you to take five of the largest Christianist cathedrals/centers of worship, lump them all together, you’d have about half the membership of the ‘large’ mosque being planned in London.
What I’m wondering is why the lack of concern. After all, 40,000 Christians getting together was cause for Deep Concern. Remember PromiseKeepers? Groups of up to 40,000 men gathering at stadiums to be reminded about Christian values. Well that drew this reaction from NOW.
The National Organization for Women, has expressed the view that PK is a substantial threat to women’s rights insofar as it encourages inequality within marriages and treats men as superior to women. [3].
According to Amy Schindler, “the discourse of masculinity found within conservative religious movements, such as the Promise Keepers and the Victorian era movement ‘muscular Christianity,’ is inherently political. Any masculinity project aimed at restoring or reclaiming a ‘traditional’ male role for privileged white, heterosexual males has a political impact within the tapestry of class, race, and gender power. {wikipedia}
PromiseKeeper holds their events every once in a while. The ‘large’ mosque run by a radical sect will have their services five times per day, every day. I guess priveleged white heterosexual women only feel comfortable hectoring white priveleged heterosexual men.
cite for ‘large mosque’ details:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1879749,00.html
[…] the usual knee-jerk reactions commenced. Short version: Because there is Muslim terrorism, and because there […]
But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others. Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice.
Contradicting oneself this baldly is an impressive showing even by Grauniad standards.
so-called “Christian communityâ€Â
The left is biased against Christianity and Islamic extremists are biased against Christianity but I don’t think their marriage of convenience will end well. After the Islamic terrorists detonate a nuclear device in some prime leftist metropolitan area and the leftists all surrender, would I be over the top in describing the situation as a “battered wife syndrome”?
Thanks for the interesting story Rusty. Will the story continue with her husband abandoning her and the kids? (Not that either would describe it that way.)
tw: first anode
Is “first cathode” a religious slur against the Pope?
Pingback by The Mahablog » What Jesus Said on 7/22 @ 8:10 am
Ah, fun with maha.
Maha:
Me:
Maha:
Bwahahahahahaaa! But if I’m going to be accused of namecalling, I’d better get some in. What do you get when you cross a rabid ostrich with a moonbat? Maha!
tw: Psychology Anti
Ice Nine puts it well. There is nothing that says we have to respect the opinions or beliefs of others. We only have to respect their right to hold such opinions. This is a crucial distinction that many (ironically named) “liberals” deliberately ignore.
Freedom of speech means being able to convey grim messages.
Shrinkwrapped and Yaacov Ben Moshe did an excellent point-counterpoint concerning the
pyschosispyschological foundation upon which the Children of the Endarkenment have their feet so firmly planted. While I understand their desire to encompass the apparent idiocy of the Left in the language of their specialties, I really wish they would tuck in a paragraph or two concerning the possibility that simple banal stupidity explains a fair portion of what Karen Armstrong and her ilk are doing. Maybe it’s just me but the logical incoherence of intellectual splodeydopes such as Armstrong seems as indicative of double digit IQ as it does of BPD.Alternatively, they stand on the far side of the Great Divide and “have no ears”.
ShrinkWrapped link. Sorry about that, I know Preeviw is for sissies but it does help with links.
Part of our recurring problem is how we deal with facts.
For the anti-idiotarian (who happens to be predominantly on the right-ish at this moment in time, largely due to “stuff that is beyond a mere response to a blog post”), facts are the goal.
For the idiotarian, facts are a method. If the goal is not supported by the facts, new facts are manufactured to support the goal.
So when you, for example, tell Karen Armstrong that the gigantic mosque is expressly meant as a sign of domination by terror-supporting factions, and compare the left’s treatment of Christians to their deferral to Muslims… Karen Armstrong quite literally believes you to be irrational, because what you are saying is irrelevant to her decision.
We laugh at things like “fake but accurate,” but the left doesn’t laugh because “it’s so true.” The subtext of the article posted by Rusty include the contention that truth is somehow essentially disconnected from fact (and thus ultimately malleable), and that it’s acceptable (or inevitable) to lie in service of your narrative.
Obviously someone who believes this cannot be trusted to accurately represent facts – the facts with which we inform our decisions.
I’m (slowly) learning that most conversations with (at least the growing delusional portion of) the left are wasted breath, because we’re using the same words but not speaking the same language. Every so often I get stupid and engage in wasted online debates, but in the last decade I’ve seen fewer and fewer useful debates between the newly deranged left and, well, anyone else.
Which is why I don’t talk politics at work. I really don’t want to get into it with some anti-semitic conspiracy-freak whom I’m supposed to work with. Unfortunately, that kind of person won’t keep their gob shut about their stupid ideas, so it remains an irritant.
Anyway, the point is that facts are the wrong tool for the job when it comes to idiotarians.
Well, Merovign, there’s a couple of additional thoughts you’ve missed:
1. It’s the narrative, not the facts. Evan Thomas said so regarding the Duke (non) rape case—in a gussied up version of “fake, but accurate.”
2. It’s the story-telling, stupid. Penelope Trunk, in the Huffington Post, tells us that journalists ARE SUPPOSED to misquote—they’re telling their story, not yours, and if they misquote you, get over it!
Somewhere, this fits into the whole post-modernist thing that Jeff’s regularly written about, but it’s Sunday, and there’s a friggin’ armadillo ringing the doorbell and running away, so I’m setting up a claymore, instead of looking up the precise relationship.
TW: allegiance, very as in Journalists’ allegiance to the actual facts is very temporary and self-serving at best.
Yeah, real intellectual sinkhole over there at Maha. She’s got a narrative, and she is damn well sticking to it.
Aaaand she just closed comments. A child trying to comprehend an adult’s world, she is…
If I recall correctly,the narrative is supposed to flow from the facts. The facts are thus, therefore the story flows from them. Non-fiction as opposed to fiction; where the author sets up an outline of where he wants to go, and then the facts follow the outline.
Once, a great journalistic sin was “writing the story on the way to the ballpark.”
Obvioulsy that missed Penelope.
Clueless!
Of course, this purposefully ignores the intentional disrespect towards Christians, Israel, white males, and a host of other ‘deserving’ targets. Disrespecting another it entirely dependent upon whether or not one thinks a particular group deserves disrespect – it also requires abandoning any semblance of objectivity and hence, fairness.
unless they were about Condoleazza Rice. just off the top of my head.
speaking of missing preview….. i liked that bit from Maha’s comments and it’s Condoleezza.
That Maha post is Leftism in a nutshell: willful ignorance of fact, projection of intolerance and hate,and a fascistic temper-tantrum that leads to ending debate on her own terms.
Priceless.
“If I recall correctly,the narrative is supposed to flow from the facts.”
That’s only if you take the right fork. If you follow Hegel down the left fork then you conform everything (including so-called “facts”) to support the known end of the tale. Leftist eschatology makes even the splodeydope 72ers look downright sane. At least they don’t pretend that paradise will be realized on earth.
By the way, Armstrong is part of a coterie of Western academics of Islam whose biases are somewhat unprofessional. Many of these academics have financial ties to Islamist organizations (a paramount example being Esposito). These Islamist organizations also exploit academia to ensure that Islam-friendly academics are seen as legitimate while Islam-critical academics (Pipes, Spencer, Emerson) are seen as hacks. In reality, the latter are amazing experts on Islam while the former are biased hacks at best, deliberate misinformers at best.
Regarding the Danish cartoons: I didn’t find them to be very well-done. [a href=”http://www.coxandforkum.com/”]Cox and Forkum[/a href] have done a much better job in presenting well-drawn insults of Islam.
It’s all about visibility, really. While the Danish ones were not as well-drawn or even as insulting as what some other cartoonists have drawn, those are the ones that drew the Muslim world’s attention.
Which means…Muslims are awful critics of cartoons indeed.
Just came back after a busy afternoon, to see that Maha has closed her comments because “righties” (including me?) were “being nasty.” I read through all her comments, and found none that were uncivil. She haughtily dismissed what I said without addressing it, then closed comments lest — heaven forbid — someone respond.
My whole post was about her dismissing and trivializing valid opinions that happened to not match her own Progressive Dogma. For a would-be writer, the woman seems bereft of even the slightest sense of irony. How sad.
My last comment there was me saying “With all due respect, I don’t see how Pablo engaged in any name-calling that our esteemed host had not already done.”
She deleted that one.
I’m afraid I don’t understand Armstrong’s article or Maha’s response.
The Danish cartoons were making fun of the daft beliefs of jihadis, not ‘all Muslims’.
How Maha jumps from this to ‘hating all Muslims’ and citing PW as an example is not clear to me.
Maha cites Jesus and Buddha, but Buddha taught that all words are so much grass, so why now get upset over a few cartoons?
Until problems with Mosques are dealt with — propaganda, fundraising and recruitment for jihad –, Muslims and non-Muslims might well feel fearful and act using legal channels against a group whose methods and motives remain unclear. This, again, does not constitute ‘hating all Muslims.’
This is also from the Guardian…
… presumably, that would be to send more young Muslims to fundamentalist schools in Pakistan? Nothing to worry about?
Maha, do they ‘hate all Muslims’?
” . . . the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others.”
No. Actually, it requires mere tolerance of the opinions of others. And “respect for the opinions of others” doesn’t preclude criticism, disagreement, or even mockery.
The relentless subversion of language and the ceaseless re-definition of first principles to fit the narrow purposes of the totalitarian Left continues apace.
Are people like Armstrong actually aware of what they’re up to, or are they so lost in the post-modern fog as to be completely unaware?
I have been watching Armstrong’s strange morphing into a radical Islam apologist with a great deal of sadness, she has written some well researched and thought out, reasonably objective books on religion and the middle-east in the past.
B Moe: Because there are substantial money, honor, and prestige in being an apologist for Islamism these days.
Maha:
“I didn’t say Christians were haters. I’m saying specific right-wing bloggers and their followers are haters. And by indulging in hyperbole you reveal your own bigotry.
I have a long-standing policy of defending Christians and Christianity, actually. The only Christians I criticize are faux Christians who make real Christians look bad.”
We didn’t say Muslems were haters. We’re saying specific radical jihadist Muslems and their followers are haters. And by indulging in hyperbole you reveal your own bigotry.
I have a long-standing policy of defending Muslems and Islam, personally. The only Muslems I criticize are splodey-dope type Muslems who make real Muslems look bad.
See how easy it is?
“B Moe: Because there are substantial money, honor, and prestige in being an apologist for Islamism these days.”
That makes me even sadder. Especially thinking there is honor and prestige in the defense of barbarism.
Maha is one of those self-parodying entities – no outside intervention is needed, it’s a joke as it stands.
B-Moe,
I have been watching Armstrong’s strange morphing into a radical Islam apologist with a great deal of sadness, she has written some well researched and thought out, reasonably objective books on religion and the middle-east in the past.
Doesn’t Armstrong’s current career as “radical Islamist apologist” cast doubt on her objectivity in her prior work? It sure as hell does for me.
There are mosques all over the West — as opposed to the absence of churches in places like Saudi Arabia. Yet, objections to the construction of one mosque leads Armstrong to conclude that “a grim message (was sent) to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam.
The hyperbole and the double standards couldn’t be any clearer.
“Doesn’t Armstrong’s current career as “radical Islamist apologist†cast doubt on her objectivity in her prior work? It sure as hell does for me.”
I think it is mostly a case of trying too hard to be objective. She tells it like it is for 6 or 7 paragraphs in the piece, then comes to a rather strange and illogical conclusion in the last few. There were similar bits of ham-fistedness(?) in her other works, but by and large she is one of the better ones, I think. Her history of Jerusalem is fascinating. Depressing as all hell, but fascinating.
“Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. ”
Sorreeee, Islamophobia is a rational prejudice.
“The liberal sweeps Islamic thugs and their deeds into the oubliette of forgetfulness.
The process just makes liberals more comfortable with all the messy internal contradictions the ideology requires.”
Sorreeee, it’s been done already.
It’s called “the memory hole”.
Maha’s particular complex would make an interesting study. She is “intolerant of intolerance”… and yet becomes the sole decider of intolerance. By controlling that premise, she doesn’t have to address beliefs contrary to her own. In her own little world, she is on the side of the angels, and, by disagreeing with her, we are her opposite. As a result, she seems to think that she is “not our therapist,” i.e. that we are crazy… because we disagree.
Her easy nods to defending Christianity in the past almost reek of Marcotte’s similar claims. Why does it often seem like one Leftist is very much like another?
Sorry for obsessing over this. News is so dreadfully boring and monotonous these days; I prefer to be taken with the intellectual inconsistencies swallowed by our rabid, dogmatic ideological opponents.
Of course, you have to realize that to lefties, the only “real Christians” are the ones who believe Christ commanded his followers to render unto Caesar so Caesar can help the poor while rejecting large swaths of Biblical text. Anyone who isn’t in a “faith tradition” that ordains gay women “make real Christians look bad”.
So she fell instantly in love with someone who spoke to her for a few hours then spent the better part of a year slandering her?
That’s not a sign of emotional health.
Oh gosh, Rob Crawford. I’m doing everything I can to suppress the rant welling up in me with regard to “real Christians”. The Left’s attempt to hijack and pervert Christianity does not amuse me one bit.
You know, given all that Jeff G. has written about in the way of linguistics, and how it remarkably cuts straight down party lines, I was wondering if we could create… as a side project… a small political litmus test… if you will, that includes absolutely no political questions. Just questions pertaining to underlining leftist or rightie philosophies…
It would be a hell of a thought exercize.
“Maha’s particular complex would make an interesting study.”
You have my blessing to study away, OHNOES. Rude, petulant children ceased being interesting to me several decades ago. Stamping you feet and screaming “Shut up!” is not an argument.
And who better to differentiate true Christians from fake one than a Buddhist?
maha = twatwaffle.
Free Tibet.
Really? I thought Tibet was quite expensive, what with its butter statues and demon-possessed shamans and hundred butter lamps and theocratic lamas…
BTW, I do have a stick up my rear regarding Buddhism. I’ll just leave it that. *twitch*
You know, given all that Jeff G. has written about in the way of linguistics, and how it remarkably cuts straight down party lines, I was wondering if we could create… as a side project… a small political litmus test… if you will, that includes absolutely no political questions. Just questions pertaining to underlining leftist or rightie philosophies…
I had a thought(believe it or not) on this. Was watching an old favorite movie today, “Dave”. As much as I disagree with the politics,it doesn’t stop me from enjoying a very well put together farce.
What I was thinking is that why I,as a right to center voter goes, can I still enjoy a left bent movie? The only conclusion I could come to is that it doesn’t matter what political side you’re on but instead what you enjoy.
SO…I guess what I’m trying to say is that if you have a political problem with a move i.e “300” then you might just be a leftist/Marxist.
Unless those others have politically conservative views, are devoutly religious Christians, support Israel’s right to exist, or fail to toe the line on mankind’s responsibility for “climate change.”
There. I fixed that for her.
Blitz, that’s not quite fair to say. Leftist messages have dominated media for ages. We’re used to it. They’re not. Thus, they’ll throw a tantrum at anything.
So, yeah, it is a good LITMUS test, but certain factors must be considered if we want to look at it causally.
Good grief;
1)Freedom of speech does not imply respect for the opinions of others. It implies the government won’t arrest you for political speech that is critical of the ruling elite, a definition which has been notably expanded by recent (half century or so) judicial rulings.
2) Beginning a paragraph with freedom of speech as a topic, and ending with religious intolerance, is a non-sequitur. Bad form.
3)A little extra research might have helped: only 8% of people in Muslim countries condone the 911 attacks because the other 92% believe the attacks were carried out by the Jews, and they can’t condone anything the Jews do.
…they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam.
Because Islam is totally intolerant of other religions itself, unrepentantly so.
But I guess that’s too nuanced an observation, huh?
Actually that’s not nuanced at all. It’s a blatant rationalization for punishing an entire religion for the acts of its fanatics.
Islam is intolerant of other religions because of the acts of its fanatics, cynn?
Who is punishing a religion, cynn? How?
cynn;
No. it wasn’t.
If you had dug a little deeper you would be amazed at the fact that the chief force behind this mosque is an iman with numerous ties to Wahabi organizations and is someone who has a documented history of funneling money for the purpose of sending hundreds of young, muslim men to Deobandi Madrassa schools in Pakistan. Those are the enlightened educational environs that teach nothing but rote learning of the Quran woven with long lectures on the glories of jihad, martyrdom and the inevitable ascendancy of Islam throughout the world. 2500 Muslims living in the town have signed a petition opposing the contruction of this mosque because of the people behind the contruction.Nuance lives!
Maha’s got that hate radar working on full power, especially when one can state categorically that criticism of radical, jihadist Islamists and the state sponsored anti democratic and human rights abuses are, themselves, intolerant. This moral relativism wrapped in dhimmitude reflects a lack of intellectual vigor and an overwhelming urge to be on the lookout for the flying peace unicorn.
Yes, cynn and maha, most of us are perfectly capable of assessing the beliefs abd actions of a splinter group, examining their various connections to nation/states and religious structures, and making some well reasoned conclusions as to intent and value without being haters, racists or any other silly putty stamped label that fails to meet some progressive “play nice” imperative.
ummm… back to the facts for a moment:
1- In England, today, the largest mosque holds over three times as many people as largest church or cathedral.
2- The mosque that is under protest is designed to have an initial seating capacity of a Major League baseball stadium and, by its completion, would have the same seating capacity as the Superdome.
The exception being that the Superdome in this case would have five games per day, every day – plus the loud speakers with calls to prayer, et cetera.
Also, metro population for London is 12-14,000,000; 255,000 people ‘protest’ is not, by any measure, a lot.
But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others.
This is profoundly and perniciously wrong. The reason we value free speech and protect it is precisely because some speech does not, and should not, respect the opinions of others. Note, we aren’t being asked to respect facts, but opinions! And since opinions can vary widely, someone is going to have to be arbiter of exactly whose opinions will get the imprimatur of offialdom. It just a couple of steps down a not very slippery slope from Ms. Armstrong’s statemnt to Hugo Chavez threatening to expel any foreigner who criticizes him from Venezuela.
When did this idea of “respect” become so prevalent? This is such a commonly misused term, in sports, politics, interpersonal communications, etc … No person, idea, or team deserves respect. Respect is earned. The concept of dis-respect has been neutered to the point where it means, you disagree with me. Yet another example of how the Left has bastardized traditional usage of a word to serve their ends.
You know the name of George Galloway’s Islamist-sympathizing party, right? R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
C
You can count on Dan … ;-)
[…] an idea of “tolerance” pushed by Karen Armstrong of the Guardian (on which Dan wrote here) that is essentially an argument for “prior restraint” in lieu of true free speech […]
While I’d love to see the pope celebrate Mass in the Hagia Sophia, I imagine the howls from the Muslims would be drowned out by those of Patriarch Bartholomew. Just a minor picky.
Shit. Figures Maha’s patently absurd response was already covered in my absence.
Well, that was a waste of a morning, then.
Thanks, bumpersterist, just thanks. That makes enormous sense. You guys are exercised because she wants to shut you doown. It’s Maja’s site, but she crossed the line when she shut the door on comments. That is the height of uncool and scaredy-cat.
In other words, get used to being shouted down. It’s just going to be a nasty back and forth until the elections and even beyond that. In other words, just watch old Bette Davis movies until 2009.
cynn:
That’s been the standard since 2000, with a gradual increase in nuttiness.
I am not looking forward to it.
TW: angrily passed (how do it know, how do it know?)
Cynn. Cynn. Tsk,tsk. So now she’s a victim? If she can’t logically support her views, perhaps she shouldn’t blog. Unless you go for that whole emo schtick.
tw; winding mansfield So appropriate on so many levels.